Does brand social power mean market might? Exploring the influence of brand social power on brand evaluations

91

Does Brand Social PowerMean Market Might? Exploring the Influence ofBrand Social Power onBrand EvaluationsJody L. CrosnoWest Virginia University

Traci H. FrelingUniversity of Texas–Arlington

Steven J. Skinner University of Kentucky

ABSTRACT

The importance of brand equity has been recognized in the market-ing literature for years. Although researchers generally agree thereis a social component to brand equity, empirical work in this areastops short of exploring the brand’s ability to exert a social influenceon consumers and their choices. The present manuscript attempts toaddress this deficit and extend the brand equity literature by pro-posing a new construct—brand social power. Drawing from researchon social influence and perceived power, five bases of brand socialpower are identified and a conceptual attempt is made to integratebrand social power with existing brand equity frameworks. Theimpact of brand social power is also examined empirically at thelevel of individual power bases, for overall brand social power, andin terms of brand equity. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26(2): 91–121 (February 2009)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20263

CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

92

INTRODUCTION

Perceived power has frequently been examined as a central construct for under-standing human nature in general (Bierstedt, 1950; French, 1956; French &Raven, 1959) and buyer behavior in particular (Busch, 1980; Gaski, 1984a;MacKenzie & Zaichkowsky, 1981). Research in social psychology suggests power,“the ability to evoke change in another’s behavior . . .” (Gaski, 1984a, p.10), is amultidimensional construct that may be acquired through legitimacy, rewards,coercion, reference, or expertise (French & Raven, 1959). Power is thought to influ-ence satisfaction (Bachman, 1968; Bachman, Smith, & Slesinger, 1966), attrac-tion (Raven & French, 1958), conformity (Warren, 1968, 1969), social influence(Lippitt, Polansky, & Rosen, 1952), conflict (Raven & Kruglanski, 1970), andproductivity (Hill & French, 1967; Student, 1968).

In marketing, researchers have documented power as a determinant of sat-isfaction in franchise dealings (Gaski, 1984a; Hunt & Nevin, 1974), an antecedentto conflict among channel members (Gaski, 1984b; Lusch, 1976), a distinguish-ing factor in relationships between sales managers and personnel (Busch, 1980;Busch & Wilson, 1976; Skinner, Dubinsky, & Donnelly, 1984), and an importantcreative element in advertising (MacKenzie & Zaichkowsky, 1981; Sullivan &O’Connor, 1985). These studies in channels, sales, and advertising constitutemeaningful empirical explorations of the effects of power in marketing; how-ever, the role of power as it relates to branding remains uncharted territory.

Interestingly, the “power of the brand” has been extolled in numerous marketingpublications (Aaker, 1991; Campbell, 2002; Davis, 2002; Davis, 2000; Fournier,1998; Keller, 1999), and there is limited behavioral evidence suggesting brandsexert power by influencing purchasing decisions (Aaker, 1991; Campbell, 2002;Wah, 1998) and consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium (Aaker, 1991). Isit possible that brands possess the power to influence these and other aspects ofconsumer behavior? Perhaps not in a literal sense but rather in an attributionalmanner, as when individuals ascribe power—among other characteristics andassociations—to brands based on their consumer–brand relationships.1 Mightbrands derive power from different bases that they exercise over consumers, justas individuals influence others by drawing upon different sources of power? Couldthese bases of power be leveraged as points of differentiation in brand position-ing strategies? The current research attempts to replace speculation about theseissues with theory and data, fusing the branding literature with social influencetheory to define brand social power and formulating a typology of brand socialpower. Further, key indicators of each brand social power dimension are identi-fied and empirically examined, and the relationships of individual bases of brandsocial power to overall brand social power are tested.The manuscript also explores,both conceptually and empirically, how brand social power relates to brand equityand affects attitudinal responses.

This paper begins with a selective review of research in the areas of powerand branding to unite these heretofore disparate streams of literature. Brand

1 In this article, brand social power is not conceptualized as being an absolute resource but isinstead treated as an attribution (Brill 1992). The authors do not contend that brands possessbrains that allow them to accumulate knowledge and expertise, as do humans. Rather, consis-tent with the power as an attribution perspective, the authors suggest that people attributepower and the corresponding associations (e.g., knowledge and expertise) to brands based ontheir consumer–brand relationships.

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT?Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

93

social power and its constituent dimensions are then defined, and hypothesesare offered about each and about associations between individual brand socialpower dimensions and overall brand social power, as well as overall brand social power and brand equity. A study is conducted to test these expectations,and a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications emanating fromfindings regarding brand social power follows.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT & RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Theory of Social Influence and Power

Researchers generally conceptualize power as either a resource or an attribu-tion (Brill, 1992). When viewed as a resource, power is defined in terms of inher-ent characteristics of the individual trying to exert influence (Brill, 1992). Here,power is seen as absolute—either an individual does or does not possess power.When viewed as an attribution, power is defined in terms of perceived charac-teristics of the individual trying to exert influence (Brill, 1992). According tothis perspective, the power one individual holds over another person may beperceived and not necessarily absolute. That is, power is not something one pos-sesses, but rather a quality an individual is bestowed through “the perceptionsof the interpersonal dynamics experienced in relationships” (Brill, 1992, p. 836).Although there is no consensus regarding whether power is innate or perceived(Gaski, 1984a), both perspectives coalesce around a definition of the constructas “the ability to evoke change in another’s behavior, or cause someone to dosomething that he/she would not have done otherwise” (Gaski, 1984a, p. 10).

An individual may access any number of power sources to influence the behav-ior of others. French and Raven’s (1959) power typology—arguably the receivedwisdom in social influence research—proposes five bases from which one mayderive power. Legitimate power is based on the perception of an individual thatanother person has the legitimate right to influence him or her, and that he orshe is obligated to accept the influence. Reward power is based on the percep-tion of an individual that another person has the ability to reward him or her.Coercive power is based on the perception of an individual that another personhas the ability to punish him or her. Expert power is based on the perception ofan individual that another person has some specialized knowledge or expertise.Referent power is based on an individual’s identification with, and desire to besimilar to, another person.

Power in Marketing

The concept of power in general, and French and Raven’s (1959) typology morespecifically, has been utilized in various disciplines, including marketing. Themost pervasive marketing application of French and Raven’s research has beenin channels of distribution (Butaney & Wortzel, 1988; El-Ansary & Stern, 1972;Frazier & Summers, 1984; Frazier & Summers, 1986; Gaski, 1984a; Hunt &Nevin, 1974; John, 1984; Lusch, 1976; Wilkinson, 1973). Research in this areafocuses on the relationships between channel members, with emphasis on power,conflict, and satisfaction (Gaski, 1984a). More specifically, this research indi-cates that the sources of power possessed by channel members may affect the


94

level of conflict in the channel, as well as the level of satisfaction experiencedby channel members (Gaski, 1984a). For example, Hunt and Nevin (1974) assertthat franchisor power is a function of the sources of power available and thatthe use of coercive (versus noncoercive) sources of power in the marketing chan-nel results in less satisfaction. Similarly, Lusch (1976) suggests that using noncoercive sources of power tends to result in less intrachannel conflict, whereascoercive sources of power are likely to increase conflict.

Power also figures prominently in sales research (Busch, 1980; Busch & Wilson, 1976; Skinner, Dubinsky, & Donnelly, 1984), especially in regard to the rela-tionship between sales managers and sales personnel, and how the bases of poweraffect roles, conflict, and satisfaction of sales personnel. For instance, Busch (1980)contends that the bases of power employed by sales managers impact salesper-sons’ satisfaction with supervision, role clarity, and propensity to leave. Skinner,Dubinsky, and Donnelly (1984) also investigated the relationship between thebases of power utilized by retail sales managers and sales personnel job satisfac-tion; however, they extended the sales literature to include role conflict and roleambiguity. An essential implication of this research is that the use of noncoercive(vs. coercive) sources of power engender salespeople with higher job satisfaction,less role conflict, and less role ambiguity (Skinner, Dubinsky, & Donnelly, 1984).

Research in advertising also incorporates the concept of power (MacKenzie &Zaichowsky, 1981; Sullivan & O’Connor, 1985). Content analysis has been employedto determine the differential use of the various bases of power in print advertis-ing. For example, MacKenzie and Zaichowsky (1981) investigated the content ofalcohol advertising, using French and Raven’s (1959) typology.A key finding is thatwine advertisements utilize informational and expert power more than othersources of power, whereas liquor and beer ads rely primarily upon reward power.

Brand Social Power

Just as power influences the effectiveness of relationships and strategies inmarketing channels, sales, and advertising, it may play a pivotal role in the con-text of branding. Extending the general definition of power to a branding context, brand social power is defined as “the ability of a brand to influence thebehavior of consumers and to cause a consumer to do something he or she wouldnot have done otherwise.” To be clear, brand social power is viewed from the“power as an attribution” standpoint, wherein the power of a brand is based onconsumers’ perceptions of the brand’s power (and not absolute power). So,although a brand does not possess actual power, consumers who know and usea brand may attribute authority, control, influence, and other characteristics toit based on their consumer–brand relationship and past usage experiences.2

Brand Social Power and Brand Equity. Brand social power is distin-guished from (customer-based) brand equity, which Aaker (1991) defines as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol,that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firmand/or to that firm’s customers” (p. 15). Here, brand social power is treated asa component of customer-based brand equity, regardless of whether the con-struct is treated as cognitive or relational in nature (Gurhan-Canli & Ahluwalia,

2 See Footnote 1.


95

1999). The cognitive perspective of brand equity draws upon the memory liter-ature and learning theory to explain brand equity and how to build strongbrands (Aaker, 1996b; Keller, 2000; Keller, 1999; Keller, 1993). Aaker (1991)offers a commonly accepted (primarily cognitive) model, which includes fivebases of brand equity: (1) brand associations, (2) brand awareness, (3) perceivedquality, (4) brand loyalty, and (5) other proprietary assets. In this framework, eachof these bases constitutes an asset that creates brand equity in a variety of dif-ferent ways. Brand social power—a perceptual concept that resides in the mindsof a brand’s consumers—may be characterized as a brand association, definedby Aaker (1991) as “anything ‘linked’ in memory to a brand” (p. 109). Aaker(1996a) asserts that brand equity is supported in large part by the associationsconsumers make with a brand, which may include perceptions regarding thebrand social power that brand wields. As such, it is possible that brand socialpower—like any other brand association—may help consumers to retrieve andprocess branding information, differentiate a brand, generate reasons for con-sumers to buy a brand, create positive attitudes and feelings toward a brand,and provide a basis for brand extensions (Aaker, 1991).

The relational perspective of brand equity emphasizes the consumer–brandrelationship and depicts brand equity as a function of the personal value ormeaning a brand holds for the consumer (Blackston, 1992; Chang & Chieng,2006; Fournier, 1998; Gurhan-Canli & Ahluwalia, 1999; Ji, 2002; McCracken,1993; Woodside, 2004). Representative of work in this vein is Fournier’s (1998)brand relationship quality construct, which assesses the strength and durabil-ity of a consumer–brand relationship in terms of three dimensions: (1) affectiveand socioemotive attachments (consisting of love/passion and self-connection);(2) behavioral ties (which include commitment and interdependence); and (3) sup-portive cognitive beliefs (comprised of intimacy and brand partner quality).Viewing brand social power through a relational lens, one might perceive brandsocial power as a component of the brand behaviors that nourish the consumer–brand relationship. For example, brand behaviors that wield referentbrand social power may influence a consumer’s self-connection with a brand. Like-wise, commitment may be cultivated through reward brand social power or com-pelled through coercive brand social power. And legitimate brand social powermay improve a consumer’s perceptions of brand partner quality.

Brand Social Power and Attitudes. In addition to demarcating brandsocial power as a driver of brand equity, it is also important to reconcile brandsocial power with extant attitude theory. Briefly, an attitude is defined as “a psy-chological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with somedegree of favor or disfavor,” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p.1), whereas a brand atti-tude is the general evaluation (favorable or unfavorable) of a particular brand.Social scientists (Katz & Stotland, 1959; Krech & Crutchfield, 1948; McGuire, 1969;McGuire, 1985; Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960; Smith, 1947; Triandis, 1971) havelong acknowledged that attitudes may elicit three types of evaluative responses:affective responses comprised of the feelings or emotions an individual has in relation to an attitude object; cognitive responses consisting of the thoughts anindividual has about the attitude object; and conative responses composed of an individual’s actions with respect to the attitude object. However, empiricaltests of the tripartite model of attitudinal responding have produced equivocalresults (Bagozzi, 1978; Breckler, 1984; Kothandapani, 1971; Ostrom, 1969) forthis conceptual trinity, and the evidence supporting a discriminant behavioral


96

component is particularly tenuous (Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1979; Bagozzi &Burnkrant, 1985; Dillon & Kumar, 1985).

The current research focuses primarily on evaluative responses that are cona-tive in nature—specifically, the ability of a brand to wield social power over, andinduce certain behaviors among, their consumers. So, aside from the prescrip-tive utility that a better understanding of brand social power may provide tobrand managers charged with developing positioning strategies for their brands,results generated here may add another voice to the debate regarding whetherthe division of evaluative attitudinal responses is one worth preserving in cur-rent attitude theory and whether consumers do, in fact, respond to attitudeobjects such as brands in a behavioral manner.

The Bases of Brand Social Power

Given this conceptualization of brand social power in relation to brand equityand attitude theory, attention is now turned to further expanding the internalstructure of the construct. Adapting French and Raven’s (1959) typology of socialinfluence, five bases of brand social power are developed that correspond totheir original bases of power, including legitimate brand social power, rewardbrand social power, coercive brand social power, expert brand social power, andreferent brand social power. Different factors that are likely to underpin eachsource of brand social power are also identified, and hypotheses are offeredregarding the relationship(s) between these factors and the strength of corre-sponding brand social power bases.

Legitimate Brand Social Power. Legitimate brand social power is the abil-ity of a brand to influence a consumer’s behavior via its perceived position in theindustry, its reputation, and/or its duration in the industry. A brand’s positionwithin its respective industry may be gauged by its perceived market share. Thetheory of double jeopardy may inform theorizing on how a brand’s industry posi-tion may influence its legitimate brand social power. According to this theory,brands with large market share have more consumers who purchase more fre-quently than brands with small market share (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Fur-ther, the theory of double jeopardy suggests that consumers prefer high marketshare brands over low market share brands (Chaudhuri, 2002), presumablybecause of consumers’ perceptions that they “ought to” purchase the high mar-ket share brand due to some internalized value(s). In addition to having more reg-ular consumers, brands with greater market share should also have strongerlegitimate brand social power than brands with smaller market share.

H1a: Legitimate brand social power is stronger when the perceived positionof a company’s brand is high.

Another indicator of legitimate brand social power is the brand’s reputation.Vergin and Qoronfleh’s (1998) analysis of corporate reputation and stock perform-ance indicate that a company’s stock performance is directly and positively relatedto its reputation. One reason that corporate reputation results in better marketperformance is customers’ willingness “to purchase the firm’s existing products andservices and accept new offerings from it” (Vergin & Qoronfleh, 1998, p. 39). Similarly,Chaudhuri (2002) found a significant relationship between brand reputation and


97

brand sales, market share, and relative price. This study suggests that the rela-tionship between brand reputation and brand performance is a function of the con-sumer’s perception that he or she should purchase brands with strong reputationsbecause of some internalized value(s). Along with instilling receptiveness amongconsumers to purchase current and future offerings, brands with a strong reputa-tion should also have stronger legitimate brand social power. It is important to notethat brand reputations may vary in strength and valence. Brands with strong rep-utations should be more powerful than brands with weak reputations, and brandswith bad reputations will likely detract from the brand’s legitimate power.

H1b: Legitimate brand social power is stronger when the perceived reputationof a company’s brand is strong and favorable.

A brand’s duration in the industry may also influence its legitimate brandsocial power. Bogart and Lehman (1973) found heightened brand awarenesswith more extensive brand history. When researchers offered respondents anickel for every brand name they could recall within a four-minute time frame,not one out of 1860 brand names mentioned was introduced within the preced-ing five years of the study, and 89% of the brands recalled were 25 years or older(Bogart & Lehman, 1973). These results provide compelling evidence that con-sumers are more familiar with established brands. Moreover, research demon-strates that consumers often adopt a decision rule to purchase only “familiar,well-established brands” (cf. Keller, 1993, p. 3). Therefore, brands with a longerindustry presence should have stronger legitimate brand social power.

H1c: Legitimate brand social power is stronger when the industry durationof a company’s brand is long.

Reward Brand Social Power. Reward brand social power is the ability ofthe brand to influence a consumer’s behavior through perceptions that the brandcan mediate positive outcomes (i.e., rewards) for the individual. Positive out-comes in this case refer to intrinsic rewards that the brand can offer consumers,such as satisfaction, a sense of achievement, a sense of acceptance, a positiveimage, and higher perceived social status.

The strength of reward brand social power is contingent upon the brand’sability to mediate rewards, as well as the value the consumer places on thoserewards. This assertion is consistent with expectancy theory, which has beenused as an indicator of job behavior and motivation (Vroom, 1964). According to expectancy theory, the level of effort an individual expends is a product ofthe expectancy of an outcome and the valence of that outcome (Behling & Starke,1973). If an individual expects no outcome or regards the associated outcome asundesirable, the result will be zero motivation and thus no effort expended(Behling & Starke, 1973).

When the expectation of being rewarded by a brand is low, the brand shouldnot have strong reward brand social power. However, when the expectation ofbeing rewarded by the brand is high, the valence associated with that rewardshould determine the brand’s reward power. (A high valence would likely beattached to a sense of achievement, a sense of acceptance, a positive image,higher social status, and/or satisfaction.) When expectancy is high and the


98

consumer places a low value on the associated reward, the brand reward powershould be low. When expectancy is high and the consumer places a high valueon the associated reward, s/he will be more susceptible to reward brand socialpower of the brand. Thus, high expectancy of a desirable reward should resultin strong reward brand social power. In contrast, low expectancy and/or lowvalence should result in weak reward brand social power, meaning the brand willbe less likely to influence the consumer’s behavior.

H2a: Reward brand social power is stronger when consumers associate favor-able outcomes with using a company’s brand.

H2b: Reward brand social power is stronger when consumers value rewardsassociated with using a company’s brand.

Coercive Brand Social Power. Coercive brand social power is the abilityof the brand to influence a consumer’s behavior through the perception that thebrand can mediate negative outcomes (i.e., punishments) for the individual.Negative outcomes in this case may include dissatisfaction, a sense of failure,a sense of rejection or disapproval, a negative image, and lower perceived socialstatus. The strength of a brand’s coercive brand social power depends on theability of the brand to mediate punishment(s) and the consumer’s perceptionof the severity of the punishment. According to reinforcement theory, humanbehavior is determined by environmental consequences (Schermerhorn, 2002).More specifically, this theory states that behavior followed by pleasant (unpleas-ant) consequences or outcomes will (will not) be repeated (Skinner, 1953). If abrand does not have the ability to create negative outcomes for the consumer(i.e., it can not dispense punishment), the brand is unlikely to influence thebehavior of consumers and thus will have relatively weaker coercive brandsocial power.

When the brand does have the ability to administer punishment, the strengthof its coercive brand social power (and effectiveness in influencing consumerbehavior) will hinge upon perceived severity of the punishment (French & Raven,1959). Perceptual studies of deterrence have indicated that severe punishment has“a significant deterrent effect” (Grasmick & Bryjak, 1980). Perceived severity ishigh when consumers have a strong desire to avoid failure, rejection or disap-proval, a negative image, low social status, and/or dissatisfaction. If the consumerperceives that not using the brand will result in one of these outcomes, the brand’scoercive brand social power will be strong and he or she will be more likely topurchase and use the brand. On the other hand, when the perceived severity ofpunishment is low, the consumer will not be as amenable to the brand’s influenceand thus the brand’s coercive brand social power should be considerably weaker.

