消費者はブランド購買に何を求めているのか

― 抽象的マインドセットの時に消費者は「自己とブランドのつながり」を重視する ―

Abstract

Consumers’ purchasing decisions are shaped by personal factors, such as self-brand connection (SBC), and social factors, such as group norms. However, these influences often conflict; for example, a consumer may personally favor Brand A, while their friends recommend Brand B. Previous research has not explored which of these factors prevails in such situations. This study addresses this gap by applying construal level theory to assess whether SBC or social factors are more relevant in brand selection. According to construal level theory, a high-level, abstract mindset leads people to prioritize essential, overarching goals, whereas a low-level, concrete mindset focuses attention on secondary, context-dependent attributes. Across three empirical studies, we found that consumers with an abstract mindset prioritize SBC alone in their purchasing decisions, whereas those with a concrete mindset consider both SBC and social influences. These findings suggest that, fundamentally, consumers prioritize SBC over social norms when making brand purchase decisions.

Translated Abstract

消費者の購買意図は，個人的要因（例えば，自己とブランドのつながり）および社会的要因（例えば，社会規範）によって決定される。しかし，「私」はブランドAが好きだが，「私の友人たち」はブランドBを薦めてくる，といったように，ブランドに対する個人的評価と社会的評価はしばしば葛藤する。このような葛藤状況において，消費者は個人的評価と社会的評価のどちらを優先して購買意思決定をするのか，先行研究では明らかにされていない。そこで本研究は，解釈レベル理論を用いて，ブランドの購買において消費者が本質的に重視しているものは何であるのかを明らかにすることで，このリサーチギャップに対応した。解釈レベル理論によると，人は抽象的マインドセットの時には，自身の行動目標に強く関連のある本質的な要素を重視するが，具体的マインドセットの時は，目標と関連の薄い，物事の副次的な側面にも注目するようになる。3つの研究を通じて，抽象的マインドセットの消費者はブランド選択において個人的要因（自己とブランドのつながり）のみを重視するが，具体的マインドセットの消費者は個人的評価に加えて社会的要因（社会規範）も重視していることが明らかになった。この結果は，ブランド購買において消費者が本質的に求めているのは，ブランドの社会的評価ではなく，個人的要因（自己とブランドのつながり）であることを示唆している。

I.  Introduction

Imagine having a personal attachment to a stylish and luxurious apparel brand. You wish to purchase a uniquely designed coat; however, your spouse and children suggest that it does not suit you and recommend opting for a more classic and understated brand. As a result, you abandon the idea of buying from your preferred brand and instead choose another brand. This type of goal conflict in purchase decision-making is common (Carlson et al., 2013). Although we want to purchase a product from a brand that reflects who we are, we may buy one from another brand that is acceptable to our family and friends.

On the one hand, previous studies on brand management have documented the critical importance of self–brand connection (SBC) or brand attachment for increasing market share and customer loyalty (e.g., Park et al., 2010). SBC is defined as the emotional and cognitive bond derived from the connection between the self and a brand (Park et al., 2010). Investigators have also explored various determinants of SBC, such as overlap between mental representations of the self and the brand (Trump & Brucks, 2012), motivation for affiliation (Dunn & Hoegg, 2014), and self-congruity (Fastoso & González-Jiménez, 2020). Owing to the nature of SBC, these studies focused on brand evaluations from the perspective of the “self” rather than social factors, such as social norms or other people’s perspectives.

On the other hand, consumers are sometimes motivated to choose brands based on the social context, enabling them to maintain or enhance their connectedness with others (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). The phenomenon of social influence on consumer behavior is such that a consumer’s decision is determined by how other people perceive a brand or product. For example, the literature on reference groups shows that consumers choose a brand to make a good impression on others and exhibit conformity to their group members to obtain “social proof” (Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Mead et al., 2011; White & Dahl, 2006). Furthermore, social norms provide consumers with information about socially desirable behaviors: consumers believe that “if everyone is doing it, it must be a sensible thing to do” (Cialdini et al., 1990, p. 1015). Thus, consumers incorporate others’ choices and opinions into their purchasing behaviors (Goldstein et al., 2008; Melnyk et al., 2022). These studies highlight consumers’ perceptions or evaluations of brands from the perspective of “others,” not themselves. In this study, brand evaluation based on social norms or the perspectives of others is referred to as “public-based brand evaluation” (PBE), in contrast to SBC or evaluations based on the self.

