Acta Universitatis Danubius. Communicatio, Vol 10, No 1 (2016)

How Brand Jealousy Influences the Relationship between Brand Attachment and Word of Mouth Communication

Burcu İlter¹, Nilay Bıçakcıoğlu², İlkin Ögel Yaran³

Abstract: The aim of this study is to understand the relationships between brand attachment and word of mouth communication (WOM), brand attachment and brand jealousy; brand jealousy and WOM; and the mediating role of brand jealousy on the relationship between brand attachment and word of mouth communication. The measurement model is analyzed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Further, structural equation modeling was performed in order to test the construct relations in the theoretical framework of this study. Findings of the study show that even though as brand attachment increases positive word of mouth increases, however in the existence of jealousy even people that are attached to a brand they may not talk favorably about it, and in fact make negative word of mouth communication The present research is expected to extend the prior research contributing to the extant literature by investigating an emerging concept of brand jealousy and its possible antecedents (i.e. brand attachment) and outcomes (i.e. negative and positive WOM).

Keywords: Brand Jealousy; Brand Attachment; Word of Mouth Communication

JEL Classification: M31

1. Introduction

Brand attachment and word of mouth communication (WOM) has been topics of interest and ultimate aim for marketers (Chaplin & John 2005; Fedorikhin et al., 2008; Park & MacInnis 2006; Park et al. 2009; Park et al. 2010; Schouten & McAlexander 1995; Thomson, 2006; Dillard & Wilson, 1993; Guerrero et al., 1998; Planalp, 1993). Brand attachment is about the strength of the bond between the brand with the self (Park et al., 2010). Creating brand attachment opens the way to loyal customers, and positive WOM, which is the best way to attract new customers and advertise the brands of a company. However, this might be a challenging process since customers, even though they are attached to a brand may not talk about it. In literature there are many research regarding the antecedents of positive WOM (e.g. de Matos & Rossi, 2008; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006) and negative WOM (e.g. de Matos and Rossi, 2008; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). However, within the scope of this research, the focus would be on the effect of brand attachment, and brand jealousy to WOM. Since brand attachment is known to potentially lead to positive consumer behaviors, extant literature suggests that brand attachment should lead to positive WOM (Thomson et al., 2005) However, Kwon and Mattila (2015) suggests that it would be worth investigating the trustworthiness of WOM from customers who love their brands. Typically, customers tend to trust others who have considerable experience with a brand. Hence, customers who are attached to brands might be perceived as credible and trustworthy. Or, alternatively, customers might view brand fans as biased sources for WOM since they might have developed unrealistic and exaggerated feelings that might lead to unreal suggestions, or even though they like the brand they may talk about it negatively because of their jealous characteristics, since they would not like others to own the brand. Within our knowledge there is a gap in literature about this subject. Thus, in this study we included a new concept brand jealousy, which we suggest would mediate the relationship between brand attachment and WOM.

Brand jealousy has emerged as a new construct in the area of consumer behavior. (e.g. Knobloch et al., 2001; Mathes & Severa, 1981; Sharpsteen, 1993; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997; White, 1981). Regarding the interpersonal relationship literature, jealousy is a strong feeling experienced within the scope of romantic relationships (Zandbergen & Brown, 2015). White and Mullen (1989) defined interpersonal jealousy as “a complex of behaviors, thoughts and emotions resulting from the perception of harm or threat to the self and/or the romantic relationship by a real or potential rival relationship”. Since interpersonal jealousy is a prevalent emotional experience, individuals may leverage emotional attachments to consumer goods or services as well (Thomson et al., 2005). Literature suggests that goals play a fundamental role in determining how humans behave as well as how they experience and express emotion. This does not mean that all communication is intentionally and strategically designed to fulfill goals. Some communication might be relatively mindless and spontaneous. However, in the case of jealousy, it is believed that communicative responses are shaped by goals as well as spontaneous reactions to emotional experience. (Guerrero & Afifi, 1999). Therefore, the aim of this study is to understand the relationships between brand attachment and WOM, brand attachment and brand jealousy; brand jealousy and WOM; and the mediating role of brand jealousy on the relationship between brand attachment and WOM.

