Partner or servant

Ying‐Yin Wu, Jing Jiang
{"title":"Partner or servant","authors":"Ying‐Yin Wu, Jing Jiang","doi":"10.1108/jcmars-08-2019-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to take the perspective of repairing the negative effect of social exclusion, discussing how anthropomorphized brand role (partner vs servant) releases the negative effect of social exclusion.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nIn this research, two behavioral studies are conducted. Study 1 uses a one-factor (social exclusion vs social inclusion) between-subjects design. The purpose of Study 1 is to test the effect of social exclusion on consumers’ WTP for the anthropomorphized brand (H1). Study 2 uses a 2 (self-esteem (SE): high vs low) × 2 (anthropomorphized brand role: servant vs partner) between-subjects design. The aim of Study 2 is to investigate that after being socially excluded, how anthropomorphized brand roles (servant vs partner) and SE interactively release individuals’ negative feelings (H2a and H2b) and how the need for control recovery mediates this interaction effect (H3).\n\n\nFindings\nThis study proposes that when individuals are socially excluded, they are willing to pay more for anthropomorphized brands than those who are not because anthropomorphized brands provide a quasi-social relationship. This study further posits that socially excluded consumers prefer the different role of anthropomorphized brands, given a different level of SE to meet their needs for control recovery. High self-esteem (HSE) (vs low self-esteem (LSE)) consumers are willing to pay more for a servant-like brand because such brands help them recover from low control by regaining a master role. In contrast, HSE and LSE consumers have no significant differences in WTP for a partner-like brand.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nFew research studies have discussed how social exclusion influences individuals’ WTP. To fill this gap, the authors used WTP as the dependent variable, showing that after being socially excluded, individuals tend to pay a higher price for the anthropomorphized brand. Also, the research not only adds a contribution to research on the need for control recovery but also indicates how HSE vs LSE individuals behave differently in socially excluded contexts.\n","PeriodicalId":333619,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Marketing Science","volume":"BC-33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Marketing Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcmars-08-2019-0026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to take the perspective of repairing the negative effect of social exclusion, discussing how anthropomorphized brand role (partner vs servant) releases the negative effect of social exclusion. Design/methodology/approach In this research, two behavioral studies are conducted. Study 1 uses a one-factor (social exclusion vs social inclusion) between-subjects design. The purpose of Study 1 is to test the effect of social exclusion on consumers’ WTP for the anthropomorphized brand (H1). Study 2 uses a 2 (self-esteem (SE): high vs low) × 2 (anthropomorphized brand role: servant vs partner) between-subjects design. The aim of Study 2 is to investigate that after being socially excluded, how anthropomorphized brand roles (servant vs partner) and SE interactively release individuals’ negative feelings (H2a and H2b) and how the need for control recovery mediates this interaction effect (H3). Findings This study proposes that when individuals are socially excluded, they are willing to pay more for anthropomorphized brands than those who are not because anthropomorphized brands provide a quasi-social relationship. This study further posits that socially excluded consumers prefer the different role of anthropomorphized brands, given a different level of SE to meet their needs for control recovery. High self-esteem (HSE) (vs low self-esteem (LSE)) consumers are willing to pay more for a servant-like brand because such brands help them recover from low control by regaining a master role. In contrast, HSE and LSE consumers have no significant differences in WTP for a partner-like brand. Originality/value Few research studies have discussed how social exclusion influences individuals’ WTP. To fill this gap, the authors used WTP as the dependent variable, showing that after being socially excluded, individuals tend to pay a higher price for the anthropomorphized brand. Also, the research not only adds a contribution to research on the need for control recovery but also indicates how HSE vs LSE individuals behave differently in socially excluded contexts.
伴侣还是仆人
目的从修复社会排斥负面效应的角度,探讨人格化的品牌角色(伙伴vs仆人)如何释放社会排斥的负面效应。在本研究中,进行了两项行为研究。研究1采用单因素(社会排斥vs社会包容)受试者间设计。研究1的目的是检验社会排斥对拟人化品牌消费者WTP的影响(H1)。研究2采用2(自尊(SE):高vs低)× 2(拟人化品牌角色:仆人vs合作伙伴)受试者间设计。研究2的目的是探讨被社会排斥后,人格化的品牌角色(仆人vs伴侣)和SE如何交互释放个体的负面情绪(H2a和H2b),以及控制恢复需求如何中介这种交互效应(H3)。这项研究表明,当个人被社会排斥时,他们比那些没有被排斥的人更愿意为拟人化的品牌支付更多的钱,因为拟人化的品牌提供了一种准社会关系。本研究进一步假设,被社会排斥的消费者在给予不同程度的SE以满足其控制恢复需求的情况下,更喜欢拟人化品牌的不同角色。高自尊(HSE)(相对于低自尊(LSE))的消费者愿意为仆人式的品牌支付更多的钱,因为这样的品牌可以帮助他们从低控制中恢复过来,重新获得主人的角色。相比之下,HSE和LSE消费者对合作伙伴品牌的WTP没有显著差异。独创性/价值很少有研究讨论社会排斥如何影响个人的WTP。为了填补这一空白,作者使用WTP作为因变量,表明在被社会排斥后,个人倾向于为拟人化的品牌付出更高的代价。此外,该研究不仅对控制恢复需求的研究做出了贡献,而且还指出了HSE和LSE个体在社会排斥环境下的不同行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信