The fact that both SBC and PBE affect purchase decisions leads to our research question: when SBC and PBE are in conflict, which of the two evaluations prevails? Previous research argues that SBC and PBE simultaneously influence consumer decision-making. For example, the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970) and theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) proposed that consumers’ behavioral intentions are determined as a function of personal factors (i.e., personal attitude to act) and social normative beliefs (i.e., beliefs about what “society” expects one should do). Similarly, Aaker (1999) argued that self-concept is multifaceted and that brand choice can be based on personal beliefs (e.g., self-related factors) or the situation (e.g., group-related factors), depending on what self-concept is manifested.

Consumer choice dilemmas—decisions involving options aligned with different goals—are common. For example, one might choose between a hedonic option (e.g., pizza) and a health-focused option (e.g., salad) for lunch (Carlson et al., 2013). Similarly, consumers may face a goal conflict between SBC and PBE when selecting a brand, as illustrated in the above example of choosing an apparel brand. However, previous research on brand choice has focused primarily on the interaction and synergistic effects of SBC and PBE (Aaker, 1999; Escalas & Bettman, 2005). No study has focused on the intrinsic nature of SBC, which is based on the emotional bond between a consumer’s “true self” and a brand. There has been little discussion on SBC as a potentially stronger predictor of brand choice than social influences. Addressing this research gap is essential for the following reasons.

First, this study suggests what consumers intrinsically pursue in brand purchasing. Although brand usage is often a social behavior or self-presentation to others (Veblen, 1899), consumers also buy brands based on personal preference or an emotional attachment (Park et al., 2010). PBE can inherently threaten personal freedom in decision-making (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2018), and consumers tend to make decisions on the basis of personal preference or SBC when their behaviors cannot be observed by others (Mead et al., 2011). However, as SBC and PBE are sometimes congruent, these comparative effects are difficult to identify. Therefore, by using situations in which SBC and PBE are in conflict, the present study contributes to the decision-making literature by showing what consumers intrinsically value in brand purchases and when each factor has a greater influence on their decisions.

Second, the present study contributes to the literature on consumer well-being. A growing number of scholars have recently focused on how to increase consumers’ psychological well-being (Gaston-Breton et al., 2021). They argue that consumer behavior research must shift its focus from marketing strategies aimed at increasing companies’ sales and profits to promoting consumer welfare. The social psychology literature shows that people who successfully manage conflicting goals can achieve their long-term and ultimate life goals, which are important for enhancing psychological well-being (Emmons & King, 1988; Tangney et al., 2004). Otherwise, people act in accordance with the immediate temptations in a situation, which can lead to undesirable outcomes that are harmful to long-term well-being (Emmons & King, 1988). This study clarifies that consumers are fundamentally motivated to prioritize SBC over PBE when making brand purchases, emphasizing the importance of pursuing their “true self” through these decisions.

Drawing on construal level theory (CLT), we examine the greater relevance of SBC than PBE when consumers focus on their long-term well-being. According to CLT, when individuals perceive an object as psychologically distant, their mindset shifts to a high-level or abstract construal, emphasizing primary and goal-relevant elements. Conversely, when an object feels psychologically close, their mindset shifts to a low-level or concrete construal, focusing more on secondary and goal-irrelevant attributes (Liberman & Trope, 2008). Based on this assumption, the present study demonstrates that, in situations where SBC and PBE conflict, consumers with a high-level, abstract mindset who successfully focus on their ultimate life goals are more likely to choose brands based on SBC than to choose brands based on PBE. Thus, we suggest that purchase decisions based on SBC can help consumers achieve their ultimate life goals and enhance their well-being.

II.  Theoretical Background

1.  Relative importance of SBC and PBE in brand choice

Several studies have demonstrated that brand attachment or SBC is a critical driver of better brand performance, as indicated by brand loyalty, repeat purchases, the restoration of brand equity, brand advocacy behaviors, and high brand market share (e.g., Park et al., 2010). SBC is a deep-seated evaluation because people generally have a self-enhancement motive and tend to exaggerate their virtues and minimize their shortcomings (Alicke & Sedikides, 2011). Thus, once consumers develop SBC, they are strongly motivated to maintain a favorable evaluation of the brand to retain a positive self-view (Cheng et al., 2012).