The present research is expected to extend the prior research on brand management in certain ways. First, it contributes to the extant literature by investigating an emerging concept of brand jealousy and its possible antecedents (i.e. brand attachment) and outcomes (i.e. negative and positive WOM). Second, it provides information about the consequences of brand attachment in terms of WOM, which has not been investigated much in the previous research. Third, it examines the link between brand attachment and WOM within a brand jealousy context which has remained relatively untapped.

The following parts of this study continue with the respective literature grounded on the conceptual model and developed hypotheses. Afterwards, it is followed by the methodology part where the design of questionnaire, sampling and data collection processes are explained in a detailed manner. Finally, the results of the study are presented and conclusions are drawn within the frame of limitations, managerial implications and further research suggestions.

2. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model of the study. Regarding the conceptual model, both brand attachment and brand jealousy has a relationship with WOM (i.e. negative and positive WOM). In addition, brand jealousy is expected to mediate the relationship between brand attachment and WOM (i.e. negative and positive WOM).

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

2.1. The Link between Brand Attachment and Brand Jealousy

In a psychology literature, romantic jealousy is the outcome of a perceived threat to an attachment relationship within the context of interpersonal relationship (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997). So, the individuals, who have high attachment anxiety, have also more jealous worry when they are compared with individuals who have low attachment anxiety (Mattingly et al., 2012). Since the consumers can develop a relationship between the brand and the self within the context of emotional attachment (Thomson et al., 2005), romantic jealousy concept in psychology can also be applied in marketing within the context of brand.

If a consumer develops an emotional attachment with a brand, he or she strengths the bond between the self and the brand within the context of brand-self connections (Thomson et al., 2005). If he or she attaches himself/herself to the brand, this can be structurally analogous to romantic attachment in interpersonal relations (Mattingly et al., 2012). So, as in interpersonal relations, consumers can be jealous when he or she sees that the brand that he/she develops emotional attachments has been purchased or used by others. Moreover, the customer who does not have the brand yet, but is emotionally attached to the brand, can see others who have already purchased and used that brand as a rival, as similar to the findings of Sarkar and Sreejesh (2014) regarding brand love and brand jealousy. In this sense, if consumers develop a strong bond between a specific brand and their self, brand attachment will increase (Sreejesh, 2015). In return of the increase in attachment, brand jealousy will be expected to increase because consumers who want to be unique do not want to share their self and the brand which presents their self-concept with others. Thus we propose:

H₁: Brand attachment and brand jealousy have a positive relationship.

2.2. The Link between Brand Attachment and WOM

Scholars studying interpersonal relationship have increasingly noticed that emotions play an important role in communication process (Dillard & Wilson, 1993; Guerrero et al., 1998; Planalp, 1993). Most people reflect their positive or negative emotions in their communications over the course of their relationships. Interpersonal influence on interpersonal communications has recently attracted the attention of marketing scholars as well as the social psychology scholars because interpersonal communications have an influence over the actions of consumers in consumption context (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955).

Customers are mostly in tendency to make a decision about buying a product and/or services on the basis of interpersonal communications, known as “word of mouth” (de Matos & Rossi, 2008). Good individual experience with the product or a specific brand is always communicated positively through WOM, however, WOM can mostly be in the negative direction when consumers are not satisfied by the product or the specific brand.

In addition, consumers also engage in more positive WOM, if the brands are self-expressive (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Under the light of self-image congruence models, consumers likely prefer to purchase brands which reflect their self accurately to others in society (Solomon, 2014) and so they are in effort to find the best brand connecting their self. When the specific brand is included in the self of ones, the level of attachment of the consumer to the brand will be expected to increase (Park et al., 2010). The more an individual can develop connections between brand and self through the bond, and the strength of this bond enhances more as the emotional attachment of the individual to the brand increases. (Thomson et al., 2005)

In the direction of the attachment theory, as the bond between brand and self becomes stronger, the positive thoughts and feeling about a specific brand will be strong (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Therefore, if the bond between consumer’s self and the brand become stronger, this leads to positive outcomes such as positive WOM. If consumers are highly attached to the brand, it is expected that they can spread positive WOM related to this brand, and engage in less negative WOM. Thus, we hypothesize that;

