Journal of Product & Brand Management

Brand loyalty: Exploring self-brand connection and brand experience

Liezl-Marie Kruger,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Liezl-Marie Kruger, "Brand loyalty: Exploring self-brand connection and brand experience", Journal of Product & Brand
Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2016-1281
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2016-1281
Downloaded on: 26 January 2018, At: 06:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:320271 []
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Brand loyalty: Exploring self-brand connection and brand experience

Abstract
Purpose – This paper determines one explanation for how the self-brand connection is associated
with brand loyalty through the brand experience. Brand experience should verify the self-brand
connection by acting as a mechanism through which a self-brand connection is associated with
brand loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained from 317 adults through paid Facebook
Boosting of an online survey, and analyzed using structural equation modelling.
Findings – Analyses confirm that brand experience fully mediates the association between self-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

brand connection and brand loyalty.

Research limitations / implications – Ensuring a positive brand experience is critical for brand
managers opting to maintain consumers’ self-brand connections and brand loyalty. Causality
suffered owing to the cross-sectional design of the study.
Practical implications – Self-brand connection is viewed as consumer-driven. However, by
identifying the brand experience to verify the self-brand connection and as a factor that mediates
the self-brand connection-loyalty relationship of consumers, brand experience is recognized as a
new factor which brand managers can control to manage self-brand connections and brand loyalty.
Originality / value – This paper is the first to apply self-verification theory to the self-brand
connection-loyalty relationship by explicating brand experience as a mediator of this relationship.
This paper argues self-verification is not context specific and lived experiences with the brand,
irrespective of context, establish consumer-brand relationships. This paper confirms the second-
order factor structure of the brand experience scale (Brakus et al., 2009) as a mediator in this self-
brand connection-loyalty model.

Key words: Self-brand connection, brand experience, brand loyalty, self-verification theory

Article classification: Research paper

Introduction

Mahatma Gandhi acknowledged the relevance of self-verification theory in saying, “Happiness is

when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony”. As consumers we strive for
such consistency in our views of ourselves, that is, our self-concept. Brands which have been
incorporated into our self-concept require that our resulting behavior and experiences must align
with the self-concept to minimize psychological discomfort. Such self-verification provides a sense
of prediction and control over the social environment, and is therefore important for establishing an
accurate and reliable self-concept (Swann and Read, 1981).

1
 Consumers have an innate drive to define and express themselves through the purchases they
make. Based on McCracken’s (1989) theory of meaning, meaning is transferred from the culturally
constituted world to brands and then onto consumers. Seminal work has indicated that consumers
direct their behavior to maintain or enhance their self-concept (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967), where
self-concept refers to the way consumers think and feel about who, and what, they perceive
themselves to be (Rosenberg, 1981). Consumers’ self-concept can be linked to a brand, resulting
in self-brand connections (Escalas and Bettman, 2003). These self-brand connections are very
subjective, consumer-driven personal relationships.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Self-brand connection is defined as the degree to which consumers incorporate the brand into their
self-concepts (Escalas and Bettman, 2003), which results in varied intensity levels of consumer-
brand relationships (Fournier, 1998). For example, a consumer with a strong self-brand connection
to Apple may view himself as thinking differently, linking his behavior and self-concept to Apple’s
slogan, and may feel like an innovator, linking his status to Apple’s as an innovation leader. He
therefore adopts Apple as a way to create, portray and express these characteristics of the self-
concept through consumption of the brand. So, consumers may describe the brand experience
associated with brands through relationships (Schmitt et al., 2015), thus demonstrating the
association between self-brand connection and brand experience, although previously unexplored.
Brakus et al. (2009:53) define brand experience “as subjective, internal consumer responses
(sensations, feelings and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli
that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, communications, and environments.” In
this paper, the cumulative brand experience of brand-related stimuli, fully reflecting the total
accumulation of ways consumers interact with and are affected by the brand, as recalled for a
favorite brand, was considered. As illustration, a consumer’s overall brand experience with Apple,
and not one single discrete interaction with brand-related stimuli, such as using the iPhone 7 for
the first time, is relevant for this paper. Both self-brand connection (Escalas and Bettman, 2003)
and brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009) is positively associated with brand loyalty, which, in
turn, also provides value to brands through continued and increased purchase intentions and
behavior, price insensitivity and recommendations (Oliver, 1999).

It is argued that brand experience, being a personal response when interacting with the brand
(Morgan-Thomas and Veloutsou, 2013), could be considered a self-verification process, as
interaction provides opportunity for self-verification (Swann and Read, 1981). In keeping with self-
verification theory, consumers act to validate and maintain salient self-concepts, such as the self-
brand connection, to avoid cognitive dissonance about who they are (Swann and Read, 1981).
Such self-verification would not only occur through the senses, or feelings, or behavior, or

2
 thoughts, but includes the total experience accumulated through all of the dimensions of the brand
experience when interacting with the brand stimuli.

The purpose of this paper is to test whether brand experience mediates the relation between self-
brand connection and brand loyalty. As highly visible reputable brands are more likely to be used
for self-concept expression (Gilovich et al., 2015), this paper hereby considers how self-brand
connections with favored reputable brands, brand experience and brand loyalty tie together for
self-verification. On the other hand, a brand experience that challenges, rather than verifies the
consumer’s existing self-brand connection may erode the self-brand connection and weaken brand
loyalty based on Swann and Read’s (1981) finding that failure to self-verify can alter the self-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

concept.

This paper aims to extend research on consumer-brand relationships by considering one possible
intervening variable (brand experience) in the self-brand connection-loyalty association,
considering both the direct and previously unexplored indirect relationships. In addition, the
validation of a scale for an important intervening variable - brand experience as a second-order
construct - is delivered. Hereby, this paper aims to make three contributions to the branding
literature. First, it is argued that an existing self-brand connection should be positively associated
with brand experiences. Second, this paper explores the indirect association between self-brand
connection and loyalty by being the first to apply a self-verification lens (Swann and Read, 1981) to
this relationship. The implication is that brand managers should have agency in managing
consumers’ self-brand connections and loyalty through the brand experience. Third, brand
experience is measured as a second-order construct composed of four underlying dimensions,
confirming the dimensionality of brand experience for future brand experience studies.

This paper begins by describing consumer-brand relationships in terms of self-brand connections,

arguing for its relation with brand experience and brand loyalty. The chosen method for
investigating these relationships is detailed and results are discussed. After discussion,
recommendations for brand managers are proposed and the paper concludes with the limitations
of the study.

Literature review

Theory relating to consumer-brand relationships is still evolving (Alvarez and Fournier, 2016).
Brands have more than just a practical product value; brands also offer symbolic value as they
create a form of identity for the consumer and aid self-expressive goals (Chernev et al., 2011; He
et al., 2012). Brands are a marketing tool to create experiences through relationships and
attachments for consumers, be it private or social (Schmitt et al., 2015). Some brands

3
 communicate self-expressive messages desired by the consumer (Escalas and Bettman, 2005).
Highly visible goods are well suited to conveying consumers’ self-concepts (Escalas and Bettman,
2003; Escalas and Bettman, 2005; Gilovich et al., 2015).