H3a: Coercive brand social power is stronger when consumers associate neg-ative outcomes with not using a company’s brand.

H3b: Coercive brand social power is stronger when consumers have strongdesire to avoid punishments associated with not using a company’s brand.

Expert Brand Social Power. Expert brand social power is the ability ofthe brand to influence a consumer’s behavior through perceptions that the brand


99

has specialized knowledge and/or expertise.3 Specialized knowledge and/orexpertise in this case refer to the innovativeness, quality, consistency of supe-rior performance, and/or superior knowledge associated with the brand.

One dimension of a brand’s expert brand social power is consumers’ percep-tion of its specialized knowledge and/or expertise within the product category(French & Raven, 1959). Mowen, Wiener, and Joag (1987) found that as per-ceived expertise of a source increases, its level of persuasion also increases.Similarly, Walker, Langmeyer, and Langmeyer (1992) found perceived expertise—among a host of other source characteristics—to be the only factor to signifi-cantly influence the purchase intentions of consumers. The influence of expert-ise on behavior has also been documented (Busch & Wilson, 1976; Crisci &Kassinove, 1973; Liu & Leach, 2001; Taylor & Woodside, 1982; Woodside & Davenport, 1974; Woodside & Pitts, 1975). Crisci and Kassinove (1973) found thatcompliance with a source’s recommendations varies with the perceived level ofexpertise. Woodson and Davenport (1974) established that an expert salesper-son induces a significantly higher number of customers to purchase a productthan a nonexpert salesperson. Busch and Wilson (1976) demonstrated that asalesman with greater expertise is more effective than a salesman with lesserexpertise in influencing the behaviors of potential consumers. Liu and Leach(2001) found that the perceived level of salesperson expertise is positively relatedto customer satisfaction, which in turn is positively related to behavioral loyalty.Given the demonstrated effectiveness of expertise in influencing consumerbehavior in a selling context, a brand’s expert brand social power is expected toelicit similar behavioral responses among consumers.

H4a: Expert brand social power is stronger when consumers associate indus-try knowledge and/or expertise with a company’s brand.

A consumer’s knowledge or skills in a particular domain may also affect thestrength of a brand’s expert brand social power. French and Raven (1959) con-tend that an influencee (i.e., the consumer) not only evaluates the expertise of theinfluencer (i.e., the brand) against an absolute standard, but also in relation tohis or her own knowledge. Yagil (2002) confirmed this contention, demonstrat-ing that expert power is moderated by the subordinate’s expertise. When theconsumer is not very knowledgeable in a given area, the expert brand socialpower should be stronger. However, when the consumer is knowledgeable, thebrand’s ability to influence the consumer with its perceived knowledge and expert-ise diminishes, and the brand’s expert brand social power should be weaker.

H4b: Expert brand social power is stronger when consumers’ industry knowl-edge is relatively low.

Referent Brand Social Power. Referent brand social power is the abilityof the brand to influence a consumer’s behavior by fostering attraction to thebrand and/or identification with the brand.When a brand possesses referent brandsocial power, consumers pursue a feeling of oneness with the brand and seek tobecome closely associated with it.

The strength of referent brand social power depends on the consumer’s attrac-tion to, and identification with, the brand. French and Raven (1959) contend thatthe greater the attractiveness of an individual, the greater the identification and3 See Footnote 1.


100

referent power of that individual. As an individual becomes more attractive, thedesire for identification with that individual increases.An increased sense of iden-tification, in turn, strengthens the individual’s referent power. Following this logic,as a brand’s attractiveness increases, so should its referent brand social power.

But what heightens attraction? Research in social psychology suggests thata key source of interpersonal attraction is perceived similarity (Blass & Schwarcz,1982). Given consumers’ personification of brands (Aaker, 1997; Haigood, 1999;Lau & Phau, 2007; Sweeney & Brandon, 2006) and relationships with brands(Fournier, 1998), it is proposed that this source of attractiveness will extend tothe consumer–brand relationship and that consumers who perceive similari-ties with the brand will also be more strongly attracted to it.

Raven and Kruglanski (1970) indicate that the perception of similarity leadsan individual to accept the influence and change behavior accordingly, a con-tention that finds support in the marketing literature. Research on self-congruency verifies the link between perceived consumer–brand similarity andconsumer behavior. More specifically, Sirgy (1982) asserts that perceived simi-larities of the characteristics of the consumer’s actual or ideal self to those of thebrand’s image lead to greater preference for the brand, more favorable purchaseintentions, increased product usage, increased ownership, and greater brandloyalty, indicating a strong association between perceived similarity and behav-ioral influence. Perceived similarity should also lead to greater identification,resulting in stronger referent brand social power. However, if the consumer doesnot perceive similarities and/or does not identify with (or does not want to be iden-tified with) the brand, the referent brand social power should be weaker.

H5: Referent brand social power is stronger when consumers perceive them-selves as similar to a company’s brand.

Multidimensional Brand Social Power. Naturally, brands vary in termsof the number and strength of bases from which they derive power, and the col-lective power they wield. Harley Davidson is a brand with referent power; how-ever, it might also be perceived as having expert power due to its high quality;legitimate power due to its position in the industry and reputation; rewardpower due to the sense of affiliation, acceptance, and satisfaction that accompanyownership of a Harley Davidson motorcycle; and coercive power due to the senseof rejection from certain motorcycle aficionados that one might experience if he or she does not own a Harley.

Given the various bases of brand social power available to Harley Davidson,it can determine which base of brand social power or combination of bases willbe most effective in influencing consumer behavior (Raven & Kruglanski, 1970).An increase in the number and strength of power bases should be associated withan increase in overall brand social power and may enable the brand to exertpower in an array of contexts. Different power bases might be situationally more effective in influencing various instances of consumer behavior.Thus, the morebases of power a brand has to access, the greater its ability to influence con-sumer behavior should be. As the number of strong bases of brand social powerincreases, the strength of the brand’s overall power is expected to increase.

H6: Having strong brand social power on more than one dimension leads torelatively greater overall brand power.


101

The Relationship of Brand Social Power to Brand Equity. As pre-viously discussed, brand social power may be conceptually incorporated intoexisting brand equity frameworks, both cognitive and relational. Cognitivelyspeaking, perceptions of a brand’s social power affect its brand image, the “set ofassociations, usually organized in some meaningful way” (Aaker, 1991, p. 109).Given that strong, favorable brand associations are believed to enhance brandequity (Keller, 1993)—a central cognitive tenet—when consumers regard a brand asmore (less) powerful, that brand should also possess relatively greater (lesser)brand equity. Similarly, brand behaviors which intimate power have the poten-tial to affect the consumer–brand relationship in terms of brand loyalty and rela-tionship stability—fundamental variables in the relational tradition. Hence,whether viewing brand equity cognitively or from the relational perspective,greater brand social power is expected to be associated with greater brand equity.

H7: Greater overall brand power is associated with greater brand equity.

METHODOLOGY

Subjects and Design

This study involved a one-way between-subjects factorial design consisting of twosets of five different brands with varying levels of perceived brand social power(more vs. less). A total of 201 students enrolled in an undergraduate marketingcourse at a large southeastern University participated in the study. For partic-ipation each student received extra credit points toward his or her final gradein the course.

Stimuli Selection

A multistage content validity assessment guided the selection of a comprehensiveand representative set of brands for inclusion in the study (Bearden, Netemeyer, &Teel, 1989). In the interest of ecological validity, an effort was made to identify an array of well-known national brands in a range of product categories that rep-resented a spectrum of power types and levels. First, following exposure to the def-initions of each base of brand social power, a convenience sample of 22 adultconsumers were asked to provide a list of brand names that were reflective ofeach dimension. Added to this list were brands from the represented product cat-egories that were thought to be relatively less powerful. Seven marketing facultymembers were then asked to rate how well each of the comprehensive list of brandnames reflected the different bases of brand social power, using the followingscale: 1 � clearly representative, 2 � somewhat representative, and 3 � not rep-resentative at all (Zaichkowsky, 1985). For each individual base of power, one rel-atively powerful brand name that five of seven panel members evaluated as“clearly representative” was retained. One brand evaluated as “somewhat repre-sentative” or “not representative” of each dimension of brand social power was alsoselected to include as a correspondingly less powerful brand for each category.Ultimately, two sets of brands with more (less) brand social power in the followingfive product categories were developed: automotive tires, sport utility vehicles,sports cars, computer software, and carbonated cola beverages.


102

Procedure

The study took place in a classroom research setting, wherein subjects were ran-domly assigned to one of the two treatment conditions so that each cell containedapproximately 100 subjects. Upon entering the room, an experimenter greetedsubjects and handed them a booklet containing a description of the study’s purpose,basic instructions, the stimulus material, and related measures. To control fordemand effects, the cover page informed subjects that the experimenters had noassociation with the manufacturer or the advertising agency for the featuredproducts, and simply desired honest answers. The experimenter specificallyinstructed subjects not to communicate with or observe the work of others. Fur-ther, subjects were spatially separated while completing the questionnaire anddid not know that other subjects received different information based on their cellassignment. The experimenter also instructed subjects not to page ahead in thestimulus booklet or go back and change responses. The putative purpose of the study was to assess consumers’ perceptions of a variety of brands.

On the next page subjects saw a list of brands for their assigned cell, includ-ing five brands possessing more (less) of at least one dimension of brand socialpower. Directions on this page instructed subjects to take their time reading aseries of questions relating to individual dimensions of brand social power foreach of the five brands. Among these items was a manipulation check asking sub-jects to indicate the nature of each brand’s power by choosing one of six categoricalresponses relating to legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, referent, or no brandsocial power. Also included were 35 items that enabled investigators to furthergauge the effectiveness of the manipulation and to assess the relationship ofvarious indicators to individual power bases, overall brand social power, andbrand equity. These items were developed by modifying Swasy’s (1979) SocialPower Scales for use with products.4 Subjects were advised to think of eachbrand in comparison to other brands in its product category—and not otherbrands appearing in the stimulus packet—and to indicate the extent of theiragreement with each statement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from1 � strongly disagree to 7 � strongly agree. (These items appear in the Appen-dix, along with all other measures taken in the study.)