In addition, consumers use brands as a means of self-expression (Aaker, 1999; Belk, 1988). Research on the self indicates that people have a basic need to express who they believe they truly are rather than their public self (Schlegel & Hicks, 2011). Thus, consumers are motivated to buy brands that reflect who they truly are (Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Malär et al., 2011).

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) has also emphasized the importance of autonomy or decision-making based on beliefs about the true self. It is well known that expressing and actualizing the true self in daily life enhances subjective well-being (Bargh et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2022; Schlegel et al., 2009). Kim et al. (2016) suggested that consumers engage in experiential consumption in the pursuit of their true selves.

In summary, we assume that consumers are intrinsically motivated to pursue their ultimate life goal (i.e., well-being) by purchasing brands with a high SBC.

In contrast to SBC, PBE refers to how ordinary consumers evaluate a brand in a given society. Social acceptance is another major life goal of human beings (Maslow, 1970). Research suggests that consumers use a brand to enhance relationships with others whom they consider important or to exhibit conformity to social groups (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Forehand & Deshpandé, 2001; White & Argo, 2009). For example, consumers tend to adopt brands that symbolize their important social groups, such as their university peers (Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Mead et al., 2011), nationality (Cheng et al., 2012), ethnicity (Forehand & Deshpandé, 2001), and gender (White & Dahl, 2006). Thus, reference groups work to determine which brand consumers should choose to establish their social identity and enhance their status in their in-group.

However, it is sometimes uncomfortable for humans to behave in a manner defined by social groups at the expense of their true selves (Bargh et al., 2002; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011). People experience strong psychological reactance when their freedom is threatened by group pressure or social norms (Brehm & Mann, 1975; Rosenberg & Siegel, 2018). Decision-making that aligns with one’s true self is much more satisfying (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Schlegel et al., 2009). Research suggests that “self-initiated” actions promote sustained effort and progress in goal pursuit, leading to psychological well-being. Conversely, externally influenced decisions result in decreased motivation and happiness (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

In a consumer behavior context, Mead et al. (2011) indicated that brand choice based on social influence was a superficial strategy to connect with group members. They demonstrated that fear of social exclusion and a strong motivation for social connection induced consumers to choose products favored by peers. However, this tendency was observed only when the participants’ brand choice was visible to group members. When their brand choice was hidden from others, participants prioritized personal preference over PBE. Furthermore, although the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) argues that both personal attitudes (i.e., SBC) and social norms (i.e., PBE) determine consumers’ behavioral intentions, studies have demonstrated that the relevance of PBE to behavioral intentions is statistically significant only when consumers strongly identify with their in-group (Terry et al., 1999).

These studies suggest that PBE is a secondary goal guiding consumers’ brand choice. When consumers are free from group norm pressure, they intrinsically prioritize SBC. Therefore, when SBC and PBE are in conflict, it is predicted that SBC and PBE are the primary and secondary goals relevant to brand choice, respectively. Although both SBC and PBE can affect brand choice, consumers are intrinsically motivated to value SBC.

H1: SBC is more valued than PBE when consumers experience a conflict between the two in purchase decisions.

2.  The moderating role of abstract mindset vs. concrete mindset

Given that consumers’ behavioral intentions are determined by both personal beliefs and social norms (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970), this study does not assume that SBC is always more relevant to brand choice than PBE is. Thus, although H1 predicts that consumers will prioritize SBC over PBE, we also assume that the construal level is a boundary condition that affects the importance of each evaluation type (Liberman & Trope, 2008).

As noted previously, CLT explains the relationship between psychological distance to an object and how it is construed. This theory posits that people tend to engage in a high-level, abstract mindset when they construe an object as psychologically distant, whereas they use a low-level, concrete mindset when construing an object as psychologically close (Liberman & Trope, 2008). Psychological distance consists of subdimensions, such as temporal, social, and spatial distances (Trope & Liberman, 2000). For example, studies have shown that people tend to describe an action set (e.g., “reading a book”) in a temporally distant future using abstract rather than concrete representations (e.g., “gaining knowledge” rather than “following lines of print”).

High- and low-level construal mindsets lead to various outcomes in consumers’ decision-making (for a comprehensive review, see Maglio (2020)). For example, people with high-level, abstract construal mindsets focus on general, decontextualized, and superordinate goals in decisions, whereas those with low-level, concrete construal mindsets prioritize contextualized, subordinate, and secondary goals (Freitas et al., 2004). This premise is consistent with Trope and Liberman (2000), who showed that when purchasing a radio set to listen to music (i.e., listening to music was the primary goal), consumers with high-level or abstract mindsets valued the primary features of the radio (e.g., sound quality) more than the secondary features (e.g., quality of the built-in clock) in decisions, whereas those with low-level or concrete mindsets valued both primary and secondary goals. That is, the importance of the secondary goal increased as a function of a concrete mindset, whereas the importance of the primary attribute was constant and not dependent on either an abstract mindset or a concrete mindset.

In line with H1, if SBC and PBE are the primary and secondary goals in determining the brand choice, respectively, CLT postulates that SBC is valued irrespective of whether the mindset is abstract or concrete. In contrast, PBE is emphasized only when consumers engage in a concrete mindset. This prediction is consistent with the social psychological research of Ledgerwood et al. (2010), who demonstrated that when individuals’ beliefs and others’ opinions are in conflict, people with an abstract mindset make decisions based on individual beliefs, whereas those with a concrete mindset tend to make context-based decisions. Thus, we hypothesize that in brand choice, consumers with abstract mindsets value SBC over PBE, whereas consumers with concrete mindsets value both PBE and SBC.

H2a: Consumers with an abstract mindset value SBC over PBE in decisions.

H2b: Consumers with a concrete mindset value both PBE and SBC in decisions.

III.  Overview of Studies

We conducted three studies to test our hypotheses. The materials used in the studies, including the scenario texts, scale items, and pretest results, are available online (https://osf.io/7pzjy/). We predict that when SBC and PBE are in conflict, the former will be prioritized. However, even if this prediction is supported in individualistic cultures, such as those in Western countries, the results may merely reflect people’s individualistic orientations. Thus, we conducted all the experiments in Japan, which is known for its collectivistic culture (Hofstede et al., 2010). Additionally, we conducted another experiment to examine this potential cultural effect, and the results ruled out its moderating effect (for further details, please refer to https://osf.io/7pzjy/).

IV.  Study 1: Relevance of SBC and PBE in Brand Choice

To test H1, we conducted an experiment to demonstrate that SBC and PBE—when in conflict—are the primary and secondary goals in brand choice, respectively. An alternative explanation for our hypothesis is that the result is moderated by the group type or interpersonal relationships; if the group is less important for consumers, they will be less concerned about what group members think and thus prioritize SBC over PBE. To rule out this possibility, we created two types of scenarios that elicited a goal conflict between SBC and PBE, one in a private relationship (i.e., traveling with friends) and the other in a public relationship (i.e., a business trip with coworkers), and we confirmed that the relationship type did not moderate the result.

1.  Method

In total, 89 consumers were recruited through CrowdWorks and were compensated 100 yen (57 women, M_age=39.45, SD_age=8.72). The study employed a 2 (relationship context: private vs. public)×2 (brand evaluation type: SBC vs. PBE) between- and within-participant mixed design. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the two relationships.

The participants were asked to imagine choosing an apparel product brand to use either on a trip with intimate friends (private relationship) or on a business trip with coworkers (public relationship). A pretest of these scenarios confirmed that they created a decision-making conflict between SBC and PBE among the respondents (F [1, 172]=18.34, p<.001, η²_p=.10). The participants then evaluated how relevant SBC and PBE were to their brand choice. The perceived relevance of SBC and PBE was measured using the scales of self-brand connection (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) and susceptibility to social influence (Bearden et al., 1989). All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1=“not at all relevant” to 7=“extremely relevant”) and averaged to form the SBC (α=.88) and PBE (α=.91) indices.

2.  Results and discussion

A mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using relationship context (private vs. public; between-participant) and brand evaluation type (SBC vs. PBE; within-participant) as the independent variables and perceived relevance as the dependent variable. The result obtained for the main effect of evaluation type was that participants perceived SBC (M_SBC=4.23, SD_SBC=1.05) as more relevant to their brand choice than PBE (M_PBE=3.79, SD_PBE=1.13; F [1, 87]=19.99, p<.001, η²_p=.19), supporting H1. No significant interaction effect of relationship context and brand evaluation type on perceived relevance was observed (F [1, 87]=3.23, p=.08, η²_p=.04). The main effect of relationship context on perceived relevance was also not significant (F [1, 87]=.60, p=.44, η²_p=.01).

