Building on the Stereotype Content Model, this paper introduces and tests the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework. A growing body of research suggests that consumers have relationships with brands that resemble relations between people. We propose that consumers perceive brands in the same way they perceive people. This approach allows us to explore how social perception theories and processes can predict brand purchase interest and loyalty. Brands as Intentional Agents Framework is based on a well-established social perception approach: the Stereotype Content Model. Two studies support the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework prediction that consumers assess a brand’s perceived intentions and ability and that these perceptions elicit distinct emotions and drive differential brand behaviors. The research shows that human social interaction relationships translate to consumer-brand interactions in ways that are useful to inform brand positioning and brand communications.

Warmth and competence are fundamental dimensions used to characterize people, animals, and even corporations. Based on observations from a preliminary survey (Study 1) on the impact of scandals on several brands, we predicted that an organization that caused a disaster would be judged more harshly if its warmth rather than competence reputation was called into question. Study 1 surveyed a nationally representative sample of American adults and results showed that not all scandals had the same consequences on the perception of warmth, competence, and on consumer attitudes. Study 2 suggested that framing the cause of a local environmental

People form impressions about brands as they do about social groups. The Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF) a decade ago derived from the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) two dimensions of consumers' brand perception: warmth (worthy intentions) and competence (ability). The BIAF dimensions and their predictive validity have replicated the general primacy of warmth (intentions) and developed the congruence principle of fit to context. BIAF domains include various brands, product design, and countries as origins of products and as travel destinations. Brand anthropomorphism plays a role in perceiving brands' morality, personality, and humanity. Consumer–brand relations follow from anthropomorphism: perceived brand‐self congruence, brand trust, and brand love. Corporate social (ir)responsibility and human relations, especially warm, worthy intent, interplay with BIAF dimensions, as do service marketing, service recovery, and digital marketing. Case studies describe customer loyalty, especially to warm brands, corresponds to profits, charitable donations, and healthcare usage. As the SCM and BIAF evolve, research potential regards the dimensions and beyond. BIAF has stood the tests of time, targets (brands, products, and services), and alternative theory (brand personality, brand relationships), all being compatible. Understanding how people view corporations as analogous to social groups advances theory and practice in consumer psychology.

We are grateful for the stimulating and hospitable welcome to us as guests in consumer psychology. As sojourners, we share a keen interest, but know that we come to visit without knowing the territory intimately. Granted, Chris Malone is an experienced, senior marketing practitioner who now owns a research-based consulting firm with a particular interest and specialization in this area. In addition, Nicolas Kervyn, trained as an experimental social psychologist, has worked and consulted in marketing. Susan Fiske, trained as an experimental social psychologist, had kibitzed in consumer psychology since she first served on the JCP board as an assistant professor. However, none of us has imperialist ambitions in consumer psychology. We are happy nonetheless to offer our framework as what seems to us a potentially useful complement to prior and ongoing related work. These exceptionally thoughtful commentaries broaden and inform our framework ( Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012-this issue). In return, we offer some responses regarding our own view of the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF), its parent, the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), and relationships with the commentators' own contributions.Clarifying the BIAF's intended contributions: BIAF primarily frames brand perceptions and behavior, as SCM does for social groups While certainly the BIAF and the brand evaluation methods used in our studies are limited, as the commentators note, our primary intention was to show that consumers can and do perceive brands through the specific lenses of warmth and competence, and that these perceptions lead to similar emotions and behaviors as in the well-established SCM. Further, this supports the hypothesis that consumers judge and form relationships with brands in ways that are similar to their interactions with other people, a point entirely compatible with the views of most commentators. Our work thus far suggests that while interesting and supportive of that core hypothesis, the 2 × 2 BIAF matrix might not be particularly useful for brand competitive analysis or positioning purposes. However, it does demonstrate the point that brands can elicit similar perceptions and emotions as social groups, which seems useful in and of itself. Appreciating the commentators' helpful feedbackSome papers, like Fournier and Alvarez (2012-this issue), are especially helpful in strengthening the theoretical foundation of the BIAF; all offer empirical opportunities. Most of the papers seemed to accept that the BIAF makes sense, though various authors saw various ways to develop it further: adding dimensions, developing how emotions mediate behavior, identifying different BIAFs for different demographics, and focusing in on intent/warmth and ability/competence. Adding dimensionsFirst, we aimed to make the case for the usefulness of a parsimonious model that is applicable in a wide range of situations and populations, something that the BIAF does well given its simplicity and the amount of research already done on the SCM that establish w...

Purpose The cultivation and maintenance of a brand is becoming increasingly important as politicians seek to connect with constituents. Through the lens of social cognition and group dynamics, this paper aims to understand the impact of evaluations of politician brands on voter intentions. Design/methodology/approach Three studies utilize the social cognition constructs of warmth and competence from the stereotype content model (SCM) and Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF) to evaluate the impact of brand perceptions on voting intentions, comparing fit between the models. The first study establishes the impact of these perceptions on existing politicians. The second study replicates these effects while controlling for party affiliation and extraneous factors and explicitly studies politicians as brands. The third study examines the formation of perceptions and assumptions when full information is unavailable. Findings Social cognition and group dynamics drive responses to politician brands. The data herein support perceptions of warmth and competence as significant predictors of voting intentions. Dependent upon whether the politician is being evaluated as a brand or a person, BIAF or SCM predicts the dimension that will be most impactful. These patterns persist in the absence of full information. As expected, voting intentions increased significantly when the voter was of the same (vs opposing) party as that of the candidate. Research limitations/implications Conducted during an election year, evaluations of politicians are susceptible to the current political climate and the predominantly two party political system in which the studies were conducted. The design of Studies 2 and 3 addresses some of these limitations. Results point toward the interrelated nature of warmth and competence perceptions and the usefulness of applying both BIAF and SCM to understand how voters view politicians and the drivers of voting intentions. Practical implications This study evidences the depth to which perceptions of candidates impact voting intent, establishing politicians’ unique position as both brands and people. These findings prove useful in interpreting the outcome of elections this year, and beyond. Originality/value Expanding a limited body of existing research, this work contributes to our understanding of the application of SCM within the context of politician brands. As the first concurrent investigation of SCM and BIAF, these findings are of value to political strategists and academics alike. The contribution is augmented by the consideration of the impact of party affiliation and missing information.