Impact of brand anthropomorphism on ethical judgment: the roles of failure type and loneliness

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to investigate whether anthropomorphized (i.e. humanized) brands are judged less negatively for competence failures than for moral lapses and how these ethical judgments impact negative word-of-mouth (NWOM) intentions of less-lonely and more-lonely consumers. Design/methodology/approach Two scenario-based experiments were conducted, involving a total of 1,375 US mechanical turk (Amazon consumer panel) participants. Findings Findings show that brand humanization has an impact on ethical judgments only for less-lonely consumers. More specifically, for less-lonely consumers, a humanizing strategy backfires when the failure is moral but helps the brand when the failure is competence-related. On the other hand, more-lonely consumers judge the situation less negatively overall, and this effect is not impacted by the anthropomorphization strategy. Process tests indicate that these judgments indirectly affect consumers’ intention to spread NWOM following negative events. Research limitations/implications Future research could examine the specific process for lonely consumers (i.e. the role of empathy) and manipulate the size of the negative events (i.e. consumer perceptions of moderate vs extreme failures). Practical implications Brand managers need to consider their specific situations, as anthropomorphization can have both positive and negative effects depending on the consumers and the failure type (moral vs competence). Originality/value Extant research indicates that a humanizing strategy backfires when the market has negative information about the brand. This research introduces types of negative information, as well as consumers’ loneliness as moderators and contributes to the literature in branding, business ethics and word-of-mouth.

Repurchasing probabilistic goods as incentive sensation process for lonely individuals: The roles of liking and wanting

“…Our result is in line with previous studies that loneliness is a multifaceted construct (Weiss, 1973). The support for H1a, H2b, and H2 help to contribute to loneliness coping mechanism that different facet of loneliness would have various performance in pursuing liking as hedonic feelings compensation and wanting as a way to distract self (Dalman et al, 2021; Kalisch et al, 2006, p. 1226; Pieters, 2013). The lack of support for H1c (social exclusion ➔ liking) can arguably be explained by evolutionary theory of loneliness (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2018).…”

“…At the same time, negative emotions expand the hedonic feelings that individuals experience (Goldsmith et al, 2012). Prior studies have documented that positive feelings can compensate for psychological loneliness, which is an unpleasant and aversive feeling (Dalman et al, 2021; Pieters, 2013). Hence, individuals who experience psychological loneliness are driven to seek liking as an affective appeal, reflecting their desire to ease the pain of loneliness.…”

Anthropomorphism and consumer behaviour: ASPAR‐4‐SLRprotocol compliant hybrid review

“…Anthropomorphism is a widely studied concept that has caught researchers' attention in recent decades. This attention has led to the expansion of anthropomorphism research into several areas, which includes management (Andersen, 2008; Ashforth et al, 2020), journalism (Nan et al, 2006; Shin, 2021; Waddell, 2018), consumer behaviour (Kim et al, 2020; Wan & Chen, 2021), advertising (Choi et al, 2001; Han et al, 2019; Lee & Oh, 2021; Zhou et al, 2021), branding (Dalman et al, 2021; Kwak et al, 2017; Lim, Im, & Lee, 2022; Lim, Kumar, et al, 2022), robotics (Hegel et al, 2008; Mende et al, 2019; Piçarra & Giger, 2018; Popov & Klimchik, 2019), theology (Guthrie, 2019; Yonan, 1995), psychology (Epley et al, 2007; Epley et al, 2008; Waytz et al, 2014), computer science (Charlton, 2006; Kiesler & Goetz, 2002; Kim et al, 2016; Luczak et al, 2003), social psychology (Epley, 2018; Kwan & Fiske, 2008; Nyhof & Johnson, 2017; Waytz et al, 2014), product design (Karanika & Hogg, 2020; Landwehr et al, 2011; Valenzuela & Hadi, 2017; van Tilburg et al, 2015), environmental sciences (Ding et al, 2021; Whitley et al, 2021), hospitality and tourism (Han et al, 2020; Martin et al, 2020), artificial intelligence (AI; Kim et al, 2019; Ochmann et al, 2021; Pelau et al, 2021; Persson et al, 2000; Proudfoot, 2011; Ruijten et al, 2018), and an emerging field within the ambit of marketing, that is, chatbot marketing (Balakrishnan et al, 2022; Crolic et al, 2022; Sheehan et al, 2020). As evident from the schol...…”