H_2a: Brand attachment and negative word of mouth have a negative relationship

H_2b: Brand attachment and positive word of mouth have positive relationship

2.3. The Link between Brand Jealousy and WOM

When love is unrequited and social interaction with the loved one is absent or limited, feelings of love can be associated with both intensely positive and negative feelings (Baumeister & Wotman, 1992) Jealousy is among those negative feelings. Similar to interpersonal love and jealousy literature people can feel love (e.g. Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Batra et al., 2012), and jealousy (Sarkar & Sreejesh, 2014; Sreejesh, 2015) for brands also. Research has shown that jealous individuals engage in a wide variety of communicative responses to jealousy, with many of these behaviors requiring some level of strategic planning (Guerrero & Afifi, 1999). Guerrero et.al. (1998) argued that there are at least six jealousy-related goals: (1) maintaining the primary relationship, (2) preserving self-esteem, (3) reducing uncertainty about the primary relationship, (4) reducing uncertainty about the rival relationship, (5) re-assessing the relationship, and (6) restoring equity through retaliation. Also, Berscheid's (1983) work suggests that emotions as jealousy occur when people's goals and plans are disrupted and in response to this interruption, jealous individuals are likely to devise communication strategies to help them re-establish disrupted plans and reach new goals. Thus in case of feeling jealous because of not having a desired product people might enter into strategic communication.

In the current study we argue that since WOM is described as the process that allows consumers to share information and opinions that direct buyers toward and away from specific products, brands and services (Hawkins et al., 2004), in case of brand jealousy, people can use negative WOM to strategically preserve their self-esteem. As Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) states, among other motives of WOM, the potential to enhance own self-worth are one of the primary factors leading to WOM behavior. According to theory of social comparison, people use the means of social comparison to evaluate themselves (Festinger, 1954). This comparison can be undertaken in two ways (Suls et al., 2002) downward comparison to compare with someone in an inferior position; and upward comparison to compare against a person in a superior position. In case of upward comparison people might feel bad and this condition might threaten a person’s self-concept (Smith, 2000). As a result, it is common for people to experience the emotion of envy (Parrott & Smith, 1993) which is interchangeably used with jealousy (Bedeian, 1995). In case of jealousy, if a person aims to maintain his/her self-esteem often they would avoid communication with partner (Laura & Affifi, 1999). Thus, in a similar manner, we can predict that when a person really wants to own a product, however is not able to have it, although she/he mainly has positive attitudes regarding that product, he/she can either talk negatively about the product/service, or avoid talking positively about it in order to protect his/her self-esteem.

Therefore, we hypothesize the following hypotheses:

H_3a: There is a positive relationship between brand jealousy and negative WOM

H_3b: There is a negative relationship between brand jealousy and positive WOM

2.4. The Mediating Impact of Brand Jealousy on the Relationship between Brand Attachment and WOM

Within the consumer-brand relationship context, the extent of the strength of the bonds between a consumer and a brand determines whether the behavior(s) of the consumer will be positive or negative (Thomson et al., 2005). As the brand reflects the consumers’ self-concept more, the consumers attach themselves emotionally and cognitively to the brand more, as well (Escalas 2004; Fedorikhin et al., 2008). So, by supporting the self-image congruence models, consumers prefer to choose the brands which match some aspects of their self (Solomon, 2014), and in order not to contradict with their self, they develop positive attitudes toward and behaviors to these brands.

One of the positive outcomes of the strong bond between the consumer and the brand is WOM which arises as informal communications directed at other consumers as a result of their prior purchasing and consuming experiences about the brand (Westbrook, 1987). As similar to individuals talking positively about the people that they love, in interpersonal relationships, the consumers also talk favorably about the brands that they are strongly and emotionally attached to (Carrol & Ahuvia, 2006). Thus, the level of attachment to the brand influences the direction of WOM concerning the brand.

Referring to interpersonal relationships, consumers may also feel emotional attachments to specific brands as well, (Thomson et al., 2005) and they can do everything for obtaining these brands. Since the consumer who has a strong attachment to a brand might start considering existing consumers of the brand as rivals (Sarkar & Sreejesh, 2014; Sreejesh, 2015), they may think that potential customers (i.e. their friends, neighbors) of the brand will be also their rivals.

