Construct · 4 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · love borrowed, siblings blurred Nearest construct by meaningself-brand connectioncompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to brand love is self-brand connection.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree of passionate, long-term emotional attachment a consumer holds for a brand, modeled by Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi as a higher-order construct rather than a single feeling. Working from how consumers actually describe loving a brand, they built brand love from seven parts: self-brand integration, passion-driven behaviors, a positive emotional connection, a long-term relationship, anticipated separation distress, overall attitude valence, and attitude strength. The construct is deliberately rich, folding thoughts, feelings, and behaviors into one label. That same breadth is what makes it hard to keep apart from the brand-relationship constructs around it, since almost any warm bond with a brand can be read into one of its seven parts.[1]
The earlier and simpler reading of brand love, defined by Carroll and Ahuvia as the degree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name. Their scale treats brand love as a single affective dimension close to a strong, warm attitude, measured with a handful of items such as feeling that the brand is wonderful or a pure delight. It was proposed as an antecedent of brand loyalty and positive word of mouth rather than as a full relationship. Comparing it with the later higher-order model shows the jangle already inside marketing: two scales share the name brand love but disagree on whether love is one feeling or a bundle of seven.[2]
Love between people as Sternberg described it, built from three components: intimacy, or closeness and warmth; passion, or the drives toward romance and attraction; and commitment, or the decision to maintain the relationship. Different mixes of the three yield different kinds of love, from liking through companionate and romantic to consummate love. Brand-love researchers borrowed this vocabulary by analogy, mapping intimacy, passion, and commitment onto how people relate to brands. The borrowing is the heart of the jangle question here, because it is not obvious that the word love, taken from bonds between persons, names the same thing when the object is a product for sale.[3]
A cluster of closely related brand-emotion constructs that grew up alongside brand love and overlap with it. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, and Iacobucci defined brand attachment as the strength of the bond connecting a brand with the self, and had to work to separate it from ordinary brand attitude strength. Around it sit brand passion, self-brand connection, and emotional brand attachment, each with its own scale and each measuring warmth, closeness, or intensity toward a brand. Because their items and definitions run so close to brand love and to one another, telling these siblings apart, and saying which one a study is really measuring, is the practical form of the jangle.[4]
Next
See how brand love sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct