University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Scale construction and effects of brand authenticity

(USC Thesis Other)

Scale construction and effects of brand authenticity

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SCALE CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECTS OF BRAND AUTHENTICITY

by
Sean Patrick Coary
______________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

August 2013

Copyright 2013 Sean Patrick Coary

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Overview of Chapters 3

Chapter 2: THE BRAND AUTHENTICITY CONSTRUCT 5
Definitions of Authenticity 5
Dimensions of Authenticity 8
Being the Category Pioneer 12
Maintaining the Original Product 13
Adhering to Principles 14
Review 16

Chapter 3: THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES 17
Dimensions of Authenticity 17
Effects of Authenticity on Evaluations 19
Effects of Trust and Credibility 20
Effects of Brand Self-Connection 24
Authenticity and Product Types 26
Effects of Savoring the Experience 27

Chapter 4: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS 30
Overview of Scale Development 30
Pretest for Scale Development 30
Study 1: Item Reduction for Brand Authenticity Scale 31
Overview 31
Method 32
Results 32
iii

Discussion 34
Study 2A: Brand Authenticity Scale Development 34
Overview 34
Method 35
Results 35
Discussion 37
Study 2B: Brand Authenticity Scale Development 38
Overview 38
Method 38
Results 39
Discussion 41
Study 3: The Effects and Process of Brand Authenticity 41
Overview 41
Method 42
Measures 42
Results 44
Discussion 48
Study 4: Consumer Segments Affected by Brand Authenticity 50
Overview 50
Method 51
Measures 51
Results 52
Discussion 55
Study 5: The Process Driving the Effects of Brand Authenticity for 55
Experiential Products
Overview 55
Method 56
Measures 56
Results 58
Discussion 63
Study 6: Effects of Brand Authenticity for Experiential Products 64
Overview 64
iv

Method 64
Measures 65
Results 65
Discussion 68

Chapter 5: OVERALL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 71
Contribution 71
Managerial Implications 72
Future Research 74

REFERENCES 79

APPENDICES 90
Appendix A. Survey for Brand Authenticity Scale Development for 90
Study 2A
Appendix B. Survey for Study 3 93
Appendix C. Survey for Study 4 99
Appendix D. Survey for Study 5 – Experiential Product Survey 104
Appendix E. Survey for Study 6 – Experiential Product Survey 110

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Definitions of Authenticity and its Dimensions 11
Table 2. Items for Brand Authenticity Scale 33
Table 3. Study 2A – Dimensions of Brand Authenticity Revealed by 36
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Table 4. Study 2B – Dimensions of Brand Authenticity Revealed by 40
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Table 5. Authenticity versus Trust and Credibility 50
vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual Model for the Process of Brand Authenticity 23
Figure 2. Conceptual Model for Experiential Products 29
Figure 3. Study 3. Results for Mediation Analysis 45
Figure 4. Study 3. Willingness to Engage in Increasingly Difficult Behaviors 47
Figure 5. Study 4. Effects of Authenticity on Other Constructs 53
Figure 6. Study 4. Interaction of Brand Authenticity and Brand 54
Self-Connection ON Attitudes Toward the Brand
Figure 7. Study 5. Experiential Products – Willingness to Engage in 59
Increasingly Difficult Behaviors
Figure 8. Study 5. Mediation Results for Experiential Products 61
Figure 9. Study 5. Mediation Results for Experiential Products 62
Figure 10. Study 6. Effects of Authenticity on Other Constructs 66
Figure 11. Study 6. Interaction of Brand Authenticity and Brand 68
Self-Connection on Attitudes Toward the Brand for Experiential Products
Figure 12. Comparison of Effects of Brand Authenticity and Brand 70
Self-Connection on Attitude Toward the Brand for Experiential
Versus Functional Products

vii

ABSTRACT

This dissertation investigates consumer’s perceptions of brand authenticity, genuineness in a
brand’s product and principles. Prior qualitative research on brand authenticity has not identified
key dimensions using a systematic and quantitative approach. This dissertation contributes to the
branding literature by (1) identifying the key dimensions of brand authenticity through the
development of a Brand Authenticity Scale, (2) quantifying the effects of brand authenticity on
attitudes towards the brand and behavioral intentions, (3) separating brand authenticity from
other key brand constructs, (4) investigating the interaction between brand authenticity and brand
self-connection, (5) identifying the underlying process driving the effects of brand authenticity,
and finally (6) examining the different effects and process of brand authenticity depending on the
product type, either functional or experiential.
Eight studies were conducted to identify the dimension of brand authenticity and investigate its
effects and process. Four of these studies, one qualitative and three empirical, identify the three
key dimensions of brand authenticity (being the category pioneer, adhering to principles and
maintaining the original product) and develop a Brand Authenticity Scale. Using the three
dimensions of brand authenticity, four experiments (two for functional products and two for
experiential products) demonstrate the significant positive effects of brand authenticity on brand
attitudes and behavioral intentions. These effects, moderating variables and the process driving
these effects vary depending on the type of product. Unlike experiential products, the effects of
brand authenticity are moderated by the relationship the consumer has with the brand (brand self-
connection) for functional products, with only those consumers who are high in brand self-
viii

connection evaluating the brand more favorably. Whereas while brand trust mediates the effects
of brand authenticity for functional products, due to the sensory nature of experiential products,
the combination of brand trust and savoring the experience mediates the effects of brand
authenticity for experiential products.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Though researchers and marketers do not seem to share a well-defined notion of what
authenticity is, people seem to agree that it is an important property of products. Researchers
have explored preference and consumption behavior for those consumers who seek authenticity
as authenticity is a central factor in consumption (Crosby and Johnson 2003). Although
consumers seek authenticity in products they purchase and consume, the nature and meaning of
authenticity may vary depending on what product is being evaluated and how it is being
consumed (Grayson 2002). Researchers have demonstrated that authenticity is critical in both
product consumption and the role consumers play within many subculture and communal
consumption experiences (Holt 1997; Muniz, Albert and O’Guinn 2001; Penaloza, 2000).
Consumers continue their quest for authenticity in many of their purchases and acquisitions,
from functional products such as clothing to more experiential products, including restaurants
and vacation spots (Costa and Bamossy 1995; Thompson and Tambyah 1999; Grayson and
Shulman 2000; Kozinets 2002). Whether it is experiencing a fantasy outdoor event in a
primitive and natural setting (Belk and Costa 1998) or dining at an ethnic food restaurant (Lu and
Fine 1995), an authentic experience is desired by event attendees or consumers as they look for a
natural, untouched setting, free from the reach of the outside, marketed culture.
In the Western world and the United States in particular, consumers have long been on a
quest for authenticity in their consumption experiences. Since the American Industrial
Revolution increased mass production, there has been tension between imitation and authenticity
1
2

(Orvell 1989). This large-scale mass production and uniformity result from the cultivation of
material welfare. Uniformity in products due to mass production has led to a social identity
crisis which may be the main reason for today’s interest in heritage, the past, and the original
(Laenan 1989). It is this struggle between consuming the mass production while desiring the
original that engages and ignites consumers’ quest for an authentic consumption or product
experience. Over the last century, this tension has intensified due to technological advances,
facilitating the effective simulation of authenticity (Halliday 2001).
Though consumers are engulfed by manyy product claims of authenticity, many of them
false, they still seek authenticity in personal possessions (Grayson and Shulman 2000), brands
(Holt 2002), consumer goods (Goldman and Papson 1996), and retail settings (Wallendorf,
Lindsey-Mullikin, and Pimentel 1998); moreover, consumers demand authenticity from brand
marketers (Beverland 2005; Gilmore and Pine 2007). This goal is heightened as consumers
must sift through the claims of authenticity associated with numerous products (Brown 2001).
Consumers must constantly evaluate marketing messages in their quest for a truly authentic
product, service, or experience.
This ongoing consumer evaluation is not limited only to the physical products that are
mass produced in a factory. Consumers also desire authenticity in experiential products. For
example, when consumers book a vacation, they seek authenticity in the sights and exhibits they
visit. Consumers also search for authenticity in their consumption of media, such as television
and music. In the pursuit for a truly authentic media experience, what could be more real than
“reality” television? Indeed, over the last decade, the number of reality television programs on
the major networks has grown year after year. Consumption of reality television represents a
sophisticated quest for authenticity within traditional fiction-oriented television programming
3

(Rose and Wood 2005). Traditional, scripted, fiction-oriented programming becomes mass
produced. In contrast, reality television appears real and genuine, which increases its authentic
value. Other times, television production companies produce media-driven programming used to
deceive and influence the audience, thus lowering the authenticity of regular programming
(Boorstin 1964). Restaurants and ethnic foods are another area where consumers seek
authenticity in experiential products (Lu and Fine 1995). Authenticity in this domain refers to
consumers’ preference for food that is made from an original recipe, relies on traditional cooking
methods, or incorporates key ingredients local to certain parts of the world to fulfill their need
for authenticity.
For a deeper understanding of why consumers partake in this quest for authenticity, it is
necessary to understand why authenticity is important in the consumer environment and why
some products or brands are perceived as authentic. Specifically, this paper will address the
following the questions: What is brand authenticity? What are its key conceptual properties and
dimensions? How can we measure brand authenticity? What quantifiable benefits do authentic
products experience compared to those that consumers label as inauthentic? What is the
underlying process that drives the effects of authenticity on brand attitudes and behavioral
intentions? Do these effects vary, depending on the type of products?

Overview of Chapters
This dissertation is outlined in the following manner to appropriately and logically
address the questions mentioned earlier. In Chapter Two, the concept of brand authenticity is
defined and the key dimensions of brand authenticity are discussed. Three main indicators are
4

identified from previous literature setting up the current research. Chapter Three develops and
outlines the conceptual model and theoretical contributions of this dissertation. Using previous
literature and market observations, the three dimensions of authenticity (Being the Category
Pioneer, Adhering to Principles and Maintaining the Original Product), potential moderator
(brand self-connection) and mediators (brand trust for functional products and the combination
of brand trust and savoring the experience for experiential products) are proposed. Chapter Four
includes one qualitative and six empirical studies which test the hypotheses. Finally, Chapter
Five reviews the results from the studies as well as discusses the theoretical and managerial
implications of the results, while providing recommendations for future work.

5

CHAPTER 2: THE BRAND AUTHENTICITY CONSTRUCT

Previous research has identified consequences of consumers’ perceptions of brand
authenticity but has not identified the product cues that convey authenticity to consumers. For
example, research has shown that brands that are perceived to be authentic are more
commercially successful (Beverland 2005). Authentic brands are consumed more in non-brand-
focused communities, such as those consumers who watch football or listen to rock music (Kates
2004.
As described earlier, authenticity may be evaluated differently across consumers based on
different constructs and cues. My research aims to identify those specific cues that personally
convey authenticity to a consumer. The collection of these relevant cues across all consumers
forms the socially constructed understanding of authenticity (Peterson 2005). This socially
constructed meaning of authenticity builds the foundation of the definition of brand authenticity.

Definitions of Authenticity
To come to a better understanding of what drives authenticity, it is important to
understand how consumers use the term in their everyday consumption experiences. To start
with, we begin at the ‘universally accepted’ definition of authenticity, taken from the dictionary.
Webster’s Dictionary defines authentic as “not false or copied; genuine; real” and “having the
origin supported by unquestionable evidence.” However, the term can be used in numerous
6

contexts that may stretch this definition, or it can be used to convey a different sentiment by
different people or groups. Individual consumers, brand managers, art curators, travel agents,
and anthropologists seem often to use the term ‘authentic’ differently in their description of
products or experiences. Thus, it is critical to understand the drivers and dimensions of
authenticity to come to a universal definition and understanding of the term. Authenticity is a
much more complex term to consumers than simply being genuine or the original.
Consistent with Webster’s definition, previous research has stressed the concepts of
genuineness or reality in definitions of authenticity. For example, while describing self-taught
art, Fine considered authenticity in terms of sincerity, innocence, and originality (Fine 2003).
Similarly, authenticity has been used to refer to the genuineness, reality, or truth of something
(Bendix 1992; Costa and Bamossy 2001). Other research has discussed this notion of
genuineness when authenticity is related to other concepts such as being natural, honest, simple,
and unspun (Boyle 2003; Bruner 1994). This notion of being genuine is naturally extended to
service products and interaction with customers as consumers view brands that are genuine in
their dealings with them as authentic (Price, Arnould and Tierney 1995).
Consumers seek the genuine in their quest for authenticity in a society where they must
distinguish between the “real” and the “fake” (Arnould and Price 2000; Firat and Venkatesh
1995). Often, authenticity is used to describe an object that is the real thing and not a fake or
imitation (Bruner 1994). In addition to genuineness and realness, consumers often seek
traditional products in their search for authentic experiences. For example, the wine industry
commonly advertises traditional methods of wine making, while obscuring the industrial
processes that have increased its quality and lowered prices (Beverland 2005). This notion of
7

authenticity emphasizing the timeless value demanded by consumers while downplaying
commercial motives is critical to understanding brand authenticity (Beverland 2005).
To date, previous research has focused on one dimension that makes a brand authentic,
namely the ‘realness’ of the product (Arnould and Price 2000, Bruner 1994). However, it has
been shown that authenticity is a fluid construct and can manifest itself in different ways for
different products or category types (Cohen 1988, Squire 1994). To account for these various
ways, a new parsimonious understanding is needed that accommodates the multiple uses of the
term. Based on that and the earlier mentioned focus on the concept of realness, for this
dissertation, brand authenticity is defined as: genuineness in its product and its principles. This
genuineness can manifest itself in numerous ways reflecting the key dimensions of brand
authenticity.
As consumers use genuineness as a broad concept of authenticity, each consumer begins
to apply it to the many products or attractions around them, creating an aggregated socially
constructed shared meaning. Consumers begin to realize that they are surrounded by authentic
and inauthentic items, creating a “cult of authenticity” that invades numerous aspects of modern
life (Lowenthal 1992). A goal of these consumers is to identify the authentic products and
separate them from inauthentic products and those products falsely labeled as authentic by
companies and marketing managers. Though authenticity may vary, depending on each
individual’s perspective and quest for authenticity, there remain key, high-level dimensions that
highlight the term authenticity.
As discussed, brand authenticity may be manifested by different dimensions for different
brands. Regardless of which dimension is highlighted or valued by the consumer, brand
8

authenticity remains present and exists independent of the dimensions. Over time or due to
brand actions, brand authenticity can fluctuate or change. A change in one or more of the
dimensions is reflected by a change in brand authenticity, demonstrating a reflective model
where causality flows from brand authenticity to the dimensions. A change in brand authenticity
will not necessarily cause a change in all of the dimensions, a key property of reflective
constructs. Each dimension reflects a different aspect of brand authenticity and it’s the
combination of the dimensions which defines the brand authenticity construct. Dimensions may
include more than one item to fully represent that area of brand authenticity. Dropping one of
the items in a dimension, such as "being the first one in the market", does not alter or change the
conceptual construct of brand authenticity, as brand authenticity exists independent of the
measures used. Due to the relationship between the brand authenticity construct and its
dimensions discussed above, a reflective measurement model is utilized for the brand
authenticity scale development.

Dimensions of Authenticity
The main dimensions of authenticity identified in previous qualitative research are
temporal (e.g. heritage or unbroken product tradition) or spatial (e.g. original product location) in
nature. These dimensions are used to attribute authenticity to consumer products (Beverland,
Lindgreen and Vink 2008, Thompson, Rindfliesch, and Arsel 2006) and the many forms that
authenticity can take (Brown, Kozinets and Sherry 2003) resulting in a lack of a strong clear,
concise consensus. The temporal and spatial dimensions represent authenticity, where
authenticity reflects an unbroken tradition and continued connection to the original, founding
9

place (Beverland, Lindreen and Vink 2008). The importance of time and place are further
discussed by Peirce in his discussion of authenticity and people’s desires to discover what is
truthful and real and what is not (Merrell 2000, Peirce 1998). Peirce described index cues as
those that have a factual and spatio-temporal link, which pairs products with either a place, time
or both. The genuine or “real thing” are those items which have the factual spatio-temporal link
and are supported by index cues, such as creation date, original location or original materials.
This genuineness extends past the product itself and into the employees associated with or
corporate image of the product. An authentic set of behaviors, from a person or company, are
those that represent the genuine, true self and not ones that are acted out to achieve a desired
effect. These genuine, true behaviors are instrumental to a brand’s authenticity as they need to
be developed over time in order to maintain a consistent impression on the consumer.
As far as dimensions go, recall Beverland and his discussion of wines. His research
identifies six attributes of authenticity: heritage and pedigree, stylistics consistency, quality
commitments, relationship to place, method of production and downplaying commercial interests
(Beverland 2006). Separately, nostalgia, another reported dimension of authenticity, can be
identified in two areas: personal and communal (Davis 1979). This nostalgic dimension of
authenticity is often highlighted by retro brands, a revival of a brand from a previous time which
is update to meet current standards (Brown, Kozinets and Sherry 2003). Though previous
qualitative research studies have suggested various indicators for authenticity it is crucial to
identify through empirical analysis the key indicators of authenticity.
From the above examples, time plays a critical role in determining a brand’s authenticity.
This temporal element can be broken down into three key dimensions. First, the length of time
the brand has existed creates a temporal relationship signaling the brand’s heritage and history.
10

Second, a brand’s commitment to their original product through an unbroken tradition is another
way to highlight the time element of authenticity as it demonstrates the continuity of the product.
Finally, brands that conduct themselves in a genuine manner over time through employee and/or
company interactions with their customers while downplaying commercial interests will benefit
from being perceived as authentic.
From the previous literature we do see a universal theme for the meaning of authenticity,
encompassing both the temporal and spatial aspects. Three key major dimensions emerge from
previous literature: being a pioneer, maintaining product originality and adhering to principles.
Each of these dimensions plays a critical role in brand authenticity.

11

Table 1
Definitions of Authenticity and its Dimensions
Term Summary Description
Authenticity Genuineness in its products and
principles
Dimensions of Brand Authenticity
Being A Category Pioneer Directing or guiding the industry by
being an original founder or pioneer thus
serving as an exemplar for the industry

Maintaining the Original Product Maintain its original product
characteristics (i.e. design, taste, sound,
process of manufacturing) despite
changes in market conditions.
Adhering to Principles Being truthful to their original mission
statement and their customers despite
changes in market conditions.

12

Being The Category Pioneer
Nothing exemplifies that temporal element better than a brand that was the first on the
timeline, the starting point for all imitators. Previous research has defined authenticity as being
the original and traditional (Munoz et. all 2006). This research has stated that an object is
authentic when it is believed to be “the original” or the “real thing” (Barthel 1996, Peterson
1997). This notion of being the original is evident in numerous consumer contexts such as
artwork, food, tourism and clothing, where the original is the first in the market with that design,
taste or style. Being the first or one of the first companies in the market demonstrates to
customers that the product has a long history of production by being dedicated to the industry.
Consumers often attribute an original member with being a pioneer in the industry or a leader in
the product category as the company laid the foundation for other companies to enter the market.
The original brand serves as a model for companies that follow them.
One way that consumers look for verification that a product is the original or the real
thing is by searching for indexical cues (Grayson and Martinec 2004). These indexical cues,
(traditional, original attributes) are the most crucial factor in judging whether a product or object
is true-born or genuine (Kuzenof, Tregear and Moxey 1997). Specific segments of consumers,
such as collectors, rely heavily on special indexical cues (Belk, Wallendorf and Sherry 1989).
These indexical cues can include signatures, creation dates, and designations, such as the label of
first edition. As a segment of customers rely on these indexical cues, some retailers or
restaurants take great steps to underscore the authenticity of its products by constantly referring
to the indexical cues of their products that they feel make it authentic, such as creation date.
Restaurants can stress their heritage and history by highlighting the year that they were founded
13

or utilizing the name of a founder (Anand and Jones 2005). By promoting the year that the
restaurant opened, the business can showcase the length of time it has provided service and
products and allow customers to think about its past and history. Displaying this history or
highlighting they are one of the first few in the category stresses the importance of being a leader
or pioneer in their business category. By having a long history of production or being an
industry pioneer, the company is demonstrating their leadership in the marketplace. Here
leadership is defined as directing or guiding the industry by being an original founder or pioneer
thus serving as an exemplar for the industry.

Maintaining the Original Product
As noted, consumers often use indexical cues or properties to describe a product’s
authenticity when it is believed to be the real thing. Here we see that authenticity is defined by
the object’s inherent traditional characteristics, product attributes that are native to the original
product. Consumers utilize these original traits that have withstood time and changing market
conditions as cues to an object’s authenticity as authentic brands are completely dedicated to the
product and not an imposter (Schouten and McAlexander 1995). These original traits that have
withstood time represent a commitment to the product and its key characteristics.
In multiple disciplines, perceptions of genuineness, which are highly correlated with
perceptions of authenticity, may be based on various factors such as whether an object is made
by local people according to a tradition, whether the product is handmade or made in a particular
region of the world (Beverland 2005, Fine 2003, MacCannell 1976). For example, voodoo dolls
are perceived to be genuine and authentic if they are made in specific regions of Louisiana. If
14

consumers feel that these products are too commercialized, then authenticity may be undermined
(Costa and Bamossy 1995, Holt 2002, Kozinets 2002). Authenticity demands that sources,
forms and styles derive from a homogenous and unbroken tradition (Rushdie 1991). Consumers
look for this unbroken tradition in their quest for authenticity. This contiguous tradition can take
numerous forms such as utilizing the same product material, maintaining the original process of
manufacturing, or keeping the original taste over time depending on the industry or product
being manufactured. Companies have the opportunity to change the most critical product
characteristics over the course of time often due to changing market conditions or consumers
fads. By maintaining the key characteristics that consumers desire, a brand can demonstrate its
commitment to the original product characteristics.
Consumers are able to see this commitment to original key characteristics and unbroken
tradition in ethnic food restaurants, such as a Mexican or Chinese restaurant. The ethnic
restaurants often present their food as authentic, which for many consumers is a socially
desirable image (Lu and Fine 1995). For some restaurants they may stress that their food is
made using the original cooking techniques that are native to the original country, thus
maintaining the original process of manufacturing the product. Other restaurants may point out
that their ingredients are native to the original country, therefore maintaining the original
ingredients and raw materials for their product. In both cases, consumers are looking for the
original characteristics that have been maintained over time.

Adhering To Principles
Interactions between brand representatives (such as employees and corporate officers)
with customers are an important factor in influencing a general consumer population’s
15

perceptions of a brand’s authenticity (Fraxer-Winsted 1993). The genuine actions, attitudes and
truthfulness of the employees can be cues for the customers regarding the overall brand or
franchise. In the service encounter, authenticity is often described as “the extent to which the
service provider is viewed as genuine, his/her own person, out of the ordinary in the sense of
being more than just a role” (Price, Arnould and Deibler 1995). Truthful and genuine dealings
with customers is a key factor in determining a brand’s authenticity and in service encounters
contributes to service satisfaction and positive consumer feelings (Price, Arnould and Tierney
1995).
These types of interactions are not limited to traditional customer service relationships; in
a rather unique way, the music industry serves as another example for this dimension of
authenticity as a musical group can be perceived as truthful to its listeners/customers wherein the
service provided is the actual product – the music itself. In one Australian study, many mass
produced hip hop brands formed in the United States were perceived as inauthentic as they were
associated with commercialization and being artificial (Arthur 2006). The US bands were seen
as deviating from their original mission and compromising their songs by giving in to
commercialization and profit maximization. Some listeners consider a band inauthentic if they
“give in to the man” and deviate from their core principles and what they stand for. As seen in
the subcultures of the hip hop industry, subgroups may find some subgroups more authentic than
others. Those subgroups that hold true to their original core values and original sound may be
viewed as more authentic by the other group members. Overall, in the music industry an artist is
authentic when they are believed to be “the real thing” (Peterson 1997) and are true to their true
sound and principles.
16

The brand may also demonstrate its authenticity by being truthful to itself by following
its company’s mission statement. By following a company’s mission statement, a company or
brand is saying that they are committed to certain principles and guiding values that they will
follow. Commitment to its mission statement and guiding principles has proven to be the
foundation for success for brands such as Toms Shoes and Trader Joes. This is especially true
for brands that deal with urgent needs, such as medicine, as the need authenticity is critical
(Ashforth and Humphrey 1993, Hochschild 1983, Romm 1989) and “synthetic compassion
(inauthenticity) can be more offensive than none at all” (Thompson 1976).

Review
These three dimensions, Being the Category Pioneer, Maintaining the Original Product
and Adhering to Principles, encompass the temporal and spatial dimensions of authenticity
discussed in previous qualitative research. Both the product and company elements of
authenticity are included in these dimensions, capturing the dual nature of genuineness in
product and principles. The next step is to empirically demonstrate that brand authenticity is
comprised of these three dimensions.

17

CHAPTER 3:
THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

In this chapter, hypotheses for the dimensions, effects, moderators and mediators for
brand authenticity are developed based on previous research and market observations. Figure 1
outlines the general conceptual model that summarizes the key hypotheses.

Dimensions of Authenticity
Three dimensions rise from the review of authenticity in other disciplines and previous
research: Being the Category Pioneer, Maintaining the Original Product and Adhering To
Principles. Being a category pioneer refers to the perception that the company was the first or
one of the first in the industry. Companies and brands that are one of the first in their industry
can highlight their long history of production and excellence. The heritage of their products
signals to consumers that they have considerable experience in their industry and possess
knowledge that new competitors do not have. Consumers infer that this history allows the
company to be a leader or pioneer in the industry due to its experience. The company may
further enhance their perception of authenticity if they invented the product. By being the
inventor of the product, the product category started with them, therefore the product history is
equal to the brand history.

H1: A brand that is a pioneer in the industry leads to the perception of brand authenticity
more than a brand that is not a pioneer.
18

Second, a firm that maintains its key characteristics, such as original style, design, taste
or process of manufacturing leads consumers to feel that a brand or company is authentic
(Rushdie 1991). This maintenance of a key characteristic is reflected in the view held by
consumers that authentic brands should refuse to compromise their key values and principles to
changing market conditions or customer fads (Schouten and McAlexander 1995).

H2: A brand maintaining the key characteristic (e.g., style, taste, design, etc.) of an
original product over time will lead to the perception of brand authenticity more than a
brand that fails to maintain its key characteristic.

Maintaining an original product is not the only steady state that consumers admire and
value. Brands also need to “stick to their guns” and keep their internal values and core essence
to be perceived as authentic. A company’s mission statement is an ideal place for a company to
announce their values and core essence. Often mission statements are used to convey a
“captivating vision” of a company (Kissler 1991). This vision often centers on higher order
principles and values rather than just getting things done or fulfilling orders (Lengel and Daft
1988, Martin 1985). These principles represent the ego ideal and a standard for which the
company can measure itself (Fairhurst, Jordan Neuwirth 1996). As the mission statement is the
standard, it is crucial to keep a consistent image in the minds of the consumer. This can be
accomplished at two levels: the corporate level and the employee level. At the corporate level,
the mission statement provides the company with an opportunity to stress their “values, positive
behaviors, and guiding principles” (Swales and Rogers 1995). By maintaining this image and
19

following through with the positive behaviors and guiding principles, the company can show
their dedication to their values and core essence, thus being true to itself. Similarly, at the
employee level, interactions with the customer in a truthful manner leads to perception of
authenticity as the relationship between the employee and customer appears to be positive and
genuine (Price, Arnould and Tierney 1995).

H3: A company’s behavioral conduct that adheres to its original mission in a truthful
manner will lead to the perception of brand authenticity more than a company who does
not adhere.

Effects of Authenticity on Evaluations
As companies strive to be perceived as authentic, it is important to understand the
benefits that an authentic brand receives. How do consumers view authentic brands differently
than inauthentic brands? How can managers utilize their authenticity to increase revenue? As
the effects and process of authenticity are not clear to managers, many focus on other product
attributes. Authenticity provides an opportunity for these companies to distinguish themselves
from their competitors and obtain a competitive advantage.
Previous qualitative research has shown that authentic brands receive numerous benefits
compared to their inauthentic counterparts. Authentic brands are perceived as more
commercially successful (Beverland 2005) and are consumed at a higher rate than inauthentic
brands (Kates 2004). This is consistent with the notion that consumers are on a quest for
20

authentic brands and desire to purchase and consume them. From previous qualitative research
and anecdotal evidence of consumers’ quest for authenticity, we know that brand authenticity
produces a positive effect on brand attitudes and evaluations. With these increased evaluations,
consumers are more likely to engage in increasingly difficult behaviors, such as paying more,
defending the brand and being loyal to the brand. Though evidence exists that these effects do
occur through observance, there is a lack of empirical evidence on the effects of brand
authenticity. Most importantly, the true understanding of why and how these effects occur
demands investigation.

Effect of Trust and Credibility
One possible explanation for the effects of brand authenticity on brand attitudes and
evaluations is through brand trust. Trust is a key construct of any long-term relationship, even
with a brand (Larzelere and Huston 1980, Morgan and Hunt 1994) as trust may evolve from past
experience and previous interactions with the brand (Curran et al. 1998, Ravald and Gronroos
1996, Rempel et al. 1985). Trust is a significant variable in the development of a desire to
maintain a relationship in the future according to the commitment-trust theory (Morgan and Hunt
1994). Authentic brands possess the previously discussed specific traits that can strengthen the
commitment-trust relationship. By not sacrificing their values or maintaining the original
product, the brand is showing a commitment to their product and to their customers. This
commitment may be viewed by the consumers as an element of their relationship with the brand.
Consumers may evaluate an authentic brand as being more trustworthy as the brand remains
loyal to their values, maintain their product through product commitment and has a history of
21

being a leader in the industry. This loyalty to their values can be seen in consumers’ loyalty to
the brand as trust can be an important factor in building an emotional commitment to the brand
that leads to long term loyalty (Hess 1995). Besides loyalty, brand trust can enhance positive
and favorable attitudes and strengthen the relationship with the brand (Fournier 1995, Gurviez
1996, Morgan and Hunt 1994).
Further definition of brand trust is the “feeling of security held by the consumer in his/her
interaction with the brand, that it is based on the perceptions that the brand is reliable and
responsible for the interests and welfare of the consumer” (Delgado-Ballester et al. 2003). This
is critical as brand trust is a feeling of security that the brand will meet these consumption
expectations by being reliable and maintaining proper intentions towards the customer (Delgado-
Ballester and Munuera-Aleman 2000). These consumer expectations are crucial as the nature of
trust is the expectation of each party involved in a transaction and acting on those expectations
(Deutsch 1958). By adhering to core values and being truthful with their customers, a brand
keeps their responsibility to customers and meeting expectations. Product expectations can also
be met by refusing to compromise the product and maintaining the original product, as both acts
demonstrate commitment to the original agreement between the brand and the consumer.
As people are trusted based on their predictability (Remple et al. 1985), reputation
(Zucker 1986) and competence (Andaleep and Anwar 1996), these characteristics may also
construct trust in a brand. Brands can increase their credibility by maintaining a consistent
marketing mix over time (Erdem and Swait 1998). These antecedents of authenticity, such as
maintaining an original product, are examples of how brands can increase their credibility and
the reputation of the company (Herbig and Milewicz 1995).
22

As stated earlier, trust can act as the lynch pin to all sorts of relationships; it stands to
logical reason, then, that companies strive to build brand trust with their customers. Brand trust
can be the single most important attribute a brand can possess (Bainbridge 1997, Kamp 1999,
Scott 2000, Smith 2001). This is due to brand trust’s positive effects on other key brand
measures such as brand loyalty and brand equity. Trust in the brand is a powerful way to build
brand loyalty as consumers feel comfortable with brands they can trust and this overall reliability
and predictability prevent brand switching (Fournier 1995, Garbarino and Johnson 1999, Morgan
and Hunt 1994). Similarly, previous research has demonstrated brand trust’s ability to increase
the overall satisfaction with a brand and its brand equity. An increase in brand equity results in
a higher market share, lower relative price, more positive relationship with consumers and
overall, higher brand evaluations (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001, Delgado-Ballester and
Monvera-Alena 2005).
Thus due to brand authenticity’s effect on brand trust and the effect of trust on key brand
measures, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H4: Brand trust mediates the effects of authenticity on attitudinal measures.

23

In Figure 1, the overall conceptual model for the hypothesis is illustrated.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model for the Process of Brand Authenticity

24

Effects of Brand Self-Connection
Though authenticity is hypothesized to have positive effects on brand attitudes through
brand trust, these effects may be much more pronounced for specific segments of consumers.
This could be due to the various relationships consumers have with the brand, relationships built
on the different indicators consumers use for determining a brand’s authenticity. Even within a
subgroup revolving around the same brand, authenticity may have different meanings. Some
owners of the brand may derive a sense of authenticity from simple ownership, their
consumption experience, or through an identity construction and confirmation with the brand
(Leigh, Peters, Shelton 2006). This notion of authenticity leading to a process of identity
construction and confirmation is an important element of a consumer’s experience with a brand.
Some consumers authenticate their identity through role performance and communal
commitment to the brand (Leigh, Peters, Shelton 2006). This identity formation and identity
relationship is essential to brands as consumers form connections and personal relationships with
their brands. This segment of consumers who develop a close, intimate identity connection with
the brand may be affected by brand authenticity more than those consumers who lack the identity
connection.
It’s not just relationships between a consumer and a brand, or a consumer and another
with a brand tie-in that are affected; the consumer’s relationship with self is fair game for brands
as well. Based on what they purchase and consume, consumers are asking questions of
themselves such as who they are and what is the meaning of their existence (Zavestoski 2002).
Consumption experiences are a way for people to construct their self-concepts and personal
identity (Belk 1988, Richins 1994). Authenticity also helps consumers develop an identity and
self-concept (Gecas 1986, 1991). This occurs as the attributes and characteristics of a
25

consumer’s possession often mirror those of the consumer thus allowing consumers to create
their own true identity through consumption (Kleine, Kleine, Allen 1995). Unlike experiential
products, functional products can be possessed and kept, thus are likely to be part of the identity
process. As consumers utilize products to create their self-identity and consumers desire to be
authentic individuals, brand authenticity becomes a critical element of this process. By
purchasing specific brands to create their self-concept, consumers are also forming self-brand
connections and relationships (Escalas and Bettman 2005). The brand then takes part in a two-
step process and provides value during each phase: the assistance in creating and building the
self-identity and then the ability to express the self (McCracken 1989).
Authentic brands present what individuals perceive as a unique opportunity for
consumers to attain the goal of being authentic themselves. Brands become linked to the self
when the brand is able help consumers reach these goals that are motivated by the self (Escalas
and Bettman 2005). A consumer may see traits or characteristics in a brand and find that those
traits or characteristics are congruent with who they are leading to brand self-connection. It is
through this brand self-connection that authenticity affects product evaluations such as brand
attitudes and behavioral intentions. A highly perceived degree of authenticity reminds the
consumer of the positive traits about themselves thus reinforcing the positive traits of the brand.
Consumers who do not view the authentic traits as personally relevant will not evaluate an
authentic product higher as there is no connection between the brand and the self. The
possession and ownership of these brands help consumers create, reinforce, and maintain their
identity and self-concept through the relationship with the brands. As possession of these
products is crucial for the identity process, only functional products will be affected by brand
26

self-connection and not experiential products, as experiential products do not have the temporal
component to maintain and reinforce their identities.

H5: Consumers evaluate a brand significantly higher due to brand authenticity only
when they view the brand as personally relevant (i.e. high brand self-connection).

Authenticity and Product Types
Though trust in the brand is an important factor in describing the relationship between
consumers and the brands they consume, it may be highlighted or amplified in different product
classes. The relationship that consumers have with functional products may be different than the
relationship consumers have with experiential products due to the sensory component of
experiential products. The functional role that products and brands play is universally
recognized and accepted (Furby 1978, Holbrook and Hirschman 1982, Park et al 1986).
Products are classified as functional products or brands when they satisfy necessary functions
and provide a solution to externally-imposed consumption needs or problems. Functional
products, products that solve consumer-related problems (Fennell 1978) such as clothing and
automobiles, are expected to perform in a certain manner to meet consumer expectations, a key
component of brand trust. However, experiential products differ from functional products due to
the sensory nature involved with experiential products (Park et al. 1986). It is important to
investigate if this sensory component of experiential products alters the process of the effects of
brand authenticity. Would the proposed model also hold for all products including experiential
27

products? Testing the generalizability of the model for various product types is important due to
the differing characteristics of each product type.

Effects of Savoring the Experience
Authentic products which are more experiential in nature may not follow the identical
process path as the functional products described earlier. Consumers expect both functional and
experiential products to meet certain expectations making brand trust a key variable in the
process. However, the additional, sensory component of experiential products may not be fully
captured by brand trust. Experiential products are products that highlight the senses and provide
emotional arousal (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989, Myers 1985, Park et al. 1986). These
experiential products fulfill the needs for sensory stimulation and arousal. The relationship
between the consumer and the brand is based on the one-time consumption experience, not
possession based product performance found with functional products.
Consumers often purchase experiential products to put themselves in a positive mood.
Savoring maintains and extends the positive emotional experiences with the product as savoring
is a form of emotion regulation (Bryant 1989; Tugade and Fredrickson 2006). For authentic
products, consumers can savor the originality of the brand, which can extend and intensify the
experience with the brand. Previous research has demonstrated the positive effects of savoring.
Results suggest that savoring led to increased happiness (Shueller 2006; cited from Lyubomirsky
2008). Experiential products, which are more strongly connected to the senses than functional
products, may indulge the senses which is a way of promoting savoring the present experience
(Bryant and Veroff 2007; Lyubomirksy 2008).
28

Consider at this juncture the obvious notion that not all brands can be authentic; the
dimensions of brand authenticity naturally exclude some brands. For example, not all brands can
be a category pioneer or maintain their original product over a long period of time. Due to this
exclusive nature of brand authenticity, when consumers are exposed to authentic brands, it is
likely that they wish to enjoy the original experience with the authentic brands. One way to
heighten the interactions is to savor the experience by highlighting and focusing on the key
dimensions of authenticity that separates that brand from others brand. Consumers are able to
accentuate the dimensions of brand authenticity by savoring the uniqueness of the brand and the
key characteristics that make the brand unlike any other.
Eating at a Mexican restaurant or watching a classic, original movie are instances where
consumers can savor the originality of the brand and opportunities to be in a state where they
may mindfully attend to positive emotions. By being aware of these positive emotions they are
able to maintain them for a longer period of time. Savoring the originality of the brand by
anticipating pleasure and joy from its consumption can enhance the experience. This is due to
the experiential product being a one-time consumption experience and consumers can focus in
on the consumption experience through savoring. Consumers still expect experiential products
to meet specific expectations and meet their needs, thus similar to functional products, brand
trust is also important. Consumers expect that the brand is trustworthy with the product’s
ingredients or formula and its originality.

H6: For experiential products, savoring the originality and brand trust will mediate the
effects of authenticity on attitudinal measures.
29

In Figure 2, the conceptual model for experiential products is illustrated.

Figure 2. Conceptual Model for Experiential Products

30

CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Overview of Scale Development
Authenticity has been discussed in numerous contexts throughout various areas of
research, but previous literature has failed to identify and empirically test the key dimensions of
authenticity and the measure of brand authenticity. The objective of this research is to identify
the dimensions of brand authenticity and develop, test and validate a measure of brand
authenticity.

Pretest
To generate a potential list of scale items, 26 qualitative interviews were conducted with
undergraduate students at a large West Coast university. Participants were asked to think of a
brand that they feel is authentic. A wide range of brands were mentioned from technology
companies (Apple) to clothing companies (Nike) to food markets and products (Trader Joes). To
avoid any bias of the researcher’s understanding of brand authenticity, no initial definition of
brand authenticity was presented to the participants. After participants identified a brand that
they felt was authentic, participants explained their reasoning and why they felt this brand was
authentic. By keeping the description open-ended, the participants were free to choose or focus
on any concept or dimension of brand authenticity they felt was relevant. Reasons for why the
participants thought a brand was authentic were recorded and analyzed later. Two independent
31

judges reviewed the list of reasons and generated a list of items to be included in the scale
development. Items that were similar in nature were combined (differed only in wording). Items
which were mentioned by only one participant were reviewed and discussed. The interview
responses combined with previous literature findings were combined to form a final list of 37
items.
The scale development process consists of two stages, Study 1 and Study 2. The goal of
the first stage was to remove any items that consumers did not find important to the construction
of brand authenticity thus reducing the number of items on the list. This reduction aided in the
development of the significant factors of brand authenticity in the second stage. Also, Study 1
provides an opportunity to combine similar items, remove items that were confusing to the
participants and reword the phrasing of some items. In Study 2, only the critical items from
Study 1 were included. Factor analysis and scale construction was performed on the results of
Study 2. Two versions of Study 2 were conducted, Study 2A and Study 2B, with different
populations to ensure a generalizable Brand Authenticity Scale.

Study 1: Item Reduction for Brand Authenticity Scale

Overview
The purpose of Study 1 was to begin the scale development process by reducing the
number of items necessary for the final scale. The initial list of items was taken from individual
interviews and previous literature allowing for a general representation of the construct. By
32

reducing the noise from the item list, statistical analysis of future studies can identify the
dimensions of brand authenticity through factor analysis.

Method
307 undergraduate students from a large West Coast university participated in this study
for course credit. A total of 37 items, generated from consumer interviews and previous
literature, were included in this study. All participants received the same list of 37 items.
Respondents used a seven point rating scale, ranging from 1 (Not At All) to 7 (Very Much) to
describe the authenticity of a brand in different scenario (i.e. “How authentic is a brand if it
refuses to compromise its products by not following popular market trends?” or “How authentic
is a brand if it adheres to its original values over time?”) for each of the 37 items.

Results
To reduce the number of items, items with a mean rating of less than 4.0 along the seven
point Likert scale were eliminated as well as other questions that were confusing or potentially
misunderstood by the subjects. Items that were not responded to more than 10% of the time
were also eliminated under the assumption that these items were confusing or not understood
(Thomson et. al. 2005). This resulted in a final list of 18 items that were used for Study 2 of the
scale development. (See Table 2 for items).

33

Table 2
Items for Brand Authenticity Scale
How authentic is a brand if it keeps its original product (ex: unique characteristics, design, style)
throughout its entire history?
How authentic is a brand if it maintains its original product (ex: unique characteristics, design, style)
throughout its entire history?
How authentic is a brand if it refuses to compromise its product by not following popular market trends?
How authentic is a brand if it adheres to its original values and principles over time?
How authentic is a brand if it is faithful to its internal factors, such as core values and true essence?
How much more authentic is a brand if another brand imitates its original product (ex: unique
characteristics, design, style)?
How authentic is a brand if it imitates another brand that consumers believe is authentic?
How authentic is a brand that is first in the market with its product?
How authentic is a brand if it is a leader or pioneer in its industry?
How authentic is a brand if it invented the product?
How authentic is a brand if its product makes you think of old times or how things used to be?
How authentic is a brand if it reminds you of my past/nostalgic?
How authentic is a brand if it produces a product that looks old or dated?
How authentic is a brand if it is truthful in its handling of its customers?
How authentic is a brand if it clearly follows its company's mission statement?
How authentic is a brand if it is faithful to its external factors, such as stock shareholders?
How authentic is a brand if it is one of the first few companies in the industry with that type of product?
How authentic is a brand if it has a long history of producing its product?

34

Discussion
The goal of Study 1 was to reduce the number of items to be used in the second stage of
the scale development, known as Study 2. In this aspect, Study 1 was successful as 19 items
were eliminated due to low reported values or were confusing to participants. The majority of
items that remain were mentioned in numerous qualitative interviews. Items that were
eliminated appeared less frequently in the interviews, suggesting these items lack the
representative characteristic of brand authenticity. The items that remain provide initial support
for the three key dimensions of brand authenticity proposed.

Study 2A: Brand Authenticity Scale Development

Overview
Study 1 reduced the number of items for the scale development from 37 to 18. The goal
of Study 2 was to utilize the remaining 18 items and develop the Brand Authenticity Scale. With
only pertinent items remaining, factor analysis was conducted on the results from Study 2 and
the key dimensions of brand authenticity identified. The results from Study 2 could provide
support for Hypotheses 1-3; Being a Category Pioneer, Adhering to Principles and Maintaining
the Original Product will be key dimensions of brand authenticity.

35

Method
194 undergraduate students from a large West Coast university participated in this study
for course credit. The 18 items which emerged from the Study 1 were presented to respondents,
survey can be found in Appendix A. Similar to the Pretest, respondents used a seven point rating
scale, ranging from 1 (Not At All) to 7 (Very Much) to describe the authenticity of a brand in
different scenarios.

Results:
Similar steps from Study 1 were utilized in Study 2 before the factor analysis. To reduce
the number of items and strengthen the measure of authenticity, items with a mean rating of less
than 4.0 along the seven-point Likert scale or items with a greater than 10% no response were
again eliminated. These remaining items were used in an exploratory factor analysis with an
oblique (Promax) rotation allowing for the factors to be correlated (Gorsuch 1983). With our
sample size, a factor loading of 0.5 or greater is considered significant (Hair, 1995). No cross
loading factors were greater than 0.4. A three factor solution, eigenvalues > 1, was generated for
the remaining items and consists of ten items (see Table 3).

36

Table 3
Study 2A: Dimensions of Brand Authenticity Revealed by Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor
Authenticity Item
Being The
Category Pioneer
Adhering to
Principles
Maintaining the
Original Product
First in the market 0.84 -0.06 0.02
Leader in the market 0.74 0.17 0.05
Invented the product 0.76 -0.03 0.18
One of the first few in the
market 0.90 0.02 -0.07
Faithful to internal values -0.11 0.78 0.14
Follow mission statement 0.04 0.82 0.01
Truthful with customers 0.17 0.81 -0.25
Keeps original product 0.13 -0.08 0.83
Maintain original product 0.05 -0.07 0.91
Refuses to compromise
product -0.16 0.44 0.54

Note. Factory analysis uses an oblique rotation. Bold values indicate the factor in which each
item predominantly loads.

The first factor, labeled Being the Category Pioneer, is comprised of being a leader or
pioneer in its industry, inventing the product, being the first or one of the first few companies in
the industry. The second factor, labeled Adhering to Principles, consists of being truthful in its
handling of its customers, being faithful to its internal values and core essence and clearly
following its company’s mission statement. The third factor, labeled Maintaining Product
Originality, consists of keeping its original product, maintaining its original product and refusing
to compromise its product by not following popular market trends. Correlations between these
three dimensions are all positive and significant, but on the lower end supporting the notion that
37

they remain three independent factors. (Leadership – Maintain Product Originality, r = 0.33;
Leadership – Faithful to Original Mission, r = 0.26; Maintain Product Originality – Faithful to
Original Mission, r = 0.28). The usage of oblique rotation is supported by the correlations as
oblique rotation should be used in cases with any factor correlations above 0.3 (Tabachnick and
Fiddell 2007). The alpha reliability coefficient score for the global Brand Authenticity Scale,
obtained by averaging Being the Category Pioneer (α = 0.85), Adhering to Principles (α = 0.75)
and Maintaining the Original Product (α = 0.72), was sufficient ( α = 0.77) and satisfies
Nunnally’s (1978) guidelines for scale development.