Study 1 demonstrated that SBC was more relevant to brand choice than PBE was when consumers experienced a goal conflict between SBC and PBE. Additionally, the interaction between relationship context (private vs. public) and brand evaluation type was not significant, which rules out the alternative explanation that the social group was not so important that the participants did not need to care about group members.

V.  Study 2: Construal Mindset and the Relevance of SBC and PBE

In Study 2, we tested H2a and H2b: people with abstract mindsets focus on primary brand evaluation (i.e., SBC), whereas those with concrete mindsets pay attention to secondary brand evaluation or PBE as well as SBC in brand choice.

1.  Method

An experiment involving 231 undergraduate students (65 women, M_age=19.44, SD_age=1.24) was conducted in a university classroom. This study employed a 2 (construal mindset: abstract vs. concrete mindset: between-participant)×2 (brand evaluation type: SBC vs. PBE: within-participant) mixed-experimental design. The participants were randomly assigned to either the abstract or the concrete construal mindset condition.

The procedure was similar to that of Study 1, except that the participants’ construal level was manipulated using temporal distance to an event, as focusing on a near (vs. distant) future event leads people to engage in a low-level or concrete (vs. high-level or abstract) mindset (Ledgerwood et al., 2010; Trope & Liberman, 2000). Specifically, the participants were asked to imagine going on a trip with close friends the day after tomorrow (near future for the concrete mindset condition) or three months later (distant future for the abstract mindset condition). They then reported how relevant SBC (α=.82) and PBE (α=.84) to brand choice were in the given temporal distance (near or distant future) using the same scales as in Study 1.

2.  Results and discussion

As predicted, a 2 (mindset: abstract vs. concrete; between-participant)×2 (brand evaluation type: SBC vs. PBE; within-participant) mixed-design ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect of mindset and brand evaluation type (F [1, 229]=5.87, p=.02; η²_p=.03). The participants in the abstract mindset condition reported greater relevance of SBC than PBE (M_SBC=4.52, SD_SBC=1.15, M_PBE=4.06, SD_PBE=1.22; F [1, 229]=14.07, p<.01; η²_p=.06), whereas in the concrete mindset condition, the relevance of PBE was not significantly different from that of SBC (M_SBC=4.46, SD_SBC=1.13, M_PBE=4.43, SD_PBE=1.19; F [1, 229]=0.06, p>.80, η²_p<.001; Figure 1).

Figure 1

Perceived relevance of SBC and PBE in abstract and concrete conditions (Study 2)

Note: The error bars represent standard errors.

The results of Study 2 supported H2a and H2b. In the abstract mindset condition, SBC was valued more than PBE. In the concrete mindset condition, when the participants attentively considered the nonessential and the primary attributes, the perceived relevance of PBE increased as much as that of SBC.

VI.  Study 3: Effects of SBC and PBE on Purchase Intentions

Study 2 revealed the perceived relevance of SBC and PBE in brand choice, which was moderated by consumers’ abstract and concrete mindset. Study 3 aimed to replicate the results of Study 2 by demonstrating the relative impacts of SBC and PBE on purchase intentions toward a real brand, which vary as a function of a construal mindset.

1.  Method

In total, 172 undergraduate students (96 women, M_age=20.02, SD_age=1.13) participated in the study. First, the participants completed the Behavior Identification Form (BIF; Vallacher & Wegner, 1989) to examine their chronic construal mindsets (for further details, please refer to https://osf.io/7pzjy/).

Next, the participants were asked to state a favorite brand. The variety of brands reported suggests that the findings of this study are not limited to a specific brand or type of brand.

Finally, the participants evaluated SBC, PBE, and purchase intentions regarding their stated brand. Using the same items as in Studies 1 and 2, we measured SBC (α=.87) and PBE (α=.84), the extent to which the participants have SBC and PBE for their favorite brands, respectively. The purchase intentions towards the brand were measured by three items (α=.74; Putrevu & Lord, 1994): “It is very likely that I will buy this brand,” “I will purchase this brand the next time I need this kind of product,” and “I will definitely try this brand.” All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1=“strongly disagree” to 7=“strongly agree”).

2.  Results and discussion

We calculated the participants’ responses to the BIF to form the construal mindset index (i.e., a higher value means a more abstract mindset; M=7.31, SD=2.34). We performed a multiple regression analysis (PROCESS Model 3; Hayes, 2022) with purchase intentions as the dependent variable and the construal mindset index, SBC, PBE, and the interaction terms of the mindset index, SBC, and PBE as the independent variables.