Consumers often integrate brands into their self-concept, thereby resulting in a “brand as self”
conceptualization (Cheng et al., 2012). Unwittingly or not, they contribute to multiple levels or
aggregate senses of self (Belk, 1988; Belk, 2013). When consumers integrate a brand into their
self-concept, a self-brand connection is formed which, in turn, constructs consumers’ self-concepts
(Escalas and Bettman, 2003). The strength of the self-brand connection is determined by the
degree to which the brands are symbolic of the user, that is, they communicate something about
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

the user (Escalas and Bettman, 2005). Self-brand connection is conceptually different from brand
engagement with self-concept (BESC), which captures a generic consumer propensity to use
favorite brands in constructing the self-concept (Dwivedi, 2014; Harmon-Kizer et al., 2013).
Additionally, while self-congruity refers to the similarity between consumers’ self-concepts and
brand images (Sirgy, 1982), or congruence between consumers’ self-concepts and the identity of
relevant companies (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003), self-brand connection encompasses the
degree to which a given brand is incorporated into the self-concept (Dwivedi, 2014). Self-brand
connection is thus considered as a self-concept connection which a specific consumer has with a
specific brand.

Psychology informs us that using symbols, such as brands, to express self-concept may increase
relational quality with such symbols (Mattingly and Lewandowski, 2013). Strong self-brand
connections cause consumers to maintain affection for a brand even if the brand is associated with
a negative consumer group by balancing the attributed symbolic meaning of that brand (Hammerl
et al., 2016).

Self-brand connection and brand loyalty

The relationship between consumers’ behavior and their self-brand connections has been a
vigorous area of scholarship in marketing. For example, self-brand connections affect private
(Giroux and Grohmann, 2015; Randhawa et al., 2015) and public (Ye et al., 2015) consumer
behavior including consumers’ word-of-mouth (Kwon and Mattila, 2015; Sicilia et al., 2016),
personal brand relational quality (Dwivedi, 2014), and post-purchase behavior (Dwivedi et al.,
2015; He et al., 2015). Self-brand connections are expected to create enduring positive brand
attitudes and brand loyalty (Escalas and Bettman, 2003). This paper proposes that one possible
explanation for the association between the self-brand connection and loyalty is found in self-
verification theory which stipulates that there is a strong drive to maintain self-conceptions (such as
a self-brand connection) through feedback, interaction with others, and the recollection of aspects

4
 of social interactions (Swann and Read, 1981). Self-verification theory is a prominent concept in
consumer behavior literature (Escalas, 2013), where researchers often consider situations
confirming conceptions of the self, for example through consumers engaging in charitable behavior
(Winterech et al., 2013) and positive attitude towards brand advertisements (Westjohn et al.,
2012), and the effect on brand relationships (Elbedweighy et al., 2016) as well as identity threats
(Ward and Broniarczyk, 2011). Chosen brands can be used to substantiate, create and to
(re)produce concepts of self (Fournier, 1998), and based on self-verification theory, consumers
would maintain their relationships with brands which have been incorporated in their self-concepts,
that is, brands with which consumers have self-brand connections, resulting in brand loyalty. Self-
verification thus necessitates interaction with the brand, which should therefore be associated with
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

brand loyalty as long as the relationship with the brand verifies the self-brand connection. It is
therefore hypothesized that:

H1: Self-brand connection is positively associated with brand loyalty while controlling for self-
verification.

The association between self-brand connection and brand loyalty may not only be direct as
previous research proposed. While self-verification may be present through remaining loyal to a
brand with which one has a self-brand connection, self-verification may work through a second,
indirect route: brand experience may be an intervening variable through which self-brand
connection is ultimately associated with brand loyalty. Brand experience may provide the
consumer with an opportunity to self-verify. Self-transformational benefits are not sufficient to
building lasting consumer-brand relationships; the brand experience must also be considered
(Trudeau and Shobeiri, 2016b). Consumers form self-brand connections as a result of lived
experiences (Fournier, 1998). Memorable, distinctive and affect-rich experiences have been found
to influence consumer-brand identification, which in turn affects brand loyalty (Stokburger-Sauer et
al., 2012). Consumers thus create attachment to the brand which is increased and reinforced
(Granitz and Forman, 2015) through the self-verification process. Brand experience may therefore
be important in understanding consumer-brand relationships (Schembri, 2009), specifically self-
brand connections. Previous research has not examined the possibility of brand experience as a
self-verification process and mediator between self-brand connection and brand loyalty.

Self-brand connection, brand experience and brand loyalty

Consumers do not simply acquire, use and dispose of products and services to satisfy needs, but
also purchase brands for the experience associated with relationships and attachments to them
(Schmitt et al., 2015). This involves rational and goal-orientated responses to the brand, and also
emotional processing of the total brand experience (Rose et al., 2011).

5
 Brand experience is collectively viewed as including sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual
dimensions, which together reflect the overall degree of a brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009).
Through consumption (interaction with the brand), consumers engage with numerous brand-
related stimuli. Responses to brand stimuli enhance brand recall (Kumar et al., 2013) and brand
associations (Chang and Chieng, 2006). More experience with a brand (measured in terms of
years of use) increases word-of-mouth (Karjaluoto et al., 2016). Brakus et al. (2009) find brand
experience, including sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual dimensions, is positively
related to brand loyalty. All four dimensions of brand experience provide an overall experience. For
example, sensory brand experience should result in aesthetic pleasure, enthusiasm, attractiveness
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

and contentment (Schmitt, 1999), while intense positive emotions towards a brand can cause
mental arousal (Patwardhan and Balasubramanian, 2011). Associating both the sensory and
affective brand experience with intellectual brand experience, in turn, increases interest in the
brand (Jung and Soo, 2012), and prompts behavior. However, just as all brands don’t evoke all
senses (an iPhone, for example, can’t be smelled or tasted), it stands to reason that brands are
experienced with different weights for each dimension of the brand experience.

By definition, brand experience relates to the consumer’s internal, personal response when
interacting with a brand (Morgan-Thomas and Veloutsou, 2013). In addition, social interaction is an
opportunity for self-verification (Swann and Read, 1981). Thus, interaction with brand stimuli, which
would be described as the brand experience, including the sensory, affective, behavioral and
intellectual dimensions (Brakus et al., 2009), would serve as a type of self-verification process.
Such self-verification would occur through the combination of experienced brand stimuli through
one’s senses, feelings, behavior and thoughts which one seeks, elicits and recalls for self-
verification purposes. For example, when thinking about your experience with a favorite brand, it is
not only the brand color, or feelings and thoughts associated with the brand, or the behavior
directed to the brand, but all of the dimensions combined which culminate in a total brand
experience. The cumulative brand experience of a favorite brand is relevant for this paper due to
the theoretical foundation of self-verification, which necessitates prior knowledge of and interaction
with the brand. This paper argues that the brand experience is a way of verifying the self-brand
connection, as self-verification theory stipulates that interaction (in our context, the brand
experience of a favorite brand) is used to verify the self-concept (Swann and Read, 1981). As
brands can be considered relationship partners, interactions with brand stimuli provide “feedback”
to the consumer through the brand experience that consumers use to verify their self-concepts.
This is because self-verification includes seeking information, eliciting reactions and recalling self-
verifying feedback (Swann and Read, 1981). Similarly, subjective sensory, affective, behavioral
and intellectual responses to brand related stimuli during exposure to brand stimuli when, for
example, searching or shopping for (seeking or eliciting phases of self-verification) and consuming

6
 (eliciting or recalling phases of self-verification) brands as described by Brakus et al. (2009), where
the brand is used as an interaction partner, can therefore verify existing self-brand connections.
This paper argues that there is a positive relationship between an existing self-brand connection
and the brand experience which verifies such a self-brand connection through interaction with
brand stimuli. It is, therefore, hypothesized that:

H2: Self-brand connection is positively associated with brand experience.