Discussion
Results from Study 2 suggest that Being a Category Pioneer, Adhering to Principles and
Maintaining the Original Products are all relevant dimensions of brand authenticity. These are
the only three factors that emerge with significant factor loadings. Notably, items which focus
on nostalgia and reminding of the past do not load on a significant factor. This suggests that
even if a brand looks dated or reminds a consumer of their past, it is not enough to be considered
authentic. By identifying the three key significant dimensions of brand authenticity, one can
start to measure brand authenticity for various brands and companies. Likewise, after the
dimensions of brand authenticity have been discovered through an empirical process, these
dimensions can now be manipulated creating high and low brand authenticity scenarios to be
used for experimental research. However, before these dimensions of brand authenticity are
used in experimental research, the dimensions and Brand Authenticity Scale should be tested for
its generalizability. The studies to date have used undergraduate students as participants. Study
38

2 should be replicated with a general adult population to ensure that adult consumers in general
view the key dimensions in a similar fashion and the dimensions are not unique to college
students/young adults. One criticism of Study 2 may be that consumers were focusing on brand
authenticity at a higher abstract level and may not have been thinking of a specific brand that
they view as authentic. Study 2B addresses this by having participants focus on the brand that
they feel is most authentic.

Study 2B: Brand Authenticity Scale Development

Overview
To provide evidence for a generalizable scale and verify a three factor scale form, Study
2B was conducted with a different population and structure. If the three key dimensions of brand
authenticity are also found in the general population, it provides further evidence for the strength
of the Brand Authenticity Scale. By having participants focus on a specific brand that they view
to be authentic rather than an overall, generic viewpoint, the results of Study 2A can be
strengthened and generalized.

Method
167 members from an online panel, consisting of adults from the United States,
participated in the survey for a small monetary compensation. Participants were asked to “name
the brand that they feel is most authentic”. No definition or dimensions of brand authenticity
39

were given, allowing each participant to come to an understanding of what authenticity means to
them. After naming the company or brand they felt was most authentic, participants then
answered questions regarding the 18 items that were used in the factor analysis from the scale
development (including all items that were entered in the analysis and not simply the remaining
items that loaded on the three factors, e.g. “Has this brand maintained their original product?”,
“Was this brand the first in the industry with its product?” and “Has this brand been faithful to
internal values and core essence?”).

Results:
Exploratory factor analysis with Promax rotation was utilized on the responses from the
participants, a similar analysis conducted during the scale development. Three key factors,
identical to those discovered during the initial scale development emerged. These factors with
their items and factor loadings can be found in Table 4.

40

Table 4
Study 2B: Dimensions of Brand Authenticity Revealed by Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor
Authenticity Item
Being The
Category Pioneer
Adhering to
Principles
Maintaining the
Original Product
First in the market 0.86 -0.08 0.04
Leader in the market 0.66 0.30 -0.13
Invented the product 0.87 -0.02 0.07
One of the first few in the
market 0.83 -0.07 0.02
Faithful to internal values 0.03 0.78 0.13
Follow mission statement 0.02 0.90 -0.01
Truthful with customers -0.04 0.95 -0.06
Keeps original product -0.05 0.11 0.82
Maintain original product -0.07 0.09 0.83
Refuses to compromise
product 0.13 -0.13 0.80

Note. Factory analysis uses an oblique rotation. Bold values indicate the factor in which each
item predominantly loads.

Again the same three factors emerged: Being the Category Pioneer, Adhering to
Principles and Maintaining the Original Product. The same items loaded on to each of the same
three factors. The alpha reliability coefficient score for the global Brand Authenticity scale,
obtained by averaging Leadership, Maintain Product Originality and Faithful to Original
Mission, was sufficient ( α = 0.77) and also satisfies Nunnally’s (1978) guidelines for scale
development.

41

Discussion
This replication of the three factors with the same items strengthens the generalizability
and validity of the brand authenticity scale. Further strength of the scale is provided by having
the participants think of a brand that is most authentic, concentrating on a familiar brand, rather
than thinking of authenticity in general. From both of these studies, Being the Category Pioneer,
Adhering to Principles and Maintaining the Original Product are the three key dimensions and
opportunities for a brand to be authentic. If a brand is able to capitalize on one or all of these
dimensions, the brand may be viewed as authentic and receive additional benefits from this
perception.

Study 3: The Effects and Process of Brand Authenticity

Overview
Besides identifying the dimensions of brand authenticity, one of the major goals of this
dissertation is to demonstrate empirically for the first time, the effects brand authenticity has on
key brand measures, such as attitudes towards the brand and behavioral intentions. This study
tests the effect of brand authenticity on attitudes towards the brand and behavioral intentions.
The process driving these effects, through brand trust (H4), is also investigated. A fictitious
clothing company, New England Skiwear, was utilized for this study.

42

Method:
A one way two level between subjects design was utilized, manipulating authenticity
between subjects. A skiwear clothing company was used as the cover brand. Participants read a
company description, with authenticity manipulated using a high authenticity scenario (strong
description for the three antecedents of authenticity) and a low authenticity scenario (weak
description for the three antecedents of authenticity), which can be found in Appendix B.
Participants then answered questions using a seven-point Likert scale. 82 participants from an
online panel, MTurk, completed the study for a small compensation.

Measures
Attitudes Toward the Brand. Participants were asked to respond to the following three
items: “For me, this brand is: (1 = Unfavorable; 7 = Favorable), (1 = Negative; 7 = Positive), and
(1 = Bad; 7 = Good). The three items were averaged to form a measure for brand attitudes
(Cronbach’s α = .96).
Brand Trust. Two items were averaged to form this measure (Cronbach’s α = .88)..
Participants were asked to respond to: “How trustworthy is the New England Skiwear brand”
and “How credible is the New England Skiwear brand”.
Behavioral Intentions. Utilizing the three levels of increasingly effortful behaviors for
consumers to engage in with a brand found in Park et al. 2010, participants responded to the
following items. Level 1, the least effortful behaviors, consisted of “I want to buy New England
Skiwear”, “I want to recommend New England Skiwear to others such as friends and family
43

members”, “It would be difficult to switch from the New England Skiwear brand to another
brand’s clothing”, “I want to look for more information about New England Skiwear”, and “I
want to buy New England Skiwear for others such as friends and family members” (Cronbach’s
α = .91). Level 2, the moderately effortful behaviors, consisted of “I would be willing to pay
more for New England Skiwear than other, non- New England Skiwear” and “I want to defend
New England Skiwear against any negative information about it” (Cronbach’s α = .75). Level 3,
the most effortful behaviors, consisted of “I would be willing to wait to buy New England
Skiwear, rather than buy clothing from somewhere else”, “I want to actively spread good words
about New England Skiwear to others” and “I want to always buy from New England Skiwear”
(Cronbach’s α = .86). Items for each effortful level were averaged together to compute the
measure ( M = 3.50).
Savoring The Experience. To demonstrate that only brand trust and not savoring the
experience mediates the effects of brand authenticity, participants were asked to imagine that
they will have the chance to receive some New England Skiwear. Using items from Chun’s
(2009) Savoring scale, participants responded to the following five items with regards to how
much they agreed with each: “I am fully anticipating how much pleasure I will feel from the
prospect of wearing New England Skiwear”, “I am appreciating the feelings that the thoughts of
wearing New England Skiwear gives me”, “I am feeling joy from the prospect of wearing New
England Skiwear”, “I find myself looking forward to it in ways that gives me pleasure” and “I
am aware that I am feeling good by thinking about how I would wear New England Skiwear” (1
= Strongly Disagree; 9 = Strongly Agree) (Cronbach’s α = .95).

44

Results:
The authenticity manipulation was successful with those in the high authenticity
condition rating the brand as more authentic than in the low authentic condition, F(1,82) =
18.32, p < 0.001. According to Hypothesis 4, brand trust, consisting of two measures: trust and
credibility, will mediate the effects of authenticity on attitudes towards the brand. To test this
hypothesis, an OLS regression using a bootstrapping technique (Preacher & Hayes 2004) was
utilized to determine whether brand trust mediates the effects of authenticity on attitudes towards
the brand. Participants in the high authenticity condition reported significantly greater brand
trust values than those in the low authenticity condition, B = 1.42, SE = .48, t(81) = 2.95, p <
0.01. Brand trust has a positive significant effect on attitudes towards the brand, B = 0.44, SE =
.03, t(81) = 13.55, p < 0.001. Participants in the high authenticity condition evaluated attitudes
towards the brand significantly higher than those in the low authenticity condition, 5.93 vs. 5.42,
B = 0.58, SE = 0.25, t(81) = 2.34, p < 0.05. When brand trust is accounted for, the significant
effect of authenticity is reduced to non-significance, B = -0.01, SE = .15, t(80) = -0.09, p > 0.5.
The 95% bias-corrected interval obtained from the bootstrapping analysis excludes zero, (0.23,
1.00), suggesting a significant indirect effect (Preacher & Hayes 2004). These results provide
support and evidence for Hypothesis 4 that brand trust mediates the effects of authenticity on
attitudes towards the brand.

45

Figure 3. Study 3: Results for Mediation Analysis

A major purpose of this study is to investigate how strong the effects are of brand
authenticity on attitudes and behaviors requiring greater behavioral commitment. Previous
research has shown that strong attitudes result from effortful thought and these attitudes help
guide behavior (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), often due to the personal relevance of the brand or
46

product. As the personal connection to the brand may be relevant to the effects of brand
authenticity, it is important to investigate the effect of authenticity on various types of behaviors.
Similarly, consumers may feel a close relationship with the brand, which might lead to positive
affect (Mikulincer and Shaver 2007). If consumers view authentic brands as one with
themselves they should allocate greater resources towards the brand and be willing to engage in
more effortful and difficult behavioral intentions. From Figure 3, we see that brand authenticity
has a significant effect on all three levels of behavioral intentions, even the most difficult to
engage in. For the least difficult behaviors, Level 1, those in the high authenticity condition
were significantly more likely to engage in the behaviors than those in the low authenticity
condition, 4.41 vs. 3.52, p < 0.001. Similarly, for the moderate difficult behaviors, Level 2,
brand authenticity has a significant effect on willingness to engage, 3.95 vs. 2.97, p < .01. Even
for the most difficult behaviors, always buying New England Skiwear or waiting to buy New
England Skiwear over other brands now, brand authenticity significantly increases likelihood to
partake in the behaviors, 3.44 vs. 2.77, p < 0.05.

47

*p<0.05 **p<0.01
Figure 4. Study 3 – Willingness to Engage in Increasingly Difficult Behaviors

To test if authenticity influences other constructs besides brand trust that may mediate the
relationship, a separate analysis was conducted. It is possible that when consumers view
authentic products they automatically infer other attributes of the brand from a potential halo
effect. For example, consumers may view authentic products as higher in quality. Considerable
prior research has demonstrated that higher quality leads to elevated attitudes towards the brand.
To test this scenario, a separate analysis was conducted. First, a regression was conducted to
investigate the effects of authenticity on perceived quality. Results suggest that authenticity does
not significantly increase perceived quality of the brand, B = 0.21, SE = 0.22, t(81) = 0.95, p >
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Level 1 (Easy) Level 2 (Medium) Level 3 (Hard)
Low Authenticity
High Authenticity
**
**
*
48

0.40. As authenticity does not have a significant effect on perceived quality, quality is
eliminated as a potential mediator of the effects of authenticity. This result is likely due to the
fact that quality was kept constant in both authentic conditions. In both conditions, a high
quality, five out of five stars, was utilized leading to a likely ceiling effect for quality.
Hypothesis 6 states that along with brand trust, savoring the experience mediates the
effects of brand authenticity for experiential products. To ensure that this is not the case for all
products, a separate mediation analysis was conducted including savoring the experience as a
potential mediator. For the simultaneous mediation, savoring the experience must first mediate
the effects of brand authenticity by itself. A regression was conducted to investigate the effects
of authenticity on savoring the experience. Brand authenticity does not lead to significantly
higher savoring, B = 0.66, SE = 0.44, t(81) = 1.48, p > 0.10. These results provide additional
support for Hypothesis 4, that brand trust alone fully mediates the effects of brand authenticity
on attitudes towards the brand.

Discussion:
By creating the two company scenarios for high and low authenticity which used the
three indicators developed in Study 1 and having a main effect for authenticity, the scale and
indicators of authenticity are strengthened as this provides evidence of the measure. Study 3
investigated the underlying process driving the effects of authenticity and provided support for
Hypothesis 4 that brand trust mediates the effects of authenticity on attitudes towards the brand.
Results suggest that it is brand trust (trust and credibility) that mediates the effects and not other
attributes such as quality. It is important to note that authenticity does not affect the perceived
49

quality of the brand. This is likely due to the fact that in both authenticity conditions, quality is
constant and high with a five out of five star rating.
Study 3 demonstrates the effects and process of brand authenticity but was limited in
certain aspects. Though a main effect for authenticity’s effect on other constructs such as
trustworthiness and credibility was found, the correlation between authenticity and these two
constructs is high at 0.64 and 0.63 respectively. Study 3 does not separate authenticity from
these constructs and provide evidence that authenticity causes higher levels of trust and
credibility and not the other way around.
Separating brand authenticity from other constructs such as trust and credibility is
necessary. To investigate if brand authenticity is a higher order construct, questions about the
relationship between authenticity and other measures such as trust and credibility were presented
to 123 participants. Four statements, two focusing on trust and two on credibility, were
presented to participants randomly manipulating order: If a brand is authentic in its unique
characteristics, style and design, does it mean that a brand is also trustworthy (credible) and If a
brand is trustworthy (credible) does it necessarily mean that a brand is also authentic in its
unique characteristics, style and design. Question order was manipulated but did not produce a
significant effect, so all questions were collapsed. Results are presented in Table 5.

50

Table 5
Authenticity versus Trust and Credibility

Authenticity
Implies Trust
Trust Implies
Authenticity
Authenticity
Implies
Credibility
Credibility
Implies
Authenticity
Mean 4.43
a**
3.69
a**
4.72
b**
3.85
b**

(0.14) (0.14) (0.12) (0.14)

*p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

Results demonstrate that authenticity is a separate construct from trust and credibility.
Authenticity implies trust, M = 4.43, but trust does not necessarily imply authenticity, M = 3.69.
Authenticity implies credibility ( F(6,116) = 3.89, p <0.01), M = 4.74, but credibility does not
necessarily imply authenticity, M = 3.85 (F(6,116) = 3.08, p <0.01). These significant
differences provide further evidence of authenticity’s effect on other constructs and the higher
order nature of authenticity compared to other constructs.

Study 4: Consumer Segments Affected by Brand Authenticity

Study 4 investigates the relationship consumers have with authentic brands and the role
of brand self-connection to understand these behaviors. It investigates brand self-connection as a
potential moderator for these effects (H5). Study 3 demonstrated the main effects for brand
authenticity and identified brand trust as a mediator driving the effects. Results provide evidence
51

that for authentic brands, consumers are willing to engage in even the most difficult behavior.
This is proposed by the closeness and personal relevance of the brand, brand self-connection..

Method:
A one way two level between subjects design was utilized, manipulating authenticity
between subjects. 90 participants from a large West Coast university participated in the survey
for course credit. A similar authenticity manipulation, manipulation of the three key dimensions,
that was utilized in Study 3 was used. A shoe company, Camper Shoes, was used as the cover
story for the product. Participants read a description of the shoe brand and then responded to
questions using a seven-point Likert scale. The brand descriptions, including the authenticity
manipulations, can be found in Appendix C.

Measures:
Attitudes Toward the Brand. Participants were asked to respond to the following three
items: “For me, this brand is: (1 = Unfavorable; 7 = Favorable), (1 = Negative; 7 = Positive), and
(1 = Bad; 7 = Good). The three items were averaged to form a measure for brand attitudes
(Cronbach’s α = .96).
Brand Self-Connection. Using key elements from Escalas and Bettman’s (2003) Brand
Self-Connection scale, participants were asked “The Camper Shoe brand seems to relate to me
personally”, “The Camper Shoe brand description seemed to be written with me in mind”, “I can
easily relate myself to the Camper Shoe brand” and “I can easily form similarities between
52

myself and the Camper Shoe brand” (1 = Not At All; 7 = Very Much). The four items were
averaged to form a measure of brand self-connection (Cronbach’s α = .93).

