Purposes: Previous studies have mainly focused on the positive effects of anthropomorphism. Few studies have examined the negative effects of anthropomorphism on elevating consumer expectations in the context of brand failures. Therefore, grounded in the Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory (EDT), this study aims to explore the detrimental effects of product anthropomorphism and consumer interaction from a social communication perspective. Furthermore, it seeks to address the following 3 questions: (1) what is the impact of anthropomorphism on consumers’ negative attitudes in the context of brand failures? (2) What underlying psychological mechanisms contribute to this impact? (3) What are the boundaries of anthropomorphism’s influence on consumer attitudes?
Procedures and Methods: This research used an experimental approach to investigate the aforementioned questions. Three hypotheses were posited and subsequently tested through two separate sets of independent experiments. In Study 1, we compared two contexts of the same brand (failure vs. non-failure) and utilized one-way between-group experiments and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results indicated that high-anthropomorphism (vs. low-anthropomorphism) can lead to stronger negative consumer attitudes. To explore the impact of a tangible product (as opposed to the intangible service used in Study 1), Study 2 was designed. This study employed a two-factor between-group experiment, involving the level of anthropomorphism (high vs. low) and the type of brand relationships (servant vs. partner). The mediating effect of social communicative tendency between product anthropomorphism and negative consumer attitudes was tested using SPSS 26. Additionally, the moderating effect of the brand relationship was examined.
Results and Conclusions: The findings of Study 1 indicated that anthropomorphism in brand failures lead to higher negative consumer attitudes (M high-anthropomorphic = 5.01, SD = 1.12; M low-anthropomorphic = 3.69, SD = 1.35, F (1,185) = 52.82, p < .01,ηp2 = .22). In contrast, in the control group (non-failure), the highly anthropomorphic group exhibited lower negative consumer attitudes (M high-anthropomorphic = 1.84, SD = .88; M low-anthropomorphic = 2.71, SD = 1.48, F (1,178) = 23.15, p < .01, ηp2 = .12). The results of Study 2 examined the mediating effect of social communicative tendency (Resample: 5000, Model8, 95% CI = [ .058, .304], not including 0), and the moderating effect of brand relationships. In the partner relationship group, a high-anthropomorphic led to stronger negative consumer attitudes (M low-anthropomorphic = 3.44, SD = 1.47; M high-anthropomorphic = 4.35, SD = .99, F(1, 180) = 24.50, p < .01, ηp2 = .12). On the other hand, in the servant relationship group, a low-anthropomorphic brand resulted in stronger negative consumer attitudes (M low-anthropomorphic = 4.11, SD = 1.23; M high-anthropomorphic = 2.99, SD = 1.37, F(1, 179) = 33.37, p < .01, ηp2 = .16).
In sum, anthropomorphic products can raise consumer expectations and lead to consumer dissatisfaction during brand failures. Specifically, in the context of brand failures, when a product is positioned as a “partner”, consumers exhibit a higher level of social communicative tendency, which results in lowered consumer attitudes. Conversely, when a product is positioned as a “servant”, consumers have a lower level of social communicative demand, which moderates negative consumer attitudes. This suggests that the degree of negative attitudes towards anthropomorphic products varies based on their relationship orientation. This study not only contributes to the existing theories regarding the detrimental effects of anthropomorphic products but also provides insights for companies to effectively manage the direction and magnitude of the anthropomorphic design of their products. This, in turn, can enhance the interaction experience between consumers and products.
Key words
anthropomorphism /
brand relationship /
social communicative tendency /
brand failures
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 李晶, 詹翠华, 吴艳利. (2021). 汽车前脸特征对年轻消费者喜好的影响. 心理科学, 44(4), 926-932.
[2] 汪涛, 谢志鹏, 崔楠. (2014). 和品牌聊聊天——拟人化沟通对消费者品牌态度影响. 心理学报, 46(7), 987-999.
[3] 谢志鹏, 赵晶, 汪涛. (2020). 消费者一定偏爱“笑脸”吗? 产品外观中的表情元素对消费者的影响. 心理科学进展, 28(8), 1256-1272.
[4] 谢志鹏, 赵晶, 汪涛. (2022). “我”错了还是“我们”错了——单/复数第一人称在企业道歉中的影响. 管理评论, 34(6), 303-314.
[5] 周懿瑾, 毛诗漫, 陈晓燕. (2020). 地位补偿: “仆人式”品牌拟人对购买意愿的影响. 外国经济与管理, 42(2), 43-58.
[6] 朱翊敏, 刘颖悦. (2021). 如何应对拒绝或忽视: 社会排斥类型对拟人化品牌角色偏好的影响研究. 南开管理评论, 24(4), 172-182, 224.
[7] Aaker J. L., Garbinsky E. N., & Vohs K. D. (2012). Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth, competence, and landing in the "golden quadrant". Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 191-194.