Consumers will act to create a reality for themselves and in the social environment to verify their
opinions or views of themselves (Swann and Read, 1981). One such view may be their self-brand
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

connection (Escalas and Bettman, 2003). Although consumers with a strong self-brand connection
use self-governing processes maintaining their self-brand connections to manage the interaction
with the brand (Cheng et al., 2012), strong self-brand connections do not always protect the brand
from negative information (Angle and Forehand, 2015; Camurdan et al., 2015). The inability to self-
verify may result in changing the self-concept (Swann and Read, 1981) which would negatively
impact the self-brand connection-loyalty association. However, self-brand connections provide
consumers with a sense of security (Rindfleisch et al., 2009), which, if perceived to be verified by
the brand experience as a self-verification process, would reinforce this sense of security. The
overall cumulative brand experience one recalls would therefore serve as self-verification process.
Therefore brand experience could be viewed as the mechanism intervening in the association
between self-brand connection and brand loyalty.

Studies on the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty argue for the
consideration of mediation effects in the form of relationship quality (Francisco-Maffezzolli et al.,
2014) and affective commitment (Iglesias et al., 2011), supporting this paper’s contention that the
consumer’s sense of relation to the brand in terms of self-brand connection should play a central
role in determining brand loyalty. However, it is argued here that the brand experience as a self-
verifying process accounts for the reason why the self-brand connection-loyalty association occurs.
Recently proposed as antecedent to consumer-brand relationships (Trudeau and Shobeiri, 2016b),
brand experience could thus be a mechanism determining whether the self-brand connection and
resulting brand loyalty is maintained or eroded based on self-verification theory. Should the
consumer’s brand experience verify the self-brand connection, brand loyalty will most likely be
maintained. It is therefore hypothesized that:

H3: Brand experience mediates the association between self-brand connection and brand loyalty.

7
 Methodology

Research design

Following past brand experience research (Trudeau and Shobeiri, 2016a) an on-line cross-
sectional survey was used to obtain data concerning the purchase of respondents’ favorite brands.
For the purpose of this paper, product category was not deemed important as the evaluation of
targets applies irrespective of product category (Zhang and Aggarwal, 2015).

Sampling and data collection

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

An online purchase necessitates the search for specific items, which may be branded, and involves
risk. To minimize risk, consumers purchase known brands to which they are loyal as a form of risk
aversion (Matzler et al., 2008). Thus, this paper contends that there is a high likelihood of
purchasing a favorite brand online, with minimal risk if the consumer has an ongoing, trust-based
relationship with the brand. This study concerns consumer-brand relationships specifically with
regard to self-brand connections. In the absence of a sampling frame for respondents who have
favorite brands (and possible existing self-brand connections), the researcher utilized Facebook’s
consumer behavior analytics, specifically targeting individuals who had purchased online, in order
to increase participation in this study. The target population for this paper encompassed South
African adults, eighteen (18) years and older, who had an active Facebook account, whose
demographic information on Facebook showed an interest in online shopping and who had
purchased a brand online within the past six (6) months (to ensure that top of mind recall of brands
purchased online would be possible).

Respondents were invited to participate in the study through a paid Facebook advertisement on
targeted individuals’ Facebook feeds, linking back to the Facebook page of a local online business.
This process of paying for advertisements on Facebook is referred to as Boosting. Using
Facebook’s advertising tools, the specific Facebook post containing the link to the Qualtrics survey
was Boosted three times over a six week period at two week intervals. The Facebook post
included an incentive for participating in the study, with respondents being entered into a lucky
draw to win an iPad Mini 16GB. The researcher ensured that the Boost complied with Facebook’s
rules and policies regarding advertising, as well as the ethical guidelines of the institution
employing the author of this paper. To minimize the cost of Boosting, and as the researcher knew
that an iPad Mini 16GB would be a sufficient incentive for the context, only South African Facebook
users were targeted. Furthermore, South Africa is one of the BRICS nations, each of which has its
own idiosyncrasies (Sreejesh et al., 2016), not least of which is that the country has a mixture of
different cultures reflected in its 11 official languages (Tibane, 2016). South Africa thus provides a
8
 rich, amenable environment for considering consumer-brand relationships in a multicultural
developing country, answering the call for research in such a context (Stockburger-Sauer et al.,
2012). In this context, significant socioeconomic, cultural and regulative departures are evident in
the institutional assumption of Western developed countries, which impact relationships and
constructs (Burgess and Steenkamp, 2006).

A total of 1059 surveys was started by respondents who accepted the terms and conditions of the
survey and competition, and 664 respondents (63%) answered “Yes” to the screening question as
to whether they had engaged in purchasing brands online within the last six (6) months. Finally, a
realized sample of 317 respondents was deemed sufficient for data analyses based on exclusion
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

of cases of extreme missing values. Extreme missing values could be due to respondents starting
the survey because of a desire to qualify for the research incentive (an iPad Mini 16GB) but
abandoning it due to survey length. The realized sample size was comparable to that of previous
studies investigating similar constructs (Escalas and Bettman, 2003; Trudeau and Shobeiri,
2016a).

Survey design

In order to identify possible survey problems, the survey was pretested by means of a link to the
survey on Qualtrics among 30 respondents representing our target population. Based on the pre-
test, to help respondents gain a better understanding of what was defined as a brand, examples
were presented in both the screening question of the survey (for example, Apple, Le Creuset,
Country Road, Nike, Nine West, Russell Hobbs, Guess) as well as with each question relating to
brands in the survey.

The final survey was divided into three sections. Section A gathered information through multiple
choice questions regarding each respondent’s online shopping habits, such as the reasons why
online purchases were made. In this section, an open-ended option for each question allowed
respondents to indicate their reason through selecting ‘Other’ if not listed as one of the specified
options. Section B measured the respondent’s brand experience, self-brand connection and brand
loyalty with regard to their favorite brand purchased online. Section B utilized a seven point Likert
scale in which 1 represented Strongly disagree and 7 represented Strongly agree. Self-brand
connection was measured by adapting the items used by Escalas and Bettman (2003) to use the
same Likert scale throughout the questionnaire, and dividing the double barreled statement I
consider Brand X to be ‘me’ (it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I want to present
myself to others) into two separate statements. Self-brand connection was therefore measured
with eight statements. Brand experience was measured by adapting the items used by Brakus et
al. (2009) and consisted of twelve statements. The items were adapted to rephrase previously

9
 reverse scored items in the same direction as other items, as done by Trudeau and Shobeiri
(2016a). Lastly, brand loyalty was measured by the items used by Keller (2001) and consisted of
seven statements. All items were rephrased to apply to respondent’s favorite brand purchased
online. Section C collected demographic information such as gender and the average amount
spent per online brand purchase.

Data analyses

Descriptive statistics were calculated in SPSS Version 23 (IBM SPSS, 2015). Reliability and
validity of the measures were analyzed through confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS Version 23
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

(IBM SPSS Amos, 2015). To test the hypotheses, structural equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS
Version 23 (IBM SPSS Amos, 2015) was done. By examining curve estimation in SPSS the
linearity of relationships between self-brand connection and brand experience, brand experience
and brand loyalty as well as self-brand connection and brand loyalty were examined, and all
relationships were found to be linear (p < 0.005 for all three relationships). Bootstrapping with the
bias-corrected confidence interval was used owing to non-normal data to correct for the possible
inflation of results (Enders, 2005). Bollen-Stine bootstrapping was used to reflect the asymmetry of
the data (Bollen and Stine, 1990).

The model fit indices included the normed Chi-square, with guidelines ranging between a 2:1 and
3:1 ratio (Kline, 2011), the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), where a value
of 0.90 or higher is satisfactory (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) with values ranging up to 0.08 considered as appropriate (Van de Schoot
et al., 2012). Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested in the same model, followed by mediation analysis to
examine Hypothesis 3. For the mediation analysis, the association between self-brand connection
and brand loyalty was first determined by eliminating the path from self-brand connection to brand
experience, after which the indirect effect was considered. The conditions for mediation
recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) were applied for this paper, and SEM was used to
address possible measurement error (Baron and Kenny 1986). In this way, the relation between
self-brand connection and brand experience was determined, and similarly, the relation between
brand experience and brand loyalty was determined. And when controlling for these associations,
the previously significant relationship between self-brand connection and brand loyalty became
non-significant. Competing models were considered until a final conclusion was made about the
best model based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) values, which considers the balance
between fit and complexity, and therefore the model with the lowest BIC is considered to be the
best (Posada and Buckley, 2004; Van de Schoot et al., 2012).

10
 Results

Sample profile

The majority of respondents were female (85.5%). This was anticipated, owing to the fact that
online shoppers in South Africa tend to be predominantly female (Van Zyl, 2015). A majority of
female participants would not hinder the investigation of the hypothesized relationships. With
regard to age, respondents selected the year in which they were born with the youngest
respondent being born in 1997 and the oldest respondent in 1953 (mean age = 44 years old). As
demonstrated from the mean for the average spend per online purchase of a brand (R2244.96),
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

and the mean for gross income reported (R27200.70), respondents could and did spend money on
reputable brands. However, the majority of respondents were not regular online shoppers of
reputable brands, with 5.4% purchasing bi-weekly, 19.6% purchasing monthly, and 73.2%
purchasing every few months, while only 1.9% purchase reputable brands online on a weekly
basis. Three main reasons for purchasing reputable brands online from a multiple choice multiple
option question included convenience and being able to shop when they want to (77.9%), time
efficiency in comparison to visiting brick and mortar shops (57.4%) and the availability of products
which can’t be found elsewhere (49.5%), while discrete shopping (9.8%) and reviews from other
shoppers (19.9%) were some of the least selected options chosen as reasons for purchasing
reputable brands online. Two postgraduate students examined respondents’ listed favorite brands,
and verified that all chosen brands could be considered as reputable brands.

Confirmatory factor analysis

In order to investigate convergence in measurement and discriminant validity of the scales used in
this paper, a confirmatory factor analysis was done. To determine the appropriate factor structure
for the brand experience scale, two measurement models were compared. The measurement
model with brand experience as a second-order reflective construct with four underlying
dimensions used as indicators, namely sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual (BIC =
954.415), was compared to the measurement model with the sensory, affective, behavioral and
intellectual dimensions as first-order reflective constructs (BIC = 955.471). Owing to the BIC value
being smaller and indicating the best model fit (Posada and Buckley, 2004; Van de Schoot et al.,
2012), brand experience was included in the model as a second-order reflective construct with the
four underlying dimensions (as proposed by Brakus et al., 2009). Sample results support the
validation of brand experience as a second-order reflective construct with four underlying
dimensions. Previously, individual thematic interviews were used to examine brand experience
(Lundqvist et al., 2013). In the majority of quantitative studies, the dimensions of brand experience
have been used to profile consumers through cluster analysis (Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2010), to

11
 examine social currency as antecedent to brand experience (Trudeau and Shobeiri, 2016a), as
well as to examine brand experience as antecedent to brand equity (Zarantonello and Schmitt,
2013), satisfaction and loyalty (Walter et al., 2013). Nysveen et al. (2013) found “acceptable but
not very good model fit” when using brand experience as proposed by Brakus et al. (2009) as a
second-order construct in their structural model. Although it is stated by Iglesias et al. (2011) that
brand experience was used as a second-order construct in their model, the standardized item
squared loadings for the four dimensions’ items are presented separately, and not as indicators of
brand experience. Examining brand experience as a second-order construct was not only
theoretically supported in our model but is also an important empirical contribution of this paper.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Three items from the self-brand connection measure with low standardized weights negatively
affecting reliability were removed from further analyses. The average variance extracted (AVE) for
all factors were above 0.5. The standardized weights (S.W.) and AVE for all factors are presented
in Table 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further results of the confirmatory factor analysis (descriptive statistics, reliabilities, square root of
the Average Variance Extracted and correlations) for the three main constructs of our study,
namely self-brand connection, brand experience and brand loyalty are provided in Table 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 2 here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Table 2 it is evident that all values for scale reliability, that is, Cronbach’s alphas and
Jöreskog’s rho, were above 0.7, indicating good reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Furthermore, the
average variance extracted (AVE) for all factors was above 0.5, an acceptable amount of variance
explained (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), indicating convergence in measurement (Bagozzi, 1981). It
can be deduced that large, positive correlations (Cohen, 1988) exist between self-brand
connection and brand experience (r=0.824), and between brand experience and brand loyalty
(r=0.575), while a medium positive correlation between self-brand connection and brand loyalty
was found (r=0.495).

To investigate discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE should be higher than the
correlation between two factors (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Although the correlations between the
four brand experience dimensions and self-brand connection (sensory r=0.628; affective r=0.697;

12
 behavioral r=0.513; intellectual r=0.517) were lower than the square root of the AVE for self-brand
connection, the discriminant validity of self-brand connection and the second-order brand
experience factor should be further investigated as this correlation (r=0.824) was larger than the
square root of the AVE. Therefore, a Chi-square difference test, as proposed by Shiu et al. (2011),
between the unconstrained and constrained model was considered to confirm whether self-brand
connection and the second-order brand experience are in fact two separate constructs. A value
larger than 3.84 with the 1 degree of freedom (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), along with the confidence
interval for the correlations which does not contain unity with correlations significantly different from
1.00 at the 0.05 level (Bagozzi et al., 1991), is sufficient proof that self-brand connection and the
second-order brand experience are distinct constructs and would thus indicate discriminant validity
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

(Shiu et al., 2011). The Chi-square difference test (Chi-square difference = 53.314, df = 1) and bias
corrected confidence interval for the correlation (BBCI Lower = 0.753, BBCI Upper = 0.877)
therefore confirm discriminant validity between self-brand connection and the second-order brand
experience (which is from here on referred to as brand experience in this paper).

The measurement model was found to fit the data acceptably. The relative Chi-square (CMIN/df =
637.676/245 = 2.603) was below 3. The CFI (0.915), TLI (0.904) and RMSEA (0.071, [LO90 =
0.064; HI90 = 0.078]) indicated good model fit.