Results:
The authenticity manipulation was successful, F(1, 89) = 114.71, p < 0.001, indicating
that participants in the high authenticity condition viewed the company as more authentic ( M =
6.36) than those in the low authenticity condition (M = 3.83). An effect for authenticity was
found for trustworthiness ( F(1,89) = 38.13, p < 0.001) and credibility ( F(1,89) = 22.84, p <
0.001). Participants in the high authenticity condition ( M = 5.89, 6.09 for trustworthiness and
credibility respectively) evaluated the brand significantly higher than in the low authenticity
condition ( M = 4.35, 5.02). The effect for brand authenticity on these constructs can be seen in
Figure 5.

53

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01
Figure 5. Study 4 – Effect of Authenticity on Other Constructs

Authenticity influenced attitudes (an average of a three item measure of how
“unfavorable/favorable”, “bad/good” and “negative/positive”). High authenticity ( M = 5.79)
leads to significantly higher attitudes ( F = 1,89) = 33.19, p < 0.001) than low authenticity ( M =
4.45). Additionally, participants in the high authenticity condition ( M = $53.26) were willing to
pay significantly more than participants in the low authenticity condition ( M = $44.24), F(1,89)
= 5.88, p <0.05, demonstrating the continued benefits of authenticity.
After reading the brand description, participants responded to four brand self-connection
measures: “The brand seems to relate to me personally”, “I can easily relate myself to this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Authenticity Trustworthy Credibility Genuine
High Authenticity
Low Authenticity
**
**
**
**
54

brand”, “The brand descriptions seem to be written with me in mind”, and “I can easily form
similarity judgments between myself and the brand description”. A potential moderator of the
effects of authenticity is brand self-connection, the process by which customers match their own
traits and self-concept with the traits of the brand. As stated in Hypothesis 5, only customers
who view the brand as authentic and see those same traits in themselves will evaluate the product
higher as they feel a closer relationship with the brand as they see themselves in the brand.
Regression analysis supports Hypothesis 5. There was a significant interaction between
authenticity and brand self-connection, B = 0.10, SE = 0.05, t(1,87) = 2.06, p < 0.05.
Authenticity does not have a significant effect on attitudes towards the brand for those
participants with low brand self-connection. However, authenticity does have a significant effect
on attitudes towards the brand for those with high brand self-connection as seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Study 4 – Interaction of Brand Authenticity and Brand Self-Connection on Attitudes
Toward the Brand
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low Brand Self-Connection High Brand Self-Connection
Attitudes Towards the Brand
Low
Authenticity
High
Authenticity
55

Discussion:
This study provides additional evidence of the effects of brand authenticity on key
attitudinal and behavioral measures. Additionally, participants viewed the authentic brands as
more trustworthy, credible, favorable and were willing to pay a higher price.
The results also provide support for Hypothesis 5 that only authentic brands that are
personally relevant and high in brand self-connection, benefit from the effects of authenticity.
Even in the high authenticity condition, when participants do not feel the traits of the authentic
brand are personally relevant, participants may still recognize the brand as authentic (higher
authentic ratings) but these feelings of authenticity may not carryover to increased attitudes
towards the brand. Thus it is crucial for brands to implement a two part strategy in their brand
communication. Brands must not only convey their authenticity to their customers but they must
also do so in a way that appears personally relevant to the consumer and in a manner that the
consumers can connect the brand traits with their own self-traits.

Study 5: The Process Driving the Effects of Brand Authenticity for Experiential Products

This study investigates the underlying cognition processing driving the effects of
authenticity on attitudes towards the brand for experiential products. As mentioned above,
experiential products differ from functional products on one critical dimension, mainly their
appeal to the senses. Due to this sensory nature of experiential products, it is predicted that
56

brand trust alone will not fully mediate the effects of authenticity. To account for the sensory
component, savoring the experience is added to the model. According to Hypothesis 6, brand
trust and savoring the experience will mediate the effects of authenticity.

Method:
A one way two level between subjects design was utilized, manipulating authenticity
between subjects in a similar manner as Study 3. 94 participants from Amazon’s online panel,
MTurk, completed the study for a small compensation. For the experiential product, El
Medrano’s Mexican restaurant was utilized as the brand. Similar to Study 3, participants read a
company description, with authenticity manipulated using a high scenario (strong description for
the three antecedents of authenticity) and a low scenario (weak description for the three
antecedents of authenticity), which can be found in Appendix D. Then participants evaluated the
brand using a seven point likert scale. The savoring measure consisted of the average of five
items taken from Chun’s 2009 Savoring Scale.

Measures
Attitudes Towards the Brand. Participants were asked to respond to the following three
items: “For me, this brand is: (1 = Unfavorable; 7 = Favorable), (1 = Negative; 7 = Positive), and
(1 = Bad; 7 = Good). The three items were averaged to form a measure for brand attitudes
(Cronbach’s α = .95).
57

Brand Trust. Two items were averaged to form this measure (Cronbach’s α = .88)..
Participants were asked to respond to: “How trustworthy is the El Medrano’s brand” and “How
credible is the El Medrano’s brand”.
Behavioral Intentions. Utilizing the three levels of increasingly difficult behaviors for
consumers to engage in with a brand found in Park et al. 2010, participants responded to the
following items. Level 1, the least difficult behaviors, consisted of “I want to buy from El
Medrano's”, “I want to recommend El Medrano's food to others such as friends and family
members”, “It would be difficult to switch from El Medrano's food to another restaurant's food”,
“I want to look for more information about El Medrano's”, and “I want to buy El Medrano's food
for others such as friends and family members” (Cronbach’s α = .87). Level 2, the moderately
difficult behaviors, consisted of “I would be willing to pay more for El Medrano's food than
other, non-El Medrano food” and “I want to defend El Medrano's against any negative
information about it” (Cronbach’s α = .69). Level 3, the most difficult behaviors, consisted of “I
would be willing to wait to buy El Medrano's food, rather than buy food from somewhere else”,
“I want to actively spread good words about El Medrano's to others” and “I want to always buy
from El Medrano's” (Cronbach’s α = .80).
Savoring The Experience. Participants were asked to assume that they will have a chance
to taste El Medrano’s food shortly and respond to the following items. Using items from Chun’s
(2009) Savoring Scale, participants responded to the following five items with regards to how
much they agreed with each: “I am fully anticipating how much pleasure I will feel from the
prospect of eating El Medrano’s food”, “I am appreciating the feelings that the thoughts of eating
El Medrano’s food gives me”, “I am feeling joy from the prospect of eating El Medrano’s food”,
“I find myself looking forward to it in ways that gives me pleasure” and “I am aware that I am
58

feeling good by thinking about how I would eat El Medrano’s food” (1 = Strongly Disagree; 9 =
Strongly Agree) (Cronbach’s α = .96).

Results:
Again the manipulation for authenticity was successful, F(1,93) = 89.18, p <0.001. In
Study 3, brand authenticity was shown to go beyond simply attitudes and willingness to pay and
have significant effects on increasingly difficult behavioral intentions for functional products. A
similar analysis is conducted for experiential products and results are similar, demonstrating the
powerful and far reaching effects of brand authenticity. Participants were increasingly more
willing to participate in the least difficult behaviors, 4.99 vs. 3.68 for high and low authenticity
respectively, F(1,93) = 34.86, p < 0.0001. Similar results hold for moderately difficult behavior,
4.29 vs. 3.11, F(1,93)= 18.12, p < 0.001, and for the most difficult behaviors, 4.37 vs. 3.10,
F(1,93) = 26.06, p < 0.001. Results can be seen in Figure 7.

59

*p<0.05 **p<0.01
Figure 7. Study 5 – Experiential Products – Willingness to Engage in Increasingly Difficult
Behaviors

Hypothesis 6 predicts that the combination of brand trust and savoring the experience
simultaneously mediate the effects of authenticity on attitudes towards the brand. A similar
approach to that used in Study 5 was utilized for analysis, using Hayes’ PROCESS technique,
which again uses an OLS regression with a bootstrapping technique (Hayes 2013). Participants
in the high authenticity condition reported significantly greater brand trust values than those in
the low authenticity condition, B = 7.20, SE = 0.80, t(92) = 8.95, p < 0.001. Brand trust has a
significant effect on attitudes towards the brand, B = 0.39, SE = .03, t(92) = 11.54, p < 0.001.
Similarly, participants in the high authenticity condition reported significantly higher levels of
savoring the experience, B = 4.35, SE = 0.67, t(92) = 6.47, p < 0.001. This increased savoring
has a significant effect on attitudes towards the brand, B = 0.52, SE = 0.05, t(92) = 10.45, p <
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Level 1 (Easy) Level 2 (Medium) Level 3 (Hard)
Low Authenticity
High Authenticity
**
**
**
60

0.001. Participants in the high authenticity condition held significantly higher attitudes towards
the brand than those in the low authenticity condition, B = 3.45, SE = 0.43, t(92) = 8.11, p <
0.001. However, when brand trust and savoring the experience are both accounted for
simultaneously, the significant effect of authenticity is reduced and no longer significant, B =
0.67, SE = 0.44, t(90) = 1.52, p > .10. The 95% bias-corrected interval obtained from the
bootstrapping analysis excludes zero for both brand trust and savoring the experience
respectively, (0.60, 2.15) and (0.82, 2.64), suggesting a significant indirect effect for both brand
trust and savoring the experience (Preacher and Hayes 2004).

61

Figure 8. Study 5 – Mediation Results for Experiential Product
62

Figure 9. Study 5 – Mediation Results for Experiential Product

To test if savoring the experience and brand trust are both necessary for full mediation,
the analysis was conducted separately with only brand trust and savoring the experience. Brand
trust alone did not reduce the significant effect of authenticity to insignificant, B = 1.19, SE =
0.47, t(91) = 2.52, p = 0.01. Likewise, savoring the experience by itself did not reduce the
significant effect of authenticity to insignificant, B = 1.75, SE = 0.42, t(91) = 4.15, p < 0.001.
From these two alternative analyses, we see that neither brand trust nor savoring the experience
fully mediate the effects of authenticity on attitudes towards the brand by themselves. Only
63

when brand trust and savoring the experience are both accounted for in a simultaneous process,
do the two variables fully mediate the effects of authenticity. These results provide support for
Hypothesis 7, that both brand trust and savoring the experience mediate the effects of brand
authenticity for experiential products. It is important to recognize the sensory component and
nature of experiential products, thus creating the need for the second mediator, savoring the
experience.

Discussion:
Similar to the results of Study 3 for functional products, brand authenticity can have a
powerful effect for experiential products on key brand constructs such as trust and credibility as
well as brand evaluations and behaviors, including attitudes and willingness to pay. Consumers
rate authentic brands considerably higher, trust them more and are willing to pay a significant
price premium for authentic brands. Brands with experiential products in their portfolio can
benefit from the effects of authenticity by building or stressing the three key dimensions of
authenticity.
Two important findings emerge from this study. First, unlike functional products, brand
trust alone does not fully mediate the effects of brand authenticity on brand attitudes. Brand
Trust and Savoring the Experience simultaneously mediate the effects of brand authenticity, as
experiential products contain a sensory component which is not present in functional products.
Similar to functional products, experiential products that are authentic lead to greater levels of
brand trust, a key construct and goal for brand managers. Marketers can highlight the
authenticity of their experiential products to increase consumers’ trust in their brand. As brand
64

authenticity leads to higher savoring, it may be beneficial to remind consumers to savor the
experience and make them mindful of the experience, thus realizing the positive effects of brand
authenticity.
Second, brand authenticity is shown to significantly increase not only attitudes towards
the brand but also various difficulty levels of behavioral intentions. Consumers are not only
willing to pay more for authentic brands but they are also willing to engage in difficult and costly
behavioral intentions such as defend the brand against negative information, be loyal to the brand
and wait extended periods of time for the brand over other brands. These results demonstrate
that brand authenticity is a very powerful construct and goes beyond simple attitudes towards the
brand.

Study 6: Effects of Brand Authenticity for Experiential Products

As previously stated, experiential products differ from functional products on numerous
dimensions and thus may not be affected by authenticity in an identical way due to the sensory
nature of experiential products. This study investigates the effects of authenticity for experiential
products utilizing a similar design and methodology to Study 4.

Method:
74 participants from an online panel (Amazon’s MTurk) participated in the survey,
found in Appendix E, for a small compensation. Similar to Study 5, a one way two level
65

between subjects design was utilized, manipulating authenticity between subjects in a similar
manner. Participants read a brand description for an experiential product. El Medrano’s Mexican
restaurant was utilized as the company description. Participants then answered questions using a
seven-point Likert scale.

Measures
Attitudes Toward the Brand. Participants were asked to respond to the following three
items: “For me, this brand is: (1 = Unfavorable; 7 = Favorable), (1 = Negative; 7 = Positive), and
(1 = Bad; 7 = Good). The three items were averaged to form a measure for brand attitudes
(Cronbach’s α = .95).
Brand Self-Connection. Using key elements from Escalas and Bettman (2003),
participants were asked “The El Medrano brand seems to relate to me personally”, “The El
Medrano brand description seemed to be written with me in mind”, “I can easily relate myself to
the El Medrano brand” and “I can easily form similarities between myself and the El Medrano
brand” (1 = Not At All; 7 = Very Much). The four items were averaged to form a measure of
brand self-connection (Cronbach’s α = .97).

Results:
Again, the authenticity manipulation was successful, F(1,73) = 81.00, p < 0.001,
indicating that participants in the high authenticity condition viewed the company as more
authentic ( M = 6.68) than those in the low authenticity condition (M = 4.11). Similar to Study
66

4, main effects were found for other constructs such as trustworthiness ( F(1,73) = 40.95, p <
0.001) and credibility ( F(1,73) = 48.13, p < 0.001) where participants in the high authenticity
condition ( M = 6.50, 6.54 for trustworthiness and credibility respectively) evaluated the brand
significantly higher than in the low authenticity condition ( M = 4.83, 4.59). Results can be seen
in Figure 10.

