Brand Anthropomorphism

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong: The Detrimental Effect of Brand
Anthropomorphization Amid Product Wrongdoings

Author(s): Marina Puzakova, Hyokjin Kwak and Joseph F. Rocereto
Source: Journal of Marketing , May 2013, Vol. 77, No. 3 (May 2013), pp. 81-100
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of American Marketing Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23487435
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23487435?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Marketing Association and Sage Publications, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing
This content downloaded from

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marina Puzakova, Hyokjin Kwak, & Joseph F. Rocereto
When Humanizing Brands Goes

Wrong: The Detrimental Effect of
Brand Anthropomorphization Amid
Product Wrongdoings
The brand relationship literature shows that the humanizing of brands and products generates more favorable
consumer attitudes and thus enhances brand performance. However, the authors propose negative downstream
consequences of brand humanization; that is, the anthropomorphization of a brand can negatively affect
consumers' brand evaluations when the brand faces negative publicity caused by product wrongdoings. They find
that consumers who believe in personality stability (i.e., entity theorists) view anthropomorphized brands that
undergo negative publicity less favorably than nonanthropomorphized brands. In contrast, consumers who
advocate personality malleability (i.e., incremental theorists) are less likely to devalue an anthropomorphized brand
from a single instance of negative publicity. Finally, the authors explore three firm response strategies (i.e., denial,
apology, and compensation) that can affect the evaluations of anthropomorphized brands for consumers with
different implicit theory perspectives. They find that entity theorists have more difficulty in combating the adverse
effects of brand anthropomorphization than incremental theorists. Furthermore, they demonstrate that
compensation (vs. denial or apology) is the only effective response among entity theorists.
Keywords: brand anthropomorphization, implicit theory, negative publicity, product wrongdoings, response strategies
phism as a positioning strategy for their brands. In baere, McQuarrie, and Phillips 2011).
Marketing
general, practitioners frequently
this marketing communication use anthropomor-
technique However, anthropomorphization
the awareness of intentions triggers the per (Aggarwal and McGill 2007; Del
creates favorable consumer reactions, such as increased ception of intentional action, as well as responsibility for
product likability, enhanced positive emotions, and more this action (Waytz, Gray, et al. 2010). As such, an anthropo
favorable attributions of brand personality (Delbaere, morphic positioning of a brand can have negative repercus
McQuarrie, and Phillips 2011). Such anthropomorphic rep- sions if the brand is perceived as responsible for its wrong
resentations trigger consumers' perceptions of brands as liv- doings. Given the potential negative repercussions of brand
ing entities with their own humanlike motivations, charac- anthropomorphization in these instances, it is critical to
teristics, conscious will, emotions, and intentions (Epley understand whether humanizing a brand can backfire when
and Waytz 2009; Kim and McGill 2011). Overall, prior product failure occurs and which factors may facilitate or
research has largely focused on the positive sides of brand inhibit these negative sides of brand anthropomorphization.
In the marketplace, brands positioned with anthropomor
phic features can receive negative publicity caused by their
Marina Puzakova is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Business, product wrongdoings. For example, in 2006, M&M
Oregon State University (e-mail: marina.puzakova@bus.oregonstate. hranded men0rahs were recalled because of a notential fire
edu). Hyokjin Kwak is Associate Professor of Marketing, LeBow College branded menorahs were recalled because ot a potential tire
of Business, Drexel University (e-mail: hkwak@drexel.edu). Joseph F. hazard. Later, m 2008, M&M s received additional negative
Rocereto is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Leon Hess Business publicity when traces of melamine, a poisonous substance,
School, Monmouth University (e-mail: jroceret@monmouth.edu).This arti- were found in M&M candies. Do consumers respond to
cle is based on the first author's doctoral dissertation, which was the run- negative publicity of product wrongdoings less favorably
ner-up for the 2012 Mary Kay Doctoral Dissertation Competition award by when a brand is humanized9
the Academy of Marketing Science. The authors are grateful to the three failures ^ pervasive. For example, according
anonymous JM reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive . , t „ „ j , „ . , . . . ®
suggestions. Many thanks go to Rolph E. Anderson (Drexel University), t0 the U,S- Fo° and g Administration, the number of
Trina Larsen Andras (Drexel University), and Charles R. Taylor (Villanova product recalls in 2011 increased nearly 14% compared
University) for their invaluable input during the various stages of the devel- with that in 2010, from 2,081 to 2,363 (Doering 2012).
opment of this article. In particular, the authors are grateful to Ji Kyung However, academic research is silent as to whether such
Park (University of Delaware) for her enormous effort and time directed product wrongdoings are more harmful to the image of
toward the methodological portion of this article. Barbara Kahn served as anthropomorphized brands. With this research, we attempt
area editor for this article. to m ^ gap ¡n ±t in ^ ways First> we
© 2013, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing
ISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic) 81 Volume 77 (May 2013), 81-100

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
demonstrate that negative publicity caused by product ing on the application of certain social beliefs (i.e., implicit
wrongdoings has a more detrimental impact on consumers' theories of personality) to humanized brands (Experiments
brand impressions when the brand is humanized than when 2a, 2b, and 3). Third, our conceptualization of the moderat
it is not. The theoretical premise is that consumers perceive ing impact of implicit theories enables us to theoretically
brands endowed with human features as being mindful and and managerially explore which firm response strategies
possessing intentions. People have a fundamental tendency marketers can use to reduce the adverse effects of negative
to attribute others' behaviors to stable traits rather than to publicity for anthropomorphized brands (Experiment 3).
unstable contextual influences (Gawronski 2004); therefore,
consumers may attribute product wrongdoings to stable » . ■■ ... .
traits of humanized brands and consider them responsible. AnthrO
The extent to which people perceive an entity as responsi- AntnrO
ble for an action directly drives their willingness to punish Anthropomorphism invo
this entity for its negative behavior (Epley and Waytz effortful thinking, emot
2009). Thus, if consumers view anthropomorphized brands to nonhuman objects
as performing actions intentionally, their evaluations of the Waytz, and Cacioppo 200
brands' wrongdoings should be more negative than those of theorizes the facto
nonhumanized brands. anthropomorphize nonhuman entities (Epley, Waytz, and
Second, we demonstrate that, when a brand is anthropo- Cacioppo 2007; Waytz, Morewedge, et al.
morphized, the adverse effects of negative publicity depend tors include cognitive aspects, such as the ac
on a significant consumer-based factor—namely, implicit human knowledge at the moment of judgm
theory of personality—which determines the extent to 2008), and motivations, such as the need
which people attribute behaviors to stable traits rather than environment and satisfy belongingne
to contextual factors (Levy, Stroessner, and Dweck 1998; Morewedge, et al. 2010). Research, howe
Molden, Plaks, and Dweck 2006). That is, we show that investigating how anthropomorphization
consumers who believe in the stability of personality traits changes in attitudes and shifts in beliefs. The
(i.e., entity theorists) are more likely to devalue a brand that changes occur mainly for three reasons. Fir
performs negatively when the brand is anthropomorphized. phizing nonhuman entities leads to the attrib
This is because entity theorists consider a single wrongdoing fulness to these entities, which renders the
a manifestation of an underlying negative trait and a reli- agents who have their own conscious goa
able indicator of ongoing future transgressions. Conversely, (Epley and Waytz 2009). For example, the res
consumers who view personality traits as more malleable computer-generated agent to a human evo
(i.e., incremental theorists) do not form impressions based ceptions of intelligence, trustworthiness
on a single transgression and do not deem a single misbe- ness of this agent (Nass, Isbister, and Le
havior a predictor of a future pattern of action. Thus, they the attribution of mindfulness in nonhuman
are less likely to modify their evaluations of an anthropo- people to perceive them as capable of ex
morphized brand's product wrongdoings. tions and to grant them moral value (Waytz, G
Third, an understanding of the consumer side of the 2010). For example, Gray, Gray, and Wegn
negative effect of brand anthropomorphization leads us to that greater attributions of mindfulness to no
explore the firm side. We provide initial exploratory evi- ties correlate with liking for the entity an
dence of the role of firms' strategic responses to the adverse tect it and make it happy. Finally, anthropo
effects of a humanized brand's product wrongdoing. To human agents drives people to perceive th
make this incremental contribution, we theorize and test forming impressions and being able to
three strategic firm responses: denial, apology, and compen- (Epley and Waytz 2009). For example, a
sation. The differences between entity and incremental the- puter agent increases people's beliefs th
orists in their perceptions of the stability of a negative brand scrutinized and leads them to respond in a
performance suggest that not all firm response strategies are desirable manner (Waytz, Gray, et al. 2010)
equally effective in managing consumers' negative évalua- Researchers have further conceptualiz
tions of humanized brands' product wrongdoings (Chen, nisms underlying the effects of anthro
Ganesan, and Liu 2009; Dawar and Pilluda 2000; Dutta and evaluations. In particular, the extent of th
Pullig 2011). human schémas (i.e., cognitive knowledge about an
In summary, five experiments provide important theo- attribute formed on the basis
retical and managerial contributions to the brand anthropo- human features of a nonhuman en
morphism and negative publicity literature. First, to our of the entity (Aggarwal and Mc
knowledge, this research is the first to demonstrate the thought to occur due to (1) a greater s
negative downstream consequences of humanizing a brand from the perceived congruity betwee
when consumers are exposed to negative brand perfor- activated human schémas and (2
manee caused by product wrongdoings (Experiments la affect from a human schema to
and lb). Second, this research enriches the theoretical and McGill 2007). Furthermore, the
understanding of anthropomorphism by providing insights product (e.g., the shape of a bottle)
into how the effect of anthropomorphism can differ depend- by personal pronouns, or mention
82 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
(vs. third) person all affect brand liking (Aggarwal and with high social power because they tend to perceive it as
McGill 2007; Landwehr, McGill, and Herrmann 2011). less risky and thus expose themselves to more risk. How
Along the same lines, when people are exposed to personi- ever, our research is conceptually different from this work
fication metaphors—that is, images that portray a product on the negative role of brand anthropomorphism; we derive
involved in human behavior—they access their human our underpinnings of the negative aspects of brand anthro
schemas to comprehend the images (Delbaere, McQuarrie, pomorphization from an external factor that is not inherent
and Phillips 2011). In turn, they experience perceptual flu- to brand humanization per se—that is, negative publicity,
ency (i.e., the ease of processing humanized stimuli), result- For example, Aggarwal and McGill (2007) investigate the
ing in greater product liking. effects of different types of brand humanization (e.g., good
twins humanization, evil twins humanization) on product
evaluations, whereas the current research investigates the
Brand Anthropomorphization on effects of neutral brand humanization on the processing of
Product Wrongdoings negative publicity.
We propose that the anthropomorphization of a branded Factors that augment consumers' perceptions o
product activates human schémas. Furthermore, this brand's intentionality should affect their brand evaluation
process occurs spontaneously. The activated knowledge of Thus, if humanizing a brand leads to perceptions of th
human schémas connects with a brand's representations brand as more responsible for its actions, negative publici
through associative networks and affects what people think caused by product wrongdoing is likely to lead to le
of a brand. For example, repetitive exposure to a branded favorable consumer evaluations when a brand is anthrop
product infused with features morphologically similar to a morphized than when it is not anthropomorphized,
human (e.g., the humanlike shape of the Mrs. Butterworth's
bottle of syrup) consistently activates human schémas and, H>: ?e.gative ^rand ¡nfonnation caused by a product wrong
.i. ,iL t i fL L j . . , r doing results in less favorable attitudes toward an anthro
through the network of human-brand associations, transfers pomorphized brand than
to an anthropomorphic impression of a brand.
The anthropomorphization of agents leads consumers to
perceive them as capable of having reasoned thoughts and Exp6
intentional actions. The intentional nature of an action cre
We conducted two experiments to explore Hj. Experi
ates the perception that an entity is responsible for its
la investigates an existing brand in the health supplem
actions and thus deserves punishment for wrongdoings
product category, Airborne. This brand recently exper
(Gray, Gray, and Wegner 2007). This tendency is explained
a backlash of negative publicity on the validity of its
by the notion that intentional agents behave according to
benefit claims. In Experiment lb, we replicate our fin
thoughtful underlying reasons that are under their control
with a fictitious brand of an orange juice beverage, O
(Caruso, Waytz, and Epley 2010). Such sensitivity to inten Vie.
tional actions also explains why people get angry with
mindless technological devices when they perceive them Participants, Design, and Procedure
as "intentionally performing" such behaviors (Waytz,
Morewedge et al 2010) In exchange for extra credit, 39 (40) undergraduate students
Prior research has established that a brand's wrongdoings enrolled in marketing courses at a private East Coast un
determined to be intentional are perceived more negatively versity participated in Experiment la (Experiment lb). At
than actions categorized as accidental (Folkes 1984; Klein beginning of Experiment la, participants received a
and Dawar 2004). That is, consumers may perceive the questionnaire and were asked to indicate their level of
locus of responsibility for a failure as internal and brand familiarity with the brand and prior attitude toward the
related or external and context related (Laufer and Gillespie brand. Next, they were exposed to an Airborne advertise
2004). For example, Klein and Dawar (2004) demonstrate ment. At the beginning of Experiment lb, participants
that consumers lowered their brand evaluations when they immediately viewed an advertisement for a product and then
blamed the firm for a product failure. Similarly, Monga and were exPosed t0 negative information about the brand pre
John (2008) show that when consumers attributed Mercedes- sented in a report from consumerist.com (see Web Appen
Benz's manufacturing problems to contextual rather than d'x W1 at www.marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix).
brand-related factors, their attitudes toward the brand Next, participants were asked to provide their evaluations
increased. In essence, attributions of responsibility to a °f Airborne (Orange Vie). Finally, participants answered
brand negatively affect consumers' evaluations of that several questions to ensure that the manipulations held and
bran(j then completed a brief demographic questionnaire section.
Recent work in marketing has documented adverse After both experiments, participants w
downstream effects of anthropomorphism. For example, suspicion probe. None of the particip
Aggarwal and McGill (2007) posit that anthropomorphiza- nature of the research question.
tion of a product based on a primed human schema may
Anthropomorphism Manipulation and Pretest
generate either worse or better product evaluations, depend
ing on the valence of the schema. Furthermore, Kim and We developed two color print adv
McGill (2011) argue that anthropomorphizing an entity that experiment. In Experiment la, th
bears risk might have negative repercussions for consumers brand advertisement depicted the
When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong 18