Testing hypotheses 1 and 2

To examine the relationships between self-brand connection and brand loyalty (H1), self-brand
connection and brand experience (H2), as well as brand experience and brand loyalty (previously
established), structural paths were added to the model. The non-normal distribution of the data
necessitated the use of the Bollen-Stine bootstrap and the bias corrected confidence interval
(BBCI) to assess significant effects during model estimation (Bollen and Stine, 1990; Enders,
2005). The results of Hypotheses 1 and 2 are presented in Figure 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The structural model presented in Figure 1 to test Hypotheses 1 and 2 (Model 1, see Table 3)
resulted in good overall model fit (CMIN/df = 637.676/245 = 2.603; CFI = 0.915; TLI = 0.904;
RMSEA = 0.071 [LO90 = 0.064; HI90 = 0.078]). By including the structural path from self-brand
connection to brand experience, the association between self-brand connection and brand loyalty
was non-significant (0.066; two-tailed p-value = 0.635 [BBCI Lower = -0.253; BBCI Upper =
0.362]). H1 stating that self-brand connection is positively associated with brand loyalty while

13
 controlling for self-verification is therefore not supported. However, brand experience had a
significant positive association with brand loyalty (0.521; two-tailed p-value = 0.004 [BBCI Lower =
0.260; BBCI Upper = 0.850]). Furthermore, self-brand connection had a significant positive
association with brand experience (0.824; two-tailed p-value = 0.007 [BBCI Lower = 0.754; BBCI
Upper = 0.878]). H2 stating that self-brand connection is positively associated with brand
experience is therefore supported. Results reflect that self-brand connection is not directly
associated with brand loyalty when the path from self-brand connection to brand experience is
included in the model. Also, brand loyalty does not directly reflect the self-brand connection when
controlling for self-verification through brand experience.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Testing hypothesis 3

In order to explore further the direct and indirect relations between self-brand connection and
brand loyalty mediated through brand experience, the relation between self-brand connection and
brand loyalty was first determined by eliminating the path from self-brand connection to brand
experience (competing Model 2, see Table 3), after which the indirect association was considered
(Model 1, see Table 3). With regard to the direct relationships, results indicated a significant
positive relationship between self-brand connection and brand loyalty when the path from self-
brand connection to brand experience was excluded (0.254; two tailed p-value = 0.02 [BBCI Lower
= 0.061; BBCI Upper = 0.407]). As evident from testing Hypotheses 1 to 3, when considering
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) conditions for mediation, the relation between self-brand connection and
brand experience was significant (0.824; two-tailed p-value = 0.007 [BBCI Lower = 0.754; BBCI
Upper = 0.878]), the relation between brand experience and brand loyalty was also significant
(0.521; two-tailed p-value = 0.004 [BBCI Lower = 0.260; BBCI Upper = 0.850]), and when
controlling for these effects, the previously significant relationship between self-brand connection
and brand loyalty became non-significant (0.066; two-tailed p-value = 0.635 [BBCI Lower = -0.253;
BBCI Upper = 0.362]). Bootstrap results of the indirect relationship also revealed a significant
association between self-brand connection and brand loyalty mediated through brand experience
(0.429; two-tailed p-value = 0.004). H3 stating that brand experience mediates the association
between self-brand connection and brand loyalty is therefore supported. Based on Zhao et al.’s
(2010) classification, this paper found support for indirect-only mediation, or full mediation as Baron
and Kenny (1986) originally classified this type of mediation, whereby the association of self-brand
connection and brand loyalty is mediated through brand experience.

Competing models

The hypothesized and tested model was compared to three competing models owing to the fact
that full mediation was observed during the data analyses and that previous studies have used the

14
 brand experience dimensions separately rather than as loadings on a second-order construct in
data analyses (Trudeau and Shobeiri, 2016a; Walter et al., 2013; Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2010).
The first competing model (Model 2) had no path from self-brand connection to brand experience,
and only included the paths from self-brand connection and brand experience to brand loyalty. The
second competing model (Model 3) used the four underlying brand experience dimensions as
separate mediators between the association of self-brand connection and brand loyalty. The third
competing model (Model 4) was the full mediation model as supported in our hypotheses testing,
with no direct path from self-brand connection to brand loyalty in the model. The Bayesian
Information Criterion (BIC) values for each of the competing models were considered, where the
model with the lowest BIC is considered to have the better balance between fit and complexity
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

(Posada and Buckley, 2004; Van de Schoot et al., 2012). All model fit indices including the BIC
values of the hypothesized model and the three competing models are presented in Table 3.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the analyses and as indicated in Table 3, although the fit indices of Model 1, our
hypothesized model and Model 4, the full mediation model are very similar, owing to the BIC value
of Model 4 being the smallest (BIC = 948.895), the full mediation model is the model of best fit. In
the full mediation model, self-brand connection had a significant positive relationship with brand
experience (0.828; two tailed p-value = 0.005 [BBCI Lower = 0.766; BBCI Upper = 0.884]), brand
experience had a significant positive relationship with brand loyalty (0.583; two tailed p-value =
0.007 [BBCI Lower = 0.490; BBCI Upper = 0.665]), and Bootstrapping results for the indirect
relationship also revealed a significant association between self-brand connection and brand
loyalty mediated through brand experience (0.483; two-tailed p-value = 0.006). Results support the
conception that the self-brand connection-loyalty association is better understood by including
brand experience as self-verification process and thus as mediator for this association.

Discussion and recommendations

Maintaining consumers’ self-brand connections would benefit brands in the modern competitive
marketing environment. Previous research on self-brand connection established relational
outcomes thereof (Dwivedi, 2014). However, self-brand connection entails that consumers
themselves either incorporated the brand into their self-concepts, or not (Escalas and Bettman,
2003). This paper’s model supports that brand experience – importantly, which is adaptable by
brand managers – plays a role in transferring the effects of self-brand connection onto brand
loyalty.

15
 In contrast to previous findings (Escalas and Bettman, 2003), results from this paper indicated that
brand experience fully explains the relation between self-brand connection and brand loyalty, that
is, this is a fully mediated relationship. Extant research shows a direct relationship between self-
brand connection and brand loyalty. This relationship is reexamined here to include a potentially
important but previously unexplored mediator – brand experience – as self-verification process.
When disregarding the brand experience, self-brand connection is positively associated with brand
loyalty, as found in previous studies. However, self-brand connection is not directly associated with
brand loyalty when taking into account the brand experience. Instead brand experience is
associated with brand loyalty, and self-brand connection is associated with brand experience and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

works through self-verification that can arise from the brand experience to be associated with
brand loyalty. While building strong relationships with consumers is important, brand loyalty may
not necessarily occur. Brand experience will determine whether the self-brand connection is
maintained or abandoned, and whether self-brand connection is associated with brand loyalty.
Brand experience intervenes in the association between self-brand connection and brand loyalty.
Omitting brand experience will result in inaccurate conclusions about the nature of the self-brand
connection-loyalty relationship.

Self-brand connection is, however, positively related to brand experience. These results mean that
should consumers have self-brand connections, their brand experiences would serve as a self-
verification process. Brand experience can thus be considered as a self-verification process.
Respondents who integrated the brand into their self-concepts positively associated the brand
experience with such self-brand connections, which provides preliminary evidence of a previously
unrecognized but important role of brand experience. Consumers have self-concepts that they
want to verify, and through the brand experience they get the opportunity to do so. Hereby the
brand experience may be elicited, used for feedback and selectively recalled to form a positive
experience with the brand, which in turn, reinforces the self-brand connection. The reason behind
consumers choosing to maintain self-brand connections and brand loyalty only with certain brands
is further explicated through the mediated association the brand experience provides. Practically,
consumers’ self-verification through the brand experience thus afford brand managers the
opportunity to further benefit from self-brand connections. Not only will consumers maintain their
relationships with brands, but their brand experience would be perceived in a rose colored manner
by selectively viewing the brand experience to self-verify existing self-brand connections. Although
self-brand connection and the perceived brand experience are subjective for each consumer,
brand experience has a dual role, which can be leveraged by brand managers: by maintaining self-
brand connections and/or by being positively perceived based on self-brand connections. An
optimal brand experience would be the mechanism through which self-brand connection is
associated with brand loyalty.

16
 Moreover, brand experience was positively related to brand loyalty, as proposed by Brakus et al.
(2009). It is recommended that enhancing brand experience should be a priority to obtain brand
loyalty, and for brands wishing to move their transactional consumers, supporting the brand as and
when it is deemed necessary instead of building relationships with brands, to relational ones who
invest in maintaining the relationship with the brand, by capitalizing on consumers’ possible self-
brand connections. Functional brands can be positioned by using emotional appeals, while
symbolic, emotionally laden brands in turn could utilize some utility component (Iyer et al., 2016),
to enhance the sensory, affective, behavioral and cognitive dimensions of consumers’ brand
experiences, resulting in a total brand experience.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Furthermore, in support of the argument that weak consumer-brand relationships should receive
attention (Alvarez and Fournier, 2016; Fournier, 1998), it is advised that brand experience could
also be used in weak consumer-brand relationships to strengthen the bond between the consumer
and the brand. Although self-brand connection is an internal cognitive process, brand managers
may use the brand experience to their advantage; if brand managers can create multi-dimensional
brand experiences that enable consumers to verify existing self-brand connections, brand loyalty
should be positively affected through the proposed indirect association where brand experience
intervenes between self-brand connection and loyalty. The implication is that brand managers
should have agency in managing consumers’ self-brand connections and loyalty through the brand
experience. When a brand such as Apple then creates a logo with the clear image of an apple
which can be seen, and the iPhone which is touched (sensory dimension), establishing an
emotional connection with current customers as the iPhone is used in one’s personal and
professional capacity when making memories, and amongst other things, capturing these with
photos (affective dimension), pushing the consumer to utilize the camera (behavioral dimension)
and creates excitement by stimulating curiosity about the unveiling of the new iPhone 7 (intellectual
dimension), four dimensions work together to create a brand experience not easily forgotten.

By identifying brand experience as mediator for consideration in future research examining the
self-brand connection-loyalty association, the importance of validating a scale to measure brand
experience is paramount. Successfully validating brand experience as a second-order construct in
this paper is another important contribution. Depending on theories they employ, future scholars
may investigate relations between brand experience as a second-order construct including
sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual dimensions, and other constructs as done in this
model. Or, they may wish to propose relations between specific dimensions and various other
constructs of interest.

17
 Contributions

Theoretically, this paper positioned brand experience as a self-verification process which explained
the association between self-brand connection and brand loyalty. In other words, self-verification is
the underlying principle governing the self-brand connection from the consumer’s perspective. This
paper contributes to literature on self-brand connection by theoretically accounting for its relations
with brand experience and brand loyalty. This paper therefore extends previous research on
consumer-brand relationships to include brand experience as mediator between consumers’ self-
brand connections and brand loyalty. Furthermore, a scale for brand experience as second-order
construct is validated. In contrast to most previous studies on brand experience (Trudeau and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Shobeiri, 2016a; Walter et al., 2013; Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2013; Zarantonello and Schmitt,
2010), the dimensionality of brand experience is confirmed as a second-order construct with four
underlying dimensions, namely, sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual. Such a multi-
dimensional view on the brand experience can accommodate all brand inquiries considering the
total consumer brand experience, instead of framing the experience based on a singular
experience dimension relating to a particular context. The use of the scale proposed by Brakus et
al. (2009) in the context of this multicultural developing country, South Africa, validates the scale
further. In sum, this paper revealed brand experience fully explained the relationship between self-
brand connection and brand loyalty, thereby providing one avenue for brand managers to consider
when attempting to maintain or enhance consumers’ self-brand connections and brand loyalty.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

While the cross-sectional design may reduce external validity and prohibits causal inferences, the
use of Facebook advertisements through Boosting is proposed as a data collection method for
developing countries where obtaining sampling frames remain challenging and resources are
constrained. The results may have been more conservative in a more gender-balanced sample as
previous research found females to have stronger self-brand connections (Moore and Homer,
2008). Owing to the exploratory nature and theoretical contribution of this paper, it is
recommended that future research should address validity concerns, in line with the
recommendation of Taylor and Asmundson (2008). Furthermore, brand trust also influences brand
loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; He et al., 2012). Before consumers will form any kind of
relationship with a brand, such as a self-brand connection, brand personality should engender trust
(He et al., 2012). Trust could in future be considered as moderator for the relationships between
consumers’ self-brand connections, their brand experiences and brand loyalty. Also, the volatility of
these relationships with regard to negative discrete brand experiences did not fall within the scope
of this paper; the question as to how one would manage negative discrete brand experiences with
self-verification motives is still unanswered. Future research could shed light on the point where

18
 discrete negative brand experiences would overshadow the cumulative brand experience and
where such failure of verifying the self-brand connection would result in abandoning the self-brand
connection and brand loyalty. Arguably, self-verification theory (Swann and Read, 1981) would
have us believe that one would first look for alternative and other/more methods of verification for
the self-brand connection if brand experience fails in one discrete instance, but that continuous
failure to self-verify would have detrimental consequences for the self-brand connection. Despite
external validity concerns, this paper contributes to understanding consumers’ self-brand
connections and illuminating a way for brand managers through brand experience to manage such
self-brand connections. Evidence confirming brand experience to be a second-order construct with
four underlying dimensions is also provided.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Acknowledgements
The contribution of two postgraduate students for data collection, namely Ms Robin Baptiste and
Ms Michelle Du Plessis, as well as the use of Macaroon Collection’s Facebook page for data
collection purposes is deeply appreciated and acknowledged. Furthermore, the author gratefully
acknowledges Professor Jenny Hoobler, Professor Stella Nkomo, Professor Julie Ruth and Dr
Jacques Nel, as well as two anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Product and Brand
Management for constructive comments on previous drafts of this manuscript.

References

Alvarez, C. and Fournier, S. (2016), “Consumers’ relationships with brands”, Current Opinion in
Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 129-135.

Angle, J.W. and Forehand, M.R. (2015), “It’s not us, it’s you: How threatening self-brand
association leads to brand pursuit”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 183-197.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: A comment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 375-381.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the Evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-64.

Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizational
research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp.1173-1182.

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: A framework for

understanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2,
pp.76-88.

19
 Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 139-168.

Belk, R.W. (2013), “Extended self in the digital world”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 40 No.
3, pp. 477-500.