Consequently, as the level of attachment to the brand increases, consumers become more jealous about sharing their self-concepts with the others, and they do not want to share their beloved brands with others. In order to be unique and to protect their self-esteem, consumers may engage in negative WOM. In this context, it is expected that the relationship between brand attachment and negative WOM becomes stronger in case of brand jealousy. On the other hand, since brand attachment positively influences both the brand jealousy and positive WOM, brand jealousy can also play a role as a mediator variable on the link between brand attachment and positive WOM. Accordingly, we predict the following hypothesis:

H_4a: Brand jealousy mediates the relationship between brand attachment and negative WOM.

H_4b: Brand jealousy mediates the relationship between brand attachment and positive WOM.

3. Methodology

3.1. Questionnaire Design

A structured questionnaire including five parts was conducted to analyze the conceptual model developed in the present study. In the beginning of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to determine their desired brand which their friends or neighbors have, but they could not possess at that time due to some constraints (i.e. time, money etc.). After indicating this chosen brand, they were asked to reply to the rest of the questions considering this brand. The items in the instrument were developed from the relevant literature. While brand jealousy scale was adapted from Sarkar and Sreejesh (2014), brand attachment scale was based on (Park et al., 2010). Negative WOM and positive WOM scales, each have three items, and were adapted from (Alexandrov et al., 2013). To measure all the items in the questionnaire, a 5-point Likert type scale was used with the indicators ranging between “1 = strongly disagree” and “5 = strongly agree”. Questionnaire was firstly designed in English and then translated into Turkish with the help of two academicians via back-translation procedure.

A judgmental sampling technique was adopted with the target population including high school teenagers (i.e. 15-19 years of age), since their propensity for being jealous and anxious is greater than other people at older ages (Chaplin & John, 2007). Prior version of the questionnaire was controlled and improved by three academicians. After amending the questionnaire items concerning their beneficial feedbacks, improved version of the questionnaire was pretested to five high school students through face to face meetings to ensure that the items in the questionnaire were well understood by the target sample. With regard to the pretest results, the questionnaire provides accurate and complete understanding of the questions, establishing the content and face validity.

A total of 464 high school students were participated in this study, of which 426 acquired questionnaire forms could be usable due to missing data and misunderstandings regarding the first question. When examining the profile of the respondents (Table 1), gender distribution in the sample seems homogeneous with a total of 55.1 percent including female and 44.8 percent including male. The age profile of the sample changes in between 15 and 19 years old, as fixed as target population in this study. The average monthly household income profile of the respondents demonstrates that 21.1 percent of the respondents have income level varying between 3001-4000 TL, while 20.8 percent having between 2001-3000 TL and 15.2 percent having between 4001-5000 TL incomes.

Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents

3.2. Research Findings

Structural equation modeling was performed in order to test the construct relations in the theoretical framework of this study. Further, the measurement model is analyzed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Lastly, the findings are depicted on the basis of structural model.

3.3. Measurement Model

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to all of the items in order to disclose how well observed variables embody theoretical latent constructs and test unidimensionality and validity. The model fit indices (i.e., χ²(57_df) =226.26 (p=0.00), GFI=0.92, NFI=0.92, NNFI=0.92, IFI=0.94, CFI=0.94, RMSEA=0.084) indicates that the CFA model has satisfactory results (Hair et al., 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

When examining the standardized factor loading estimates between latent and observed variables, they range from 0.42 to 0.92. Since the phrasings of the items are identical for JEL2 and JEL3; and ATT3 and ATT4, the error terms of those items were correlated. With respect to standardized factor loadings in CFA analysis, there is just one observed item (ATT3) which could not reach the threshold value of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2013) and this item is not excluded for further analyses since it is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Moreover, the t values range from 8.11 to 23.72 and it demonstrates that the relationships between observed variables and latent variables are significant at the 0.05 level (t > 1.96). Hence, convergent validity was reasonably achieved, since all standardized factor loadings are greater than 0.5; all t-values are higher than 3.0, and all standard errors are expected to be close to the ground (Hair et al., 2013, p. 617).