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
legs and arms, and the ad copy was written in the first per- same items as in the pretest; aExp la = .91, otExp lb = .93).
son (e.g., "I am Airborne. My focus is to support your We then measured trust in the brand (rExp la = .91,/? < .05;
immune system.") The nonanthropomorphized brand adver- rExp lb = .96, p < .05) on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 =
tisement contained a package of the brand without human- "strongly disagree," and 7 = "strongly agree") with two
like limbs, and the copy was in the third person. In Experi- items (i.e., dependable and reliable). Participants also rated
ment lb, we achieved brand anthropomorphization by the extent to which they perceived the information in the
creating a brand with humanlike behavior. For the stimuli in article as negative (1 = "strongly disagree," and 7 =
Experiment lb, we constructed two advertisements, each "strongly agree"). We assessed involvement with the infor
portraying an image of a bottle of orange juice in a beach mation with two items (i.e., 1 = "very uninvolved, paid very
setting. Specifically, in the anthropomorphized brand condi- little attention," and 7 = "very involved, paid a lot of atten
tion, the bottle was depicted as sitting on a beach chair and tion"; rExp la = .73,p < .05; rExp lb = .86,p < .05).
wearing a human hat (Figure 1). The nonanthropomor
phized brand advertisement presented the same bottle on a Results
table next to a beach chair. Manipulation checks. One-sample t-tests revealed that
In a pretest (nExp la = 26, nExp lb = 44), participants saw consumers perceived the article as providing negative infor
the advertisements and then responded to a two-item mea- ma[10n (M u = 5.97. t(38)diff from 4 = 8.45, p < .05;
sure on the degree to which the Airborne (Orange Vie) M ib = 5 95; t(39)diff from 4 = 9.35, p < .05). Participants'
brand had a mind of its own and its own beliefs and desires invoïvement did not differ statistically across ad types for
(e.g., 1 = "not at all appear to have mind of its own," and 7 = both experiments (ps > ,10). Finally, in Experiment la, all
"definitely appears to have a mind of its own" [Waytz, participants indicated that they were not familiar with the
Morewedge, et al. 2010]; rExp la - .85, p < .05; rExp lb - negative news they had read in the report about the Air
.45, p < .05). Participants in the anthropomorphized brand borne brand
condition perceived Airborne (Orange Vie) as having more
of a mind of its own and its own beliefs than those in the Hypothesis test. In Experiment la, we entered familiar
nonanthropomorphized brand condition (Airborne: Manth = ity with and prior attitude toward the Airborne brand in the
4.71, Mnonanth = 3.71; F(l, 24) = 4.37,p < .05; Orange Vie: data analysis as covariates. However, their effects were
Manth = 4.29, Mnonanth = 3.30; F(l, 41) = 5.71,p < .05). To insignificant, and thus, we dropped them from further
rule out the alternative explanation that the humanized analysis. As H] predicted, the results of both Experiments
advertisement might lead to greater brand liking, we col- la and lb revealed that participants had less favorable atti
lected an additional measure of brand attitude (four items tudes toward and less trust in the anthropomorphized (vs.
on a seven-point scale; 1 = "unfavorable, bad, unpleasant, nonanthropomorphized) brand after exposure to the nega
dislike," and 7 = "favorable, good, pleasant, like"; aExp la = live consumerist.com report. In a multivariate analysis of
•91, aExp. ib = .94). The results of the pretest showed that no variance, with attitude toward and trust in the Airborne
significant differences in brand attitudes emerged across the (Orange Vie) brand as the dependent variable, the effect of
two types of advertisements for both experiments (p > .10). anthropomorphization was significant (Wilks's A,Exp la = .84,
F(2, 36) = 3.41, p < .05; Wilks's kExp. Ib = .83, F(2, 37) =
Measures 3.90, p < .05). That is, brand anthropomorphization led to
We asked participants to indicate their attitudes toward and less favorable attitudes towar
trust in the Airborne (Orange Vie) brand (measured with the 3.04, MExp la nonanth = 3.84; F(1,
FIGURE 1
Manipulations of Anthropomorphized Versus Nonanthropomorphized Brands: Experiment 1b
Nonanthropomorphized Anthropomorphized
841 Journal of Marketing, May 2013

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
ib anth = 2.48, MExp lb nonanth = 3.35; F(l, 38) = 5.65, p < theory view (Dweck, Chiu, and Hong 1995; Levy, Chiu,
.05) and less trust in the brand (MExp la anth = 2.52, MExp la and Hong 2006). For example, Hong et al. (1999) find that
nonanth = 3.39; F(l, 37) = 6.07,p < .05; MExp lb anth = 2.15, increased exposure to mass media images that emphasize
MExp lb nonanth = 3.00; F(l, 38) = 6.16, p < .05). individual differences between citizens of Hong Kong and
mainland China during the political turnover in 1997
Discussion resulted in more people becoming entity theorists.
Experiments la and lb consistently demonstrate that the In general, people rely on implicit theories to e
marketing tactics of brand anthropomorphization combined interpret, and predict human behavior (Dweck and Mo
with negative publicity on these brands harmfully affect 2008). Implicit theories affect the way people (1)
consumers' brand attitudes and trust. As such, the negative sonality trait information to make inferences ab
effect of brand humanization differs from the positive role causes of behaviors (Dweck, Chiu, and Hong 1995; Hon
of anthropomorphism documented in previous research. al. 2004) and (2) form judgments of others from a p
Although in general, brand humanization boosts con- instance of behavior (Plaks, Levy, and Dweck 2009).
sumers' brand liking and familiarity, it also increases con- researchers suggest that entity theorists believe
sumers' perceptions of intentionality of a brand's negative behavior observed in a certain situation is a reliab
actions. Moreover, in our experiments, the negative effect tor a corresponding personality trait (Chiu, Hon
of brand anthropomorphization on consumers' processing Dweck 1997). In contrast, incremental theorists foc
of negative publicity held when we manipulated anthropo- on contextual information because they believe th
morphism with both a direct ascription of human features to change and cannot be relied on when making judgme
a package (i.e., humanlike limbs), coupled with a brand's <Dweck and Molden 2008kIn essence' Molden> Plak
message written in first person, and a more subtle represen- Dweck (200b)establish that after initially categorizing
tation of a humanlike behavior (i.e., sitting on a beach chair W* of behavior is Performed, incremental theorists f
and wearing a hat) characterize behaviors in terms of the person's situati
demands, whereas entity theorists explicate behaviors in
terms of the person's traits. Second, additional streams of
The Role of Implicit Theory of research stress that entity theorists expect behaviors
Personality consistent over time and across situations, because peop
.»i ,. , ... . i . . actions are stable manifestations of their underlying traits
Attributing humanlike mental states to an anthropomor- . . , J ,fc
, . , , , , . , ., . . ,. f (Ross and Nisbett 1991). That is, entity theorists make more
phized brand prompts consumers to apply their beliefs _. ... ' . .... , , ,
confident predictions of the stability of an acto
about the social world when judging them. For example,
based on a single act (Chiu, Hong, and Dwec
social psychology researchers have found that people who
... ... , ..... , . contrast, incremental theorists require more examples of
attribute humanlike mental capabilities to nonhuman enti- . , , . , t .
, , . . , , behavior to render a robust judgment of a person (Plaks et
ties are likely to grant these entities moral worth and value. , ,. . ., , . , ,, . .. .. ,
„ , „ , JTTr r. , , , al. 2001). That is, they do not hold static conceptions of
For example, Epley and Waytz.(2009) find that people were le and do not e ec{ a beh
more hesitant to destroy IBM s legendary computer, Big (Levy and Dweck 1999)
Blue when they perceived it as mindfuL in marketing, Kim In ^ wit
and McGill (2011) demonstrate that consumers apply their ¡ncreases ^ {endency tQ a
feelings of social power only when an object (e.g., a slot anthropomorphized agent, w
machine) is anthropomorphized but not when the device different theories of personal
lacks humanlike features. In this research, we examine performance of an anthropom
whether consumers attributions of responsibility to the morphized brand in different
anthropomorphized brand confronting negative media cov- orists are likely t0 view a
erage are qualified by the application of implicit theories of anthropomorphized brand as an
personality that is, lay beliefs about the malleability of brand characteristics. They
traits and attributes related to the self and the environment single wrongdoing a stable and
(Poon and Koehler 2008; Skowronski 2002). As we men- which they can rely to make p
tioned previously, entity theorists believe that personality tjve brand performance. T
traits are fixed and expect a high degree of consistency in sumers perceive an anthro
behavior, whereas incremental theorists believe that person- responsible for its negativ
ality is malleable and view behavior as varying, either over reliable and stable manifestation
time or across situations (Dweck, Chiu, and Hong 1995). tics, entity theorists are likel
Prior research has suggested that these implicit theories tudes toward an anthropomo
develop as a result of socialization practices (e.g., parental morphized brand. In contrast
feedback), accumulated personal experiences that highlight focus on trait information
trait versus situational forces, and everyday contextual cues behaviors after being ex
(Dweck, Chiu, and Hong 1995; Poon and Koehler 2008). (Dweck, Chiu, and Hong 1995;
However, implicit theories can be activated by use of they are likely to view a bran
changes in real-life occurrences, exposure to persuasive unstable and temporal. Thus
arguments, or media evidence that advocates a particular anthropomorphized brand as
When Humanizing Brands Goes Wron