Bollen, K.A. and Stine, R. (1990), “Direct and indirect effects: Classical and Bootstrap estimates of
variability”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 20, pp. 115-140.

Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B. H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: What is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.

Burgess, S.M. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (2006), “Marketing renaissance: How research in emerging
markets advances marketing science and practice”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Vol. 23 No. 4, pp.337-356.

Camurdan, E., Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Monga, A.B. (2015), “When strong self-brand connections
don’t protect brands: Achievement mindsets and brand dilution”, in Rodas, M.A. and Torelli, C.J.
(Eds.) A Holistic View of Consumer-Brand Connections, in Diehl, K., Yoon, C. and Duluth, M.N.
(Eds.) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 43, pp. 183-184, available at:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1019763/volumes/v43/NA-43 (accessed 22 January 2016).

Chang, P.L. and Chieng, M.H. (2006), “Building consumer–brand relationship: A cross‐cultural
experiential view”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 927-959.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: The role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.

Chernev, A., Hamilton, R. and Gal, D. (2011), “Competing for consumer identity: Limits to self-
expression and the perils of lifestyle branding”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 66-82.

Cheng, S.Y.Y., White, T.B. and Chaplin, L.N. (2012), “The effects of self-brand connections on
responses to brand failure: A new look at the consumer-brand relationship”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 280-288.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.:

Dwivedi, A. (2014), “Self-brand connection with service brands: Examining relationships with
performance satisfaction, perceived value, and brand relationship quality”, Services Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 37-53.

Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L.W. and McDonald, R.E. (2015), “Celebrity endorsement, self-brand
connection and consumer-based brand equity”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.
24 No. 5, pp. 449-461.

Enders, C.K. (2005), “An SAS macro for implementing the modified Bollen-Stine bootstrap for
missing data: Implementing the bootstrap using existing structural equation modeling software”,
Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 620-641.

Elbedweighy, A.M., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M.H. and Elsharnouby, T.H. (2016),
“Customer relationship building: The role of brand attractiveness and consumer-brand
identification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 2901-2910.

Escalas, J.E. (2013), “Self-identity and consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
39 No. 5, pp. xv-xviii.

20
 Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The influence of reference
groups on consumers' connections to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.
339-348.

Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 378-389.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-353.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Francisco-Maffezzolli, E.C., Semprebon, E. and Muller Prado, P.H. (2014), “Construing loyalty
through brand experience: The mediating role of brand relationship quality”, Journal of Brand
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 446-458.

Gilovich, T., Kumar, A. and Jampol, L. (2015), “A wonderful life: Experiential consumption and the
pursuit of happiness”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 152-165.

Giroux, M. and Grohmann, B. (2015), “Activating multiple facets of the self: How identity facets and
brand personality can influence self-brand connections”, in Diehl, K., Yoon, C. and Duluth, M.N.
(Eds.) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 43, pp. 538-539, available at:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1019960/volumes/v43/NA-43 (accessed 22 January 2016).

Granitz, N. and Forman, H. (2015), “Building self-brand connections: Exploring brand stories
through transmedia perspective”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 38-59.

Grubb, E.L. and Grathwohl, H.L. (1967), “Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior:
A theoretical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 22-27.

Hammerl, M., Dorner, F., Foscht, T. and Brandstätter, M. (2016), “Attribution of symbolic brand
meaning: The interplay of consumers, brands and reference groups”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 32-40.

Harmon-Kizer, T.R., Kumar, A., Orinau, D. and Stock, J. (2013), “When multiple identities compete:
The role of centrality in self-brand connections”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp.
483-495.

He, Y., Chen, Q. and Alden, D.L. (2015), “Time will tell: Managing post-purchase changes in brand
attitude”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, DOI:10.1007.

He, H., Li, Y. and Harris, L. (2012), “Social identity perspective on brand loyalty”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 648-657.

IBM SPSS Amos. 2015. AMOS® 23.0 for Windows, release 23.0.0, Copyright© by IBM SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois. http://www.spss.com

IBM SPSS. 2015. SPSS® 23.0 for Windows, release 23.0.0, Copyright© by IBM SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois. http://www.spss.com

Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2011), “The role of brand experience and
affective commitment in determining brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 570-582.

Iyer, P.P., Paswan, A.K. and Davari, A. (2016), “Brands, love and family”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 69-83.

21
 Jung, L.H. and Soo, K.M. (2012), “The effect of brand experience on brand relationship quality”,
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 87-98.

Karjaluoto, H., Munnukka, J. and Kiuru, K. (2016), “Brand love and positive word of mouth: The
moderating effects of experience and price”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp.527-537.

Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands”,
working paper, Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series, No. 01-107, pp. 1-31.

Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd edition. The Guilford
Press, New York, New York.
Kumar, R.S., Dash, S. and Purwar, P.C. (2013), “The nature and antecedents of brand equity and
its dimensions”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 141-159.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Kwon, E. and Mattila, A.S. (2015), “The effect of self-brand connection and self-construal on brand
lovers’ word of mouth (WOM)”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 427-435.

Lundqvist, A., Liljander, V., Gummerus, J. and Van Riel, A. (2013), “The impact of storytelling on
the consumer brand experience: The case of a firm-originated story”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 283-297.

Maltzer, K., Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Bidmon, S. (2008), “Risk aversion and brand loyalty: The
mediating role of brand trust and brand affect”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 154-162.

Mattingly, B.A. and Lewandowski, G.W. (2013), “The power of one: Benefits of individual self-
expansion”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 12-22.

McCracken, G. (1989), “Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement
process”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 310-321.

Mittal, B. (2015), “Self-concept clarity: Exploring its role in consumer behaviour”, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 98-110.

Moore, D.J. and Homer, P.M. (2008), “Self-brand connections: The role of attitude strength and
autobiographical memory primes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61, No. 7, pp. 707-714.

Morgan-Thomas, A. and Veloutsou, C. (2013), “Beyond technology acceptance: Brand

relationships and online brand experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 21-
27.

Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Skard, S. (2013), “Brand experiences in service organizations:
Exploring the individual effects of brand experience dimensions”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 404-423.

Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 Fundamental
Issues and Directions for Marketing, pp. 33-44.

Patwardhan, H. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2011), “Brand romance: A complementary approach

to explain emotional attachment toward brands”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.
20 No. 4, pp. 297–308.

Posada, D. and Buckley, T.R. (2004), “Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics:
Advantages of Akaike Information Criterion and Bayesian approaches over Likelihood ratio tests”,
Systematic Biology, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 793-808.

22
 Randhawa, P., Calantone, R.J. and Voorhees, C.M. (2015), “The pursuit of counterfeited luxury:
An examination of the negative side effects of close consumer-brand connections”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 68, No. 11, pp. 2395-2403.

Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E. and Wong, N. (2009), “The safety of objects: Materialism,
existential insecurity, and brand connection”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 1-
16.

Rose, S., Hair, N. and Clark, M. (2011), “Online customer experience: A review of the business‐to‐
consumer online purchase context”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 24-39.

Rosenberg, M. (1981), “The self-concept: Social product and social force”, in Rosenberg, M. and
Turner, R. H. (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives, Basic Books, New York, NY,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

pp. 593-624.

Schembri, S. (2009), “Reframing brand experience: The experiential meaning of Harley–Davidson”,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 12, pp. 1299-1310.