Consistent with H1, the results revealed that SBC significantly predicted purchase intentions (B=.14, SE=.05, t [164]=2.55, p=.01), irrespective of construal mindset (Table 1). Furthermore, the interaction effect of PBE and mindset was significant at the .10 significance level (B=-.05, SE=.03, t [164]=−1.83, p=.07). Hence, we used the Johnson‒Neyman technique to evaluate the interaction (Spiller et al., 2013). The results revealed that the effect of PBE on purchase intentions was significant only among the participants with a concrete mindset who scored lower than 9.95 on the construal mindset index (0 to 13) (B_JN=.16, SE=.08, t=1.97, 95% CI [.00, .32]; Figure 2). This result suggests that PBE affected purchase intentions only when the participants exhibited a concrete mindset.

Table 1

Effects of SBC, PBE, and construal mindset on purchase intentions (Study 3)

Note: A higher mindset value means a more abstract (vs. concrete) mindset. All variables were mean centered to avoid multicollinearity. LLCI=“lower level of the confidence interval”; ULCI=“upper level of the confidence interval.”

Figure 2

Construal mindset moderates the effect of PBE on purchase intention (Study 3)

Note: Higher (vs. lower) values of the construal mindset index represent abstract (vs. concrete) mindsets. The Johnson‒Neyman region of significance was 9.95, which was slightly higher than the mean of 7.31.

Thus, SBC was the only significant predictor of purchase intentions among people with an abstract mindset, whereas both SBC and PBE significantly predicted purchase intentions among those with a concrete mindset. These results supported H2a and H2b.

VII.  General Discussion

1.  Summary

This study examined which factor is prioritized in purchase decisions when SBC and PBE conflict. Past research has suggested that both SBC and PBE affect consumers’ behavioral intentions (Aaker, 1999; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970). However, the relative importance of SBC and PBE for brand choice remains unknown. This study aimed to fill this gap by demonstrating that consumers intrinsically value SBC over PBE in their brand purchase decisions. In Study 1, participants rated SBC as being more relevant than PBE when the two factors were in conflict. Furthermore, drawing on CLT, Studies 2 and 3 revealed that participants with concrete mindsets were attentive to PBE and SBC in purchase decisions, whereas those with abstract mindsets only valued SBC. According to CLT, abstract and concrete mindsets lead people to focus on primary and secondary goals in decision-making, respectively (Freitas et al., 2004; Trope & Liberman, 2000). Taken together, the results of these studies successfully highlight the relevance of SBC and the smaller impact of PBE on brand choice.

2.  Theoretical contributions

The theoretical implications of the present study cover several areas. First, the study contributes to research on consumer brand choice by providing novel evidence that highlights the greater importance of SBC over PBE. Following Belk’s (1988) description of brands as the “extended self,” research has shown that self-related brand evaluations—such as self-brand connection, brand attachment, brand love, and brand relationships—are closely linked to successful brand performance (Cheng et al., 2012; Park et al., 2010). These topics continue to attract significant attention among consumer behavior scholars (Shimul, 2022). At the same time, PBE or brand evaluation under social influence has also been a major theme in consumer research since the publication of The Theory of the Leisure Class (Veblen, 1899). Both SBC and PBE are key motivations influencing actual brand purchasing (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970), but the two are often incompatible. In such cases, self-determination theory posits that decision-making guided by the true self is more satisfying (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Schlegel et al., 2009). In line with this perspective, drawing on CLT, we found that SBC predicted purchase intentions more strongly than PBE did. Thus, the present research successfully integrates both sides of the historical discussion on brand value, providing valuable insights for research on consumers’ purchase decisions.

Second, the present study contributes to research on consumers’ decision-making and psychological well-being. A growing number of marketing scholars have recently focused on how to enhance consumers’ well-being rather than companies’ profits (e.g., Gaston-Breton et al., 2021). Since the importance of true-self activation for satisfactory decision-making and psychological well-being has been demonstrated (Bargh et al., 2002; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011), pursuing the true self through consumption may enhance consumers’ quality of life (Kim et al., 2016). We demonstrated that consumers are intrinsically motivated to prioritize SBC over social factors when these two factors are in conflict. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to directly show the relative importance of SBC over PBE. Our findings suggest that consumers’ well-being can be enhanced by the pursuit of the “true self” through purchasing behavior based on SBC.