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
not likely to rely on a single, negative act to form an overall reach significance for attitudes toward the brand (measured
judgment of the brand and, as a result, are not likely to with the same items as in Experiments la and lb; a = .91;
judge its wrongdoing more negatively than that of a nonan- Manth = 4.44, Mnonanth = 4.64; p >.10) or for perceptions of
thropomorphized brand. Here, note that we do not expect ad believability (measured on a seven-point scale with three
implicit theory to affect the way consumers view a nonan- items: "not at all believable/highly believable," "unconvinc
thropomorphized brand's negative performance. This is due ing/convincing," and "untrustworthy/trustworthy"; a = .90;
to our theoretical assumption that consumers are likely to Manth = 4.56, Mnonanth = 4.55; p > .10). Negative information
apply their implicit theory views only to anthropomor- about the SuperAct brand appeared in a consumerist.com
phized brands. This assumption is driven by prior research report (see Web Appendix W2 at www.marketingpower.com/
that demonstrates that consumers apply beliefs about the jm_webappendix).
social world to nonhuman entities (e.g., slot machines, dis
ease, brands) only when these entities are anthropomor Implicit Theory Manipulation
phized. For example, Aggarwal and McGill (2012) find no Following prior research (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck 1997;
effect of brand priming on behavior when a brand is repre- Park and John 2010), we induced implicit theories of per
sented as an object. However, they find that consumers sonality by having participants read an article that presented
behave in a manner consistent with a brand's image when views that corresponded with either incremental or entity
they view it in human terms. theory. This is consistent with the idea that implicit theories
IT „ . r . ,, can be situationally activated by exposure to persuasive evi
H2: For entity theorists, negative brand information caused by , , . -i f . r
a product wrongdoing results in less favorable attitudes dence (Hong> Lev7> and Chlu 2001)-
toward an anthropomorphized brand than a nonanthropo- c'e' participants were told that the
morphized brand. In contrast, for incremental theorists, to understand how people compreh
negative brand information caused by a product wrongdoing relevant information. In addition,
results in no differences in attitudes toward either an cate the three most important sente
anthropomorphized or a nonanthropomorphized brand. supported the authors' viewpoint (Pa
entity article informed participants that scientists, th
program of rigorous research, had concluded that
Experiment 2a possess a finite number of traits that do not chang
Participants, Design, and Procedure time-In contrast, the article aiming to
_ , , , , , , • tal theory view stated that scientific research revealed that
One hundred three undergraduate students at a private East nalit traits are d a
Coast university participated in Experiment 2a. As a cover research findi were c
story, participants were told that they would take part in two |es and cas
unrelated studies that were grouped together for efficiency. ^
The first study contained an implicit theory manipulation.
In the second study, participants were asked to form an (Entity theory)
impression of a newly introduced brand of smoothie maker, In his talk at the Americ
Super Act, based on the advertisement and a report from annual convention held at W
consumerist.com. An anthropomorphic representation of a George Medin argued that
brand was induced through the ad copy. Finally, participants ten, our character has set
were administered a suspicion probe; none of the partici- again. He reported num
pants reported awareness of a link between the two studies. showing that people "age
the foundation or enduring dispositions.
Stimulus Materials
(Incremental theory)
We manipulated brand anthropomorphization in two ways:
by representing a product with humanlike elements and by 'n his talk at the American Psychological Associati
using first person to describe the product (Figure 2, Panel annual convention held at Washington D.C. in August, Dr
^ , . , , ,. George Medin argued that no one s character is as'hard
A). For the manipulation check on anthropomorphism, we as a ^
conducted a pretest (n — 57). Participants first provided greater eff
their degree of agreement with the following statements: "It changes." H
seems almost as if SuperAct has (1) its own beliefs and ies showing th
desires, (2) consciousness, (3) a mind of its own" (1 = acter- He also
"strongly disagree," and 7 = "strongly agree"). The last people s perso
thpir líítf* sixtipi
item then required participants to rate the extent to which
SuperAct had come alive (like a human). We summed the After reading the article, participants indicated their opin
responses to these items. As we expected, participants in the ions on a seven-point scale with two items that best
anthropomorphized brand condition indicated that the brand reflected their views of the article, to ensure that the article
seemed more like a human than those in the nonanthropo- in both conditions was equally persuasive and clear. We
morphized brand condition (a = .90; Mamh = 4.17, Mnonanth = averaged the responses to these two items (r = .54, p < .05)
3.06; F(l, 55) = 8.57, p < .05). Differences between the and found no statistical differences across conditions (F <
humanized and the nonhumanized brand conditions did not 1). To check whether reading the article induced the appro

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
FIGURE 2
Manipulations of Anthropomorphized Versus Nonanthropomorphized Brands
A: Experiment 2a
It is the most reliable and leading brand of „ j am tê nwst rejjable and leading brand of
smoothie maker on the market. Superiorly ■ smoothie maker on the market. I am superiorly
equipped with 500 watts of power, Super ACT equipped with 500 watts of power to efficiently
smoothie maker efficiently turns ice cubes turn ice cubes and frozen fruit into creamy
and frozen fruit into creamy smoothies and j I f smoothies and pureed soups. I hare a
pureed soups. Its revolutionary CycloneCreator m revolutionary CycloneCreator blending system that
blending system continuously pushes any mix- JL continuously pushes any mixture down to the
tore down to the blade level, resulting in jjfAt blade level, resulting in chunk-free smoothies
chunk-free smoothies every time. Supper Act's every time. Iffy innovative RazorTech stainless
innovative RazorTech stainless-steel blades steel blades slice through the thickest fruits and
slice through the thickest fruits and vegeta- vegetables and are guaranteed for life,
bies and are guaranteed for life.
www.snperact.com
www.saperact.com
B: Experiment 2b
Zelt! Hey, my name is Zelt!
I am the most reliable and leading brand of steam

It is the most reliable and leading brand of steam
irons on the market. I have a very high, continuous
irons on the market. It has a very high, continuous
steam output, an extra powerful shot of
steam output, an extra powerful shot of
concentrated steam, elongated steam slots, as well
concentrated steam, elongated steam slots, as well
as special safety features. My electronic safety
as special safety features. The electronic safety
shut-off will activate when I am left unattended. I
shut-off will activate when it is left unattended. It
also have changeable anti-calcium steam iron
also has changeable anti-calcium steam iron
cartridges. My cord is 9 feet long and allows for
cartridges. Its cord is 9 feet long and allows for
maximum reach. You will also enjoy my soft handle
maximum reach. You will also enjoy its soft handle
for lasting ironing comfort!
for lasting ironing comfort!
Zelt
Zelt
www.zelt.com
www.zelt.com
priate theory view, we asked participants to make predic- who read the
tions about four target people's behaviors in a particular sit- 78.21, Min
uation on a probability scale from 0 to 100. Chiu, Hong,
Measures
and Dweck (1997) find that people induced with the entity
theory mind-set make stronger predictions of behaviors We measured attitude toward the brand w
across situations given a specific trait. As expected, we (a = .94) as in Experiments la and lb. We
found that participants who read the article about stable per- brand responsibility on a seven-point Lik
sonality traits attributed higher probabilities of future three items (a = .67). After completing t
behaviors that were consistent with a given trait than those sures, participants reported their inv

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
information from the report and the extent to which the -2.84, p < .05). In the same regression equation as in the
information was negative. third step, the moderation effect of implicit theory dropped
to nonsignificance when we introduced the mediator (i.e.,
Results
brand responsibility) into the model ((3 = -.59, t(4, 98) =
Manipulation checks. Participants viewed the con- -1.29,/? > .10). Thus, brand responsibility fully m
sumerist.com report as providing negative information the effect of the interaction between brand anth
about the brand (M = 5.17; 1(102)^from 4 = 8.53,p < .05). phization and implicit theory. The Sobel test also c
Their involvement with the information in the article (r = that brand responsibility fully mediates the m
.69, p < .05) was not statistically different across ad types effect of implicit theory (z = -2.14, p < .05).
(p > .10).
Hypothesis tests. We performed a 2 (implicit theory Experiment 2b

manipulation: entity, incremental) x 2 (brand anthropomor- T r • .n. • . •
... , . : In Experiment 2b, we aim to increase the external validity
phization: anthropomorphized brand, nonanthropomor- ^ .. ., ,. c c
. , , „ , . r ■ , , , of our findings by replicating the results of Experiment 2a
phized brand) analysis of variance on attitude toward the ^ a direct measure of i
brand. The results revealed a significant interaction between ^ ^ {h In addl
implicit theory and brand anthropomorphization (F(l, 99) = underlying process of why e
4.19,/? < .05). We followed up with an analysis of planned mental theorists> have more
contrasts. Participants who were induced with an entity anthropomorphized brand t
theory stance had less favorable brand attitudes when they caused by ^ product wrongd
were exposed to the anthropomorphized brand advertise- ousl>, because entity theorist
ment and later read the negative brand report than those factors (Dweck and Molden
who were exposed to the nonanthropomorphized brand attribute the cause of negati
advertisement (Manth - 3.46, Mnonanth - 4.14, F(l, 99) - rather than to external factor
4.34, p < .05). In contrast, participants who were induced directly measure the extent t
with incremental theory exhibited no statistical differences mental theorists attribute the c
in brand attitude regardless of whether they were exposed to t0 a brand rather than to exte
the anthropomorphized or the nonanthropomorphized brand empirically test whether entity
fy? > 10). As we expected, no statistical differences emerged ca]dy and stability of a ne
between entity and incremental theorists for the nonanthropo- higher than those of incremen
morphized brand (p > .10). Table 1 provides a complete set our theorizing regarding what ma
of results. A graphic representation appears in Web Appen- theorists different. Finally, we
dix W3 (www.marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix). bility that the results are driv
Process variables. An analysis based on Baron and ceived diagnosticity of negative in
Kenny (1986) revealed (1) a significant moderating effect and incremental theorists. Fig
of implicit theory on the relationship between brand anthro- ceptual model for Experiment
pomorphization and brand responsibility (F(l, 99) = 7.55,/?
< .05), (2) a significant effect of brand responsibility on
Participants, Design, and Procedure
attitude toward the brand (F(l, 101) = 11.66, p < .05), and One hundred forty-six underg
(3) a significant effect of brand responsibility on attitude East Coast university participated
toward the brand when we included the interaction among participants viewed one of tw
brand anthropomorphization (independent variable), (i.e., an anthropomorphized and
implicit theory (moderator variable), and brand responsibil- brand). This was followed by a n
ity (mediation variable) in the model ((3 = -.29, t(4, 98) = wrongdoing. Second, participan
TABLE 1
Cell Means and Standard Deviations in Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2a
Experiment 2a
Experiment 1a Experiment 1b Entity Theorists Incremental Theorists
AB NAB AB NAB AB NAB AB NAB

(n = 21) (n = 18) (n = 20) (n = 20) (n = 28) c; II CM
C, II CM
(n = 26)
Attitude toward the brand 3.04 3.84 2.48 3.35 3.46 4.14 4.04 3.79
(.93) (1.02) (.91) (1.37) (1.07) (1.24) (1.13) (1.17)
Brand trust 2.52 3.39 2.15 3.00
(1.01) (1.18) (.76) (1.33)
Brand responsibility 5.05 3.94 4.58 4.65
(.89) (.95) (1.14) (1.31)
Notes: AB = anthropomorphized brand; NAB = nonanthropomorphized brand. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
FIGURE 3
Conceptual Model for Experiments 2a and 2b: A Mediated Moderation
Brand Responsibility
Attributions of the cause of a negative brand performance
Stability of a negative brand performance
Typicality of a negative brand performance
Brand anthropomorphization
(anthropomorphized vs.
nonanthropomorphized) x Attitudes toward the brand
implicit theory
(entity vs. incremental)
with dependent, process, and manipulation check variables. to which participants viewed the negative incident as typi
After completing the main dependent and process variables, cal of the brand. We assessed belief in implicit versus incre
participants answered filler questions on their interests and mental theories of personality using the implicit persons
activities. Embedded in this portion of the survey were theory measure (Levy, Stroessner, and Dweck 1998; Park
items measuring the implicit theories about the malleability and John 2010). That is, participants indicated their agree
of human characteristics. The study concluded with a brief ment with eight statements, four of which were representa
demographic section and an open-ended suspicion probe; tive of entity theory (reverse coded in computing the index
none of the participants guessed the true nature of the study. of implicit theory) and four of which were representative of
incremental theory, on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 =
Stimulus Materials and Pretest
'strongly disagree," and 7 = "strongly agree"). We averaged
We used a fictitious brand of steam irons, Zelt. We manipu- the responses to these eight items to create an imp
lated brand anthropomorphization with the combination of son theory index for each participant (a = .8
visual and verbal humanlike elements similar to that of scores indicated a stronger belief in incremen
Experiment 2a (Figure 2, Panel B). For the manipulation (Park and John 2010). We assessed the first m
check on anthropomorphism, we conducted a pretest (n = diagnosticity (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnav
46), in which participants in the anthropomorphized brand percentages of high- and low-quality steam i
condition perceived the brand to be a human to a greater to âve a problem with the target attribute (i.e.,
extent than those in the nonanthropomorphized brand con- ê adapted the second measure of diagnost
dition (a = .81; Manth = 4.39, Mnonanth = 3.55; F(l, 44) = Ahluwalia (2002), with a three-item, seven-point
6.43, p < .05). No differences emerged in participants' atti- differential scale (a = .76; for details, see the Ap
tudes toward the brand (a = .93; Manth = 4.67, Mnonanth =
Results
4.33) or in their perceptions of ad believability (a = .91;
M^th = 5.20, Mnonan,h = 4-88) between the two types of Manipulation checks. One-sample t-tests show
brand positioning (ps > .10). Negative information about participants viewed the consumerist.com report
the Zelt brand's performance appeared in a consumerist. ing negative information about the Zelt brand (
com report (Web Appendix W2 at www.marketingpower. t(145)d¡ff from 4 = 10.80, p < .05). Participants' in
com/jm webappendix). with the information in the article did not differ stat
across ad types (p > .10). As we intended, participants per
Measures ceived the Zelt brand as more humanized in the anthropo
We measured attitude toward the brand (a = .94), brand morphized brand condition
responsibility (a = .76), perceptions of a brand as anthropo- ^44) = ®-74, P <
morphized (a = .93), and involvement with the information Brand attitude. We co
in the article (r = .71, p < .05) with the same items as in analysis to test our predict
Experiment 2a. We gauged attributions of the cause of a ates the negative effect of
negative brand performance by asking participants to alio- consumers' brand attitudes. T
cate the percentage of the problem that was due to the brand mental condition (0 = bran
rather than to other external factors (Klein and Dawar brand anthropomorphizat
2004). Next, we measured the stability of a negative brand (continuous variable), and
performance with two items on a seven-point Likert-type theory and brand anthr
scale (r = .28,p < .05; Klein and Dawar 2004). We assessed variables (Park and John 2
the typicality of a negative brand performance as the extent the implicit theory scale b
When Humanizing Brands Goes Wro

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
person's score to eliminate multicollinearity (Aiken and manee ((3 = .06, t(142) = 2.17, p < .05), the perceptions of
West 1991). Consistent with the results of the previous typicality ((3 = .38, t(142) = 2.55, p < .05), and the stability
experiments, the analysis showed a significant effect of of a negative brand performance (¡3 = .28, t( 142) = 2.17,p <
brand anthropomorphization ((3 = .36, t(142) = 2.07, p < .05). Entity theorists attributed a higher percentage of the
.05). The interaction between brand anthropomorphization problem to the anthropomorphized brand than their incre
and implicit theory was also significant ((3 = -.32, t(142) = mental counterparts ((3 = -.05, t(142) = -2.42, p < .05).
-2.05,p < .05). Web Appendix W3 (www.marketingpower. They also viewed the anthropomorphized brand's negative
com/jm_webappendix) presents the interaction graph plot- performance as more typical of the brand (P = -.21, t(142) =
ted at one standard deviation below the mean of the implicit -2.23,p < .05) and as more stable (P = -.16, t(142) = -1.98,
theory measure (-1 SD; entity theorists) and one standard p < .05) than incremental theorists. Entity theorists also
deviation above the mean of the measure (+1 SD; incre- attributed the cause of the negative performance to a brand
mental theorists) by substituting these values into the to a greater extent when it was humanized than when it was
regression equation (Cohen and Cohen 1983). To gain addi- not (-1 SD; P = -.13, t(142) = -2.78,p < .05) and perceived
tional insight into the nature of this interaction, we tested an anthropomorphized brand's negative performance as
simple slopes at values one standard deviation above and more typical (-1 SD; P = -.67, t(142) = -2.81, p < .05) and
below the mean score of the implicit theory measure (Aiken more stable (-1 SD; P = -.72, t(142) = -3.54, p < .05) than
and West 1991; Park and John 2010). We found that partici- that of a nonanthropomorphized brand. Furthermore, no
pants with an entity theory view had less favorable attitudes significant interaction occurred between brand anthropo
toward the brand when they saw the anthropomorphized morphization and implicit theory for both diagnosticity
brand advertisement and later read the negative brand report measures (ps > .10). This ruled out an alternative explana
tion those who were exposed to the nonanthropomorphized tion that entity theorists viewed information about a nega
brand advertisement (-1 SD; P = .72, t( 142) = 2.93, p < tive performance of an anthropomorphized brand as more
.05). However, no significant differences emerged for diagnostic than incremental theorists,
respondents with an incremental theory belief (+1 SD; p = jn addition, participants' attributions of the cause of a
-.01, t(142) = -.03,p > .10). negative performance predicted their attitudes toward the
Brand responsibility as a process. An analysis based on brand (P = -1.32, t( 144) = -3.06, p < .05). When we
Baron and Kenny (1986) showed that brand responsibility regressed attitude toward the brand on brand anthropomor
fully mediates the moderating effect of implicit theory of phization, implicit theory, the interaction between them,
personality, as evidenced by (1) a significant effect of the and the attributions of the cause, the interaction term
interaction between brand anthropomorphization and became nonsignificant. The attributions of the cause of a
implicit theory on brand responsibility (P = .42, t(142) = negative brand performance served as a full mediator for
2.51,p < .05); (2) a significant effect of brand responsibility attitudes toward the brand (Sobel's z = -1.79, p < .05). In
on attitude toward the brand (F(l, 144) = 10.26, p < .05); addition, our analysis indicated that stability and typicality
(3) brand responsibility emerging as a significant factor that of a negative brand performance did not mediate the inter
affects brand attitude when we included brand anthropo- action effect of brand anthropomorphization and implicit
morphization, implicit theory, the interaction between brand theory on attitudes toward the brand,
anthropomorphization and implicit theory, and brand
responsibility (as a mediation variable) in the model (P = Discussion
-.17, t( 141 ) = -2.25,p < .05); and (4) the moderation effect Taken together, the results of Experiments 2a and 2b pro
of implicit theory dropping to nonsignificance when we vide convergent evidence that implicit theory of personality
included brand responsibility in the model (P = -.25, t(141) = moderates the effect of brand anthropomorphization. As we
-1.57, p > .10). The Sobel test also confirmed that brand hypothesized, for entity theorists, negative publicity caused
responsibility fully mediates the effect of the interaction by a product wrongdoing leads to less favorable attitudes
between brand anthropomoiphization and implicit theory (z = when a brand is anthropomorphized than when it is not.
-1.98; p < .05). In addition, brand responsibility fully medi- However, for incremental theorists, negative brand informa
ates the main negative effect of brand anthropomorphiza- t¡on ôes not jeacj t0 more detrimental evaluations of an
tion (Sobel s z - 1.78,p < .05). anthropomorphized brand than a nonanthropomorphized
Exploring the underlying process further. We conducted brand. In addition, consistent with our theoretical argument
a series of multiple regression analyses to test whether par- that an anthropomorphized entity is perceived as intentional
ticipants' attributions of the cause of a negative brand per- and mindful and therefore is attributed greater responsibil
formance, typicality of a negative brand performance, sta- ity for its behaviors, our results show that brand responsibil
bility, and diagnosticity of a negative brand performance ity serves as a mediator for the effect of the interaction
underlie the differences in brand attitudes across anthropo- between brand anthropomorphization and implicit theory of
morphized and nonanthropomorphized brand conditions. personality. Experiment 2b adds additional empirical sup
We expected support for our predictions to emerge in the port for our theorizing, such that entity theorists perceive a
form of a significant interaction between implicit theory product wrongdoing as more typical of a brand than incre
and brand anthropomorphization for these dependent mental theorists. Entity theorists also endorse more internal
variables. The interaction terms were significant for partici- attributions and attribute the negative publicity to more sta
pants' attributions of the cause of a negative brand perfor- ble causes than their incremental counterparts.

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
Th© Role Of Firm Rosponso contrast. both apology and compensation responses
QtratPfliPQ convey the intent to avoid wrongdoings in the future (Ferrin
9 et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2004). Because people generally
The idea that entity and incremental theorists form different have more favorable impressions of a wrongdoer after
beliefs about the stability of a negative brand performance receiving an apology (Kim et al. 2004) or compensation
suggests that firms' strategic responses to product wrong- (Bottom et al. 2002), we expect both entity and incremental
doings may be more or less effective in combating negative theorists to have more positive evaluations of a nonanthro
brand information. Although firms can respond to product pomorphized brand after they receive an apology or com
wrongdoings in various ways (Dawar and Pilluda 2000; pensation. Because incremental theorists believe in positive
Kim et al. 2004; Siomkos and Kurzbard 1994), we focus on change, the apology and the compensation should lead to
three particular firm responses: denial, apology, and com- more favorable evaluations of an anthropomorphized brand
pensation. We define a denial response as a strategy in as well. Thus, we expect no differences in incremental theo
which a firm forsakes any responsibility of wrongdoing by rists' postapology and postcompensation attitudes toward and
declaring the untrue nature of an allegation (Kim et al. purchase intentions of either a humanized or a nonhumanized
2004). Thus, the denial does not ensure that that the wrong- brand. Yet we expect a different pattern of results for entity
doing will not happen again (Dutta and Pullig 2011). An theorists exposed to anthropomorphized brands. Entity the
apology response reflects a strategy in which a firm accepts orists are likely to be more insensitive to the apology
responsibility and expresses remorse; this involves a state- response when a brand is humanized because they believe
ment that ensures the prevention of a future wrongdoing that things do not change (Haselhuhn, Schweitzer, and
(Kim et al. 2004). Finally, a compensation response refers Wood 2010). Thus, they are likely to retain their less favor
to a firm strategy that includes all elements of the apology able attitudes toward and purchase intentions of an anthro
response but also adds a monetary reward and/or product pomorphized (vs. a nonanthropomorphized) brand on receiv
replacement for a product wrongdoing (Coombs and Holla- 'n8 the apology.
day 2008). Prior research has established that substantive However, we anticipate that compensation alters entity
amends (e.g., monetary reward) that complement a promise theorists' post-firm response attitudes toward and purchase
to avoid future wrongdoings provide a stronger indication intentions of an anthropomorphized brand. This outcome is
of an intent to prevent future violations (Bottom et al. anticipated because entity theorists are able to revise their
2002). Thus, compensation is a stronger response than an initial impressions in the face of overwhelming counterfac
apology in terms of providing assurance of avoiding a tua' information (Plaks et al. 2001). Plaks et al. (2001)
future product wrongdoing show that entity theorists who initially formed poor expec
Prior research has also established that denial does not tations of a target (i.e., poor academic performance) were
effectively restore attitudes toward the wrongdoer, because insensitive to a moderate amount of counterfactual informa
it signals an unwillingness to initiate a problem resolution tion (i e" Sood Performance on a test). However, when
(Kim et al. 2004; Raju and Rajagopal 2008). In this regard, ffced with excellent Performance on a test, they changed
denial of a wrongdoing can be harmful to a firm, because it tdeir Perceptions of the target and even made predictions of
c -, . • . . . . . .. , , . the target s outstanding performance in the future. These
tails to convey an intent to prevent a potential wrongdoing & ■ u , . „ .
findings suggest that entity theorists do not inflexib
in the future (Ferrin et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2004; Raju and
to their initial trait-based impressions but rather revise
Rajagopal 2008), and thus, both entity and incremental con
. . . , , . . . when confronted with a significant amount of counterinfor
sumers attitudes toward and purchase intentions of a T . , ....
, , . , mation. In this regard, prior research suggests that a com
nonanthropomorphized brand are likely to decrease ,n the ion se constitutes rel
face of such a response. Incremental theorists are also more a commitment t0 avoid wrongdoi
likely to be negatively affected by an anthropomorphized (Dirks gt a| 2m) Therefore, we posit th
brand s denial response because they expect the brand to ^ ^ t0 change their perceptions of a
perform better in the future. However, instead, they do not more posltive> sta51e state, which leads t
receive any indication of future change. Thus, because postcompensation attitudes toward and p
incremental theorists postdenial attitudes toward and pur- 0f an anthropomorphized brand. Thus,
chase intentions of both an anthropomorphized and a postcompensation attitudes toward and
nonanthropomorphized brand are likely to decrease, we Df bodl an anthropomorphized and a n
expect no differences in their post-firm response attitudes and phized brand increase compared with t
purchase intentions between humanized and nonhumanized evaluations, their less favorable pr
brands. In contrast, entity theorists view an anthropomor- toward and purchase intentions of an
phized brand's negative performance as stable. Because the (vs. a nonanthropomorphized) brand ar
denial indicates no change in a brand's future performance, For entity theorists, we hypothesize
entity theorists' attitudes toward and purchase intentions of .... . , ,. ,
....J i-... • ... h Hi- Denial and apology responses to negative brand ínforma
a humanized brand are likely to remain the same. Overall, tion cau$ed £ a
we expect entity theorists postdenial attitudes toward and abje attitudes to
purchase intentions of an anthropomorphized brand to be pomorphized bra
less favorable than their attitudes toward and purchase H3b: A compensation
intentions of a nonanthropomorphized brand. caused by a product wrongdoing results in no differences

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
in attitudes toward and purchase intentions of either an ing participants to complete a short filler survey that lasted
anthropomorphized or a nonanthropomorphized brand. approximately ten minutes. We did so to rule out the possi
bly: A denial response to negative brand information caused bility that the negative brand information following imme
by a product wrongdoing results in no change (compared diately after the stimulus advertisement would prime a
with preresponse) in attitudes toward and purchase inten- , , n .. . < -j
r 5. ,. ,, , T negative human schema. Participants were asked to provide
tions of anthropomorphized brands. In contrast, a denial ® r . . .
response to negative brand information caused by a prod- their overall atti
uct wrongdoing results in less favorable attitudes toward brand (i.e., pre-
and purchase intentions of (compared with preresponse) to manipulation c
nonanthropomorphized brands. consumerist.com report tha
H3d: An apology response to negative brand information to the product
caused by a product wrongdoing results in no change marketingpower.com
(compared with preresponse) in attitudes toward and pur- of n tjve brand
chase intentions of anthropomorphized brands. In con- , . , .... ., .. .
trast, an apology response to negative brand information same t0 fVOld
caused by a product wrongdoing results in more favor- reported their at
able attitudes toward and purchase intentions of (com- the brand (i.e.,
pared with preresponse) nonanthropomorphized brands. cated their perce
il^: A compensation response to negative brand information formance and a
caused by a product wrongdoing results in more favor- the end of the su
able attitudes toward and purchase intentions of (com- embedded among o
pated with preresponse) both anthropomorphized and completed a d
nonanthropomorphized brands. r , . . , . . . .. . . .
were administered a suspicion
For incremental theorists, we hypothesize the followin
H4a: Denial, apology, and compensation responses to negative
Stimulus Materials and Pretests
brand information caused by a product wrongdoing result
in no differences in attitudes toward and purchase inten- We used a fictitious brand of a three-dimensiona
tions of either an anthropomorphized or a nonanthropo- digital camera, Zook. We manipulated brand anthr
morphized brand. phization in the same way as in Experiments 2a an
H4b: A denial response to negative brand information caused (R 4) Qur manipulation of negatiVe brand inform
by a product wrongdoing results in less favorable atti- . _ . . , . , ,
tudes toward and purchase intentions of (compared with aPPears ln Web A
preresponse) both anthropomorphized and nonanthropo- on anthropomorp
morphized brands. Participants in the anthropomorphized brand condition per
H4c: Apology and compensation responses to negative brand ceived the brand to be human to a greater extent than
information caused by a product wrongdoing result in in the nonanthropomorphized brand condition (a
more favorable attitudes toward and purchase intentions = 4.09, Mnonanth = 2.65; F(1,51) = 11.70,p < .0
of (compared with preresponse) both anthropomorphized differences emerged in participants' attitudes toward the
and nonanthropomorphized brands. (a = ^ ^ = ^ = ^ jn ^ percep_
tions of ad believability (a = .85; Manth = 4.18, Mnonanth =
Experiment 3 4.44) between a humanized and a nonhumanized brand

We conducted Experiment 3 with two objectives in mind. positioning {ps> .10).
First, we wanted to replicate the results of Experiments 2a Measures
and 2b in a different product category (i.e., a digital camera)
and to increase the managerial relevance of the study by measured preresponse (a = .92) and postresponse (ot =
adding a new brand performance measure that is closer to -^7) attitudes toward the brand, stability of a negative brand
actual buying behavior (i.e., purchase intentions). Second, performance (postresponse), involvement with the negative
Experiment 3 explores which response strategies firms can information in the article (r = .75, p < .05), and perceptions
use to reduce the adverse effects of negative brand publicity. °f a brand as anthropomorphized (a = .82) with the same
items as in Experiment 2b. We measured preresponse (r =
Participants, Procedure, and Measures .55, p < .05) and postresponse (r = .73, p < .05) purchase
Three hundred seventeen undergraduate students at a pri- intentions with two items on a seven-point Likert-type
vate East Coast university participated in this study. We scale- We also combined the implicit person theory (Levy,
employed a 2 (brand anthropomorphization: anthropomor- Stroessner, and Dweck 1998) measures into the scale (a =
phized, nonanthropomorphized brand) x 3 (firm responses: -^)- AH measures appear in the Appendix.
denial, apology, compensation) x 2 (pre-, post-firm
Results
response measures) factorial design; we also included a
scale to measure implicit theory. The experiment consisted Manipulation checks. Participants perceived the artic
of two parts. In the first part, the procedure was similar to providing negative information (M = 5.14; t(315)diff from
that of Experiment 2b; the only difference was that we sep- 15.44,p < .05). Their involvement while reading the negati
arated the presentation of the advertisement in time from consumerist.com report did not differ across ad types (p >
the presentation of the negative brand information by ask- .10). They viewed an anthropomorphized brand as a human

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
FIGURE 4
Manipulations of Anthropomorphized Versus Nonanthropomorphized Brands: Experiment 3
ZOOK! Hey, my name is ZOOK!
It is the most reliable and leading

I am the most reliable and leading
brand of 3D HD digital cameras on
brand of 3D HD digital cameras on
the market. It provides you with a
the market. I provide you with a total
total 3D HD imaging system that will
3D HD imaging system that will
change the way you take and enjoy
change the way you take and enjoy
photos, from the advanced 3D HD
photos, from my advanced 3D HD
digital camera to the stunning 3D
digital camera to my stunning 3D HD
HD digital viewer and breakthrough
digital viewer and breakthrough 3D
3D HD printing technology. These 3D
HD printing technology. My 3D
images capture breathtaking
images capture breathtaking
moment and natural beauty. It
moment and natural beauty. I make
makes images that once were only a
images that once were only a dream
dream now a reality™.
now a reality™.
ZOOK
ZOOK
www.ZOOK.com
www.ZOOK.com
to a greater extent than a nonanthropomorphized brand -.02, t(313)

(Manth = 3.89, Mnonanth = 3.36; F(1, 315) = 10.99, p < .05). a nonanthr
In the denial, apology, and compensation response condi- Explorator
tions, 103 (of 117), 81 (of 91), and 99 (of 108) participants, more, we r
respectively, indicated that Zook denied, apologized for, postresponse
and provided compensation for the quality issues of its 3D variables (i
photos. centered), brand anthropomorphization, firm response type,
Hypothesis tests. As an indication of the robustness of and their interactions as predic
the negative effect of brand anthropomorphization, the Pê sl°Pe analysis showed that
results for the preresponse attitude toward and purchase response, entity theorists had le
intentions of the brand confirmed the pattern consistent H SD' P = -72' l(306) = 24
with the predictions of H2. That is, compared with the intentions of (-1 SD; (3 = .7
, . , , , . , . , anthropomorphized than a nonanthropomorphized brand,
nonanthropomorphized brand, the anthropomorphized v 1
, , ... , ,a ,, .. „„ The same pattern occurred when a firm responded with the
brand led to less favorable attitudes (p = .56, t(313) = 5.09, , 1 , , . , . , . .r . , __ a
... . . ,n cn apology, such that entity theonsts attitudes (-1 SD; p =
p < 05) and lower purchase intentions ((3 = ^59, t(3
4.10, p < .05) when participants were exposed to negative SD; p = , 37> t(306) = 3.44
publicity. The effect of the interaction between brand bmnd was human¡zed Howe
anthropomorphization and implicit theory was also sigmfi- ¿n attUudes (_j SD; p =
cant for both attitudes (|3 = -.39, t(313) = ^1.06, p < .05) chase intentions (_j S
and purchase intentions (¡3 = -.53, t(313) = -4.22,p < .05). between the two types of
Simple slope tests confirmed that entity theorists had lower entity theorists when a bran
attitudes toward (-1 SD; (3 = 1.15, t(313) = 6.28, p < .05) ¡ts product wrongdoing. W
and lower purchase intentions of (-1 SD; |3 = 1.41, t(313) = attitudes toward (denial:
5.81, p < .05) an anthropomorphized than a nonanthropo- .10; apology: +1 SD; (3 = .1
morphized brand. For incremental theorists, no significant pensation: +1 SD; p = -.38
differences emerged in attitudes toward (+1 SD; P = .11, chase intentions of (denial
t(313) = .72,/? > .10) or purchase intentions of (+1 SD; P = .10; apology: +1 SD; P = .2

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
pensation: +1 SD; (3 = -.03, t(305) = -.01, p > .10) either a purchase intentions (i.e., calculated as the difference
humanized or a nonhumanized brand for incremental theo- between pre- and postresponse attitudes/purchase inten
rists for all three responses. tions) as the dependent variable. The results indicated that
Next, to test our hypotheses regarding pre- and post- the interaction contrast was significant for entity theor
response changes in attitudes and purchase intentions, we (attitudes: F(l, 305) = 4.36, p < .05; purchase intention
performed a series of three-way repeated measures analyses F(l, 305) = 4.04, p < .05); brand humanization led to l
of variance with the median split of the implicit theory mea- attitude change in the apology response. However, changes
sure. As we predicted, for entity theorists, when a firm occurred in attitudes and purchase intentions for bo
responded with either a denial or an apology, no significant anthropomorphized and nonanthropomorphized brand
changes occurred in either postresponse attitudes toward the compensation response. Conversely, the interaction c
(F(l, 305)denial = 2.00, p > .10; F(1, 305)apo,ogy = 2.94, p > trast for incremental theorists was nonsignificant (attitudes:
.08) or postresponse purchase intentions of (F(l, 305)denial = F(F 305) = 1.27, p > .10; purchase intentions: F(l, 305)
.16,p > .10; F(l, 305)apology = 1.31,p > .10) a humanized .05,p> .10).
brand. However, when a firm responded with a denial, we Supplementary analysis. A series of multiple regressio
observed a significant decrease in incremental theorists analyses showed that for entity theorists, postresponse
attitudes (F(l, 305) = 6.75,p < .05) and purchase intentions bility perceptions were not significantly different betw
(F(l, 305) = 5.13, p < .05) when they were exposed to an an anthropomorphized and a nonanthropomorphized bran
anthropomorphized brand. We observed a similar pattern when the firm used the denial response (-1 SD; |3 = -.09
for both entity theorists (attitude: F(1, 305) = 4.52, p < .05; t(306) = -.99, p > .10). There were also no significant
purchase intentions: F(l, 305) = 5.14, p < .05) and incre- ferences between entity and incremental theorists in ter
mental theorists (attitude: F(l, 305) = 9.16, p < .05; pur- 0f stability perceptions (-1 SD; [3 = .23, t(305) = 1.58,p
chase intentions: F(l, 305) = 6.62,p < .05) when they were .10), which is in contrast to the preresponse stability pe
exposed to a nonhumanized brand. In contrast, when incre- ceptions; entity theorists had higher perceptions of stability
mental theorists were exposed to either a humanized or a 0f a brand's negative performance than their incremen
nonhumanized brand, the apology response increased their counterparts. This result supports our theoretical argument
attitudes (F(l, 305)anth = 10.73, p < .05; F(l, 305)nonanth = that denial does not affect perceptions of stability for entity
6.40,p < .05) and purchase intentions (F(l, 305)anth = 4.67, theorists who are exposed to an anthropomorphized bran
p < .05; F(l, 305)nonanth = 5.37, p < .05). Entity theorists' however, denial increases incremental theorists' view
postapology attitudes (F(l, 305) = 10.82, p < .05) and pur- stability. Furthermore, when a firm responded with
chase intentions (F(l, 305) = 4.03, p < .05) also increased apology, we found that stability of a negative brand perf
when they were exposed to a nonanthropomorphized brand. manee followed the same pattern as in Experiment 2b. That
For both entity and incremental theorists, the compensation is, for entity theorists, stability perceptions were higher f
response led to more favorable postresponse attitudes an anthropomorphized than a nonanthropomorphized bran
toward (F(l, 305)entity anth = 66.76, p < .05; F(l, 305)entity (-1 SD; (3 = -.73, t(305) = 2.26,p < .05). Their perception
nonanth = 31.58, p < .05; F(1, 305)incremental anth = 40.37, p < of stability of an anthropomorphized brand were also hig
.05; F(l, 305)incremental nonanth = 12.03, p < .05) and higher than those of incremental theorists (|3 = -.32, t(305
postresponse purchase intentions of (F(l, 305)entity anth = -2.39, p < .05). Finally, entity theorists' perceptions of
34.37, p < .05; F(l, 305)entity nonanth = 6.91, p < .05; F(l, bility of a brand's wrongdoing significantly decreased wh
305)incremental anth = 10.59, p < .05; F(l, 305)incremental a fi1™ used the compensation response (-1 SD; (3 = -.76
nonanth = 10.00, p < .05) both anthropomorphized and t(305) = -2.42, p < .05). This result is in accord with our
nonanthropomorphized brands. To empirically support our argument that when faced with strong countervailing
theoretical assumption of a more positive attitude in the dence, entity theorists also change their initial negat
compensation (vs. the denial and the apology) response by impressions of an anthropomorphized brand,
entity theorists (i.e., H3), we also conducted a simple slope
Discussion
test on a four-item semantic differential scale ("not appro
priate/very appropriate," "not believable/very believable," Experiment 3 confirms a main negative effec
"not persuasive/very persuasive," and "not sincere/very sin- interaction with implicit theory, of b
cere"; a = .94) as the dependent variable. Consistent with phization on consumers' processing of neg
H3, the results indicated that compensation was a more both attitudinal and behavioral outcom
favorable response than either the denial (-1 SD; (3 = -2.09, demonstrate that it is especially difficu
t(311) = -8.61, p < .05) or the apology (-1 SD; (3 = -.75, negative effects of an anthropomorphized
t(311) = -3.03, p < .05). Thus, H3 and H4 were fully sup- in a situation of negative publicity for
ported. Figure 5 provides a graphic representation of the Entity theorists retain less favorable at
pre- and postresponse attitudes and purchase intentions. To humanized brand and have lower purchase in
examine the extent of change in brand evaluations after a a brand responds with a denial. Further
firm's response for different types of brand positioning, we apology for a product wrongdoing has a g
ran additional analyses of interaction contrasts between effect on consumers' attitudes and pur
brand anthropomorphization and type of response for both entity theorists remain insensitive when th
entity and incremental theorists, with the change in attitudes/ pomorphized. Their perceptions of stabi

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
FIGURE 5
Experiment 3: Interaction Effect Between Brand Anthropomorphization and Implicit Theory on Firm
Responses to Negative Brand Performance
A: Entity Theorists' Attitude Toward the Brand B: Incremental Theorists' Attitude Toward the Bran
6.0 n
Denial Apology Compensation Denial Apology Compensation
C: Entity Theorists' Purchase Intention D: Incremental Theorists' Purchase Intention
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Denial Apology Compensation Denial Apology Compensation
□ Anthropomorphized brand B Nonanthropomorphized brand
Notes: Pre = pre-firm responses. Post = post-firm responses.
brand's negative performance, in turn, remain higher than GGf"l6r3

those of incremental theorists. In addition, their perceptions »„,• . . ,, , • .
.... „ . , , ,, . Marketing practitioners frequently imbue their brands with
of stability of a humanized brands negative performance , ... .. . , . , . , _
J , humanlike qualities, and pnor research largely supports the
are higher than their perceptions of a nonanthropomor- assertion ^ consumers dev
phized brand. These negative effects of brand anthropomor- tQward branded products ^ h
phization for entity theorists dissipate only when a firm waj and ;viCGill 2007; De
responds with compensation. This finding dovetails well 2011). However, previous r
with previous research that suggests that entity theorists whether anthropomorphism
also change their initial perceptions of a target when faced for an anthropomorphized ent
with overwhelming counterevidence. Because compensa- tributes to the literature b
tion indicates that a brand is committed to change, the empirical documentation of
results also support the notion that entity theorists' percep- anthropomorphization on
tions of stability of a negative brand performance decrease five brand performance.
more than when a brand uses a compensation response. ments, our research demonst

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
brands appear mindful, conscious, and capable of inten- interactions fit well with prior research on brand anthropo
tional actions and therefore are perceived as being responsi- morphization that suggests that people behave according to
ble for performing negative actions. This phenomenon brand image schémas when they perceive brands as humans
closely aligns with prior research on the premise that inten- (Aggarwal and McGill 2012).
tional, rather than accidental, actions are perceived as more This research enhances understanding of the psycho
detrimental in determining responsibility and blame (Epley logical mechanisms that underlie the effect of implicit
and Waytz 2009; Waytz, Gray, et al. 2010). Thus, Experi- theories on consumers' processing of information about
ments la and lb show convergent evidence that brand anthropomorphized brands that face negative publicity,
anthropomorphism negatively affects consumers' attitudes That is, the process analysis in Experiments 2a and 2b
toward the brand that committed a wrongdoing. Impor- reveals that perceived brand responsibility mediates the
tantly, we replicate the negative effect of brand anthropo- moderating role of implicit theories on the negative effect
morphization on consumers' processing of negative brand of brand anthropomorphization. This finding is consistent
information across different product categories in all our with the central tenet of our theory that anthropomorphism
experiments, using both known and fictitious brands. increases perceptions of intentionality, leading to the
observed impact on consumers' perceptions of a brand's
Theoretical Implications responsibility. Specifically, Experiment 2b explores the
This research shares some similarity to work on consumer- underlying psychological mechanism further. The findings
brand relationships and brand transgressions. Specifically, reveal that entity theorists make higher attributions of the
prior research suggests that consumers react more nega- causality of a wrongdoing to a brand, rather than other con
tively to brand wrongdoings when they form communal (vs. textual factors, and perceive a negative brand performance
exchange) brand relationships (Aggarwal and Law 2005) or as more typical and stable than incremental theorists,
develop self-relevant brand relationships (Johnson, Matear, Finally, our research contributes to the literature on con
and Thomson 2011) or when a brand is positioned as sincere sumers' processing of negative publicity and postcrisis
(vs. exciting) (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004). However, communications. Prior research has found that consumer
brands may enter a relationship network with consumers based variables, such as brand commitment (Ahluwalia,
without being humanized (Latour 1996). Thus, our research Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000) and past expectations (Dawar
contributes to this stream of research by controlling for per- and Pilluda 2000), act as buffers to the reputational damage
sonality differences in brands and by directly demonstrating incurred by negative publicity. However, prior research is
a greater activation of human knowledge in the anthropo- especially sparse in terms of demonstrating how the type of
morphized than nonanthropomorphized brand condition. brand positioning affects the way consumers react to nega
Furthermore, this research contributes to anthropomor- tive brand information (for an exception, see Dawar and Lei
phism theory by deepening understanding of how people 2009). The current study contributes to this line of work by
rely on social beliefs and perceptions when an inanimate identifying a brand positioning strategy that negatively
entity is anthropomorphized. Specifically, in combination, affects consumers' processing of negative publicity. Fur
Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3 demonstrate that for humanized thermore, as prior research has established, consumers'
brands, the effect of brand anthropomorphization on reactions to firms' responses to different types of brand
people's attitudes after exposure to negative brand informa- crises (e.g., performance-based, value-based; Ahluwalia,
tion varies depending on the particular implicit theory they Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000; Dirks et al. 2011; Kim et al.
advocate. When consumers apply an entity theory view to 2004) vary. To the best of our knowledge, this research is
an anthropomorphized brand that faces negative publicity, the first to demonstrate how the type of firm response strat
the effect of anthropomorphism is largely adverse for a egy concurrently interacts with brand positioning strategies
brand. We theorize this outcome because people with entity (i.e., anthropomorphized vs. nonanthropomorphized brands)
perspectives rely on a single act of transgression as a mani- and consumer-based differences (i.e., incremental vs. entity
festation of an underlying negative trait and as a strong pre- theorists).
dictor of future brand performance. In contrast, although
consumers may attribute greater responsibility to an anthro Managerlal Implications
pomorphized than a nonanthropomorphized brand after We began this research with one major managerial question:
exposure to information about negative brand performance, Do consumers respond to negative publicity of product
their incremental theory views allow for behavioral instabil- wrongdoings less favorably when a brand is humanized? In
ity across contexts. Thus, for incremental theorists, negative the end, our overall findings indicate that the response is yes.
publicity associated with humanized brands does not lead to That is, consumers react less favorably to negative informa
more negative attitudes toward the brand than instances tion about anthropomorphized than nonanthropomorphized
when brands are not humanized. Overall, this research brands. We do not suggest that marketers should avoid the
demonstrates that the tendency to interpret other people's use of humanization strategies but rather that they should be
behaviors as manifestations of their stable traits rather than, aware of the negative consequences of these positioning
for example, unstable situational influences (Gawronski strategies. In particular, our results support the possibility
2004) also applies to humanized brands. Furthermore, our that consumers' reactions to the M&M brand's melamine
findings that consumers process information about anthro- scandal in 2008 could have been especially adverse because
pomorphized brands according to the schémas of social the brand is anthropomorphized.

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
Our findings also indicate that practitioners must gain a ad copy employing the first person. Further research could
better understanding of the implicit theory perspectives of delve deeper to uncover conditions under which the human
their target markets, because entity theorists view a humanlike physical characteristics of a product (e.g., shape, con
ized brand's negative performance less favorably than their figurations of buttons, location of decorative features)
incremental counterparts. Therefore, marketers should exer- translate into strong consumer associations between a brand
cise caution when positioning humanized brands in target and human schémas, thus leading to potentially distinct
markets that are potentially dominated by entity theorists. effects of anthropomorphism on consumers' perceptions of
In particular, practitioners could rely on several readily a brand's transgressions or even actual changes in purchase
accessible demographic and cultural variables as cues to choice, which would more strongly demonstrate the detri
evaluate the implicit theory views of their target audience. mental effect of negative publicity regarding an anthropo
For example, target markets that consist of older consumers morphized brand on actual buying behavior. A related area
are likely to be characterized as entity theorists (Leclerca °f future investigation would be to explore whether the phe
and Hess 2007) who may react less favorably to negative nomenon under investigation is a simple communication
information about an anthropomorphized brand. Cultural strategy or a broader positioning strategy (e.g., in which the
differences constitute another implicit theory cue. Morris brand image is actually based on associating the brand with
and Peng (1994) posit that people in collectivist cultures humanlike features and capabilities-M&M's current posi
tend to hold an incremental theory view, whereas people in tioning) or perhaps both. In a broader positioning strategy,
individualist cultures adopt an entity perspective. Firms that human features are more readily accessible in a brand,
operate internationally are likely to encounter more detri- whereas in a simPle communication strategy, human char
mental consumer reactions to negative publicity of their acteristics can be momentarily activated during exposure to
humanized brands in individualist cultures (i.e., entity theo- a humanized communication and, as a result, may not be
lists) than in collectivist cultures (i.e., incremental theorists). readlly ôctated with a brand at subsequent exposure.
Furthermore, an understanding of the implicit theory Such Vences between a simple communication strategy
views of their target market would help practitioners design and a broader humanized positioning may, in turn, lead to
and execute more effective postcrisis response strategies. dferent fenSths of tbe eff^ts ^ observed herein. In
This is because entity and incremental theorists develop dif- addll'on'tbe ne§ative effe* of brand anthropomorphization
r » • , .... r- . ,, ,■ _c may be enhanced or may dissipate as a function of the type
ferent views of the stability of a brand s negative perfor- . f • •
r. . , ,.rr . j of human associated with a brand (e.g., positive vs. nega
manee. Because firms responses signal different degrees of . . . _ , ,..
tive; Aggarwal and McGill 2007). Would these
intention to avoid future wrongdoings, they exert various
be observed if the brand's anthropomorphizatio
impacts on consumers' perceptions of a wrongdoing's sta
positive than the one we used in this research?
bility. Our findings imply that both denial and apology
Furthermore, we examined implicit theorie
responses are ineffective in correcting the initial negative
ality as social beliefs that are applied to anthro
brand ludgments caused by product wrongdoings among .... . , . . ., ,,
, °. , , , r , ° , . ° , „ . ° entities, and thus, further research could address different
entity theorists when a brand is anthropomorphized. Entity „ , . , , , ., . . ,. ,
. . , . ,, types of social schémas and perceptions that might moder
theonsts consider traits stable and require sufficiently . ., .■ cc . e, ,, ... c ,
t , , . . ate the negative effect of brand humanization. For example,
strong contradictory signals to alter their negative assess- ^ ¡ncremental (vs entit } theonsf
ments of the stability of a humanized brand s negative per- focus) ()n the present not bejng (v
formance. Thus, for entity theorists, only a compensation what happens ^ ^ fulure has parall
response will be sufficient to change their perceptions of the lyüc) thinking However; prior researc
stability of a negative performance by an anthropomorphized variations in casual attributions for e
brand. For firms whose customers share an incremental greater contextual focus among ho
view, a denial response is likely to lead to less favorable thinkers, not because of variations in
postresponse attitudes toward a humanized brand. Again, in attributions (Choi, Nisbett, and No
the M&M s case, the firm responded to the crisis with a trast, incremental theorists differ from en
denial, stating that its candies were melamine free. Our extent to which they rely on current
results raise the possibility that consumers' backlash to this contextual information). That is, increm
denial of a product wrongdoing by the humanized M&M orists rely on a different content of e
brand may have been more negative than if the firm had tic thinkers generally consider more
simply offered an apology or compensation. This is because related and context-related) than
our findings suggest that both an apology and compensation addition, whereas holistic thinkers beli
result in significantly higher levels of postresponse attitudes context might lead to a different beh
toward the brand among incremental theorists exposed to orists believe that change in not onl
anthropomorphized brands. trait itself might cause behavioral change. Although we
speculate that entity and analytic thinkers would respond
Limitations and Further Research
similarly to the negative performance of an anthropomor
This research raises several possibilities for further consid- phized brand, further research could investigate
eration. First, we conducted our manipulations of brand incremental and holistic thinkers would react differ
anthropomorphism by infusing a branded product with the same negative news when a brand is anthrop
humanlike visual elements and by exposing respondents to phized. Finally, we chose a particular context for each fi

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
response; however, we acknowledge that variations exist in 3D photos) represents something stable and ongoing with the
firm responses. For example, unlike our operationalization Ze\t (Zook) brand?
of an apology (i.e., the wrongdoing will not reoccur in the «How likely is it that Zelt (Zook) has had issues with its prod
future), further research could examine other types of apolo- ucts in tlle Past?
getic responses that incorporate indications of the extent to
which a wrongdoer has suffered itself and, as a result, may Typicality of Negative Brand Performance
change entity and incremental theorists'reactions. Likert-type scale: 1 = "not at all typical," and 7 =
"extremely typical"
Appendix •To what extent is the negative incident typical of the Zelt
Measures brand?
Attitude Toward the Brand Attributions of the Cause of Negative Brand

Performance
Seven-point semantic differential scale
Experiment la: a - .91, Experiment lb: a - .93,Exper- Please assign a percentage of the problem regarding
iment 2a: a = .94, Experiment 2b: a = .94, Experiment 3 steaming issue in the Zelt brand that might be due to
Pre: a = .92, Experiment 3 Post: a = .97 of the three parties (with totals to 100%):
•"Unfavorable/favorable" «Zelt brand ( %)
Bad/good «Consumers ( %)
• Unpleasant/pleasant «Lyron, the produ
"Dislike/like"
Diagnosticity—First Measure
Trust in the Brand
Participants were asked to estimate the percentages of high
Likert-type scale: 1 = ' strongly disagree, and 7 = strongly an(j low-quality steam irons likely to have a problem wi
agree" the target attribute (i.e., steaming). Then, we computed the
Experiment la: r = .91 (p < .05); Experiment lb: r = .96 diagnosticity of negative information by
(P < -05) ceived probability of a low-quality steam iron having a
•Dependable problem by the sum of the same probability and the proba
•Reliable bility of a high-quality brand having that problem
(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000).
Brand Responsibility Diagnosticity—Second Measure

Likert-type scale. 1 = strongly disagree, and 7 - strongly Seven-point semantic differential scale (Ahluwal
a8ree" a =.76
Experiment 2a: a = .67; Experim
•"Extremely irrelev
•The SuperAct (Zelt) brand, alone, is
lems with the smoothie make
•This incident is the fault of th
•Please rate the likelihood that the Su
source of the issues with the sm
steaming in its irons).
agree"
Purchase Intention
Experiment 2b: a = .89; Experiment 3: a = .89
Likert-type scale: 1 = "strongly disagree," and 7 = "strongly ,The kmd of person someone js> is some(hin
a8ree them, and it can't be changed very much.
_ Experiment 3 Pre: r = .55 (p < .05); Experiment 3 Post: .Pœple C£m do
r - .73 (p < .05) wbo they ^ can't really be changed.
•The next time I buy a 3D HD digital camera, I will take the «Everyone is a certain kind of person, a
Zook brand into consideration. that they can do to really change that.
•I can imagine buying a Zook 3D HD digital. «As much as I hate to admit it, you can't teach an
tricks. People can't really change their deepest attributes.
Stability Of Negative Brand Performance «Everyone, no matter who they are, can signi
their basic characteristics.
Likert-type scale: 1 = "not at all," and 7 = "very much" D , ,. , f , ,,
J ' - «People can substantially change the kind of person who they
Experiment 2b: r = .28 (p < .05): Experiment 3 Post: r = are
•45 (p < .05) «No matter what kind of a person som
•Do you think the issue with insufficient steaming in Zelt change very muc
irons (the ability of the Zook camera to produce high-quality «People can change e

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer, Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel Dirks, Kurt T., Peter H. Kim, Donald L. Ferrin, and Cecily D.
(2004),
"When Good Brands Do Bad," Journal of Consumer Research,Cooper (2011), "Understanding the Effects of Substantive
31 (June), 1-16. Responses on Trust Following a Transgression," Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114 (2), 87-103.
Aggarwal, Pankaj and Sharmistha Law (2005), "Role of Relation
Doering,
ship Norms in Processing Brand Information," Journal of Con Christopher (2012), "Surge in Products Being Recalled
sumer Research, 32 (December), 453-64. May Be Numbing Consumers," USA Today, (June 10), (accessed
and Ann L. McGill (2007), "Is This Car Smiling at Me?September 26, 2012), [available at http://www.usatoday.com/
news/nation/story/2012-06-08/product-recall-surge-consumer
Schema Congruity as Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized
Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (December),
fatigue/55466398/1 ].
468-79. Dutta, Sujay and Chris Pullig (2011), "Effectiveness of Corporate
and (2012), "When Brands Seem Human, Do Responses to Brand Crises: The Role of Crisis Type and
Humans Act Like Brands? Automatic Behavioral Priming
Response Strategies," Journal of Business Research, 64 (12),
1281-87.
Effects of Brand Anthropomorphism," Journal of Consumer
Research, 39 (2), 307-323. Dweck, Carol S., Chi Yue Chiu, and Ying Yi Hong (1995),
Ahluwalia, Rohini (2002), "How Prevalent Is the Negativity
"Implicit Theories: Elaboration and Extension of the Model,"
Effect in Consumer Environments?" Journal of Consumer Psychological Inquiry, 6 (4), 322-33.
Research, 29 (September), 270-79. and Daniel C. Molden (2008), "Self-Theories: The Con
, Robert E. Burnkrant, and H. Rao Unnava (2000), "Con
struction of Free Will," in Are We Free? Psychology and Free
Will, J. Baer and J.C. Kaufman and R.F. Baumeister, eds. New
sumer Response to Negative Publicity: The Moderating Role
York: Oxford University Press, 44-64.
of Commitment," Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (May),
203-214. Epley, Nicholas and Adam Waytz (2009), "Mind Perception," in The
Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regres Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th éd., S.T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert,
sion: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, and G. Lindzey, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 498-541.
CA: Sage Publications. , , Scott Akalis, and John T. Cacioppo (2008), "When
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator We Need a Human: Motivational Determinants of Anthropo
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological morphism," Social Cognition, 26 (2), 143-55.
Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considera , , and John T. Cacioppo (2007), "On Seeing Human:
tions," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism," Psychological
1173-82. Review, 114 (4), 864—86.
Bottom, William P., Kevin Gibson, Steven E. Daniels, and Keith J. Ferrin, Donald L., Peter H. Kim, Cecily D. Cooper, and Kurt T.
Murnighan (2002), "When Talk Is Not Cheap: Substantive Dirks (2007), "Silence Speaks Volumes: The Effectiveness of
Penance and Expression of Intent in Rebuilding Cooperation," Reticence in Comparison to Apology and Denial for Respond
Organization Science, 13 (5), 497-513. ing to Integrity- and Competence-Based Trust Violations,"
Caruso, Eugene M., Adam Waytz, and Nicholas Epley (2010), Journal of Applied Psycholgy, 92 (4), 893-908.
"The Intentional Mind and the Hot Hand: Perceiving Intentions Folkes, Valerie S. (1984), "Consumer Reactions to Product Fail
Makes Streaks Seem Likely to Continue," Cognition, 116 (1), ure: An Attributional Approach," Journal of Consumer
149-53. Research, 10 (March), 398-410.
Chen, Yubo, Shankar Ganesan, and Yong Liu (2009), "Does a Gawronski, Bertram (2004), "Theory-Based Bias Correction in
Firm's Product-Recall Strategy Affect Its Financial Value? An Dispositional Inference: The Fundamental Attribution Error Is
Examination of Strategic Alternatives During Product-Harm Dead, Long Live the Correspondence Bias," European Review
Crises," Journal of Marketing, 73 (November), 214-26. of Social Psychology, 15 (1), 183-217.
Chiu, Chi Yue, Ying Yi Hong, and Carol S. Dweck (1997), "Lay Gray, H.M., K. Gray, and D.M. Wegner (2007), "Dimensions of
Dispositionism and Implicit Theories of Personality," Journal Mind Perception," Science, 315 (5812), 619.
of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1), 116-31. Haselhuhn, Michael P., Maurice E. Schweitzer, and Alison M.
Choi, Inched, Richard E. Nisbett, and Ara Norenzayan (1999), Wood (2010), "How Implicit Beliefs Influence Trust Recov
"Causal Attributions Across Cultures: Variations and Univer ery," Psychological Science, 21 (5), 645—18.
sality," Psychological Bulletin, 125 (1), 47-63. Hong, Ying-Yi, Chi Yue Chiu, G. Yeung, and Yuk Yue Tong
Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1983), Applied Multiple Regres (1999), "Social Comparison During the Political Transition:
sion/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Science. Hills Interaction of Entity Versus Incremental Beliefs and Social
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Identities," Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23 (2), 257-79.
Coombs, W. Timothy and Sherry J. Holladay (2008), "Comparing , Jill Coleman, Gloria Chan, Rosanna Y.M. Wong, Chi-yue
Apology to Equivalent Crisis Response Strategies: Clarifying Chiu, Ian G. Hansen, et al. (2004), "Predicting Intergroup Bias:
Apology's Role and Value in Crisis Communication," Public The Interactive Effects of Implicit Theory and Social Identity,"
Relations Review, 34 (3), 252-57. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (8), 1035—47.
Dawar, Niraj and Jing Lei (2009), "Brand Crises: The Roles of Sheri R. Levy, and Chi-yue Chiu (2001), "The Contribu
Brand Familiarity and Crisis Relevance in Determining the tion of the Lay Theories Approach to the Study of Groups,'
Impact on Brand Evaluations," Journal of Business Research, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (2), 98-106.
62 (4), 509-516. Johnson, Allison R., Maggie Matear, and Matthew Thomson
and Madan M. Pilluda (2000), "Impact of Product-Harm (2011), "A Coal in the Heart: Self-Relevance as a Post-Exit
Crises on Brand Equity: The Moderating Role of Consumer Predictor of Consumer Anti-Brand Actions," Journal of Con
Expectations," Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (May), sumer Research, 38 (June), 108-125.
215-26. Kim, Peter H., Donald L. Ferrin, Cecily D. Cooper, and Kurt T.
Delbaere, Marjorie, Edward F. McQuarrie, and Barbara J. Phillips Dirks (2004), "Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The
(2011), "Personification in Advertising: Using a Visual Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence
Metaphor to Trigger Anthropomorphism," Journal of Advertis Versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations," Journal of Applied
ing, 40 (Spring), 121-30. Psycholgy, 89 (1), 104-118.

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC
Kim, Sara and Ann L. McGill (2011), "Gaming with Mr. Slot or Morris, Michael W. and Kaiping Peng (1994), "Culture and Cause:
Gaming the Slot Machine? Power, Anthropomorphism, and American and Chinese Attributions for Social and Physical
Risk Perception," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (1), Events," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (6),
94-107. 949-71.
Klein, Jill and Niraj Dawar (2004), "Corporate Social Responsi Nass, Clifford, Katherine Isbister, and Eun-ju Lee (2000), "Truth
bility and Consumers' Attributions and Brand Evaluations in a Is Beauty: Researching Embodied Conversational Agents," in
Product-Harm Crisis," International Journal of Research in Embodied Conversational Agents, J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S.
Marketing, 21 (3), 203-217. Prévost, and E. Churchill, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Landwehr, Jan R., Ann L. McGill, and Andreas Herrmann (2011), Park, Ji Kyung and Deborah Roedder John (2010), "Got to Get
"It's Got the Look: The Effects of Friendly and Aggressive You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub Off on Con
'Facial' Expressions on Product Liking and Sales," Journal of sumers?" Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 655-69.
Marketing, 75 (May), 132^-6. Plaks, Jason E., Sheri R. Levy, and Carol S. Dweck (2009), "Lay
Latour, Bruno (1996), "On Interobjectivity," Mind, Culture, and Theories of Personality: Cornerstones of Meaning in Social
Activity, 3 (4), 228^-5. Cognition," Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3
Laufer, Daniel and Kate Gillespie (2004), "Differences in Con (6), 1069-81.
sumer Attributions of Blame Between Men and Women: The , Steven J. Stroessner, Carol S. Dweck, and Jeffrey W. Sher
Role of Perceived Vulnerability and Empathie Concern," Psy man (2001), "Person Theories and Attention Allocation: Prefer
chology & Marketing, 21 (2), 141-57. ences for Stereotypic Versus Counterstereotypic Information,"
Leclerca, Christina M. and Thomas M. Hess (2007), "Age Differ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (6), 876-93.
ences in the Bases for Social Judgments: Tests of a SocialPoon, Connie S.K. and Derek J. Koehler (2008), "Person
Expertise Perspective," Experimental Aging Research, 33 (1), Theories: Their Temporal Stability and Relation to Intertrait
95-120. Infrences," Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (7),
Levy, Sheri R., Chi-yue Chiu, and Ying-yi Hong (2006), "Lay 965-77.
Theories and Intergroup Relations," Group Processes and Raju, Sekar and Priyali Rajagopal (2008), "Responding to Ethical
Intergroup Relations, 9 (1), 5-24. and Competence Failures," in Advances in Consumer
and Carol S. Dweck (1999), "The Impact of Children's Sta Research, Vol. 35, Angela Y. Lee and Dilip Soman, eds.
tic Versus Dynamic Conceptions of People on Stereotype For Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 855-56.
mation," Child Development, 70 (5), 1163—80. Ross, Lee and Richard E. Nisbett (1991 ), The Person and the Sit
, Jason E. Plaks, Ying-yi Hong, Chi Yue Chiu, and Carol S. uation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dweck (2001), "Static Versus Dynamic Theories and the Per Siomkos, George J. and Gary Kurzbard (1994), "The Hidden Cri
ception of Groups: Different Routes to Different Destinations," sis in Product-Harm Crisis Management," European Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology Review, 5 (2), 156-68. Marketing, 28 (2), 30-41.
-, Steven J. Stroessner, and Carol S. Dweck (1998), "StereoSkowronski, John J. (2002), "Honesty and Intelligence Judgments
type Formation and Endorsement: The Role of Implicit of Individuals and Groups: The Effects of Entity-Related
Theories," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 Behavior Diagnosticity and Implicit Theories," Social Cogni
(6), 1421-36. tion, 20 (2), 136-69.
Molden, D.C., J.E. Plaks, and Carol S. Dweck (2006), "'Meaning Waytz, Adam, Kurt Gray, Nicholas Epley, and Daniel M. Wegner
ful' Social Inferences: Effects of Implicit Theories on Inferen (2010), "Causes and Consequences of Mind Perception,"
tial Processes," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42 Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (8), 383-88.
(6), 738-52. , Carey K. Morewedge, Nicholas Epley, George Mon
Monga, Alokparna Basu and Deborah Roedder John (2008), teleone, Jia-Hong Gao, and John T. Cacioppo (2010), "Making
"When Does Negative Brand Publicity Hurt? The Moderating Sense by Making Sentient: Effectance Motivation Increases
Influence of Analytic Versus Holistic Thinking," Journal of Anthropomorphism," Journal of Personality and Social Psy
Consumer Psychology, 18 (4), 320-32. chology, 99 (3), 410-35.

122.176.241.192 on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:24:59 UTC

Brand Anthropomorphism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brand Anthropomorphism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong: The Detrimental Effect of Brand

Anthropomorphization Amid Product Wrongdoings

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23487435

This content downloaded from

When Humanizing Brands Goes

This content downloaded from

82 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong 18

This content downloaded from

841 Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wron

This content downloaded from

86 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

Zelt! Hey, my name is Zelt!

I am the most reliable and leading brand of steam

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong 18

This content downloaded from

Hypothesis tests. We performed a 2 (implicit theory Experiment 2b

Experiment 1a Experiment 1b Entity Theorists Incremental Theorists

AB NAB AB NAB AB NAB AB NAB

88 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wro

This content downloaded from

90 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong 191

This content downloaded from

Experiment 3 4.44) between a humanized and a nonhumanized brand

92 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

ZOOK! Hey, my name is ZOOK!

It is the most reliable and leading

to a greater extent than a nonanthropomorphized brand -.02, t(313)

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wron

This content downloaded from

94 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

Denial Apology Compensation Denial Apology Compensation

C: Entity Theorists' Purchase Intention D: Incremental Theorists' Purchase Intention

□ Anthropomorphized brand B Nonanthropomorphized brand

Notes: Pre = pre-firm responses. Post = post-firm responses.

brand's negative performance, in turn, remain higher than GGf"l6r3

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wron

This content downloaded from

961 Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong 197

This content downloaded from

Attitude Toward the Brand Attributions of the Cause of Negative Brand

Brand Responsibility Diagnosticity—Second Measure

981 Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong 199

This content downloaded from

100 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013

This content downloaded from

You might also like