Schmitt, B. (1999), “Experiential marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,
pp. 53-67.

Schmitt, B., Brakus, J.J. and Zarantonello, L. (2015), “From experiential psychology to consumer
experience”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 166-171.

Shiu, E., Pervan, S.J., Bove, L.L. and Beatty, S.E. (2011), “Reflections on discriminant validity:
Reexamining the Bove et al. (2009) findings”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp.
497-500.

Sicilia, M., Delgado-Ballester, E. and Palazon, M. (2016), “The need to belong and self-disclosure
in positive word-of-mouth behaviours: The moderating effect of self-brand connection”, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 60-71.

Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300.

Sreejesh, S., Sarkar, A. and Roy, S. (2016), “Validating a scale to measure consumer’s luxury
brand aspiration”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 465-478.

Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S. and Sen, S. (2012), “Drivers of consumer-brand

identification”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No.4, pp. 406-418.

Swann, W.B. and Read, S.J. (1981), “Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-
conceptions”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 351-372.

Taylor, S. and Asmundson, G.J.G. (2008), “Internal and external validity in clinical research”, in
McKay, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in abnormal and clinical psychology, SAGE
publications, Fordham University, pp. 23-34.

Tibane, E. (2016), “A pocket guide to South Africa 2014/15: South Africa’s people”,
http://www.gcis.gov.za/sites/www.gcis.gov.za/files/docs/resourcecentre/pocketguide/PocketGuide-
people.pdf (accessed 5 October 2016).

Trudeau, S. and Shobeiri, H.S. (2016a), “Does social currency matter in creation of enhanced
brand experience?”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 98-114.

23
 Trudeau, S.H. and Shobeiri, S. (2016b), “The relative impacts of experiential and transformational
benefits on consumer-brand relationship”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25
No.6, pp. 586-599.

Van De Schoot, R., Lugtig, P. and Hox, J. (2012), “A checklist for testing measurement invariance”,
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 486-492.

Van Zyl, G. (2015), “Women are SA’s most active online shoppers”, available at:
http://www.fin24.com/Tech/News/Women-are-SAs-most-active-online-shoppers-20150327
(accessed 29 June 2015).

Walter, N., Cleff, T. and Chu, G. (2013), “Brand experience’s influence on customer satisfaction
and loyalty: A mirage in marketing research?”, International Journal of Management Research and
Business Strategy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 130-144.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Ward, M.K. and Broniarczyk, S.M. (2011), “It’s not me, it’s you: How gift giving creates giver
identity threat as a function of social closeness”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp.
164-181.

Westjohn, S.A., Singh, N. and Magnusson, P. (2012), “Responsiveness to global and local
consumer culture positioning: A personality and collective identity perspective”, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol, 20 No 1, pp.58-73.

Winterich, K.P., Mittal, V. and Aquino, K. (2013), “When does recognition increase charitable
behavior? Toward a moral identity-based model”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 121-134.

Ye, S., Li, J., Zeng, Z. and Hao, S. (2015), “Research on the impact of social circles on self-rand
connection: Regulation of self-awareness and brand value”, Open Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 155-162.

Zarantonello, L. and Schmitt, B.H. (2010), “Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers
and predict consumer behaviour”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 532-540.

Zarantonello, L. and Schmitt, B.H. (2013), “The impact of event marketing on brand equity”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 255-280.

Zhang, M. and Aggarwal, P. (2015), “Looking ahead or looking back: Current evaluations and the
effect of psychological connectedness to a temporal self”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.
25 No. 3, pp. 512-518.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths
about mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.

L Kruger Short CV
Liezl-Marié Kruger is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing Management at the
University of Pretoria, South Africa. Her research focuses on consumer relational psychology
specifically related to the self-concept and identity. She has published in the South African Journal
of Business Management and the South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences.

24
 Brand loyalty: Exploring self-brand connection and brand experience

Table 1: Standardized weights and AVE of all factors

Factor Item S. W. AVE
This luxury brand reflects who I am 0.864
I can identify with this luxury brand 0.824
Self-brand
I feel a personal connection with this luxury brand 0.802 0.630
connection
I use this luxury brand to communicate who I am to other people 0.722
I consider this luxury brand to reflect who I consider myself to be 0.747

This luxury brand makes a strong impression on my visual sense

Sensory 0.658
or other senses
brand 0.628
I find this luxury brand interesting in a sensory way 0.906
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

experience
This luxury brand appeals to my senses 0.794

Affective This luxury brand induces feelings and sentiments 0.805

brand I have strong emotions for this luxury brand 0.878 0.637
experience This luxury brand is an emotional brand 0.701

I engage in physical actions and behaviours when I use this

Behavioral 0.857
luxury brand
brand 0.621
This luxury brand results in bodily experiences 0.768
experience
This luxury brand is action oriented 0.733

Intellectual I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this luxury brand 0.889
brand This luxury brand makes me think 0.943 0.758
experience This luxury brand stimulates my curiosity and problem solving 0.771

Second- Sensory brand experience 0.763

order Affective brand experience 0.846
0.520
brand Behavioral brand experience 0.623
experience Intellectual brand experience 0.628

I consider myself loyal to this luxury brand 0.724

I buy this luxury brand whenever I can 0.717
I buy as much of this luxury brand as I can 0.702
I feel this is the only luxury brand of this product I need 0.693
Loyalty 0.536
This is the one luxury brand I would prefer to buy/use 0.708
If this brand was not available, it would make a big difference to
0.740
me if I had to use another luxury brand
I would go out of my way to use this luxury brand 0.830

Table 2: Descriptive statistics, reliabilities (α and C.R.), square root of the average variance
extracted (AVE) and correlations
Construct Mean SD α C.R. (1) (2) (3)
(1) Self-brand connection 3.919 1.595 0.893 0.894 0.793*
(2) Second-order brand 4.083 1.236 0.754 0.810 0.824 0.721*
experience
(3) Loyalty 4.335 1.522 0.888 0.889 0.495 0.575 0.732*
Note: α = Cronbach’s alpha; C.R. = Jöreskog’s rho (composite reliability); *values in the main
diagonal are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE); values below the diagonal
are correlations.
 Table 3: Competing models
Competing models
Model 4: Full
Model 2: Direct
Model 3: Brand mediation model
Model 1: paths of self-brand
Fit experience (no direct path
Hypothesized connection and
indices dimensions as from self-brand
mediation model brand experience
mediators connection to
to loyalty
loyalty)
CMIN/df 637.676/245 = 841.747/246 = 688.670/243 = 637.915/246 =
2.603 3.422 2.834 2.593
CFI 0.915 0.871 0.903 0.915
TLI 0.904 0.855 0.890 0.905
RMSEA 0.071 0.088 0.076 0.071
[LO90 = 0.064; [LO90 = 0.081; [LO90 = 0.070; [LO90 = 0.064;
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

HI90 = 0.078] HI90 = 0.094] HI90 = 0.083] HI90 = 0.078]

BIC 954.415 1152.728 1016.927 948.895
 Brand loyalty: Exploring self-brand connection and brand experience

Figure 1: Hypotheses 1 and 2 (hypothesized model) with path estimate results

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 06:35 26 January 2018 (PT)

Note: Estimate provided in brackets; * = significant, p < 0.05