3.  Managerial implications

Our findings provide concrete insights for marketers and policy-makers. First, we suggest that companies should provide customers with opportunities to express their “true selves” through brand purchases. For example, mass customization or user innovation can involve consumers in the manufacturing process, enhancing their personal commitment to the brand. In advertising, companies should emphasize the scarcity and differentiation of their brands and allow customers to express their unique selves through ownership of the brand.

Some have wondered whether emphasizing SBC rather than PBE would backfire in collectivistic cultures such as those of East Asian countries, where social conformity is valued. However, the importance of the true self has been recognized across cultures, with some differences in self-conceptions (Kim et al., 2022; Strohminger et al., 2017). Our findings may be applicable across different cultures.

Second, we suggest that marketing messages should be adjusted in accordance with the timing of the advertisement. The results of Study 2 showed that consumers’ construal level (temporal distance) moderated the relevance of SBC and PBE. According to CLT, what goals consumers focus on is determined by their construal mindset. For example, consumers tend to pay attention to the primary goal when booking a far-distant trip, whereas they focus on secondary goals when booking an imminent trip (Trope & Liberman, 2000). Thus, for products intended for use or launch in the distant future, advertisements should emphasize SBC by showing how the brand enables consumers to express their true selves. Conversely, for products intended for immediate use or launch, highlighting PBE—for example, by promoting the brand’s popularity on social networking sites—will effectively attract consumers.

4.  Limitations and future research

The current work points to several opportunities for future research. Prior research has identified several drivers of brand purchases, including brand authenticity, brand personality, brand engagement, and brand prominence. Some of these drivers are related to self-concept, whereas others are not. Future research should address the relative importance of self-based brand evaluation over other emotional or cognitive aspects of brand evaluation.

Moreover, individual differences or situational factors should be considered in future studies. For example, the relevance of PBE in purchasing could be affected not only by construal mindset but also by the salience of social identity (Terry et al., 1999). Individuals with a highly salient social identity may experience minimal goal conflict between SBC and PBE, given the overlap between their social and personal identities. Consequently, future research should consider whether other individual and situational factors moderate the impact of true self and social factors on purchase decisions.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Society for the Promotion of Science Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) Grant Number JP17K04002.

Data Availability

The dataset and materials used in this study are openly available on the Open Science Framework.

• 1) https://osf.io/7pzjy/

Ethics Declaration

All the empirical studies were conducted in Japan, and the participants provided informed consent. The procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Sophia University (No. 2017-110).