Table 2. Summary of Construct Measurement

**Item fixed to set the scale

Fit statistics:χ²(57_df)= 226.26, (p= 0.00), GFI= 0.92, NNFI= 0.92, NFI= 0.92, IFI= 0.94, CFI= 0.94, RMSEA= 0.084, AVE=Average variance extracted, SD= Standard deviation, CR= Composite Reliability

To examine internal consistency, Cronbach’s alphas of each construct were calculated. All four constructs are found as internally consistent, which shows an acceptable reliability: brand attachment (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74), brand jealousy (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.738), negative WOM (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.919), and positive WOM (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81). Moreover, composite reliabilities range between 0.80 and 0.91, suggesting a good construct reliability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Also, average variance extracted (AVE) values range between 0.45 and 0.78, which are greater than the square of the inter-construct correlations (Table 3). Hence, discriminant validity is established for all pairs of constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 3. Discriminant Validity Test Results

AVE: Average Variance Extracted for the construct (diagonal in bold). Below diagonal are the squared correlations.

Finally, the possibility of common method bias was also examined by the way of Harman's single factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). After all, observed variables were analyzed on a single factor, CFA was performed again (Podsakoff et al., 2003). With regard to the results, the model does not produce satisfactory results (χ²(63_df) = 2510.73 (p=0.00), NNFI=0.23, IFI=0.38, NFI=0.37, CFI=0.38, RMSEA=0.302). Hence, it reveals that common method bias does not exist as a barrier for this study.

3.4. Structural Model

Structural equation modeling was conducted in order to test the proposed hypotheses in this study. Firstly, the model fit indices (χ²(57_df) = 226.26 (p=0.00), GFI=0.92, NNFI=0.92, NFI=0.92 IFI=0.94, CFI=0.94, RMSEA=0.084) demonstrate a good fit between the data and the model (Hair et al., 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). H₁ proposing a positive effect of brand attachment on brand jealousy was supported (β=0.67, t=9.23, p<0.05). Following, H_2a was not supported as consumers’ brand attachment enhances their negative WOM (β=0.21, p<0.05), while H_2b was supported as it increases positive WOM, as well (β=0.32, p<0.05). Specifically, H_3a and H_3b were supported, since brand jealousy has a positive significant impact on negative WOM (β=0.45, t=5.62, p<0.05) and negative significant impact on positive WOM (β=-0.25, t=-3.07, p<0.05). H_4a hypothesizing that brand jealousy mediates the relationship between brand attachment and negative WOM was supported. With respect to the approach of Baron and Kenny (1986), all of the four conditions were met, since there is a significant association (a) between brand attachment and negative WOM (β=0.21, t=3.87 p<0.05); (b) between brand attachment and brand jealousy (β=0.67, p<0.05); (c) between brand jealousy and negative WOM (β=0.45, p<0.05); (d) when examining the mediating impact of brand jealousy statistically, the existing significant impact in the first condition (β=0.21) have been remarkably decreased and found as insignificant (β=-0.06, t=-0.73, p>0.05). Therefore, the findings show that brand jealousy partially mediates the relationship between brand attachment and negative WOM, which implies that the link between brand attachment and negative WOM become stronger when brand jealousy was incorporated into the model. Consequently, Sobel test was conducted in order to test the significance of mediation found on those links and it also reveals that the mediation impact is significant (Sobel z-value=4.80, p<0.05). Lastly, the findings demonstrate that H_4b proposing the mediating effect of brand jealousy on the link between brand attachment and positive WOM was not supported, since the fourth condition of Baron and Kenny (1986), which expects a decreased and insignificant impact with the inclusion of mediator variable into the model, was not met.

Table 4. Hypotheses Test Results

Fit Statistics: χ²(57_df) = 226.26 (p=0.00), NNFI= 0.92, NFI=0.92, CFI= 0.94, GFI= 0.92, IFI= 0.94 RMSEA= 0.084

4. Conclusion and Discussions

Creating brand attachment and motivating customers to talk positively about brands of a company has been among important topics for marketers. Customer satisfaction, and brand attachment is generally accepted to create positive WOM in literature. This is very important since WOM is considered to be among the most believable and important source of advertisement. However, this study aims to investigate the effect of brand jealousy on this existing positive relationship between brand attachment and WOM.

The findings show that brand attachment has a positive effect on brand jealousy as expected. In other words, the more attached the respondents are to a brand, they became more jealous if they cannot own the desired brand. Also supporting the extant literature, it is found that as brand attachment increases, positive WOM increases. However, an interesting and unexpected finding of the study depending on the existing literature is that, the negative link between brand attachment and negative WOM was not supported. Though unexpected and contradicting with general literature, this finding might be considered relevant for our study since we have specifically targeted and judgmentally attempted to select a jealous group of respondents. With our preliminary question in the questionnaire, we have asked the respondents to select a brand that their friends/families have, but they do not, but would like to own it furiously. However, it is seen that for our respondent group the attached customers seem to talk both positively and negatively about the brand. There might be several explanations for this contradicting result. First of all, there might be some factors other than jealousy that might be mediating this relationship. Also in this study we did not measure the jealousy levels of people, so the ones talking negatively would possibly be the ones that have higher jealousy levels. Thus this issue needs further investigation.

Moreover, brand jealousy was found to influence negative WOM, in other words we can say that respondents, might be talking strategically to hinder other people from using the brand that they cannot own. In Turkish there is a proverb that says “cat calls the lungs that it cannot reach filthy” meaning that people will talk about things badly if they are not able to have those. Our finding is also talking about a similar thing. The findings also show that brand jealousy partially mediates the relationship between brand attachment and negative WOM, which implies that the link between brand attachment and negative WOM become stronger when brand jealousy was incorporated into the model.

Those findings might have several implications for marketing managers. First of all findings of the study might be more valid for luxurious brands since uniquioness is an important motivation for owning luxuirous brands, users of those might develop more jealous feelings. This jeolousy feeling could also be used in advertisements by using jealousy indusing appeals to to emphasize uniqueness of the customer.

However findings of the study should be evaluated considering the limitations of the study. First of all the findings are not generalizable because of the sampling, for this reason it should be replicated in other places and at other times in order to ensure external validity. Moreover, the present research offers several directions for future studies. It would be much more ilimunating to repeat a similar research by considering the jealousy levels of people since the intensity of jeolousy might influence the direction of WOM as suggested within the study.

5. References

Alexandrov, A.; Lilly, B. & Babakus, E. (2013). The effects of social-and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 531-546.

Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Batra, R.; Ahuvia, A. & Bagozzi, R.P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1-16.

Baumeister, R.F. &Wotman, S.R (1992). Breaking hearts: The two sides of unrequited love. New York: Guil-ford.

Bedeian, A.G. (1995). Workplace envy. Organizational Dynamics, 23(4), 49-56.

Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H.H. Kelly; Berscheid, E.; Christensen, A.; Harvey, J.H.; Huston, T.L.; Levinger, G.; McClintock, E.; Peplau, L.A. & D.R. Peterson, Close relationships, pp. 110-168. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Carrol, B.A & Ahuvia, A.C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcome of brand love. Marketting Letters, 17(2), 79-89.

Chaplin, N. & John, D.R. (2005). The Development of Self-Brand Connections in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 119–29.

De Matos C.A & Rossi, C.A.V. (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 578–596.

Dillard, J.P. & Wilson, B.J. (1993). Communication and Affect: Thoughts, Feelings, and Issues for the Future. Communication Research, 20(5), 637-46.

Dogan, K., & Vecchio, R.P. (2001). Managing envy and jealousy in the workplace. Compensation & Benefits Review, 33(2), 57-64.

Escalas, J.E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48.

Fedorikhin, A.; Park C.W. & Thomson, M. (2008). Beyond Fit and Attitude: The Effect of Emotional Attachment on Consumer Responses to Brand Extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology.18 (4), 281–91

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 382-388.

Foster, G.M. (I972). The Anatomy of Envy: A Study of Symbolic Behavior. Current Anthropology I, 3.

Guerrero, L.K. & Afifi, W.A. (1999). Toward a goal‐oriented approach for understanding communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 63(2), 216-248.

Guerrero, L.K.; Andersen, P.A. & Frost, M.R. (1998). Communication and emotion: Basic concepts and approaches. In P.A. Andersen & L.K. Guerrero (Eds.) Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 3-27). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hair, J.H., Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2013). Multivariate Data Analysis. United States of America: Pearson.

Hawkins, D.I.; Best, R. & Coney, K.A. (2004). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy. 9th ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Hazan, C & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.

Hennig‐Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Walsh, G. & Gremler, D.D. (2004). Electronic word‐of‐mouth via consumer‐opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of interactive marketing, 18(1), 38-52.

Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal Influence. The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. USA: Transaction Publishers.

Knobloch, L.K.; Solomon, H. & Cruz, M.G. (2001). The role of relationship development and attachment in the experience of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships 8(2): 205-224.

Kwon, E. & Mattila, A.S. (2015). The Effect of Self–Brand Connection and Self-Construal on Brand Lovers’ Word of Mouth (WOM). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 1938965514566071.

Guerrero, Laura K. & Afifi, Walid A. (1999). Toward a goal‐oriented approach for understanding communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 63:2, 216-248, DOI: 10.1080/10570319909374637.

Mathes, E.W. & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: theoretical considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychological Reports, 49(1): 23-31.

Mattingly, B.A.; Whitson, D. & Mattingly, M.J. (2012). Development of the romantic jealousy-induction scale and the motives for inducing romantic jealousy scale. Current Psychology, 31(3), 263-281.

Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P.R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics and Change. New York: The Guilford Press.

Park, C.W., & Mittal, B. (1985). A Theory of Involvement in Consumer Behavior: Problems and Issues. In J. Sheth (Ed.). Research in Consumer Behavior, 1, pp. 201-232. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Park, C.W. & MacInnis, D.J. (2006). What’s In and What’s Out: Questions on the Boundaries of the Attitude Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 16–18.

Park, C.W.; MacInnis, D.J. & Zhong, W. (2009). The Connection-Prominence Attachment Model (CPAM): A Conceptual and Methodological Exploration of Brand Attachment, in Handbook of Brand Relationships, Chap. 17, Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan Park, & Joseph Priester, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 327–41.

Park, C.W.; MacInnis, D.J.; Priester, J.; Eisingerich, A.B. & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, November 1–17.

Parrott, W.G., & Smith, R.H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906.

Planalp, S. (1993). Communication, cognition, and emotion. Communication Monograph. 60(1), 3-9.

Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.

Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y. & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

Sarkar, A. & Sreejesh, S. (2014). Examination of the roles played by brand love and jealousy in shaping customer engagement. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 24-32.

Sharpsteen, D.J. & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(3), 627.

Schouten, J.W. & McAlexander, J.H. (1995). Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 43–61.

Sharpsteen, D.J. (1993) Romantic jealousy as an emotion concept: a prototype analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(1): 69-82.

Smith, R.H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. Handbook of Social Comparison: Springer, pp. 173-200.

Solomon, M.R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sreejesh, S. (2015). Consumers’ Perceived Brand Aspiration and Its Impact on Intention to Pay Price Premium: Moderating Role of Brand Jealousy. Theoretical Economics Letters, 5(02), 273.

Suls, J.; Martin, R. & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159-163.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson Education.

Thomson, M.; MacInnis, D.J. & Park, C.W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of consumer psychology, 15(1), 77-91.

Thomson, M. (2006). Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers’ Strong Attachments to Celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70 (July), 104–119.

Wattanasuwan, K. (2005). The self and symbolic consumption. Journal of American Academy of Bussiness, 6(1), 179-184.

Westbrook, R.A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of marketing research, 258-270.

White, G.L. (1980). Inducing Jealousy, a Power Perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(2), 222-227.

White, G.L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 5(4), 295-310.

White, G.L. & Mullen, P.E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. NY: Guilford Press.

Zandbergen, D.L. & Brown, S.G. (2015). Culture and gender differences in romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 122-127.

Refbacks

• There are currently no refbacks.