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01
Figure 10. Study 6 – Effects of Authenticity on Other Constructs for Experiential Products

A main effect for authenticity was also found for attitudes, F(1,73) = 23.80, where those
in the high authentic condition evaluated attitudes towards the brand significantly higher than in
the low authentic condition, M = 6.47 vs. 5.13 respectively. Participants in the high authenticity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Authenticity Trustworthy Credibility Genuine
High Authenticity
Low Authenticity
**
**
** **
67

condition ( M = $9.25) were willing to pay significantly more than participants in the low
authenticity condition ( M = $7.95), F(1,73) = 9.08, p <0.01. These results suggest that
authenticity has powerful effects not only for functional products but for experiential products as
well.
According to Hypothesis 5, only those consumers with a high brand self-connection will
experience the effects of authenticity. To test, H5, a regression analysis was conducted,
regressing authenticity and brand self-connection on attitudes towards the brand. Results reveal
a significant main effect for authenticity, B = 2.06, SE = 0.61, t(1,68) = 3.41, p <0.001, a
significant main effect for brand self-connection, B = 0.12, SE = .03, t(1,68) = 4.38, p <0.001,
and a significant interaction between authenticity and brand self-connection, B = -.08 SE = .04,
t(1,68) = -2.17, p < 0.05. Again, brand self-connection moderates the effects of brand
authenticity. However, these results appear to mirror the regression results for functional
products. For experiential products, results suggest that a brand can receive significantly higher
attitudes towards the brand if one of two brand constructs (brand authenticity and brand self-
connection) are present than if none are present. If a brand is either authentic (regardless of
brand self-connection) or has a high brand self-connection (regardless of brand authenticity),
brand attitudes are significantly greater than when the brand is low in authenticity and low in
brand self-connection. Only consumers who view the brand as not authentic and have a low
brand self-connection evaluate the brand significantly less than those consumers that either view
the brand as authentic or have a high brand self-connection. These results suggest that
experiential brands can receive benefits from either high brand authenticity or high brand self-
connection, but the combination of both high brand authenticity and high brand self-connection
does not provide additional benefits.
68

Figure 11. Study 6 – Interaction of Brand Authenticity and Brand Self-Connection on Attitudes
Towards the Brand

Discussion:
The effects of authenticity are evident again from this study. Unlike functional products
where only consumers that view the brand as authentic and have a strong brand self-connection
evaluate the brand more favorably, for experiential products consumers who either view the
brand as authentic or have a high brand self-connection evaluate the brand more favorably. This
buffering moderation occurs as the effect of the moderator, brand self-connection diminishes as
brand authenticity increases. For those with low brand self-connection, brand authenticity has a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low Brand Self-Connection High Brand Self-Connection
Attitudes Towards the Brand
Low
Authenticity
High
Authenticity
69

significant effect on attitudes towards the brand. However, as brand self-connection increases,
the effect of brand authenticity on attitudes towards the brand decreases. When brand self-
connection is high, the effect of brand authenticity is minimal and non-significant. This allows
the firm to consider numerous marketing and advertising strategies. For those consumers who
are high in brand self-connection, stressing a brand’s authenticity to this segment may not be the
most beneficial strategy for firms. Results suggest that the brand can receive more favorable
evaluations by either possessing brand authenticity or brand self-connection with their
customers. However, for those consumers who are low in brand self-connection, the results
suggest that a brand could receive more favorable evaluations by building or highlighting their
authenticity in their marketing strategy.
It is important to understand why these results are counter to Hypothesis 5 and the
findings for functional product in Study 4. A post-hoc hypothesis for the differing results is that
functional products are considered possessions and are owned for a longer amount of time. As
functional products have a longer product life, the product and brand have a greater amount of
time to be assimilated into the self and create a stronger brand self-connection. However,
experiential products are not possessed but rather consumed. Also, many experiential products
are short lived and do not have the product life of functional products. Due to this shorter time
with the consumer and being consumed rather than possessed, there may not be the interaction
between authenticity and the self-connection with the brand.
Another possible explanation for these differing results can be traced back to the
differences between functional and experiential products. Consumers’ primary motive for
experiential products is to enjoy the experience with the product. As the experience is the focus,
a consumer may not focus on the relationship they have with the brand. For functional products,
70

product performance is the primary concern and the consumer is focused on the brand meeting
performance expectations. The performance of the brand can be a reflection of the individual as
they chose the brand, thus the relationship between the self and the brand may be more relevant.

Experiential Products
Functional Products

Figure 12. Comparison of Effects of Brand Authenticity and Brand Self-Connection on Attitudes
Towards the Brand for Experiential versus Functional Products

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low Brand Self-Connection High Brand Self-Connection
Dependent variable
Low
Authenticity
High
Authenticity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low Brand Self-Connection High Brand Self-Connection
Attitudes Towards the
Brand
Low
Authenticity
High
Authenticity
71

CHAPTER 5: OVERALL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Contribution
This dissertation demonstrates the powerful effects of brand authenticity, a theoretically
and managerially relevant construct. Due to the lack of previous empirical research on what
brand authenticity is and its effects, the Brand Authenticity Scale was empirically developed.
Three key dimensions emerge: Being the Category Pioneer, Adhering to Principles and
Maintaining the Original Product. Utilizing these three key dimensions as the representation of
brand authenticity, six empirical studies demonstrate the significant positive effects of brand
authenticity on key brand measures such as attitudes and behavioral intentions. Results from the
studies show the effects and process of brand authenticity differ for various product categories,
functional versus experiential products. For example, the consumer’s brand self-connection is
only a necessary boundary condition for the positive effects of brand authenticity for functional
products and not experiential products. This is a critical finding for marketers as the need to
build this personal brand self-connection is necessary for authentic products and marketers need
to concentrate their efforts to establish and build this relationship. Also, due to the sensory
nature of experiential products, savoring the experience along with brand trust fully mediate the
effects of brand authenticity. This differs from functional products where brand trust alone fully
mediates the effects of brand authenticity.

72

With my previously discussed theoretical model and empirical studies serving as a backbone, the
following section discusses the managerial implications of this research and proposes possible
future research areas to build on these findings.

Managerial Implications
The above theoretical contributions are useful for not only academic researchers but also
for marketing and brand managers. Products are commonly labeled as authentic. One only
needs to walk into any department store to see companies advertise their brands as authentic or
go to a supermarket or restaurant and see food described as authentic. By describing their
products as authentic, companies seem to hope to benefit from the effects of authenticity.
However, simply labeling or advertising a product may not be sufficient as the consumer may
look for signals of the key dimensions of brand authenticity to validate this advertisement. The
three dimensions of brand authenticity provide managers with directions for shaping their
advertising campaigns so that they are reaping the benefits of authenticity. If a brand is strong in
one of these dimensions a firm can utilize that strength and focus on that dimension in its
advertising campaign. Consumers will then have information to support the claims of
authenticity and can assist in the evaluation of the claims of authenticity that the brand makes.
Brand self-connection was found to be a necessary boundary condition for functional
products. Though brand authenticity is appreciated and valued by all consumers, the consumers
who feel a strong self-connection with the brand authenticity are stronger in their positive
response to the brand. In order to benefit from authenticity, marketers of functional products
must focus on both elements of the process: create a strong brand self-connection and highlight
73

the strong dimension(s) of authenticity for their brand. Results suggest that simply being
authentic is not enough for functional products to benefit from authenticity. Marketers may be
able to combine their efforts by focusing on building the personal relationships with their
customers through advertising the dimensions of authenticity. Some of the dimensions of
authenticity are personal traits that many people strive for in their own lives. For example, many
people strive to be a “pioneer” by being a leader in a workplace, organization or social circle. If
marketers can connect the link between the consumer’s desire to be a leader and the company
being a pioneer/leader, they may be able to build a strong brand self-connection. Consumers
also have a desire to follow their core principles and be truthful with others, similar to the core of
the dimension “Adhering to Principles”. By highlighting the dimensions of brand authenticity
that consumers can feel a strong personal connection with allow the brand to reap the rewards of
brand authenticity.
Companies are consistently trying to build and maintain consumers’ trust in their brand.
Brand trust is an extremely important construct as brand trust leads to repeat purchasing, loyalty
and willingness to pay a price premium. Results from this dissertation suggest that brand
authenticity leads to higher levels of brand trust for both functional products and experiential
products which then leads to significantly greater attitudes towards the brand and behavioral
intentions. As authenticity is a way to build brand trust, companies have an incentive to actively
highlight their authenticity or take actions to strengthen it. Though building authenticity is not
an easy task and it is difficult to be authentic, brands can benefit from the effects of brand
authenticity and gain a critical competitive advantage over their competitors.

74

Future Research
This dissertation investigated the key dimensions of brand authenticity and the effects of
brand authenticity on attitudinal and behavioral measures. After the dimensions of brand
authenticity were discovered empirically, high and low authenticity scenarios were created. In
each scenario, quality remained constant across conditions and was high in all cases, either 4.5 or
5.0 stars out of 5.0. However, not all brands that are highly authentic may also be high in
quality. There are many brands, such as Ramen Noodles, that are rated very high in authenticity
but are also rated average to below average in quality. It would be interesting to investigate the
interaction between quality and brand authenticity.
In Study 3, brand authenticity did not have a significant impact on perceived quality of
the brand. This was due to the brand being describe as high quality and receiving a five out five
star rating, resulting in both the high authentic brand and low authentic brand both receiving high
quality ratings (6.05 vs. 5.89 respectively). It would be important to investigate the relationship
between brand authenticity and product quality for those brands that are not high quality (five
out of five star product rating). Are these two constructs mutually exclusive? Or does one lead
to an increase/decrease in the other? In the studies presented here, authenticity significantly
enhanced attitudes, behavioral intentions, brand trust, attitude strength, and other brand
constructs.
Perhaps authenticity has a halo effect on other constructs, such as quality, for lower
quality brands. This halo effect would not have been realized in the reported study as the brand
was very high in quality to begin with and a possible ceiling effect could have occurred. A brand
that is high in authenticity may be able to elevate the perceived quality of their products by
75

highlighting their authenticity to the consumers if they currently have a low perceived quality.
The consumers may evaluate the quality of the high authentic brand higher than that of a low
authentic brand even if the quality of the two brands are equal, due to the halo effect of
authenticity. This could be tested by manipulating both brand authenticity and product quality.
If there is a halo effect of authenticity on product quality (where authenticity increased the
perception of the low quality brand), a sequential mediation analysis could be investigated where
brand authenticity leads to higher perceived quality, leading to brand trust, which increases
attitudinal and behavioral intentions.
Further investigating the relationship between quality and authenticity, high end luxury
brands are often associated with high quality. Luxury brands, such as Rolex and Prada, are often
described as authentic by consumers. This occurs for two reasons: to distinguish the real,
genuine luxury brand from the counterfeit brands and due to the dimensions identified in the
Brand Authenticity Scale. Counterfeit products are a common problem for luxury brands. If
there is an interaction between quality and authenticity, consumers may evaluate the quality of a
product incorrectly if they believe that the brand is authentic, not necessarily the product. For
example, if an authentic brand is counterfeited, does the counterfeit product receive any of the
benefits of brand authenticity such as increased attitudes or possible increased perceived quality?
Though consumers recognize that the product is a counterfeit and not the real thing, does the
authenticity of the counterfeited brand carry over to the counterfeit product raising attitudes and
quality of this product? Or, do the effects of brand authenticity disappear regardless of the brand
once consumers realize that the product itself is a counterfeit product even though the brand that
is being copied is authentic? Many consumers purchase counterfeit products simply to signal the
brand and fully realize the lower product quality. If the brand is at core of the decision to
76

purchase counterfeit goods, then brand traits such as brand authenticity may influence the
attitudes of the counterfeit product.
The interaction between brand authenticity and brand self-connection was investigated
for both functional products and experiential products. Hypothesis 5, consumers will evaluate an
authentic brand more favorable when the brand is high in brand self-connection than when it is
not, was only supported for functional products. Experiential products received the benefits of
brand authenticity regardless of the brand self-connection, either high or low. One post hoc
explanation is that functional products are more of possessions while experiential products are
more about consumption. Future studies investigating this explanation could be conducted to
identify why brand authenticity and brand self-connection interact only for functional products.
This interaction impacts how brands advertise their products and the efforts they take to build
relationships with their customers. Could some experiential products benefit from a high brand
self-connection and thus have an interaction with authenticity? One could examine experiential
products that affect the physical self or used to attain a goal for the self (i.e. become healthier or
lose weight), such as vitamins or supplements.
For established industries and market sectors, the dimensions of authenticity, i.e. Being
the Category Pioneer and Maintaining the Original Product, may be time dependent. Brands in
new or emerging industries may not be as affected by time as they still may be considered an
early entrant into a young industry, even if the ratio of time in the market to total market time is
the same (i.e. 2-year-old brand in a 5-year-old market vs. a 40-year-old brand in a 100-year-old
market). This element of time may also be seen from the consumer perspective in regards to
their consumption over time. In the studies presented, the measures taken were after one
exposure of a brand. It is possible that multiple exposures over time may dampen the effects of
77

brand authenticity as the authentic product becomes the norm and is expected. One could
examine the sustainability of brand authenticity over time and whether these effects wear off
over time through repeated consumption. Brands, specifically those of experiential products,
may benefit from authenticity because they are seen as unique or special, i.e. delicious chocolate
or a bold wine. However, if they are repeatedly purchased or consumed, this uniqueness may
wear off and instead be viewed as a “normal” product or an everyday product. If this is the case,
the positive effects of authenticity may begin to decrease as consumers may not highlight the
authenticity in the brand as it may no longer be a defining characteristic that sets it apart from
other brands as they get used to it. This is especially true for experiential products such as food.
The first time one consumes the brand, one can truly savor the experience with the brand as it
truly is a unique, original experience. After repeated consumption, consumers may not savor the
experience as strongly as the brand may lose some of its uniqueness and originality as it has
become a stable consumption item.
In repeated surveys (Study 2A and Study 2B) and interviews (qualitative pre-test study)
when consumers are asked “What is the most authentic brand/company?”, one of the top three
responses is always Apple, a technology company. The fact that a technology company is highly
authentic may seem ironic to some as technology is made to adapt and change, traits that appear
to be counter to the core of brand authenticity. However, after a deeper look at why consumers
believe that Apple is authentic, the key dimensions are evident. Consumers highlight that Apple
keeps an aesthetic design and consistently creates easy to use operating systems and software.
By being a market share leader in the cellphone and tablet industry by continuously reinventing
product categories, Apple positions itself as a category pioneer. This leads to the larger question
of the balance and interaction between brand authenticity and technological advances. Are some
78

technological advances too great that a brand’s authenticity may diminish due to the new
product’s vast differences from the older product? Or vice versa, if a company fails to advance
their technology in a reasonable fashion, could their brand authenticity be damaged? Depending
on the industry, the relative importance of each dimension of brand authenticity may differ. For
industries where adhering to a key mission statements such as creativity or being a category
pioneer are the most important dimensions of brand authenticity, a technology company may be
able to stress that dimension while advancing their products through technological changes or
advancements, while maintaining their authenticity. As our society becomes more reliant on
technology and upgrades to many ordinary, functional products such as refrigerators and
thermostats, researchers and marketers need to better understand the process of maintaining a
brand’s authenticity through technological advancements.

79

REFERENCES
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensionsof brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-
357.
Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three
perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in Consumer Research 1995.
Anand, N., & Jones, B. (2005). Fabricating authenticity to produce organizational culture:
the case of a British retail chain store, Unpublished manuscript: London: London
Business School.

Andaleep, S. S. & Anwar, S. F. (1996). Factors influencing customer trust in salespersons in
a developing country. Journal of International Marketing, 4(4), 35-52.

Arnould, E., & Price, L. (2000). Authenticating acts and authoritative performances, in the
The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumers' Motives,
Goals, and Desires, ed. S. Ratneshwar, David Glen Mick, and Cynthia Huffman,
New York: Routledge, 144-163.

Arthur, D. (2006). Authenticity and consumption in the Australian hip hop culture.
Qualitative Market Research, 9(2), 140-156.

Bainbrdige, J. (1997). Who wins the national trust. Marketing, October, 21-23.

Barthel, D. (1996). Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity, New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15
(September), 139–68.

Belk, R., & Costa, J. (1998). The mountain man myth: A contemporary consuming fantasy.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 218-240.

Bendix, R. (1992). Diverging paths in the scientific search for authenticity. Journal of
Folklore Research, 29(2), 103-132.

80

Benjamin, W. (1968). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction, Illuminations,
H. Arendt, ed. 217-252. New York: Shocken Books.

Bentor, Y. (1993). Tibetan tourist thangkas in the Kathmandu Valley. Annals of Tourism
Research, 20(1), 107-137.

Beverland, M. (2005). Brand management and the challenge of authenticity. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 14(7), 460-461.

Beverland, M. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of
Management Studies, 42(5), 1003-1029.

Beverland, M. (2006). The 'real thing': branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade.
Journal of Business Research, 59, 251-258.

Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly F. J. (2010). The quest for authenticity in consumption:
Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 838-856.

Beverland, M., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. (2008). Projecting authenticity through
advertising: Consumer judgments of advertisers' claim. Journal of Advertising, 37(1),
5-15.

Boyle, D. (2003). Authenticity: brands, fakes, spin and the lust for real life. London:
Flamingo.

Brown, S. (2001). Marketing - the retro revolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brown, S., Kozinets, R., & Sherry, J. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding
and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19-33.

Bruner, E. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of postmodernism,
American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397-415.