References

•  Aaker,  J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151914
•  Ajzen,  I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
•  Ajzen,  I., &  Fishbein,  M. (1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(4), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(70)90057-0
• Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2011). Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection. Guilford Press.
•  Bargh,  J. A.,  McKenna,  K. Y. A., &  Fitzsimons,  G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00247
•  Bearden,  W. O., &  Etzel,  M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1086/208911
•  Bearden,  W. O.,  Netemeyer,  R. G.,  Teel,  J. E.,  Bearden,  W.,  Netemeyer,  R. G., &  Teel,  J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1086/209186
•  Belk,  R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
•  Brehm,  J. W., &  Mann,  M. (1975). Effect of importance of freedom and attraction to group members on influence produced by group pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(5), 816–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076691
•  Carlson,  K. A.,  Meloy,  M. G., &  Miller,  E. G. (2013). Goal reversion in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 918–930. https://doi.org/10.1086/666471
•  Cheng,  S. Y. Y.,  White,  T. B., &  Chaplin,  L. N. (2012). The effects of self-brand connections on responses to brand failure: A new look at the consumer-brand relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.05.005
•  Cialdini,  R. B.,  Reno,  R. R., &  Kallgren,  C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
•  Dunn,  L., &  Hoegg,  J. (2014). The impact of fear on emotional brand attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/675377
•  Emmons,  R. A., &  King,  L. A. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1040
•  Escalas,  J. E., &  Bettman,  J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1086/497549
•  Fastoso,  F., &  González-Jiménez,  H. (2020). Materialism, cosmopolitanism, and emotional brand attachment: The roles of ideal self-congruity and perceived brand globalness. Journal of Business Research, 121, 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.015
•  Forehand,  M. R., &  Deshpandé,  R. (2001). What we see makes us who we are: Priming ethnic self-awareness and advertising response. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 336–348. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.3.336.18871
•  Freitas,  A. L.,  Gollwitzer,  P., &  Trope,  Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.003
•  Gaston-Breton,  C.,  Lemoine,  J. E.,  Voyer,  B. G., &  Kastanakis,  M. N. (2021). Pleasure, meaning or spirituality: Cross-cultural differences in orientations to happiness across 12 countries. Journal of Business Research, 134, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.013
•  Goldstein,  N. J.,  Cialdini,  R. B., &  Griskevicius,  V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
• Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed). The Guilford Press.
• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill Education.
•  Kim,  J.,  Chen,  K.,  Rivera,  G. N.,  Hong,  E. K.,  Kamble,  S.,  Scollon,  C. N.,  Sheldon,  K. M.,  Zhang,  H., &  Schlegel,  R. J. (2022). True-self-as-guide lay theory endorsement across five countries. Self and Identity, 21(8), 939–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2022.2028670
•  Kim,  J.,  Seto,  E.,  Christy,  A. G., &  Hicks,  J. A. (2016). Investing in the real me: Preference for experiential to material purchases driven by the motivation to search for true self-knowledge. Self and Identity, 15(6), 727–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2016.1208623
•  Ledgerwood,  A.,  Trope,  Y., &  Chaiken,  S. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019843
•  Liberman,  N., &  Trope,  Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161958
•  Maglio,  S. J. (2020). Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences and antecedents. Consumer Psychology Review, 3(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1057
•  Malär,  L.,  Krohmer,  H.,  Hoyer,  W. D., &  Nyffenegger,  B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.35
• Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed). Harper & Row.
•  Mead,  N. L.,  Baumeister,  R. F.,  Stillman,  T. F.,  Rawn,  C. D., &  Vohs,  K. D. (2011). Social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 902–919. https://doi.org/10.1086/656667
•  Melnyk,  V.,  Carrillat,  F. A., &  Melnyk,  V. (2022). The influence of social norms on consumer behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 86(3), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211029199
•  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, 74(6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.6.1
•  Putrevu,  S., &  Lord,  K. I. (1994). Comparative and noncomparative advertising: Attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1994.10673443
•  Rosenberg,  B. D., &  Siegel,  J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091
•  Ryan,  R. M., &  Deci,  E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
•  Schlegel,  R. J., &  Hicks,  J. A. (2011). The true self and psychological health: Emerging evidence and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(12), 989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00401.x
•  Schlegel,  R. J.,  Hicks,  J. A.,  Arndt,  J., &  King,  L. A. (2009). Thine own self: True self-concept accessibility and meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014060
•  Shimul,  A. S. (2022). Brand attachment: A review and future research. Journal of Brand Management, 29(4), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-022-00279-5
•  Spiller,  S. A.,  Fitzsimons,  G. J.,  Lynch,  J. G., &  McClelland,  G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0420
•  Strohminger,  N.,  Knobe,  J., &  Newman,  G. (2017). The true self: A psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616689495
•  Tangney,  J. P.,  Baumeister,  R. F., &  Boone,  A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
•  Terry,  D. J.,  Hogg,  M. A., &  White,  K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164149
•  Trope,  Y., &  Liberman,  N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.876
•  Trump,  R. K., &  Brucks,  M. (2012). Overlap between mental representations of self and brand. Self and Identity, 11(4), 454–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.595083
•  Vallacher,  R. R., &  Wegner,  D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660
• Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. Houghton Mifflin.
•  White,  K., &  Argo,  J. J. (2009). Social identity threat and consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.03.007
•  White,  K., &  Dahl,  D. W. (2006). To be or not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_11

Yoko Sugitani

Dr. Yoko Sugitani is a Professor of Marketing at Sophia University in Japan. Her research interests lie in consumer behavior and social psychology, with a particular focus on social influences on consumers’ attitudes and purchase decisions, as well as cross-cultural differences in emotion and cognition. Her scholarly work has been published in academic journals such as the Journal of Consumer Psychology, Motivation and Emotion, and the Journal of International Consumer Marketing.

Taku Togawa

Dr. Taku Togawa is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Sophia University in Japan. He mainly conducts experimental studies in the area of consumer behavior. He has published in academic journals such as the Journal of Consumer Psychology, the Journal of Retailing, the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Advertising Research, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Motivation Science.