Next, subjects answered several questions that would enable investigators togauge their attitudes toward the brand and purchase intentions, along withoverall brand equity for each brand. Attitude toward the brand was assessed byasking subjects to complete the statement, “I feel (this brand) is . . .” using four7-point semantic differential items (anchored by favorable/unfavorable,good/bad, likable/unlikable, and pleasant/unpleasant). An average of the scaleitems was used to form a composite brand attitude measure. This measure is con-sistent with those reported in the marketing literature (Edell & Staelin, 1983;Keller, 1991; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986).

4 Swasy’s (1979) Social Power Scales evaluate the construct of human social power conceptualizedby French and Raven (1959), whereas the current research explores brand social power. Thephrasing of many individual items comprising Swasy’s (1979) scale required modification becausethey specifically directed subjects to think of another human being (not a brand) when respond-ing. Where necessary, the authors adapted these individual items so that subjects would evalu-ate their relationship with a brand, and not another human being. For example, Swasy’s (1979)scale included the following item for assessing the reward social power of a particular human:The reason for doing as A suggests is to obtain good things in return. The corresponding item forassessing the reward social power of a particular brand is: The reason for purchasing this brandis to obtain good things in return.


103

Subjects were also asked to indicate the likelihood that they would purchaseeach brand when the next purchase occasion in the respective product categoryarose, using four 7-point semantic differential items (anchored by very likely/notat all likely, very probable/not at all probable, very possible/not at all possible,and very certain/not at all certain). An average of the scale items was used toform a composite purchase intention measure. This measure of purchase inten-tion parallels those used in previous marketing studies (Bennett & Harrell, 1975;Dover & Olson, 1977; Smith & Swinyard, 1983; MacKenzie, 1986; Marks &Kamins, 1988).

Using Ha’s (1996) Brand Equity scale subjects’ impressions of each brand’sequity was gauged based on its name and image. Subjects indicated their agree-ment (disagreement) with 11 seven-point Likert-type statements, which werethen averaged to form a composite brand equity measure.

Because extant research suggests that product familiarity can influence themanner in which subjects process information about brands (Johnson & Russo,1984; Marks & Olson, 1981; Wright, 1975), subjects’ familiarity with the prod-uct category of each stimulus product was also assessed. Utilizing Machleit,Allen, and Madden’s (1993) Brand Familiarity scale, subjects rated their famil-iarity, experience, and knowledge level with each product category using three7-point semantic differential items. Responses to each of these items were aver-aged to form a composite familiarity measure for each product category.

Finally, each subject was asked to provide detailed demographic informationand was probed on the purpose of the study. Demographic profiles of the sub-jects were similar, and no evidence of response bias was found. Further, exam-ination of open-ended remarks regarding the experimental guise suggested thatno subjects guessed the true objective of the research.

RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

Although brand social power was manipulated through stimulus product selec-tion and not the experimental procedure, it was also necessary to ascertain thateach relatively powerful brand chosen for inclusion in the study was indeed anexemplar of the intended brand social power dimension and provided the expectedcontrast to the comparably less powerful brand in the same product category.Assessing the former required a series of chi-square analyses on participants’perceptions regarding the nature of each brand’s power across product categories.In order to gauge the latter, ANOVAs were conducted on the perceived differ-ences in brand social power for strong vs. weak brands within product categories.

Consistent with pretesting results and expectations, a significant majority ofparticipants perceive (1) the more powerful carbonated cola beverage (92.31%) tobe most reflective of legitimacy (�2

(5) � 81.61, p � 0.05); (2) the more powerfulsports car (96.27%) as embodying reward brand social power (�2

(5) � 157.03,p � 0.05); (3) the more powerful automotive tire (89.74%) as exemplifying a brandwith coercive brand social power (�2

(5) � 199.82, p � 0.05); (4) the more powerfulcomputer software brand (90.16%) as most representative of expertise(x2

(5) � 164.93, p � 0.05); and (5) the more powerful SUV (93.68%) as clearlyexhibiting referent brand social power (x2

(5) � 140.71, p � 0.05). (Results formanipulation checks appear in Table 1.) Aside from establishing that the chosen


104

brands were most representative of the intended brand social power dimensions,this analysis also reveals that, in each comparison set, the more powerful brand isperceived as possessing traces of additional brand social power dimensions. Theweaker brand in each comparison set is classified as a brand that “does not pos-sess any special power” by a majority of participants.

It was also important to demonstrate that, within each product category, sub-jects perceived the exemplar as possessing significantly more of the intendeddimension of brand social power than the relatively weaker brand. ANOVAs com-paring brands within product categories indicate the strength of brand socialpower was effectively manipulated on each dimension as well. Within the car-bonated cola beverage category, subjects regard the more powerful brand(M � 5.28) as possessing significantly more legitimate brand social power(F(1,199) � 446.18, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.69) than the less powerful brand (M � 2.33).Subjects view the more powerful automotive tire (M � 5.11) as significantly morecoercive (F(1,199) � 143.61, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.42) than the less powerful brand inthis product category (M � 1.04).The more powerful sports car (M � 5.32) exhibitssignificantly more reward brand social power (F(1,199) � 276.85, p � 0.001,h2 � 0.58) than the less powerful brand (M � 3.01). Subjects perceive the morepowerful computer software brand (M � 5.65) as possessing significantly more expert brand social power (F(1,199) � 453.29, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.70) than theless powerful brand (M � 4.00). Perceptions of referent brand social power aresignificantly higher (F(1,199) � 162.74, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.45) for the more power-ful SUV (M � 4.94) as compared to the less powerful brand (M � 3.00).

Table 1. Results of Manipulation Checks.

Nature of Brand Social Power

Proportions by Brand Social Power Dimension

Legitimate Reward Coercive Expert Referent None �2

Automotive tires 2.13% 1.48% 89.74% 3.76% 0.69% 2.20% 199.82(p � 0.05)

Carbonated 92.31% 3.21% 0.13% 0.82% 2.45% 1.08% 81.61cola beverages (p � 0.05)

Computer 3.89% 1.08% 2.63% 90.16% 0.32% 1.92% 164.93software (p � 0.05)

Sports cars 0.88% 96.27% 0.07% 0.93% 1.73% 0.12% 157.03(p � 0.05)

SUVs 1.57% 3.09% 0.16% 0.92% 93.68% 0.58% 140.71(p � 0.05)

Strength of Brand Social Power

Means by Condition

Source of High Low ObservedVariation Power Power Approx. F Sign. of F h2 Power

Legitimacy 5.28 2.33 446.18 p � 0.01 0.69 1.00Reward 5.32 3.01 276.85 p � 0.01 0.58 1.00Coercion 5.11 1.04 143.61 p � 0.01 0.42 0.99Expert 5.65 4.00 453.29 p � 0.01 0.70 1.00Referent 4.94 3.00 162.74 p � 0.01 0.45 0.99


105

Covariate Analyses

Familiarity appeared to be an appropriate covariate, based on homogeneitytests. However, correlation analyses performed with overall brand social powerand the three brand equity measures indicated that familiarity did not have asignificant impact on evaluations for any of the stimulus products. Familiarityhad a low correlation (p’s � 0.05) with overall brand social power, brand atti-tudes, purchase intentions, and brand equity for each of the five product cate-gories featured in the study. Further, separate one-way ANOVAs conducted toassess the relative impact of this potential covariate on individual product cat-egories indicated that familiarity had a statistically non-significant influence onkey measures for each product category (see Table 2). Given the failure of famil-iarity to impact the dependent variables, it was excluded from further analyses.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1. Support for Hypothesis 1 required the demonstration of signifi-cantly stronger legitimate brand social power when subjects perceive a brand ashaving a stronger industry position (1a), better reputation (1b), and longer dura-tion in the industry (1c). Consistent with these expectations, significant maineffects are present for industry position (F(1,199) � 486.34, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.84);

Table 2. Impact of Familiarity on Dependent Measures by Product Category.

Dependent Measures Approx. F Sign. of F h2 Observed Power

Familiarity with automotive tiresOverall brand social power 0.96 p � 0.05 0.18 0.72Brand attitudes 1.67 p � 0.05 0.28 0.44Purchase intentions 1.36 p � 0.05 0.26 0.82Brand equity 0.55 p � 0.05 0.11 0.35

Familiarity with carbonated cola beveragesOverall brand social power 1.17 p � 0.05 0.19 0.85Brand attitudes 0.39 p � 0.05 0.04 0.20Purchase intentions 1.04 p � 0.05 0.12 0.58Brand equity 0.53 p � 0.05 0.06 0.27

Familiarity with computer softwareOverall brand social power 1.09 p � 0.05 0.11 0.54Brand attitudes 0.93 p � 0.05 0.09 0.46Purchase intentions 0.12 p � 0.05 0.01 0.61Brand equity 0.89 p � 0.05 0.06 0.37

Familiarity with sports carsOverall brand social power 1.28 p � 0.05 0.21 0.77Brand attitudes 1.04 p � 0.05 0.17 0.73Purchase intentions 0.89 p � 0.05 0.16 0.57Brand equity 1.21 p � 0.05 0.20 0.74

Familiarity with SUVsOverall brand social power 1.04 p � 0.05 0.18 0.67Brand attitudes 1.21 p � 0.05 0.21 0.75Purchase intentions 1.02 p � 0.05 0.21 0.64Brand equity 1.56 p � 0.05 0.26 0.90


106

reputation (F(1,199) � 697.01, p � 0.001, h2 � .88); and industry duration(F(1,199) � 338.05, p � 0.001,h2 � 0.63) in the carbonated cola beverage product cat-egory. Brands are perceived as having significantly greater legitimate brand socialpower when subjects perceive them as being superior to the competition (M � 5.74vs. M � 2.39), having a strong, favorable reputation (M � 5.86 vs. M � 2.40), andbeing well established in their respective industries (M � 5.87 vs. M � 3.50).(Results for all hypothesis testing are presented in Table 3.)

Table 3. Summary of Hypothesis Testing.

Source of Variation Approx. F Sign. of F h2 Observed Power

H1: Legitimate brand social power

Industry position 486.34 p � 0.001 0.84 1.00Reputation 697.01 p � 0.001 0.88 1.00Industry duration 338.05 p � 0.01 0.63 1.00

H2: Reward brand social power

Ability to reward 117.16 p � 0.001 0.37 1.00Value of reward 186.52 p � 0.001 0.48 1.00

H3: Coercive brand social power

Ability to punish 71.98 p � 0.001 0.27 0.99Desire to avoid punishment 79.89 P � 0.001 0.29 0.99

H4: Expert brand social power

Brand experience/expertise 150.71 p � 0.001 0.43 1.00Consumer knowledge 68.49 p � 0.001 0.26 0.99

H5: Referent brand social power

Similarity 145.01 p � 0.001 0.42 1.00

Source of variation Approx. F Sign. of F R2

H6: Overall brand social power

Legitimate brand social power 446.18 p � 0.001 0.69Reward brand social power 276.85 p � 0.001 0.58Coercive brand social power 143.61 p � 0.001 0.42Expert brand social power 453.29 p � 0.001 0.69Referent brand social power 162.75 p � 0.001 0.45Overall brand social power 132.58 p � 0.001 0.43

H7: Brand equity

Legitimate brand social power (brand attitudes) 543.83 p � 0.001 0.73Legitimate brand social power (purchase intentions) 1.12 p � 0.05 0.01Legitimate brand social power (brand equity) 1198.29 p � 0.001 0.86Reward brand social power (brand attitudes) 558.51 p � 0.001 0.74Reward brand social power (purchase intentions) 16.57 p � 0.001 0.08Reward brand social power (brand equity) 1412.32 p � 0.001 0.88Coercive brand social power (brand attitudes) 522.37 p � 0.001 0.72Coercive brand social power (purchase intentions) 18.56 p � 0.001 0.09Coercive brand social power (brand equity) 1368.69 p � 0.001 0.87Expert brand social power (brand attitudes) 405.01 p � 0.001 0.68Expert brand social power (purchase intentions) 17.09 p � 0.001 0.08Expert brand social power (brand equity) 1059.94 p � 0.001 0.84Referent brand social power (brand attitudes) 526.95 p � 0.001 0.73Referent brand social power (purchase intentions) 3.98 p � 0.05 0.02Referent brand social power (brand equity) 1435.42 p � 0.001 0.88


107

Hypothesis 2. Testing Hypothesis 2 entailed analyzing the impact of subjects’perceptions regarding (a) a brand’s ability to influence rewards (F(1,199) � 117.16,p � 0.001, h2 � 0.37) and (b) the value of those rewards (F(1,199) � 186.52,p � 0.001, h2 � 0.48) on reward brand social power for brands in the sports carproduct category. Results suggest that when subjects believe a brand can deliverrewards (M � 5.23 vs. M � 3.50) and value is placed on those rewards (M � 6.02 vs.M � 4.01), they regard the brand as possessing significantly greater rewardbrand social power.

Hypothesis 3. As predicted by Hypothesis 3, significant main effects are pres-ent for subjects’ perceptions regarding (a) a brand’s ability to mediate punish-ments (F(1,199) � 71.98, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.27) and (b) subjects’ desire to avoidpunishments (F(1,199) � 79.89, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.29) in the automotive tire prod-uct category. When subjects believe a brand can bring about undesired conse-quences (M � 2.15 vs. M � 1.01) and they wish to avoid being punished by thebrand (M � 3.53 vs. M � 1.50), they regard the brand as possessing signifi-cantly greater coercive brand social power.

Hypothesis 4. For insight into Hypothesis 4, which suggests significantlystronger expert brand social power when subjects perceive a brand as possessingknowledge and/or expertise in a given industry (4a) and as more knowledge-able than the subjects (4b), the impact of these two factors on expert brand socialpower was analyzed. Significant main effects for brand experience/knowledge(F(1,199) � 150.71, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.43) and for subject knowledge (F(1,199) � 68.49,p � 0.001, h2 � 0.26) in the computer software product category were found.Brands are perceived as having significantly greater expert brand social powerwhen subjects regard them as possessing more industry knowledge and expe-rience (M � 5.70 vs. M � 3.02). Further, subjects perceive expert brand socialpower to be significantly greater when they possess relatively less knowledgein the area (M � 4.74 vs. M � 2.99).

Hypothesis 5. Support for Hypothesis 5 was found by analyzing the impactof perceived consumer–brand similarity on referent brand social power(F(1,199) � 145.01, p � 0.001, h2 � 0.42) in the SUV product category. This analysisshowed that referent brand social power is significantly greater when subjectsperceive themselves to be similar to the brand (M � 3.98 vs. M � 2.41).

Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 proposes that brands that draw on more than onesource of brand social power will possess significantly greater overall brandsocial power. Testing this assertion required the evaluation of differences insubjects’ perceptions regarding each brand social power dimension and overallbrand social power across product categories. Because previous hypothesis test-ing implies that weaker brands in the comparison set are unlikely to possess adistinct source of brand social power—let alone multiple power bases to exploit—these analyses included only data for the relatively more powerful brands ineach product category (N � 101). Results from a series of regressions bore outthese predictions, revealing significant differences in ratings for each brand socialpower dimension and overall brand social power: legitimate brand social power (F(4, 96) � 446.18, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.69); reward brand social power(F(4,96) � 276.85, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.58); coercive brand social power (F(4,96) � 143.61,


108

p � 0.001, R2 � 0.42); expert brand social power (F(4,96) � 453.29, p � 0.001,R2 � 0.69); referent brand social power (F(4,96) � 162.75, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.45);and overall brand social power (F(4,96) � 132.58, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.43). Meanbrand social power ratings (see Table 4) suggest subjects perceive the computersoftware brand as most powerful across product categories on four of five brandsocial power dimensions, which in turn appears to confer greater overall brandsocial power on this brand.

Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 suggests that brands possessing greater overallbrand social power will also exhibit stronger brand equity. To test this premise,a series of regression analyses was conducted for each set of brands evaluatedby participants. Brand attitudes, purchase intentions, and the overall brandequity measure served as dependent variables for these analyses.

The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the carbonated colabeverage category had a significant main effect on two of the three brand equityindicators: brand attitudes (F(1,199) � 548.83, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.73); purchase inten-tions (F(1,199) � 1.12, p � 0.05, R2 � 0.01); and brand equity (F(1,199) � 1198.29,p � 0.001, R2 � 0.86). When participants perceive a brand as possessing greaterbrand social power, they also hold significantly more favorable brand attitudes(M � 5.69 vs. M � 3.54) and regard the brand as having significantly higherbrand equity (M � 4.60 vs. M � 2.70). The same pattern of results holds true forpurchase intentions (M � 2.41 vs. M � 1.23), although differences on this meas-ure fail to achieve significance for the carbonated cola beverage category.

The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the automotive tire cat-egory had a significant main effect on all three brand equity measures: brandattitudes (F(1,199) � 522.37, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.72); purchase intentions(F(1,199) � 18.56, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.09); and brand equity (F(1,199) � 1368.69,p � 0.001, R2 � 0.87). Perceptions of greater brand social power for automotivetires corresponds to significantly more favorable brand attitudes (M � 5.42 vs.M � 3.25), purchase intentions (M � 3.18 vs. M � 1.45), and brand equity(M � 4.38 vs. M � 2.30).

The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the sports car categoryhad a significant main effect on all three brand equity measures: brand atti-tudes (F(1,199) � 558.51, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.74); purchase intentions (F(1,199) � 16.57,p � 0.001, R2 � 0.08); and brand equity (F(1,199) � 1412.32, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.88).When subjects perceive a sports car as being a powerful brand, the brand atti-tudes (M � 6.07 vs. M � 4.05), purchase intentions (M � 3.61 vs. M � 1.80),and brand equity (M � 4.95 vs. M � 2.30) it elicits are also significantly higher.

Table 4. Mean Brand Social Power Dimension Ratings by Product Category.

Carbonated SportAutomotive Cola Computer Sports Utility

Tires Beverages Software Cars Vehicles

Legitimacy 3.97 5.82 6.06 4.09 4.57Reward 3.94 3.87 4.99 5.62 4.09Coercion 2.84 2.01 3.36 2.04 2.15Expertise 4.49 3.96 5.22 4.09 4.07Reference 3.45 3.98 5.12 3.53 3.98Overall 3.63 3.89 5.15 3.76 3.65


109

The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the sport utility vehi-cle category had a significant main effect on all three brand equity measures:brand attitudes (F(1,199) � 526.95, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.73); purchase intentions(F(1,199) � 3.98, p � 0.05, R2 � 0.02); and brand equity (F(1,199) � 1435.42, p � 0.001,R2 � 0.88). Perceptions of greater brand social power for SUVs are related to sig-nificantly more favorable brand attitudes (M � 5.05 vs. M � 3.03), purchase inten-tions (M � 3.97 vs. M � 1.81), and brand equity (M � 4.17 vs. M � 2.18).

The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the computer soft-ware category had a significant main effect on all three brand equity measures:brand attitudes (F(1,199) � 405.01, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.68); purchase intentions(F(1,199) � 17.09, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.08); and brand equity (F(1,199) � 1059.94,p � 0.001, R2 � 0.84). When subjects perceive computer software as possessinggreater brand social power, they also hold significantly higher brand attitudes(M � 5.89 vs. M � 3.81), purchase intentions (M � 1.67 vs. M � 0.70), and brandequity (M � 5.52 vs. M � 3.31) for the brand.

Ancillary Analyses

No predictions were offered regarding the differential impact of individual powerbases on consumers’ corresponding brand attitudes. However, given the dis-parate nature of the five dimensions of brand social power, it was interesting toexplore how, if at all, brand attitudes varied for brands drawing power from dif-ferent sources. To explore these nuances of brand social power, consumers’ rat-ings for each brand’s five brand social power dimensions were regressed on theirattitudes toward the brand. (Results for these ancillary analyses appear in Table 5.) Interestingly, coercive brand social power is the only dimension thatfails to produce significantly more favorable brand attitudes for a majority ofbrands studied. The only exception to this pattern of results obtains for theautomotive tire product category, which contained a brand purposely selectedfor inclusion in the study because it reflected coercive brand social power.

For the carbonated cola beverage category, greater perceived legitimate brandsocial power (F(1,99) � 128.90, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.56); reward brand social power(F(1,99) � 70.66, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.42); expert brand social power (F(1,99) � 162.61,p � 0.001, R2 � 0.62); and referent brand social power (F(1,99) � 123.15, p � 0.001,R2 � 0.55) lead to significantly greater brand attitudes. However, greater per-ceived coercive brand social power (F(1,99) � 1.84, p � 0.05, R2 � 0.07) is not sig-nificantly related to brand attitudes.

When participants perceive computer software as possessing greater legiti-mate brand social power (F(1,99) � 34.28, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.26); reward brandsocial power (F(1,99) � 15.88, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.14); expert brand social power(F(1,99) � 111.76, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.53); or referent brand social power(F(1,99) � 62.20, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.39), they also hold significantly more favor-able attitudes toward the brand. However, the relationship between coercivebrand social power (F(1,99) � 2.14, p � 0.05, R2 � 0.02) and brand attitudes failsto achieve significance.

For sports cars, perceptions of greater legitimate brand social power(F(1,99) � 47.04, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.32); reward brand social power (F(1,99) � 26.67,p � 0.001, R2 � 0.21); expert brand social power (F(1,99) � 32.26, p � 0.001,R2 � 0.25); and referent brand social power (F(1,99) � 50.69, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.34)correspond to significantly more favorable brand attitudes. However, greater


110

perceived coercive brand social power (F(1,99) � 1.83, p � 0.05, R2 � 0.03) is notsignificantly related to brand attitudes.

When subjects perceive an SUV as being a powerful brand in terms of legit-imacy (F(1,99) � 139.09, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.58); reward (F(1,99) � 76.35, p � 0.001,R2 � 0.44); expertise (F(1,99) � 124.71, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.56); or referent brandsocial power (F(1,99) � 153.88, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.61), the brand attitudes it elic-its are also significantly higher. However, perceptions of greater coercive brandsocial power for an SUV (F(1,99) � 1.69, p � 0.05, R2 � 0.04) are not related to sig-nificantly more favorable brand attitudes.

For the automotive tire category, greater perceived legitimate brand socialpower (F(1,99) � 128.90, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.56); reward brand social power(F(1,99) � 70.66, p � 0.001, R2 � 0.42); expert brand social power (F(1,99) � 162.61,p � 0.001, R2 � 0.62); referent brand social power (F(1,99) � 123.15, p � 0.001,R2 � 0.55); and coercive brand social power (F(1,99) � 5.96, p � 0.05, R2 � 0.06)lead to significantly greater brand attitudes.

Table 5. Impact of Brand Social Power Dimensions on Brand Attitudes byProduct Category

Source of Variation Approx. F Sign. of F R2

Automotive tiresLegitimate brand social power 65.35 p � 0.001 0.40Reward brand social power 26.43 p � 0.01 0.21Coercive brand social power 5.96 p � 0.05 0.06Expert brand social power 49.73 p � 0.001 0.33Referent brand social power 63.35 p � 0.001 0.39

Carbonated cola beveragesLegitimate brand social power 128.90 p � 0.001 0.56Reward brand social power 70.66 p � 0.001 0.42Coercive brand social power 1.84 p � 0.05 0.07Expert brand social power 162.61 p � 0.001 0.62Referent brand social power 123.15 p � 0.001 0.55

Computer softwareLegitimate brand social power 34.28 p � 0.001 0.26Reward brand social power 15.88 p � 0.001 0.14Coercive brand social power 2.14 p � 0.05 0.02Expert brand social power 111.76 p � 0.001 0.53Referent brand social power 62.20 p � 0.001 0.39

Sports carsLegitimate brand social power 47.04 p � 0.001 0.32Reward brand social power 26.67 p � 0.001 0.21Coercive brand social power 1.83 p � 0.05 0.03Expert brand social power 32.26 p � 0.001 0.25Referent brand social power 50.69 p � 0.001 0.34

SUVsLegitimate brand social power 139.09 p � 0.001 0.58Reward brand social power 76.35 p � 0.001 0.44Coercive brand social power 1.69 p � 0.05 0.04Expert brand social power 124.71 p � 0.001 0.56Referent brand social power 153.88 p � 0.001 0.61


111

DISCUSSION

The objective of this research was to develop a preliminary framework of brandsocial power that would enable investigators to delineate the dimensions of theconstruct, assess how these individual power bases influence overall brand socialpower, and examine the relationship between overall brand social power andbrand equity (including brand attitudes). Drawing on seminal work in the areaof social power and influence theory, brand social power was defined as the abilityof a brand to influence the behavior of consumers and conceptualized as pos-sessing five dimensions analogous to French and Raven’s (1959) original basesof social power. Legitimate brand social power, reward brand social power, coer-cive brand social power, expert brand social power, and referent brand socialpower were theoretically dissected, and indicators of each power base were iden-tified. In a study featuring brands from an assortment of product categories withvarying levels and types of brand social power, each dimension was empiricallyexamined, and results demonstrate that (1) a brand wielding any one brandsocial power dimension will have greater overall brand social power than a com-parable (but less powerful) brand in the same product category; (2) brands pos-sessing more than one brand social power dimension will have greater overallbrand social power than other brands (within and across product categories) thatpossess one or no bases of brand social power; and (3) brands emitting greateroverall brand social power will also possess greater brand equity.

This analysis reveals strong empirical support for theoretical assertions putforth here regarding the constituent elements of brand social power’s construct.Consumers view a brand as possessing legitimate brand social power when ithas high market share, a strong, favorable reputation, and a well-establishedindustry presence. Reward brand social power is stronger when consumers believea brand can reward them and those rewards are considered to be valuable. Coer-cive brand social power is thought to exist when consumers believe the brand canpunish them and they wish to avoid the brand’s punishment. When a brand isassociated with greater knowledge and/or expertise in a given industry thancompetitors or consumers, it is regarded as having expert brand social power. Afinal dimension, referent brand social power, is present in brands which con-sumers believe they are similar to in some way.These findings contribute to a bet-ter conceptual understanding of the individual dimensions of brand social power.

Interestingly, subjects in this study perceived many stimulus products aspossessing not one, but multiple dimensions of brand social power—even whena single, distinct base of brand social power was manipulated. For instance, amajority of subjects evaluating products in the SUV category regarded the morepowerful brand as possessing predominantly referent brand social power, withtraces of reward brand social power. This observation implies an unforeseencomplexity of the brand social power construct, and suggests that—given brandsocial power’s capacity to influence consumer reactions to a given brand—marketers must be mindful of the potential for consumers to derive unintendedconclusions about the nature of a brand’s power from marketing communicationsand through product usage experience.

This research also sheds light on the collective influence that individual brandsocial power dimensions may exert on a brand’s overall power and equity. Resultsreported here suggest that overall brand social power is greater when a brandhas multiple bases of power from which to draw. For example, Microsoft (which


112

was included because pretest results indicated consumers regard it as reflectiveof a brand with expert brand social power) received significantly higher ratingsthan all other brands across product categories on expert brand social power, ref-erent brand social power, legitimate brand social power, and coercive brandsocial power. As a result, subjects also perceive Microsoft as possessing greateroverall brand social power.

Further, greater brand equity accrues to brands possessing stronger overallbrand social power. More specifically, brands consumers regard as more power-ful also elicit more favorable brand attitudes and possess greater overall brandequity. However, contrary to predictions, in some cases consumers’ purchaseintentions are not necessarily stronger for more powerful brands. For carbon-ated cola beverages, there are no significant differences in purchase intentionsfor more vs. less powerful brands. It is useful to reflect on this deviation from expec-tations, because it appears to contradict the very essence of brand social power—the ability to influence consumer behavior. One explanation for this surprisingresult may hinge upon the decision to examine brands in this particular productcategory (i.e., carbonated cola beverages), which is admittedly characterized bystrong, resolute brand preferences. This product category was included becauseextensive pretesting suggested subjects were sufficiently familiar with its mul-tiple competitors and purportedly perceived substantial intra-categorical variancein legitimate brand social power. However, it is conceivable that an enthusiasticPepsi drinker may acknowledge Coca-Cola as relatively more powerful than a thirdbrand, hold more relatively favorable brand attitudes toward Coke, and evenrate it relatively higher on overall brand equity—but still have no intention ofpurchasing Coke due to his or her steadfast commitment to Pepsi-Cola. Thisinterpretation may explicate the significant results for purchase intentions inother product categories (automotive tires, sports cars, SUVs, and computer software), which operate in less concentrated industries comprised of more numer-ous and comparable competitors that seemingly inspire less loyalty among consumers.

Implications

Although predictions offered here regarding the relationship between brand socialpower and purchase intentions fail to receive unanimous support, it is worth not-ing that for a majority of product categories examined—computer software, sportscars, SUVs, and automotive tires—perceptions of strong brand social power on themanipulated dimension were associated with greater purchase intentions for the target brand. This finding validates the assertion that brands have the capac-ity to influence consumer behavior, substantiating the existence of brand socialpower and justifying the application of French and Raven’s (1959) power typologyin a branding context.And in a broader sense, the association between brand socialpower and purchase intentions documented here constitutes unambiguous, albeitlimited, evidence that individuals (consumers) develop attitudes toward objects(brands) that elicit evaluative responses, which are behavioral in nature.Althoughthis finding will not likely resolve differing opinions regarding the validity of tri-partite attitude models, it does suggest that conation—arguably the most empiri-cally problematic of the three components—is a legitimate attitudinal response.

Aside from this theoretical contribution to modern attitude theory, findingsdescribed here also have several practical implications for branding strategy. Most


113

notably, knowledge of brand social power can be used to segment markets and todifferentiate one brand from its competitors. Given that brands have the poten-tial to satisfy different social needs of consumers (e.g., the desire to achieve rewards,attain expertise, or gain legitimacy), markets could be segmented and target seg-ments identified based on such needs.A brand could also be positioned against com-petitors based on any brand social power base that resonates with the targetmarket. For instance, if beverage consumers are seeking social rewards but thisneed is not being fulfilled with their current brand, building the positioning strat-egy of a competing brand around the ability to offer social rewards may appeal tothese consumers and result in market share gains among this target segment. Like-wise, if the industry leader effectively communicates and exercises, say, legiti-mate brand power, a competing brand may still achieve differentiation by buildingits positioning strategy centered on another brand social power base.

This research also has implications for work on brand extensions. Much of the extant brand extension research focuses on the “fit” or similarity between thebrand and the extension (Aaker, 1990; Aaker & Keller, 1990; Park, Milberg, &Lawson, 1991) and suggests that an extension is likely to be successful (unsuc-cessful) when consumers perceive good (poor) fit between the brand’s currentproduct category and the new product. This notion of perceived fit can also beexplained in the context of brand social power.

Specifically, French and Raven (1959) posit power can only be exerted withina range. When a new product falls within the range of the brand’s power, it maybe capable of influencing consumers’ behaviors, and thus more likely to be asuccessful extension. However, if the extension is outside the range of the brand’spower, it is less likely to influence consumers’ behaviors, and thus less likely tobe successful. The “real world” is littered with examples that bear out this con-jecture. For instance, Bic is known for its inexpensive, disposable products andarguably possesses expert power in this domain. Initially associated with writ-ing utensils, Bic was successful in extending its brand name to razors andlighters, both of which resided within its range of expert power. However, Bic wasnot successful in extending its brand name to perfume, a product category thatclearly fell outside the range of Bic’s brand social power. Research suggests thata “ . . . new product failure may well tarnish the reputation of sister products car-rying the same brand name” (Herbig & Milewicz, 1993, p. 22) and “that unsuc-cessful brand extensions can dilute brand names by diminishing the favorableattitude beliefs consumers have learned to associate with the family brandname” (Loken & Roedder-John, 1993, p. 79). Extensions outside a brand’s rangeof social power may also experience higher levels of product failure and dimin-ish the power of the brand. Analyzing potential brand extensions using thebrand social power typology presented here may enable brand managers to iden-tify new products that exist outside the dominion of the parent brand and toreduce the likelihood of new product failures.

Future Research

Although this study represents a fruitful inquiry in the area of brand socialpower, it also highlights several issues in need of future research. Generallyspeaking, conclusions regarding brand social power, its dimensions, and its rela-tionship to brand equity are most applicable to this particular research setting,these stimulus products, and a student population. In addition to exploring brand


114

social power effects across a variety of industries and product categories, futureresearch should build upon the results of this exploratory main effects study byemploying a more rigorous experimental design that incorporates importantantecedents, dependent measures, and moderating variables to more meaning-fully test relationships. Antecedents that should be experimentally manipulatedand investigated include, but are not limited to, sales promotions, rewards pro-grams, and product endorsers. Exploring these factors would elucidate how dif-ferent sources of brand social power evolve and are maintained and strengthened,and aid brand managers in developing strategies for building brand social power.Second, although this research assesses three essential brand equity-relatedmeasures (i.e., brand attitudes, purchase intentions, and overall brand equity),it is crucial to test the relationship of brand social power to other dependent vari-ables, including additional individual-level (e.g., brand extendability) and product-level (e.g., market share) performance measures. Negative consequences relatingto consumer perceptions of a brand’s power should also be studied, because find-ings here suggest that not all sources of power—notably, coercive brand socialpower—lead to favorable outcomes. Third, potential moderators of the main effectrelationships established here need to be examined so that brand managers arefamiliar with factors that diminish or heighten the impact of a brand’s power. Itis imperative to determine how, if at all, key individual-difference variables (e.g.,product involvement, product knowledge, familiarity, trust, and perceived risk)and product-related factors (e.g., conspicuousness of consumption, nature of thegood, and frequency of use) influence the power a brand commands. These exper-imental postscripts will conceptually clarify the domain of the brand social powerconstruct and enable marketing managers to adopt a more considered approachto developing effective brand communications.

Finally, although the extant research points to symmetries in the structureof (human) social power vs. brand social power, it is critical to further refineand expand the brand social power construct and dimensions proposed here usingphenomenological research. Such a theory-building approach would likely shedlight on the construct and provide the necessary foundation for the develop-ment of a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale to measure the dimensions ofbrand social power. Although scale development was beyond the scope of thecurrent project, it may be a worthwhile endeavor that would likely produce ameans for diagnosing the nature and strength of a brand’s power and assessingthe impact of a brand’s power on consumer preferences and behavior.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. (1990). Brand extensions: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Sloan ManagementReview, 31, 47–56.

Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. (1996a). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.Aaker, D. (1996b). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California

Management Review, 38, 102–120.Aaker, D., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of

Marketing, 54, 27–41.Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,

347–356.


115

Bachman, J. G. (1968). Faculty satisfaction and the dean’s influence: An organizationalstudy of twelve liberal arts colleges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 55–61.

Bachman, J. G., Smith, C. G., & Slesinger, J. A. (1966). Control, performance and satis-faction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 127–136.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1978). The construct validity of the affective, behavioral, and cognitivecomponents of attitude by analysis of covariance structures. Multivariate BehaviorResearch, 13, 9–31.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude-behaviorrelationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 913–929.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1985). Attitude organization and the attitude-behaviorrelationship: A reply to Dillon and Kumar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 47–57.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481.

Behling, O., & Starke, F. A. (1973). The postulates of expectancy theory. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 373–389.

Bennett, P. D., & Harrell, G. D. (1975). The role of confidence in understanding and pre-dicting buyers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 2,110–117.

Bierstedt, R. (1950). An analysis of social power. American Sociological Review, 15,730–738.

Blackston, M. (1992). Observations: Building brand equity by managing the brand’s relationships. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 79–83.

Blass,T., & Schwarcz, P. D. (1982).The relative importance of four determinants of attraction.The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 145–146.

Bogart, L., & Lehman, C. (1973). What makes a brand name familiar? Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 17–22.

Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinctcomponents of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1191–1205.

Brill, J. E. (1992). Scales to measure social power in a consumer context. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 835–842.

Busch, P. (1980). The sales manager’s bases of social power and influence upon the salesforce. Journal of Marketing, 44, 91–101.

Busch, P., & Wilson, D. T. (1976). An experimental analysis of a salesman’s expert and referent bases of social power in the buyer–seller dyad. Journal of Marketing Research,13, 3–11.

Butaney, G., & Wortzel, L. H. (1988). Distributor power versus manufacturer power: Thecustomer role. Journal of Marketing, 52, 52–63.

Campbell, M. C. (2002). Building brand equity. International Journal of Medical Marketing,2, 208–218.

Chang, P., & Chieng, M. (2006). Building consumer–brand relationships: A cross-culturalexperiential view. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 927–959.

Chaudhuri, A. (2002). How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link.Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 33–43.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brandaffect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81–93.

Crisci, R., & Kassinove, H. (1973). Effects of perceived expertise, strength of advice, andenvironmental setting on parental compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 89,245–250.

Davis, S. M. (2000). The power of the brand. Strategy and Leadership, 28, 4–9.Davis, S. M. (2002). Brand asset management: How businesses can profit from the power

of a brand. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19, 351–358.Dillon, W. R., & Kumar, A. (1985). Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior

relationship: A critique of Bagozzi and Burnkrant’s reanalysis of Fishbein and Ajzen.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 33–46.


116

Dover, P. A., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Dynamic changes in an expectancy-value attitudemodel as a function of multiple exposures to product information. In B. A. Greenberg &D. N. Bellenger (Eds.), Contemporary marketing thought (pp. 455–459). Chicago:American Marketing Association.

Eagly,A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993).The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth,TX: Harcourt Brace.Edell, J. A., & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pictures in print adver-

tisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, pp. 45–61.El-Ansary, A. I., & Stern, L. W. (1972). Power measurement in the distribution channel.

Journal of Marketing, 9, 47–52.Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in

consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.Frazier, G. L., & Summers, J. O. (1984). Interfirm influence strategies and their application

within distribution channels. Journal of Marketing, 48, 43–55.Frazier, G. L., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Perceptions of interfirm power and its use within

a franchise channel of distribution. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 169–176.French Jr., J. R. P., (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63,

181–194.French Jr., J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),

Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Gaski, J. F. (1984a). The theory of power and conflict in channels of distribution. Journal

of Marketing, 48, 9–29.Gaski, J. F. (1984b). The effects of discrepant power perceptions in a marketing channel.

Psychology & Marketing, 1, 45–56.Grasmick, H. G., & Bryjak, G. J. (1980). The deterrent effect of perceived severity of

punishment. Social Forces, 59, 471–491.Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Ahluwalia, R. (1999). Cognitive and relational perspectives on brand

equity. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 343.Ha, L. (1996).Advertising clutter in consumer magazines: Dimensions and effects. Journal

of Advertising Research, 36, 76–84.Haigood, T. L. (1999). The brand personality effect: An empirical investigation. In

A. Menon & A. Sharma (Eds.), Marketing theory and applications (pp. 149–150).Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Herbig, P., & Milewicz, J. (1993). The relationship of reputation and credibility to brandsuccess. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10, 18–24.

Hill, W. W., & French, W. L. (1967). Perceptions of the power of department chairmen byprofessors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 548–574.

Hunt, S. D., & Nevin, J. R. (1974). Power in a channel of distribution: Sources and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 186–193.

Ji, M. F. (2002). Children’s relationships with brands: “True love” or “one-night stand”?Psychology & Marketing, 19, 369–387.

John, G. (1984). An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 278–289.

Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information.Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 324–333.

Katz, D., & Stotland, E. (1959). A prelimary statement to a theory of attitude structureand change. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (Vol. 3, pp. 423–475).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Keller, K. L. (1991). Cue compatibility and framing in advertising. Journal of MarketingResearch, 28, 42–57.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brandequity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.

Keller, K. L. (1999). Managing brands for the long run: Brand reinforcement and revi-talization strategies. California Management Review, 41, 102–124.

Keller, K. L. (2000). The brand report card. Harvard Business Review, 78, 147–157.


117

Kothandapani, V. (1971). Validation of feeling, belief, and intention to act as three components of attitude and their contribution to prediction of contraceptive behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 321–333.

Krech, D., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1948). Theory and problems of social psychology.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lau, K. C., & Phau, I. (2007). Extending symbolic brands using their personality: Exam-ining antecedents and implications toward brand image fit and brand dilution.Psychology & Marketing, 24, 421–444.

Lippitt, R., Polansky, N., & Rosen, S. (1952). The dynamics of power: A field study ofsocial influence in groups of children. Human Relations, 5, 37–64.

Liu, A. H., & Leach, M. P. (2001). Developing loyal customers with value-adding sales force:Examining customer satisfaction and the perceived credibility of consultative sales-people. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 21, 147–156.

Loken, B., & Roedder-John, D. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensionshave a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57, 71–84.

Lusch, R. F. (1976). Sources of power: Their impact on intrachannel conflict. Journal ofMarketing Research, 13, 382–390.

Machleit, K. A., Allen, C. T., & Madden, T. J. (1993). The mature brand and brand interest:An alternative consequence of ad-evoked affect. Journal of Marketing, 57, 72–82.

MacKenzie, S. B. (1986). The role of attention in mediating the effect of advertising onattribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 174–195.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad asa mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal ofMarketing Research, 23, 130–143.

MacKenzie, S. B., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1981). An analysis of alcohol advertising usingFrench and Raven’s theory of social influence. Advances in Consumer Research,8, 708–712.

Marks, L. J., & Kamins, M. A. (1988). The use of product sampling and advertising: Effectsof sequence of exposure and degree of advertising claim exaggeration on consumers’ beliefstrength, belief confidence, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 266–281.

Marks, L. J., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Toward a cognitive structure conceptualization ofproduct familiarity. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 145–150.

McCracken, G. (1993). The value of the brand: An anthropological persepctive. In D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel (Eds.). Brand equity and advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.,Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.

Mowen, J. C., Wiener, J. L., & Joag, S. (1987). An information integration analysis of howtrust and expertise combine to influence source credibility and persuasion. Advancesin Consumer Research, 14, 564.

Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitivecomponents of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 12–30.

Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The roleof product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 18, 185–193.

Raven, B. H., & French Jr., J. P. R. (1958). Group support, legitimate power, and social influence. Journal of Personality, 26, 400–409.

Raven, B. H., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. In P. Swigler (Ed.), Thestructure of conflict (pp. 69–109). New York: Academic Press.

Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral compo-nents of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and


118

change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Schermerhorn Jr., J. R. (2002). Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of

Consumer Research, 9, 287–300.Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: MacMillan.Skinner, S. J., Dubinsky, A. J., & Donnelly Jr., J. H. (1984). The use of social bases of

power in retail sales. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 4, 49–56.Smith, M. B. (1947). The personal setting of public opinions: A study of attitudes toward

Russia. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11, 507–523.Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1983). Attitude-behavior consistency: The impact of

product trial versus advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 257–267.Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence and work-group performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 52, 188–194.Sullivan, G. L., & O’Connor, P. J. (1985). Social power-based print advertising: Theoretical

and practical considerations. Psychology & Marketing, 2, 217–229.Swasy, J. L. (1979). Measuring the bases of social power. In W. L. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances

in consumer research (pp. 340–346). Ann Arbor, MI: The Association for ConsumerResearch.

Sweeney, J. C., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: Exploring the potential to movefrom factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 639–663.

Taylor, J. L., & Woodside, A. G. (1982). Effects on buying behavior of references to expertand referent power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 25–31.

Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley.Vergin, R. C., & Qoronfleh, M. W. (1998). Corporate reputation and the stock market.

Business Horizons, 41, 19–26.Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Wah, L. (1998). Unleashing the power of brands. Management Review, 87, 6.Walker, M., Langmeyer, L., & Langmeyer, D. (1992). Celebrity endorsers: Do you get what

you pay for? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9, 69–76.Warren, D. I. (1968). Power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations. American

Sociological Review, 33, 951–970.Warren, D. I. (1969). The effects of power bases and peer groups on conformity in formal

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 544–556.Wilkinson, I. F. (1973). Power and influence structures in distribution channels. European

Journal of Marketing, 7, 119–129.Woodside, A. G. (2004). Advancing means–end chains by incorporating Heider’s balance

theory and Fournier’s consumer–brand relationship typology. Psychology & Marketing,21, 279–294.

Woodside, A. G., & Davenport Jr., J. W. (1974). The effect of salesperson similarity andexpertise on consumer purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 11,198–202.

Woodside, A. G., & Pitts, R. E. (1975). Consumer response to alternative selling strategies:A field experiment. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 398–404.

Wright, P. L. (1975). Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. 2, 1–9.

Yagil, D. (2002). Substitution of a leader’s power bases by contextual variables. Interna-tional Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior, 5, 383–400.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12, 341–352.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Traci H. Freling, Assistant Pro-fessor of Marketing, University of Texas-Arlington, 217 Business Building, Arlington,TX76019 ([email protected]).


119

APPENDIX

Manipulation Checks and Dependent Measures

Manipulation Check—Nature of Brand Social Power

In your opinion, which statement best reflects the influence this brand has overconsumers?_____ This brand influences consumers through its favorable market share, cor-

porate reputation, and/or industry position. [legitimacy]_____ This brand influences consumers through its association with desirable

outcomes. [reward]_____ This brand influences consumers through its association with undesir-

able outcomes. [coercion]_____ This brand influences consumers through its industry knowledge and

experience. [expertise]_____ This brand influences consumers because of its similarity to them.

[reference]_____ This brand does not possess any special power over consumers.

Manipulation Check—Strength of Brand Social Power

Legitimate Brand Social Power (r � 0.78)

• Because of this brand’s position in its industry, I should use it.• If I were making a purchase in this product category, I would feel

obligated to purchase this brand.

Reward Brand Social Power (� � 0.76)

• Using this brand would make me feel good.

• I could move up in the eyes of others by using this brand.

• If I do not use this brand, I will not be rewarded.

Coercive Brand Social Power (� � 0.78)

• My friends and/or family would look down on me for not using this brand.

• Not using this brand could hurt my image.

• If I did not use this brand, I would consider it a failure.

Expert Brand Social Power (� � 0.88)

• This brand is a high-quality brand.

• I trust this brand.

• This brand is considered an innovator in its industry.

Referent Brand Social Power (� � 0.88)

• I want to be associated with this brand.

• I like this brand.

• This brand is a favorable brand.

• Being similar to this brand is good.


120

Legitimate Brand Social Power

• In terms of market share, this brand is a leader in its industry. (a)

• This brand has a strong, favorable reputation. (b)

• This brand is considered an authority in its industry. (c)

Reward Brand Social Power

• This brand has the ability to reward me in some manner if I use it. (a)

• The main reason for purchasing this brand would be to obtain good thingsin return. (b)

Coercive Brand Social Power

• I would be dissatisfied if I did not use this brand. (a)

• I should use this brand to prevent something unpleasant from happeningto me. (b)

Expert Brand Social Power

• This brand has a lot of experience and usually knows best. (a)

• This brand is more knowledgeable than me. (b)

Referent Power

• I can identify with this brand.

Overall Brand Social Power (� � 0.95)

• This brand is head and shoulders above its competitors. [legitimacy].

• I consider this brand to be the boss in this product category. [legitimacy]

• Using this brand would help me convey a positive image. [reward]

• I would receive satisfaction from using this brand. [reward]

• If I did not use this brand, I am sure I would feel bad. [coercion]

• To avoid disapproval from others, I should use this brand. [coercion]

• This brand’s expertise makes it more likely to be right. [expertise]

• This brand is intelligent. [expertise]

• This brand’s personality is similar to my own. [referent]

• This brand’s attitudes and values are similar to mine. [referent]

Attitude toward the Brand (� � 0.90)

• I feel that this brand is favorable . . . unfavorable.

• I feel that this brand is good . . . bad.

• I feel that this brand is likable . . . not likable.

• I feel that this brand is pleasant . . . not pleasant.


121

Purchase Intentions (� � 0.74)

• My purchasing this brand is very likely . . . not at all likely.

• My purchasing this brand is very probably . . . not at all probable.

• My purchasing this brand is very possible . . . not at all possible.

• My purchasing this brand is very certain . . . not at all certain.

Overall Brand Equity (� � 0.93)

• The image of this brand is the same as the other competing brands.

• The image of this brand represents what I would like to be.

• I would feel bad using this brand.

• I would not mind paying a higher price for this brand.

• If this brand is not readily available, I would be willing to go out of my wayto get it.

• I agree with the claim that this brand’s products are of good value.

• The quality of this brand is superior to other brands.

• This brand is most suitable to my needs.

• This brand is the most popular brand in its product category.

• When I need to buy a product in this category, I would think of this brandimmediately.

• When asked about brands in this category, this brand would come to mindimmediately.

Product Familiarity (� � 0.71)

• Regarding brands in this product category, I am unfamiliar . . . familiar.

• Regarding brands in this product category, I am inexperienced . . . experienced.

• Regarding brands in this product category, I am not knowledgeable . . .knowledgeable.

Documents

Does brand social power mean market might? Exploring the influence of brand social power on brand evaluations