Bryant, F. B. (1989). A four-factor model of perceived control: Avoiding, coping, obtaining,
and savouring. Journal of Personality, 57, 773-797.

Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

81

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(April), 81-
93.

Chronis, A. (2005). Co-constructing heritage at the Gettysburg storyscape. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(2), 386-406.

Cohen, E. (1979). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1),
18-35.

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commodization. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 371-
386.

Costa, J., & Bamossy, G. (1995). Culture and the marketing of culture: the museum retail
context, in Marketing in a multicultural world: ethnicity, nationalism, and cultural
identity, ed. Janeen Arnould Coasta and Gary J. Bamossy, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
299-328.

Costa, J., & Bamossy, G. (2001). Le parc Disney: Creating an "authentic" American
experience. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 398-402.

Curran, J.M., Rosen, D.E., & Surprenant, C. (1998). The development of trust: An
alternative conceptualization, in Anderson, P. (Ed.), EMAC Proceedings, Annual
Conference, European Marketing Academy, Stockholm, pp. 110-30.

Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L., & Yague-Guillen, M.J. (2003). Development
and validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Marketing Research,
45(1), 35-53.

Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand
equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187-196.

Deustch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131-57.

82

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(1), 191-98.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference
groups on consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3),
339-48.

Escalas, J.E., & Bettman, J.R. (2005). Self‐ Construal, reference groups, and brand meaning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389.

Evans-Pritchard, D. (1987). The portal case: authenticity, tourism, traditions, and the law.
Journal of American Folklore, 100(397), 287-296.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fennell, G. G. (1978). Perceptions of the product-in-use situation. Journal of Marketing, 42
(2), 39-47.

Fine, G. (2003). Crafting authenticity: the validation of identity in self-taught art. Theory and
Society, 32, 153-180.

Firat, A., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 239-267.

Fournier, S. (1995). Toward the development of relationship theory at the level of the
product and brand. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 661-2.

Furby, L. (1978). Possessions: Toward a Theory of their Meaning and Function throughout
the Life Cycle," in P. Baltes (ed), Life Span Development and Behavior (297-336).
New York: Academic Press.

Garbino, E., & Johnson, M.S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(April), 70-87.

Gecas, V. (1986). The motivational significance of self-concept for socialization theory. In
E. J. Lawler (ed.), Advances in Group Processes (131-156). Greenwich: JAI Press.

83

Gecas, V. (1986). The self-concept as a basis for a theory of motivation. In J. A. Howard &
P. L. Callero (eds.), The Self-Society Dynamic (171-185). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.

Gilliath, O., Sesko, A. S., Shaver, P. R., & Chun, D. S. (2010). Attachment, authenticity, and
honesty: Dispositional and experimentally induced security can reduce self- and
other-deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 841-855.

Gilmore, J., & Pine, B. (2007). Authenticity: what consumers really want. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

Gino, F., Norton M. I., & Ariely D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs of
faking it. Psychological Science, 21(5), 712-720.

Goldman, R., & Papson, S. (1996). Sign wars: The cluttered landscape of advertising. New
York: Guildford.

Goulding, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search
for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European Journal of
Marketing, 34(7), 835-853.

Gurviez, O. (1996). The trust concept in the brand-consumers relationship, in Beracs, J.,
Bauer, A. and Simon, J. (Eds.), EMAC Proceedings Annual Conference (559-74).
European Marketing Academy, Budapest.

Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and
their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31, 296-312.

Grayson, K., & Shulman, D. (2000). Indexcality and the verification function of
irreplaceable possessions: A semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 27,
17-30.

Goursch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2
nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Hair, J. F. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan.

Halliday, S. (2001). Deceit, desire, and technology: A media history of secrets and lies.
Forum for Modern Language Studies, 37(2), 141-154.
84

Handler, R., & Gable, E. (1997). The new history in an old museum. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.

Handler, R. (1986). Authenticity. Anthropology Today, 2(1), 2-4.

Harkin, M. (1995). Modernist anthropology and tourism of the authentic. Annals of Tourism
Research, 22(3), 650-670.

Hayes, A.F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J.B., Foster, J., Lakey, C.E., & Goldman, B.M.
(2008). Within-Person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and
authenticity. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1140-1145.

Herbig, P., & Milewicz, J. (1995). The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand
success. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(Winter), 5-10.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2008). Towards a critical understanding of music, emotion, and self-
identity. Consumption Markets & Culture, 11(4), 329-343.

Hess, J. (1995). Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer trust, in Stern,
B.B et al., (Eds), American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, Summer(6), 20-26.

Holbrook, M.B., & Hirschman, E.C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-40.

Holt, D. (1998). Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of
Consumer Research, 25, 1-25.

Holt, D. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 70-90.

Jacknis, I. (1990). Authenticity and the mungo martin house, Victoria, B.C.: Visual and
verbal sources. Arctic Anthropology, 27(2), 1-12.

Jones, C., Anand, N. & Alvarez, J. (2005). Manufactured authenticity and creative voice in
cultural industries. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 893-899.

85

Jones, D., & Smith, K. (2005). Middle-Earth meets New Zealand: Authenticity and location
in the making of The Lord of the Rings. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 923-
945.

Kamp, B.E. (1999). We’re all brands around here. Brandweek, 40(25), S6-S15.

Kates, S.M. (2004). The dynamics of brand legitimacy: An interpretive study in the gay
men's community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 455-464.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., (1998). Destination culture: Tourism, museums, and heritage
(239). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kissler, G.D. (1991). The change riders: Managing the power of change. Reading MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Kleine, S. S., Kleine III, R.E., & Allen, C.T. (1995). How is a possession ‘me’ or ‘not me’?
Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal of
Consumer Research, 22, 327-43.

Kozinets, R. (2002). Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illustrations from
burning man. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 20-38.

Laenan, M. (1989). Looking for the future through the past. Heritage Interpretation, Vol. 1,
Belhaven Press, London.

Larzelere, R., & Huston, T. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding
interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
August, 595-604.

Le Bel, J. L., & Dube, L. (2001). The impact of sensory knowledge and attentional focus on
pleasure and on behavior responses to hedonic stimuli. Paper presented at the 13
th

annual American Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Leigh, T., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: the
multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 481-493.

Lengel, R.H., & Daft, R.L. (1988). The selection of communicative media as an executive
skill. The Academy of Management Executive, 2, 225-32.

86

Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-Complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness
and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(April), 663-76.

Lowenthal, D. (1992). Authenticity? The dogma of self-delusion, in Jones, M. (ed.), Why
fakes matter: Essays on problems of authenticity (184-192). London: British
Museum.

Lu, S., & Fine, G. (1995). The presentation of ethnic authenticity: Chinese food as a social
accomplishment. Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 535-553.

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings.
The American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603.

MacCannell, D. (1976). The visitor: A new theory of the leisure class. New York: Schoken
Books.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(September),
954-69.

Martin, J.R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In Benson, J.D., &
Greaves, W.S. (Eds), Systemic perspectives on discourse (248-74). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the
endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310-21.

Moeran, B. (2005). Tricks of the trade: The performance and interpretation of authenticity.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 901-922.

Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 20-38.

Orvell, M. (1989). The real thing: imitation and authenticity in American culture, 1880-
1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J., & MacInnis, D.J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image
management. Journal of Marketing, 50(November), 135-145.

87

Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J. R., 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 (November), 1-17.

Penaloza, L. (2000). The commodification of the American west: Marketers' production of
cultural meanings at the trade show. Journal of Marketing, 64, 82-109.

Peterson, R. (1997). Creating country music: Fabricating authenticity. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Peterson, R. (2005). In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1083-
1098.

Philips, D. (1997). Exhibiting Authenticity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic value is remaking
commerce, culture, & consciousness. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Ravald, A., & Gronroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European
Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19-30.

Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., & Zanna, M.P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112.

Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 504-21.

Rose, R., & Wood, S. (2005). Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality
television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 284-296.

Rushdie, S. (1991). Imaginary homelands: essays and criticism 1981-1991. London: Granta.

Sartre, J. (1948). Being and nothingness. New York: Philosophical Library.

Sartre, J. (1962). Transcendence of the ego. New York: Noonday Press.

Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J.A., Arndt, J., & King L.A. (2009). Thine own self: True self-concept
accessibility and meaning of life. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29,
209-69.
88

Schouten, J., & McAlexander, J. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: Ethnography of the
new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 43-61.

Schueller, S.M. (2006). Personality fit and positive interventions: Is extraversion important?
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.

Scott, D. (2000). One day and a lifetime of brand lesson. Brandweek, 41(34), 30-32.

Smith, C. (2001). Why building trust should be the holy grail of marketing. Marketing,
March, 27-28.

Squire, S. (1994). The cultural values of literary tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21,
103-120.

Swales, J.M, & Rogers, P.S. (1995). Disclosure and the project of corporate culture: The
mission statement. Discourse & Society, 6, 223-242.

Tabachinick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5
th
ed.) Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Taylor, J. (2001). Authenticity and sincerity in tourism. Annals of Tourism, 28(1), 7-26.

Thompson, C., & Tambyah, S. (1999). Trying to be cosmopolitan. Journal of Consumer
Research, 26, 214-241.

Thompson, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic
value of the doppelganger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70, 50-64.

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

Tiersten, L. (1993). Redefining consumer culture: Recent literature on consumption and the
Bourgeoisie in Western Europe. Radical History Review, 57, 116-159.

Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B.L. (2006). Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion
regulation strategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 311-
333.
89

Venkatesh, A. (1992). Postmodernism, consumer culture and the society of the spectacle.
Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 199-202.

Wallendorf, M., Lindesy-Mullikin, J., & Pimentel, R. (1998). Gorilla marketing: Customer
animation and regional embeddedness of a toy store servicescape. in Sherry, Jr. J.F.
(ed.), Servicescapes: The concept of place in contemporary markets (151-198).
Chicago: NTC.

Wegener, D.T., & Petty, R.E. (1994). Mood management across affective states: The
hedonic contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
1034-1048.
Zavestoski, S. (2002). The social–psychological bases of anticonsumption attitudes. Psychology
and Marketing, 19(2), 149-165.

90

Appendix A
Survey for Brand Authenticity Scale Development for Study 2A

How authentic is a brand if it keeps its original product (ex: unique characteristics, design,
style) throughout its entire history?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it maintains its original product (ex: unique characteristics,
design, style) throughout its entire history?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it refuses to compromise its product by not following popular
market trends?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it adheres to its original value and principles over time?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it is faithful to its internal factors, such as its core values and true
essence?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

91

How much more authentic is a brand if another brand imitates its original product (ex:
unique characteristics, design style)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it imitates another brand that consumers believe is authentic?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand that is first in the market with its product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it is a leader or pioneer in its industry?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How authentic is a brand if it invented the product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if its product makes you think of old times or how things used to be?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How authentic is a brand if it reminds you of my past/nostalgic?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

92

How authentic is a brand if it produces a product that looks old or dated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it is truthful in its handling of its customers?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it clearly follows its company’s mission statement?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it is faithful to its external factors, such as shareholders?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it is one of the first few companies in the industry with that type
of product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

How authentic is a brand if it has a long history of producing its product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
93

Appendix B
Survey for Study 3

(High Authenticity Condition)
Please read the following company description, then answer the questions that follow.

New England Skiwear, NES, is a manufacturer of jackets and ski boots located in Vermont. The
NES brand is the living history of a family business from a great family of innovators, who for
more than a century have dedicated themselves to the skiwear industry.
Here is key information below that you are asked to read carefully.
New England Skiwear, NES, is a leading manufacturer of winter clothes located in Essex,
Vermont. They were the first company to introduce the ski jacket in 1884. New England
Skiwear has continued to manufacturer their jackets in the same way since 1924. NES
continues to utilize the same, high quality fabrics they have used from day one despite
fluctuating prices of the fabrics. This commitment to high quality was clear even when fabric
prices nearly doubled in the late 1970’s.
NES's mission statement is to produce high quality products that their customers can utilize
while causally enjoying skiing and fully experiencing being outside with nature. NES has
continued to maintain their mission statement by producing jackets that fit with the notion of
enjoying skiing and the outdoors.
Despite popular clothing trends in the 60’s and 70’s, New England Skiwear has maintained
their original, sleek design that separates them from their competitors. The traditional style of
NES’s ski jackets has remained a constant trademark for their company and is worn by skiers
of all ages.
Has the NES brand maintained its original design?
NO YES

Has the NES brand been committed to its mission statement?
NO YES

94

(Low Authenticity Condition)

Please read the following company description, then answer the questions that follow.

New England Skiwear, NES, is a manufacturer of jackets and ski boots located in Vermont. The
NES brand is the living history of a family business from a great family of innovators, who for
more than a century have dedicated themselves to the skiwear industry.
Here is key information below that you are asked to read carefully.
New England Skiwear, NES, is a leading manufacturer of winter clothes located in Essex,
Vermont. They were the third company to introduce the ski jacket in 1924. New England
Skiwear has continued to change how they manufacturer their jackets since 1924. Due to
fluctuating prices of fabrics, NES changes the fabrics they utilize though this did not affect the
high quality of their product. This flexibility of fabric used was clear when fabric prices nearly
doubled in the late 1970’s.
NES's mission statement is to produce high quality products that their customers can utilize
while causally enjoying skiing and fully experiencing being outside with nature. NES has
changed their focus as skiing trends have changed from casually enjoying skiing to high thrill
skiing..
Due to popular clothing trends in the 60’s and 70’s, New England Skiwear has frequently
changed their original design to conform with their competitors and popular market
trends. The traditional style of NES’s ski jackets has fluctuated for their company over the years
due to these market conditions.
Has the NES brand maintained its original design?
NO YES

Has the NES brand been committed to its mission statement?
NO YES

95

Please answer the following questions regarding the NES skiwear brand after reading the
brand description.
How authentic is the NES skiwear brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How genuine is the NES skiwear brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How trustworthy is the NES skiwear brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How credible is the NES skiwear brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
For me, the NES skiwear brand is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unfavorable Favorable
For me, the NES skiwear brand is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
For me, the NES skiwear brand is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative Positive
How certain are you about your thoughts and feelings towards the NES skiwear brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
96

How confident are you about your thoughts and feelings towards the NES skiwear brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
The average price for a jacket in the category of NES skiwear is $50. How much would you be
willing to pay for a jacket from NES skiwear?
$_____.____________
I want to buy this brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to use products with the NES logo.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to see and wear this brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to look for more information about this brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to be loyal to this brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to defend this brand against any negative information about it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
97

It would be difficult to switch from a NES skiwear jacket to a non-NES jacket.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to resist any negative information about it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to join the community of this brand by being an active member.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to actively spread good words about this brand to others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to always buy the new model of NES skiwear.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to buy NES skiwear for others such as friends and family members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to recommend NES skiwear to others such as friends and family members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to donate my time and energy to promote this brand to others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

98

I would be willing to pay more for NES skiwear than other, non-NES skiwear.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I would be willing to wait several months to buy NES skiwear, rather than buy non-NES
skiwear.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

Assuming that you will have a chance to wear a jacket from NES skiwear shortly, please
answer the following questions.
I am fully anticipating how much pleasure I will feel from the prospect of wearing NES skiwear.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
I am appreciating the feelings that the thoughts of wearing NES skiwear gives me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
I am feeling joy from the prospect of wearing NES skiwear.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
I find myself looking forward to it in ways that gives me pleasure.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
I am aware that I am feeling good by thinking about how I would wear NES skiwear.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
99

Appendix C
Survey for Study 4
(High Authenticity Condition)
Please read the following company description, then answer the questions that follow.