[8] Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87-101.
[9] Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468-479.
[10] Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 307-323.
[11] Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2-21.
[12] Bartneck C., Bleeker T., Bun J., Fens P., & Riet L. (2010). The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 1(2), 109-115.
[13] Chen R. P., Wan E. W., & Levy E. (2017). The effect of social exclusion on consumer preference for anthropomorphized brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 23-34.
[14] Choi S., Mattila A. S., & Bolton L. E. (2021). To err is human (-oid): How do consumers react to robot service failure and recovery? Journal of Service Research, 24(3), 354-371.
[15] Cyr D., Hassanein K., Head M., & Ivanov A. (2007). The role of social presence in establishing loyalty in e-service environments. Interacting with Computers, 19(1), 43-56.
[16] Delbaere M., McQuarrie E. F., & Phillips B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising: Using a visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121-130.
[17] Dholakia U. M., Bagozzi R. P., & Pearo L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241-263.
[18] Epley N., Waytz A., & Cacioppo J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864-886.
[19] Fan Y. F., Jiang J., & Hu Z. H. (2020). Abandoning distinctiveness: The influence of nostalgia on consumer choice. Psychology and Marketing, 37(10), 1342-1351.
[20] Fournier S., Dobscha S., & Mick D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 42-44.
[21] Gong, L. (2008). How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1494-1509.
[22] Gruenfeld D. H., Inesi M. E., Magee J. C., & Galinsky A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111-127.
[23] Hagtvedt, H. (2011). The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 86-93.
[24] Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 379-389.
[25] Han B., Wang L. Y., & Li X. (2020). To collaborate or serve? Effects of anthropomorphized brand roles and implicit theories on consumer responses. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 61(1), 53-67.
[26] Hayes A. F.(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
[27] Hsiao C. H., Shen G. C., & Chao P. J. (2015). How does brand misconduct affect the brand-customer relationship? Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 862-866.
[28] Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236-247.
[29] Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do materialists prefer the "brand-as-servant"? The interactive effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and materialism on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 284-299.
[30] Kitirattarkarn G. P., Araujo T., & Neijens P. (2019). Challenging traditional culture? How personal and national collectivism-individualism moderates the effects of content characteristics and social relationships on consumer engagement with brand-related user-generated content. Journal of Advertising, 48(2), 197-214.
[31] Manchanda P., Packard G., & Pattabhiramaiah A. (2015). Social dollars: The economic impact of customer participation in a firm-sponsored online customer community. Marketing Science, 34(3), 367-387.
[32] Marin B., Hunger A., & Werner S. (2006). Corroborating emotion theory with role theory and agent technology: A framework for designing emotional agents as motivational tutoring entities. Journal of Networks, 4(1), 29-40.
[33] Mourey J. A., Olson J. G., & Yoon C. (2017). Products as pals: Engaging with anthropomorphic products mitigates the effects of social exclusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 414-431.
[34] Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.
[35] Pulga A. A. D., Basso K., Viacava K. R., Pacheco N. A., Ladeira W. J., & Dalla Corte, V. F. (2019). The link between social interactions and trust recovery in customer-business relationships. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 18(6), 496-504.
[36] Puzakova, M., & Aggarwal, P. (2018). Brands as rivals: Consumer pursuit of distinctiveness and the role of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 869-888.
[37] Puzakova M., Kwak H., & Rocereto J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81-100.
[38] Scott M. L., Mende M., & Bolton L. E. (2013). Judging the book by its cover? How consumers decode conspicuous consumption cues in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(3), 334-347.
[39] Stein, J. P., & Ohler, P. (2017). Venturing into the uncanny valley of mind—The influence of mind attribution on the acceptance of human-like characters in a virtual reality setting. Cognition, 160, 43-50.
[40] Tam, K. P. (2015). Are anthropomorphic persuasive appeals effective? The role of the recipient' s motivations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 187-200.
[41] Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2017). Consumer engagement with brands on social network sites: A cross-cultural comparison of China and the USA. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(1), 2-21.
[42] Wittenbraker J., Zeitoun H., & Fournier S. (2015). Using relationship metaphors to understand and track brands. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships (pp. 360-375). Routledge.
[43] Xie Y., Chen K., & Guo X. L. (2020). Online anthropomorphism and consumers' privacy concern: Moderating roles of need for interaction and social exclusion. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102119.
[44] Yuan, L. Y., & Dennis, A. R. (2019). Acting like humans? Anthropomorphism and consumer’s willingness to pay in electronic commerce. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(2), 450-477.
[45] Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2004). Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: A review and new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services. Journal of Business Research, 57(4), 445-455.
[46] Zhang C., Phang C. W., Wu Q. S., & Luo X. M. (2017). Nonlinear effects of social connections and interactions on individual goal attainment and spending: Evidences from online gaming markets. Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 132-155.
PDF(714 KB)