Camper shoes is a manufacturer of boots and shoes located in Barcelona, Spain. The Camper
brand is the living history of a family business from a great family of innovators, who for more
than a century have dedicated themselves to the footwear industry. Here is key information
below that you are asked to read carefully.
In 1877, Camper was the first company to utilize machines to manufacturer shoes, introducing
new technology to the industry. It also promotes its mission that people should learn and enjoy
the concept of leisurely walking, as opposed to running. It adheres to its original mission of
leisurely walking even today. Camper also continues to utilize the same, high quality fabrics
they have used from day one despite fluctuating prices of the leather, rubber and other
materials. This commitment to the original materials was clear even when leather prices nearly
doubled in the late 1970’s.
Despite popular shoe trends in the 60’s and 70’s, Camper has maintained their original, sleek
design that separates them from their competitors. The traditional style of Camper shoes has
remained a constant trademark for their company.
Industry and fashion experts have consistently awarded Camper a quality rating of 5 stars (out
of 5). This rating means that the Camper brand is superior to other leading brands in quality.

Has the Camper shoe brand maintained its original design and mission statement?
NO YES

Was the Camper shoe brand the first to use machines in its manufacturing process and invent
new technology?
NO YES

100

(Low Authenticity Condition)
Please read the following company description, then answer the questions that follow.

Camper shoes is a manufacturer of boots and shoes located in Barcelona, Spain. The Camper
brand is the living history of a family business from a great family of innovators, who for more
than a century have dedicated themselves to the footwear industry. Here is key information
below that you are asked to read carefully.
In 1877, Camper was the third company to utilize machines to manufacturer shoes, copying
new technology from competitors. It originally promoted its mission that people should learn
and enjoy the concept of leisurely walking, as opposed to running. Now-a-days, Camper has
changed its mission to promote running instead of leisurely walking.

Camper has continued to change how they manufacturer their shoes. Due to fluctuating prices
of materials, Camper has often changed which materials they utilize, but these material
changes did not affect the high quality at all. Due to popular fashion trends in the 60’s and 70’s,
Camper has frequently changed their original design to conform with their competitors and
popular market trends. The traditional style of Camper shoes has fluctuated for their company
over the years due to these market conditions.

Industry and fashion experts have consistently awarded Camper a quality rating of 5 stars (out of
5). This rating means that the Camper brand is superior to other leading brands in quality.
Has the Camper shoe brand maintained its original design and mission statement?
NO YES

Was the Camper shoe brand the first to use machines in its manufacturing process and invent
new technology?
NO YES

101

Please answer the following questions regarding the Camper shoe brand after reading the
brand description.
How authentic is the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How genuine is the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How unique is the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How sincere is the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How trustworthy is the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How credible is the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How good/poor is the quality is the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

102

How good/poor is the reliability is the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
Is the Camper shoe brand a pioneer of shoe products?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
Is the Camper shoe brand a an innovative leader of shoe products (ex: innovative leader in the
way to make, wear or design shoes)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
For me, the Camper shoe brand is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unfavorable Favorable
For me, the Camper shoe brand is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
For me, the Camper shoe brand is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative Positive
How certain are you about your thoughts and feelings towards the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

103

How confident are you about your thoughts and feelings towards the Camper shoe brand?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
The average price for shoes in the category of Camper's shoes is $50. How much would you be
willing to pay for a pair of Camper shoes?
$____ . ___________
The Camper brand seemed to relate to me personally.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I can easily relate myself to the Camper brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
The Camper brand description seemed to be written with me in mind.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I can easily form similarity judgments between myself and the Camper brand description.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

104

Appendix D
Survey for Study 5 - Experiential Product Survey

(High Authenticity Condition)
Please read the following company description, then answer the questions that follow.

El Medrano's is a Mexican restaurant located in New York City. The El Medrano brand is the
living history of a family business from a great family of culinary experts, who for more than a
century have dedicated themselves to the food industry.

In 1894, El Medrano’s was the first Mexican restaurant to open its doors in New York City,
introducing a new cuisine to the area. The restaurant promotes its mission of providing high
quality, original, local Mexican cuisine to its customers rather than quick, generic meals. It
adheres to its original mission of original, local cuisine even to this day by using fresh
ingredients and recipes native to Mexico. El Medrano’s continues to utilize the same, high
quality ingredients they have used from day one despite fluctuating prices of beans, meats and
other ingredients. This commitment to the original recipe and ingredients was clear even when
black and pinto bean prices nearly doubled in the late 1970’s.
Despite popular restaurant trends in the 60’s and 70’s, El Medrano’s has maintained their
original, local taste that separates them from their competitors. The traditional, unique, fresh
taste of El Medrano’s has remained a constant trademark for their company as consumers can
taste the fresh ingredients used.

El Medrano's constantly receives high marks for its food from both customers and food critics,
averaging over 4.5 stars out of 5 on food sites such as Yelp, Zagat and Grubhub. This means
that El Medrano's food is superior to other leading restaurants in quality.

Has the El Medrano brand maintained its original taste and mission statement?
NO YES
Was the El Medrano brand the first Mexican restaurant in New York City?
NO YES

105

(Low Authenticity Condition)
Please read the following company description, then answer the questions that follow.

El Medrano's is a Mexican restaurant located in New York City. The El Medrano brand is the
living history of a family business from a great family of culinary experts, who for more than a
century have dedicated themselves to the food industry.
El Medrano's constantly receives high marks for its food from both customers and food critics,
averaging over 4.5 stars out of 5 on food sites such as Yelp, Zagat and Grubhub. This means
that El Medrano's food is superior to other leading restaurants in quality.
In 1894, El Medrano’s was the eighth Mexican restaurant to open its doors in New York City,
copying cuisine from others in the area. El Medrano uses ingredients often seen in the
industry which gives their food a common taste. The restaurant’s mission is to “provide high
quality, original, local Mexican cuisine to its customers rather than quick, generic
meals”. However, El Medrano has continued to change its recipes and its ingredients it uses
as customers want a quicker ‘on the go’ meal. Due to fluctuating prices of beans, meats and
other ingredients, El Medrano changes its menu and ingredients, but these changes did not
affect the quality at all.
Due to popular restaurant trends in the 60’s and 70’s, El Medrano’s has frequently changed
their original taste and recipes to conform with their competitors and popular market
trends. The traditional taste of El Medrano’s has fluctuated over the years due to these
changing market conditions.
El Medrano's constantly receives high marks for its food from both customers and food critics,
averaging over 4.5 stars out of 5 on food sites such as Yelp, Zagat and Grubhub. This means
that El Medrano's food is superior to other leading restaurants in quality.

Has the El Medrano brand maintained its original taste and mission statement?
NO YES
Was the El Medrano brand the first Mexican restaurant in New York City?
NO YES

106

Please answer the following questions regarding El Medrano's after reading the brand
description.
How authentic is the El Medrano's brand/restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How genuine is the El Medrano's brand/restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How trustworthy is the El Medrano's brand/restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How credible is the El Medrano's brand/restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How much do you enjoy eating Mexican food?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
For me, the El Medrano's brand/restaurant is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unfavorable Favorable
For me, the El Medrano's brand/restaurant is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
For me, the El Medrano's brand/restaurant is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative Positive
107

How certain are you about your thoughts and feelings towards the El Medrano's restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How confident are you about your thoughts and feelings towards the El Medrano's restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
The average price for a burrito dinner with chips, rice and beans in the category of El Medrano's
is $8. How much would you be willing to pay for a burrito dinner at El Medrano's?
$ _____ . ________________
I want to buy from El Medrano's.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to use cooking utensils with the El Medrano’s logo.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to look for more information about El Medrano's.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to be loyal to El Medrano's.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to defend El Medrano's against any negative information about it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
108

It would be difficult to switch from El Medrano's food to another restaurant's food.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to resist any negative information about El Medrano's.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to join the community of El Medrano's by being an active member.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to actively spread good words about El Medrano's to others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to always buy from El Medrano's.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to buy El Medrano's food for others such as friends and family members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to recommend El Medrano's food to others such as friends and family members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I want to donate my time and energy to promote El Medrano's to others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
109

I would be willing to pay more for El Medrano's food than other, non-El Medrano food.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I would be willing to wait to buy El Medrano's food, rather than buy food from somewhere else.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
Assuming that you will have a chance to taste El Medrano's food shortly, please answer the
following questions.
I am fully anticipating how much pleasure I will feel from the prospect of eating El Medrano's
food.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
I am appreciating the feelings that the thoughts of eating El Medraono's food gives me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
I am feeling joy from the prospect of eating El Medrano's food.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
I find myself looking forward to it in ways that gives me pleasure.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

I am aware that I am feeling good by thinking about how I would eat El Medrano's food.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

110

Appendix E
Survey for Study 6 - Experiential Product Survey

(High Authenticity Condition)
Please read the following company description, then answer the questions that follow.

El Medrano's is a Mexican restaurant located in New York City. The El Medrano brand is the
living history of a family business from a great family of culinary experts, who for more than a
century have dedicated themselves to the food industry.

In 1894, El Medrano’s was the first Mexican restaurant to open its doors in New York City,
introducing a new cuisine to the area. The restaurant promotes its mission of providing high
quality, original, local Mexican cuisine to its customers rather than quick, generic meals. It
adheres to its original mission of original, local cuisine even to this day by using fresh
ingredients and recipes native to Mexico. El Medrano’s continues to utilize the same, high
quality ingredients they have used from day one despite fluctuating prices of beans, meats and
other ingredients. This commitment to the original recipe and ingredients was clear even when
black and pinto bean prices nearly doubled in the late 1970’s.
Despite popular restaurant trends in the 60’s and 70’s, El Medrano’s has maintained their
original, local taste that separates them from their competitors. The traditional, unique, fresh
taste of El Medrano’s has remained a constant trademark for their company as consumers can
taste the fresh ingredients used.

El Medrano's constantly receives high marks for its food from both customers and food critics,
averaging over 4.5 stars out of 5 on food sites such as Yelp, Zagat and Grubhub. This means
that El Medrano's food is superior to other leading restaurants in quality.

Has the El Medrano brand maintained its original taste and mission statement?
NO YES
Was the El Medrano brand the first Mexican restaurant in New York City?
NO YES

111

(Low Authenticity Condition)
Please read the following company description, then answer the questions that follow.

El Medrano's is a Mexican restaurant located in New York City. The El Medrano brand is the
living history of a family business from a great family of culinary experts, who for more than a
century have dedicated themselves to the food industry.
El Medrano's constantly receives high marks for its food from both customers and food critics,
averaging over 4.5 stars out of 5 on food sites such as Yelp, Zagat and Grubhub. This means
that El Medrano's food is superior to other leading restaurants in quality.
In 1894, El Medrano’s was the eighth Mexican restaurant to open its doors in New York City,
copying cuisine from others in the area. El Medrano uses ingredients often seen in the
industry which gives their food a common taste. The restaurant’s mission is to “provide high
quality, original, local Mexican cuisine to its customers rather than quick, generic
meals”. However, El Medrano has continued to change its recipes and its ingredients it uses
as customers want a quicker ‘on the go’ meal. Due to fluctuating prices of beans, meats and
other ingredients, El Medrano changes its menu and ingredients, but these changes did not
affect the quality at all.
Due to popular restaurant trends in the 60’s and 70’s, El Medrano’s has frequently changed
their original taste and recipes to conform with their competitors and popular market
trends. The traditional taste of El Medrano’s has fluctuated over the years due to these
changing market conditions.
El Medrano's constantly receives high marks for its food from both customers and food critics,
averaging over 4.5 stars out of 5 on food sites such as Yelp, Zagat and Grubhub. This means
that El Medrano's food is superior to other leading restaurants in quality.

Has the El Medrano brand maintained its original taste and mission statement?
NO YES
Was the El Medrano brand the first Mexican restaurant in New York City?
NO YES

112

Please answer the following questions regarding El Medrano's after reading the brand
description.
How authentic is the El Medrano's brand/restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How genuine is the El Medrano's brand/restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How trustworthy is the El Medrano's brand/restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How credible is the El Medrano's brand/restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How much do you enjoy eating Mexican food?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
For me, the El Medrano's brand/restaurant is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unfavorable Favorable
For me, the El Medrano's brand/restaurant is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
For me, the El Medrano's brand/restaurant is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative Positive
113

How certain are you about your thoughts and feelings towards the El Medrano's restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
How confident are you about your thoughts and feelings towards the El Medrano's restaurant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
The average price for a burrito dinner with chips, rice and beans in the category of El Medrano's
is $8. How much would you be willing to pay for a burrito dinner at El Medrano's?
$ _____ . ________________
The El Medrano's brand seemed to relate to me personally.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I can easily relate myself to the El Medrano's brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
The El Medrano's brand description seemed to be written with me in mind.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much
I can easily form similarity judgments between myself and the El Medrano's brand description.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at All Very Much

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation investigates consumer’s perceptions of brand authenticity, genuineness in a brand’s product and principles. Prior qualitative research on brand authenticity has not identified key dimensions using a systematic and quantitative approach. This dissertation contributes to the branding literature by (1) identifying the key dimensions of brand authenticity through the development of a Brand Authenticity Scale, (2) quantifying the effects of brand authenticity on attitudes towards the brand and behavioral intentions, (3) separating brand authenticity from other key brand constructs, (4) investigating the interaction between brand authenticity and brand self-connection, (5) identifying the underlying process driving the effects of brand authenticity, and finally (6) examining the different effects and process of brand authenticity depending on the product type, either functional or experiential. ❧ Eight studies were conducted to identify the dimension of brand authenticity and investigate its effects and process. Four of these studies, one qualitative and three empirical, identify the three key dimensions of brand authenticity (being the category pioneer, adhering to principles and maintaining the original product) and develop a Brand Authenticity Scale. Using the three dimensions of brand authenticity, four experiments (two for functional products and two for experiential products) demonstrate the significant positive effects of brand authenticity on brand attitudes and behavioral intentions. These effects, moderating variables and the process driving these effects vary depending on the type of product. Unlike experiential products, the effects of brand authenticity are moderated by the relationship the consumer has with the brand (brand self-connection) for functional products, with only those consumers who are high in brand self-connection evaluating the brand more favorably. Whereas while brand trust mediates the effects of brand authenticity for functional products, due to the sensory nature of experiential products, the combination of brand trust and savoring the experience mediates the effects of brand authenticity for experiential products.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers

PDF

Understanding virality of YouTube video ads: dynamics, drivers, and effects

PDF

Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness

PDF

How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions

PDF

How sequels seduce: consumers' affective expectations for entertainment experiences

PDF

Consumers' subjective knowledge influences evaluative extremity and product differentiation

PDF

The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice

PDF

The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers

PDF

Savoring future experiences: antecedents and effects on evaluations of consumption experiences

PDF

Experiential public relations: the importance of strategic messaging, understanding target audiences, and analysis of successfully curated brand-consumer interactions

PDF

Quality investment and advertising: an empirical analysis of the auto industry

PDF

Essays on the luxury fashion market

PDF

Essays on consumer conversations in social media

PDF

Novelty versus familiarity: divergent effects of low predictability and low personal influence

PDF

Manipulating consumer opinion on social media using trolls and influencers

PDF

The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment

PDF

Wake up PR practitioners, the Lovemark is here to stay: an analysis of the Lovemark theory with a discussion of the future of brands

PDF

Essays on commercial media and advertising

PDF

Creation and influence of visual verbal communication: antecedents and consequences of photo-text similarity in consumer-generated communication

PDF

Who manages the firm matters: the incremental effect of individual managers on accounting quality

Asset Metadata

Creator Coary, Sean Patrick (author)

Core Title Scale construction and effects of brand authenticity

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Marketing Communication Management

Publication Date 08/06/2013

Defense Date 06/19/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag authentic,authenticity,brand,brand trust,OAI-PMH Harvest,savoring,scale

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Park, C. Whan (committee chair), Folkes, Valerie S. (committee member), Luo, Lan (committee member), Macinnis, Deborah J. (committee member), Wakslak, Cheryl (committee member)

Creator Email coary@usc.edu,scoary@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-319059

Unique identifier UC11294690

Identifier etd-CoarySeanP-1983.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-319059 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CoarySeanP-1983.pdf

Dmrecord 319059

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Coary, Sean Patrick

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA