The inuence of brand trust and brand

identication on brand evangelism

Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine how the nature of consumers relationship with a brand inuences brand evangelism, which
represents an intense form of brand support behavior. Specically, the study investigates the inuence of two consumer-brand relational constructs,
brand trust and brand identication, on brand evangelism. Brand evangelism, conceptualized as an amalgam of adoption and advocacy behaviors, is
operationalized in terms of three supportive behaviors: purchase intentions, positive referrals, and oppositional brand referrals.
Design/methodology/approach Drawing from prior research on consumer-brand relationships, a framework of brand relationships and brand
evangelism is developed. To provide a more robust test of theory, consumers extraversion, gender, and brand experience are included as control
variables. Structural equation modeling is used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Findings The ndings reveal that consumer-brand relationships inuence brand evangelism, albeit in different ways. Whereas brand trust inuences
purchase intentions and positive referrals, brand identication inuences positive and oppositional brand referrals. Overall, the ndings reveal the
power of consumer-brand relationships in engendering brand evangelism, relative to other factors such as extraversion, gender, and brand experience.
Practical implications In todays consumption society, where it is increasingly easier for consumers to demonstrate extreme devotion and derision
toward brands, it is important for marketers to understand the drivers of behaviors directed toward brands. This study suggests that marketers can
cultivate brand evangelism by building brand trust and brand identication.
Originality/value Marketing researchers and practitioners are only recently beginning to understand brand evangelism. This study demonstrates
that consumer-brand relationships, rather than personality, gender, and usage experience, trigger brand evangelism and offers directions for future
researchers to further explicate brand evangelism.
Keywords Brand evangelism, Brand identication, Brand trust, Consumer-brand relationships
Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
Given that they have the power to inuence consumer
behavior and marketplace advantages for rms, consumer-
brand relationships represent an important area of
investigation for marketers (Keller, 2012). Researchers have
identied that strong consumer-brand relationships inuence
consumer actions, such as purchasing the brand, praising and/
or defending the brand, and even providing opposing
comments about rival brands (e.g. Aaker et al., 2004;
Fournier, 1998; Muniz and Hamer, 2001; Park et al., 2013;
Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004; Schmitt, 2013 Thompson and
Sinha, 2008). Ultimately, strong consumer-brand
relationships have the potential to create brand loyalty,
vibrant brand communities, and sustained rm performance
in both physical and online settings (Aggarwal, 2004; Keller,
2012, 2013). Not surprisingly, marketing researchers and
practitioners have evinced signicant interest in
understanding the nature and outcomes of consumer-brand
relationships.
Recently, there has been increased attention on explicating
the nature and drivers of intense and extreme consequences of
consumer-brand relationships. For instance, with regard to
the manifestation of consumer-brand relationships,
researchers have focused on phenomena such as brand
communities and brand cults, which represent structured
social relationships and specialized communities among
admirers of a brand (Belk and Tumbat, 2005; McAlexander
et al., 2002; Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). Likewise, with
regard to the heightened forms of relationships between
individual consumers and brands, concepts such as brand
devotion, brand zealotry, and brand love have been
identied (Albert et al., 2008; Arruda-Filho et al., 2010; Batra
et al., 2012; Rozanski et al., 1999). Finally, with regard to the
behavioral consequences of consumer-brand relationships,
concepts such as brand salience, brand advocacy, and
brand evangelism have been proposed (Badrinarayanan and
Laverie, 2011; Keller, 2013; Kemp et al., 2012; Matzler et al.,
2007; Scarpi, 2010).
The objective of this study is to shed further light on how
on how consumer-brand relationships inuence brand
evangelism, which is conceptualized as an amalgam of
brand adoption and brand advocacy behaviors. Specically,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
22/5/6 (2013) 371383
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0394]
Received 11 September 2013
Revised 11 September 2013
Accepted 11 September 2013
371
brand evangelism is dened as the active behavioral and vocal
support of a brand including actions such as purchasing the
brand, disseminating positive brand referrals, and convincing
others about a focal brand by disparaging competing brands.
Less than two decades ago, marketers maintained that
satised consumers tell eight others, whereas dissatised
consumers tell more than 20 others about their experiences.
However, technological advancements have now enabled
brand-directed behavior of consumers to increase in an
exponential manner by simplifying tasks related to purchase
and communication behaviors (Scarpi, 2010). The ubiquity
of the Internet, including convenient access via mobile phones
and tablets, the increase in the proportion of customers who
search for and provide brand-related information, the ease
with which consumers can now provide comments in online
(e.g. web sites, forums, discussion boards, etc.) and social
networking sites, and the increasing concern among
contemporary organizations about how brand-directed
behaviors by consumers inuence other consumers, sales,
and ultimately, rm value (Chen et al., 2012; Prendergast
et al., 2010; Zhu and Zhang, 2010) call attention to the
investigation of how consumer-brand relationships inuence
brand evangelism. Organizations as diverse as IBM,
Southwest Airlines, and Build-A-Bear Workshop are noted
to benet from and be adept in cultivating brand evangelists
(McConnell and Huba, 2003).
Accordingly, this study contributes to the extant literature
on consumer-brand relationships by delineating the inuence
of two relational constructs, brand trust and brand
identication, on the three brand-related behaviors that
represent brand evangelism, namely, purchase intentions,
positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals.
Drawing from the literatures on trust (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995),
social identity theory (Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Tajfel and
Turner, 1985), and brand-related behaviors (e.g. Albert et al.,
2008, 2010; De Bruyn and Lilien, 2008; Iglesias et al., 2011;
Matzler et al., 2007; Power et al., 2008), the purpose of the
current study is to develop and test a framework of consumer-
brand relationships where (a) the variations in the inuence of
brand trust and brand identication on brand-directed
behaviors representing brand evangelism are investigated
and, concomitantly, (b) the interrelationships between the
brand-directed behaviors representing brand evangelism are
examined. Further, given that brand-directed behavioral
intentions are inuenced by both brand-related and
individual factors (e.g. Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Kim
et al., 2001), the robustness of the framework is improved by
including gender, brand experience, and extraversion as
control variables. The remainder of the paper is organized as
follows. First, we introduce the theoretical framework and
present testable hypotheses. Next, we present the data
collection procedure, measures used, analysis techniques,
and results. Finally, we discuss the results of the study, outline
the limitations, and offer directions for future research.
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses
Figure 1 represents the theoretical framework developed in
this study. Consumers trust in a brand and identication with
the brand are included as variables denoting consumer-brand
relationships. Purchase intentions, positive brand referrals,
and oppositional brand referrals are included as variables
denoting brand evangelism. Specically, the framework
proposes that brand trust inuences brand identication
and, in turn, the two brand relationship constructs are
hypothesized to inuence each one of the three brand-related
behaviors representing brand evangelism. Brand trust refers to
the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability
of the brand to provide its stated function (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2002, p. 37). Brand trust has been found to be
related to consumers behavior in support of the brand both
in online and ofine environments (e.g. Becerra and
Korgaonkar, 2011; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, 2002;
Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003). Brand identication refers to
consumers psychological state of perceiving, feeling, or
valuing his or her belongingness with a brand (Lam et al.,
2010, p. 129). Extending from social identity theory, when
consumers sense that a brand reects characteristics that are
central to their identity, they develop a cognitive connection
and perceived oneness with a brand and are likely to work
instinctively toward the benet of the brand (Ashforth and
Mael, 1989). Prior research has found that brand
identication increases the propensity of consumers to care
deeply about the successes and failures of the brand and,
subsequently, engage in behaviors that benet the brand
(e.g. Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011; Kim et al., 2001). To
summarize, as both brand trust and brand identication are
likely to engender behaviors in support of the focal brand, this
study investigates their inuence on the three brand-related
behaviors that represent brand evangelism, namely, purchase
intentions, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand
referrals.
Whereas purchase intentions refer to consumers propensity
to purchase products of a specic brand, brand referrals
denote their propensity to engage in consumer-to-consumer
communications about a specic brand. Specically, two
types of brand referrals, namely, positive brand referrals or the
propensity to provide positive statements about a brand and
oppositional brand referrals or the propensity to provide
unfavorable statements about competing brands, are
examined simultaneously. The investigation of these two
types of brand referrals is consistent with prior research,
which holds that consumers are likely to discuss merits of
preferred brands and disparage competing brands (Muniz and
OGuinn, 2001; Thompson and Sinha, 2008). With regard to
the inter-relationships among the brand evangelism variables,
purchase intentions is posited to inuence both referral
variables and positive referrals is posited to inuence
oppositional referrals. Finally, consumers prior experience
with the brand, gender, and extraversion are included as
control variables. In the following sections, we briey discuss
the relevant literature and elaborate on the hypothesized
paths.
2.1 Consumer-brand relationships
With Fourniers (1998) seminal work on consumer-brand
relationships serving as a catalytic inuence, several studies in
the marketing literature have examined the bond between
consumers and their brands. Researchers have construed
consumer-brand relationships as akin to interpersonal
relationships in social contexts and demonstrated that the
norms of social relationships also guide consumers
interaction with brands (Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998;
Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). Similar to the processes involved
in interpersonal relationship formation and maintenance,
consumer-brand relationships are likely to include both
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
372
cognitive beliefs and emotional connections with the brand,
which ultimately inuence consumers behavior toward the
brand (Albert et al., 2008; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001;
Kim et al., 2001; Lam et al., 2010). In fact, recent research
suggests that brand managers should focus attention on the
nature of consumer-brand relationships by transitioning
liked brands into loved brands in order to induce
outcomes such as loyalty, word-of-mouth, and resistance to
negative information (Batra et al., 2012). Although various
variables have been used to describe consumer-brand
relationships, we focus our attention on two variables,
namely, brand trust and brand identication. Indeed, the
ability of brands to be trusted for their expertise or capability
and provide the basis for self-identity construal are essential
building blocks for enduring consumer-brand relationships
and resultant behavior directed toward brands (Batra et al.,
2012; Escalas and Bettman, 2005).
2.2 Brand evangelism
It is also well accepted that consumer-brand relationships
propagate consumer-to-consumer communication and other
brand-related behaviors (McAlexander et al., 2002; Muniz
and OGuinn, 2001; Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004). A
majority of past researchers have considered positive word-of-
mouth communications (e.g. Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004)
or stronger forms of endorsements, such as brand advocacy
(Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011; Kemp et al., 2012), as
outcomes of consumer-brand relationships. Organizations
have always been interested in understanding consumers
relationships with their brands in order to cultivate and
encourage behaviors that benet the brand (McAlexander
et al., 2002; Keller, 2012). In todays highly connected
marketplace, contemporary organizations are also paying
careful attention to a relatively smaller, but highly inuential,
group of consumers called brand evangelists who embrace
their brands intensely, actively disseminate brand-related
experiences to others, attempt to recruit others to experience
the brand, and dissuade others from consuming rival brands
(McConnell and Huba, 2003). Brand evangelists are likely to
demonstrate approach-avoidance relationships (Park et al.,
2013; Schmitt, 2013), albeit for different brands within the
same product category. That is, consumers may demonstrate
active, pro-brand behaviors toward a brand they feel close to
or attached with and strong, anti-brand behaviors toward a
brand they feel averse to or distance from (Park et al., 2013).
However, systematic research on brand evangelism is
limited. Scarpi (2010) conceptualized brand evangelism in
terms of word of mouth behavior that stems from
psychological and emotional attachment with a brand. In an
empirical study involving brand communities of people who
are enthusiastic about growing specic brands of roses, Scarpi
(2010) found that brand community members engaged in
both brand-related and community related evangelism and
that brand evangelism is caused by affect toward the brand,
whereas community evangelism is caused by loyalty toward
the community. Yet, as Matzler et al.(2007) note, a mere focus
on word-of-mouth communications underestimates the extent
to which consumers communicate and convince others about
their favorite brands. For example, Pimentel and Reynolds
(2004) discuss the convincing or recruiting of others to
consume a beloved brand, whereas Rozanski et al.(1999)
mention extreme loyalty and emotionality as behaviors
exhibited by impassioned consumers. Indeed, some
consumers forge deep and enduring bonds with their brands
that they make it their mission to demonstrate their oneness
with the brand, share their opinions regarding the brand, and
attempt to convince others to switch to their brand.
Accordingly, Matzler et al., (2007, p. 27) described brand
evangelism as a more active and committed way of spreading
positive opinions and trying fervently to convince or persuade
Figure 1 Consumer-brand relationships and brand evangelism
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
373
others to get engaged with the same brand. In their empirical
study involving enthusiasts of the Volkswagen Golf GTI, they
found that both passionate and extraverted consumers are
likely to evangelize their brands. Although Matzler et al.(2007)
utilized a more rigorous conceptualization, their
interpretation of brand evangelism is still restricted to vocal
communications and does not include other forms of brand-
directed supportive behaviors. However, recent observers
have called attention to two types of brand-related behaviors
demonstrated by brand evangelists: brand adoption and brand
advocacy (McConnell and Huba, 2003; Sawhney, 2011).
That is, brand evangelists not only recommend their brand
passionately, but also demonstrate their commitment by
actively purchasing the brand. Therefore, just as brand loyalty
is dened in terms of emotional attachment and purchase
intentions (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Dick and Basu,
1994), brand evangelism is conceptualized in this study as an
intense form of supportive brand-related behaviors that
includes purchasing the brand, providing positive referrals
regarding the brand, and issuing disparaging comments about
opposing brands.
2.3 Brand trust
Trust, in general, is the willingness to rely on a party based on
beliefs about the characteristics and behavior of that party in
the face of risk (e.g. Jevons and Gabbott, 2000). Similarly,
brand trust is the willingness to rely on a brand, based on
beliefs about that brand, despite the risk or uncertainty
associated with that brand (e.g. Becerra and Korgaonkar,
2011; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, 2002; Delgado-
Ballester et al., 2003). Brand trust is composed of cognitive
beliefs (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003) as well as affective
perceptions about the brand (Elliott and Yannopoulou,
2007). Cognitive brand trust beliefs include expectations of
brand reliability, consistency, competence, and/or
predictability of performance across all products sold under
that brand (e.g. Becerra and Korgaonkar, 2011; Chaudhuri
and Holbrook, 2001, 2002; Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003).
However, trusting a brand goes beyond expectations about
the product attributes or performance and encompasses
emotional evaluations as well. The affective or emotional
elements that can lead to brand trust include expectations of
brand integrity, honesty, and/or benevolence, which
encompass expectations that the brand will act with the
consumers best interest in mind across all products sold
under that brand (e.g. Becerra and Korgaonkar, 2011;
Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003).
Brand trust inuences consumers attitudes and brand-
related behaviors including purchases, attitudinal and
behavioral loyalty, perceptions of brand value, brand
commitment, and brand referrals (e.g. Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001, 2002; Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003;
Elliott and Yannopoulou, 2007). Brand related behavior,
such as purchasing, praising, and/or defending the brand
entails certain risks, which are alleviated by brand trust. Upon
examining the role of brand trust in the online environment,
Becerra and Korgaonkar (2011) nd that brand trust
increases consumers online brand purchase intentions and
augments the inuence of trust in the online vendor on online
purchase intentions. Likewise, Reichheld (2003) argues that,
since brand referrals involve staking ones reputation,
consumers are more likely to promote a brand when they
trust the brand to live up to expectations. Therefore, it is
expected that brand trust will be positively related to the
extent to which consumers engage in the three behaviors
representing brand evangelism. Accordingly,
H1a. Brand trust is positively related to brand purchase
intentions.
H1b. Brand trust is positively related to positive brand
referral intentions.
H1c. Brand trust is positively related to oppositional brand
referral intentions.
2.4 Brand identication
According to social identity theory, to enhance their self-
esteem and dene their position in their environment,
individuals classify themselves into various categories
representing social referents through an assimilation of
prototypical characteristics associated with such categories
and its members (Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Under the
auspices of social identity theory, identication is dened the
perception of oneness with or belongingness to a social
referent and experiencing its successes and failures as ones
own (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). To enhance their self-
evaluations, individuals seek afliations and attachments with
social referents that are distinctive, attractive, and prestigious.
Correspondingly, identication with an entity is likely to
occur when that entity satises one or more of their self-
denitional needs such as self-categorization, self-
distinctiveness, and self-enhancement (Ashforth and Mael,
1989; Scott and Lane, 2000). Empirical research has
demonstrated that the psychological attachment that is
signied by identication with an entity leads to several
positive outcomes in favor of that entity, including greater
cooperation (Ashforth and Mael, 1989), loyalty
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003), negative out-group and
positive in-group evaluations (Hogg and Abrams, 1988),
word of mouth (Kim et al., 2001), and organizational
citizenship behaviors (Morrison, 1996).
Similarly, marketing researchers have explored brand
identication, or the psychological connection denoting
individuals oneness with a brand and experiencing the
brands successes and failures as their own
(e.g. Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2011; Hughes and
Ahearne, 2010). Specically, consumer-brand identication
refers to consumers psychological state of perceiving,
feeling, or valuing his or her belongingness with a brand
(Lam et al., 2010, p. 129). Purchase and consumption of
brands enable consumers to construct their identities. When
consumers perceive that brands possess characteristics that
they consider as central to their own identities, they
incorporate the brands characteristics into their self-identity
and self-denition, and communicate such self-denition to
others (Underwood et al., 2001). As a result, when consumers
identify with specic brands, they form a psychological
relationship with the brand, demonstrate favoritism, and work
instinctively to the benet of the brand (e.g. Kuenzel and
Halliday, 2008; Underwood et al., 2001). That is, such
intense attachment with brands also drives consumers to work
toward the benet of the brand by purchasing the brand (Lam
et al., 2010) and engaging in higher levels of volitional
information sharing such as providing recommendations,
suggestions, and word-of-mouth communication (Beatty et al.,
1988). Therefore, it is expected that brand identication will
be positively related to the extent to which consumers engage
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
374
in the three behaviors representing brand evangelism.
Therefore, extending ndings from social identity theory
and brand identication to the current context of consumer-
brand identication and brand evangelism, we offer the
following hypotheses:
H2a. Brand identication is positively related to brand
purchase intentions.
H2b. Brand identication is positively related to positive
brand referral intentions.
H2c. Brand identication is positively related to oppositional
brand referral intentions.
Brand identication is likely to be inuenced by consumers
trust in the brand. When trust is formed in a brand, the
relationship with the brand becomes highly valued and
consumers attempt to maintain such a relationship by
becoming psychologically and emotionally committed to the
brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002). Brand
identication, therefore, becomes the means by which
consumer demonstrate their belongingness with a trusted
brand. In general, brand identication is likely to occur when
brand develop and maintain a positive social identity
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Since trust in brand provides
greater condence regarding how a brand is expected to
behave, brand trust is inuential in bolstering the
attractiveness of the identity of a brand and, ultimately,
brand identication. That is, when brand trust is formed, it
indicates that consumers hold the brand in high regard and,
accordingly, brand trust is likely to enhance consumers pride
in identifying with the brand (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000;
Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008). The expectation that brand
trust fosters brand identication is also reinforced by a
number of extant studies that have elicited empirical evidence
in support of the relationship. For instance researchers have
found that trust in an organization inuences consumers
identication with the organization (Keh and Xie, 2009) and
trust in a team inuences identication with the team (Wu
et al., 2012). Accordingly, we offer the following hypothesis:
H3. Brand trust is positively related to brand identication.
2.5 Purchase intentions and brand referrals
As described earlier, the framework includes three brand-
related behaviors representing brand evangelism: intentions to
purchase the brand, propensity to praise the brand
(i.e. positive brand referral intentions), and the propensity
to provide unfavorable statements about competing brand
(i.e. oppositional brand referral intentions). The three brand-
related behaviors are expected to be inter-related in that
purchase intentions are likely to inuence both types of
referrals and positive brand referral intentions are likely to
inuence oppositional brand referrals. Although prior
researchers have found that referrals from others inuence
consumers purchase intentions, the focus here is one
consumers willingness to provide referrals once purchase
intentions have been formed. Referral intentions often stem
from consumers who are invested in the brand as in
possessing intentions to purchase the brand in the near
future (Reichheld, 2003). Similarly, researchers also argue
that when consumers feels strongly about a brand, they
experience pressure to behave favorably toward the brand,
and the provision of referrals is one way to alleviate the
tension associated with the consumption experience (Hennig-
Thurau et al., 2004). Further, engaging in providing referrals
enables consumers to demonstrate not only their support for
their brand, but also their skills as an intelligent shopper
(Sundaram et al., 1998). Therefore, consumers who are likely
to articulate themselves in support of a brand (e.g. Brand X
is a good athletic shoe brand) are also likely to engage in
disparaging competing brands (e.g. Brand Y is a bad athletic
shoe brand). Therefore,
H4a. Brand purchase intentions are positively related to
positive brand referral behavioral intentions.
H4b. Brand purchase intentions are positively related to
oppositional brand referral behavioral intentions.
H5. Positive brand referral behavioral intentions are
positively related to oppositional brand referral
behavioral intentions.
2.6 Control variables
To provide a more robust test of the proposed relationships,
the framework includes three control variables: brand
experience, gender, and extraversion. These variables have
been included in prior studies as predictors of consumers
behavior. As extraverted individuals are predisposed toward
positive affect and prefer interpersonal interactions, they are
more likely to provide interpersonal communication than
introverted individuals (e.g. Matzler et al., 2007). Extraverted
individual are sociable, friendly, and gregarious and because
of these tendencies, are more likely to provide brand referrals
(e.g. Albert et al., 2008; Matzler et al., 2007). Therefore, the
inuence of extraversion on positive and oppositional brand
referrals is controlled. Similarly, as brand experience provides
consumers with information vital for making judgments about
the brand, prior experience with a brand inuences future
brand-related behaviors (e.g. Iglesias et al., 2011). Therefore,
the inuence of brand experience on all three brand-related
behaviors is controlled. Finally, brand related behaviors are
also believed to be affected by gender (McDaniel and Kinney,
1998), including purchase intentions (Powell and Ansic,
1997) and referral behavior (Kempf and Palan, 2006).
Therefore, the inuence of gender on all three brand-related
behaviors is controlled. Next we present the method, analysis,
and results.
3. Method, analysis, and results
3.1 Data collection and measures
Using respondents from a large Southwestern university in
the US, data were collected from 181 respondents via an
online survey. Pretests were conducted to determine the type
of products to be used in the study. During the pretests, 60
undergraduate students were given a list of product categories
(e.g. computers, televisions, clothing, athletic shoes, etc.) and
were asked to select which product(s) they are most likely to
purchase in the next 12 months. The two products (athletic
shoes and cars) with the highest likelihood of purchase in the
next 12 months among respondents with similar
characteristics were selected for the study. This was done
primarily to identify and utilize product categories that were
most relevant to the respondents. The pretest also enabled the
generation of a list of athletic shoe and car brands that the
respondents were most likely to consider. Subsequently, the
main study was conducted by administering an online survey
to students who were enrolled in an undergraduate marketing
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
375
course. Respondents were promised anonymity and
participation was voluntary, although bonus points were
provided to those that participated. The online survey had six
unique sections. The rst section welcomed the participants
and introduced the study. The second section provided
detailed instructions as well as a way to opt out of the study
and complete a different assignment in lieu of the survey to
earn equivalent bonus points. In the third section,
respondents extraversion was measured. The fourth section
instructed respondents to choose an athletic shoe brand they
prefer the most from a dened list and provide responses to
statements regarding the brand relationship variables and the
brand-related behavior variables. The fth section proceeded
to be identical to the previous one, except that respondents
chose a car brand they prefer the most and provided
responses. As stated earlier, the lists of brands were developed
based on pretests respondents were also presented with the
option to choose a different brand if their preferred brand was
not listed. In the nal section, demographic information was
collected. In all, by combining the responses on two different
brands from each respondent, a total of 325 usable responses
were collected with 49.5 percent of respondents being males.
The study used well-established measures from existing
studies (please see Table I). Brand identication was
measured using a six-item, ve-point scale (e.g. this
brands success is my success) (Mael and Ashforth, 1992).
Brand trust was measured using a four-item, ve-point scale
(e.g. this brand is reliable) (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2001; Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003). The scale for brand
purchase intentions used a four-item, ve-point scale (e.g. in
the near future I would probably buy the brand) (Becerra
and Korgaonkar, 2011). Brand referral intentions was
captured through two variables, positive brand referrals,
which was measured using a three-item, ve-point scale
(e.g. I spread positive word-of-mouth about this brand) and
oppositional brand referrals, which was measured using a two-
item, ve-point scale (e.g. I spread negative word-of-mouth
about other brands) (Power et al., 2008). Consumers
extraversion was measured using a ve-item, ve-point scale
(e.g. I see myself as someone who is outgoing) (Matzler
et al., 2007). Brand experience was measured using a one-
item, ve-point (0 to more than 5) scale that capture the
respondents experience with the brand they prefer the most
(e.g. How many pairs of athletic shoes of brand X have you
owned). Gender was measured with a one-item two-point
(male or female) scale with males being coded as 1 and
females as 2. All measures are presented in Table I. Next we
present the analysis and results.
3.2 Analysis and results
Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to purify and
validate the scales used. The goodness of t indices
(x
2
=163 320:85, x
2
=df 1:96; RMSEA 0.055;
GFI 0.91; NNFI 0.96; SRMR 0.045) and the scale
reliabilities (Cronbachs Alpha ranging from 0.70 to 0.91)
suggest adequate scale validity and reliability. Using Lisrel
7.2, structure equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test
the proposed hypotheses. The t indices (x
2
=167 327:44,
x
2
=df 1:96; RMSEA 0.055; GFI 0.91; NNFI 0.96;
SRMR 0.049) indicate an adequate model t to proceed
with the hypotheses testing. Table II presents the means,
standard deviations, composite reliabilities, average variance
extracted, and correlations. The average variance extracted
(AVE) values exceed the recommend 0.50 and all composite
reliability (CR) values are at or above the recommended 0.80
(Koufteros, 1999), except for positive brand referrals at 0.70
and oppositional brand referrals at 0.79. The AVE values are
above the square correlations between items except for the
corresponding value for positive brand referrals, which is
lower than the square correlation of brand identication.
Table I Measures
Construct, scales, and Cronbach Alpha Reliabilities
Brand Identication (BI) 0.87
The brand successes are my success
I am interested in what others think about the brand
a
When someone praises the brand, it feels like a personal
compliment
a
When I talk about the brand, I usually say we rather
than they
If a story in the media criticizes the brand, I would feel
embarrassed
When someone criticizes the brand, it feels like a personal
insult
Brand Trust (BT) 0.82
I trust the brand
I rely on the brand
a
The brand is trustworthy
The brand is safe
The brand is honest
Brand Evangelism
Brand Purchase Intentions (BPI) 0.91
In the near future, I would probably buy the brand
In the near future, I intend to buy athletic shoes (car)
made by the brand
a
In the near future, I would likely buy the brand
In the near future, I would possibly buy the brand
Positive Brand Referrals (PBR) 0.70
I spread positive word of mouth about the brand
I recommend the brand to my friends
a
If my friends were looking for athletic shoes (car), I would
tell them to buy the brand
Oppositional Brand Referrals (OBR) 0.80
When my friends are looking for athletic shoes (car), I
would tell them not to buy any of the other brands
I would likely spread negative word of mouth about the
other athletic shoe (car) brands
Extraversion (EX) 0.87
I see myself as someone who is outgoing, sociable
a
I see myself as someone who is talkative
I see myself as someone who is full of energy
I see myself as someone who generates a lot of
enthusiasm
I see myself as someone who has an assertive personality
Brand Experience (BE) NA
How many pairs of shoes (cars) of this brand have you
owned?
Note:
a
Deleted during the CFA analysis
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
376
These suggest an adequate discriminant and composite
reliability for the latent variables to proceed with the analysis.
The results of the hypotheses testing are presented in
Table III. Hypotheses H1a, H1b and H1c predicted
relationships between brand trust and brand evangelism
behaviors. Brand trust was found to exert signicant and
positive relationships with purchase intentions (p , 0:01) and
positive brand referral intentions (p , 0:01), thereby
supporting H1a and H1b. In contrast, the direct effect of
brand trust on oppositional brand referral intentions, as
proposed in H1c, was not supported. Nonetheless, the total
effect of brand trust on oppositional brand referral intentions
was signicant (p , 0:01). Hypotheses H2a, H2b and H2c
predicted relationships between the second relational
construct, brand identication, and brand-related behavior.
Contrary to expectations, brand identication did not
demonstrate a direct positive relationship with purchase
intentions. That is, H2a was not supported. However, the
relationships between brand identication and the two referral
constructs, positive brand referral intentions (p , 0:01) and
oppositional brand referral intentions (p , 0:01), were
supported. That is, both H2b and H2c were validated.
Hypothesis H3 predicted a positive relationship between the
two relational constructs. The hypothesized direct
relationship between brand trust and brand identication
was found to be signicant (p , 0:01), thereby supporting
H3. Hypotheses H4a and H4b predicted relationships
between purchase intentions and the two referral constructs.
Both hypotheses were supported as purchase intentions
demonstrated a signicant positive relationship with positive
brand referral intentions (p , 0:01) and oppositional brand
referral intentions (p , 0:05). Finally, H5 proposed a positive
relationship between the two types of brand referrals.
However, the direct inuence of positive brand referral
intentions on oppositional brand referral behavioral intentions
was not signicant. That is, H5 was not supported.
The results of the relationships involving the three control
variables were analyzed next. Extraversion did not exert a
signicant relationship on either positive brand referral
intentions or oppositional brand referral intentions. Brand
Table III Effects of consumers brand relationships on brand evangelism
Effect Direct effects
a
Total effects
a
H1a: Brand Trust (BT) on Brand Purchase Intentions (BPI) 0.49
* *
0.49
* *
H1b: Brand Trust (BT) on Positive Brand Referrals (PBR) 0.49
* *
0.78
* *
H1c: Brand Trust (BT) on Oppositional Brand Referrals (OBR) 20.03 0.17
*
H2a: Brand Identication (BI) on Brand Purchase Intentions (BPI) 20.03 20.03
H2b: Brand Identication (BI) on Positive Brand Referrals (PBR) 0.22
* *
0.21
* *
H2c: Brand Identication (BI) on Oppositional Brand Referrals (OBR) 0.98
* *
0.90
* *
H3: Brand Trust (BT) on Brand Identication (BI) 0.30
* *
0.30
* *
H4a: Brand Purchase Intentions (BPI) on Positive Brand Referrals (PBR) 0.46
* *
0.46
* *
H4b: Brand Purchase Intentions (BPI) on Oppositional Brand Referrals (OBR) 0.32
*
0.17
*
H5: Positive Brand Referrals (PBR) on Oppositional Brand Referrals (OBR) 20.31 20.31
Control variables
Extraversion (EX) on Positive Brand Referrals (PBR) 0.01 0.01
Extraversion (EX) on Oppositional Brand Referrals (OBR) 0.01 0.00
Brand Experience (BE) on Brand Purchase Intentions (BPI) 0.28
* *
0.28
* *
Brand Experience (BE) on Positive Brand Referrals (PBR) 20.04 0.09
Brand Experience (BE) on Oppositional Brand Referrals (OBR) 20.11
*
20.05
Gender on Brand Purchase Intentions (BPI) 0.06 0.06
Gender on Positive Brand Referrals (PBR) 0.03 0.06
Gender on Oppositional Brand Referrals (OBR) 20.10
*
20.10
*
Notes:
a
Standardized solution,
* *
p , 0.01,
*
p , 0.05
Table II Means, standard deviation, composite reliability
a
, average variance extracted, and correlations
Mean/SD BI PBR BPI NBR BT EX BE Gender
BI 2,54/1.2 0.83
PBR 3.99/.80 0.43 0.71
BPI 3.99/.86 0.14 0.74 0.89
NBR 2.53/1.14 0.87 0.28 0.16 0.79
BT 4.17/.74 0.3 0.8 0.53 0.15 0.85
EX 3.73/1.09 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.84
BE 1.22/.41 0.03 0.17 0.33 20.02 0.11 0.01 1
Gender 1.47/.49 0.05 0.17 0.09 20.06 0.16 20.12 0.17 1
AVE 0.55 0.55 0.73 0.66 0.59 0.58 1 1
Note:
a
In the diagonal
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
377
experience demonstrated a signicant inuence on brand
purchase intentions (p , 0:01), but no inuence on either
positive brand referral intentions or oppositional brand
referral intentions. Finally, although gender was not found
to be related to either purchase intentions or positive brand
referral intentions, it demonstrated a signicant effect on
oppositional brand referral intentions such that male
consumers were more likely to engage in providing
oppositional brand referral than female consumers.
To lend further credence to the analysis, variations in the
total effects on brand evangelism behaviors were also
examined. Brand trust had the greatest total effect on
purchase intentions followed by brand experience. This
nding suggests that consumers may be more inuenced by
their cognitive factors, such as belief about the capability of
the brand and evaluation of the performance of the brand,
when deciding to purchase the brand. Brand trust also exerted
the greatest total effect on positive brand referral intentions,
followed by brand purchase intentions and brand
identication respectively. This nding suggests that
consumers do not risk recommending a brand unless they
trust, are inclined toward buy the brand, and identify with the
brand. Brand identication had the greatest total effect on
oppositional brand referral intentions, followed by brand trust
and gender respectively. This nding suggests that consumers
engage in denigrating an opposing brand only when they
identify with and trust a focal brand. Interestingly, this
behavior is suggested to be more commonplace among male
consumers than female consumers. Next we discuss the
theoretical and managerial implications of the study and
conclude by outlining directions for future research as well as
the limitations of the study.
4. Discussion
There is growing evidence that consumers forge deep and
meaningful relationships with specic brands (Escalas and
Bettman, 2005; Fournier, 1998) and that such consumer-
brand relationships are expected to inuence consumers
brand-related behavior (e.g. Batra et al., 2012; Keller, 2012).
The purpose of this study is to add insight to the extant
literature by investigating the inuence of consumer-brand
relationships on brand evangelism. Brand evangelism, in the
context of this study, is conceptualized as the extent to which
consumers demonstrate support for their brand by purchasing
the brand, providing positive referrals about their brand, and
opposing rival brands. That is, brand evangelism is an intense
form of consumption of and communication regarding a
brand that consumers form relational bonds with.
Accordingly, the study delineates the varying inuence of
two relational constructs, brand trust and brand
identication, on three brand evangelism-related behaviors,
purchase intentions, positive brand referral intentions and
oppositional brand referral intentions.
The results validate the proposed framework and indicate
that consumers cognitive and emotional relationships with a
brand inuence their brand-related behavioral intentions.
Specically, both brand trust and brand identication were
found to inuence brand-related behaviors, albeit in different
ways. Brand trust was found to inuence purchase intentions
and positive brand referral intentions. That is, consumers who
form cognitive connections with a brand, such that they are
willing to rely on the brand to perform up to its stated ability,
are more likely to purchase the brand and engage in providing
positive referrals. This nding validates the importance of
brand trust in not only understanding the dynamics of the
relationships between consumers and brands, but also in
understanding consumers brand-related behavior (Becerra
and Korgaonkar, 2011). In contrast, brand identication was
found to inuence positive and oppositional brand referral
intentions and not directly related to purchase intentions.
That is, consumers who form psychological and self-
denitional attachments with a brand, such that they believe
that the brand embodies characteristics that are central to
their own self-identity, are more likely to engage in actions
supporting or defending their brand. This nding validates
that the underpinnings of social identity theory in the context
of consumer behavior and demonstrates that the development
of brand identication is key to mobilizing the vocal support
of consumers via the generation of positive or oppositional
brand referrals. The total effects reveal interesting
idiosyncrasies in the inuence of brand trust and brand
identication. Whereas brand trust has the greatest effect on
purchase intentions and positive brand referral intentions,
brand identication exerts the greatest inuence on
oppositional brand referral intentions. Therefore, it seems
likely that brand trust could produce brand adoption and
positive brand advocacy, whereas brand identication could
produce impassioned brand defenders who are willing to voice
against competing brands.
Together, the previous ndings illustrate the power of
consumer-brand relationships in engendering brand
evangelism. To inuence consumers evangelistic behaviors
toward a brand, rms must create brands that consumers
both trust and identify with. Although it may seem daunting
at rst, rms can attempt to build trust by delivering
consistent performance and cultivate identication by
communicating characteristics that are valued by their target
market. In mature markets, rms can attempt to attract
customers who score high on brand trust and brand
identication in order to motivate purchase and referral
behaviors. In fact, these customers are most likely to engage in
behavior that benets the brand by being loyal buyers and
volunteer salespeople (McConnell and Huba, 2003). The
inclusion of the three control variables (i.e. extraversion,
brand experience, and gender) offer further richness to our
understanding of the effects of consumer-brand relationships
on consumers brand evangelism. Whereas it is generally
believed that extraverted individuals are more likely to engage
in interpersonal communication than introverted individuals
(Matzler et al., 2007), this study nds that extraversion is not
a requirement for engendering positive and oppositional
brand referrals. While this does raise the possibility that even
less extraverted individuals may feel comfortable to provide
referrals, especially under the cloak on anonymity in the
online environment, the nding also sheds light on the relative
importance of consumer-brand relationships in engendering
brand referrals as compared to individual characteristics such
as extraversion. In addition, the other control variables, brand
experience and gender, were found to inuence purchase
intentions and oppositional brand referral intentions,
respectively. Although prior brand ownership and gender
differences do not inuence all three behaviors representing
brand evangelism, the ndings suggest that future studies
should include these variables in their frameworks to better
understand their roles in explaining brand evangelism.
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
378
From a managerial standpoint, this study offers practical
implications for managing and leveraging relationships with
key consumers. As noted earlier, brand evangelism cannot be
bought and has to be carefully cultivated. In this regard,
forging and leveraging brand-centric relationships with
consumers provide a suitable method for cultivating brand
evangelism. The starting point in the process is the
development of brand trust. When brand are trusted,
consumers are more likely to engage in risky and difcult
behaviors in support of the brand, such as purchase and
positive brand advocacy. However, it would be prudent to also
consider that when brands lose consumers trust, an erstwhile
positive relationship may transform into a negative
relationship characterized by anti-brand behaviors (Johnson
et al., 2011). Managers must also focus attention on the
psychological connection between the brands and consumers
selves. The development of a unique, attractive, and
prestigious identity for brands could foster brand
identication by satisfying consumers self-denitional needs
such as self-categorization, self-distinctiveness, and self-
enhancement (Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Ultimately, brand
identication leads to both positive brand referrals and
oppositional brand referrals. Therefore, managers interested
in fostering oppositional brand referrals must necessarily
implement tactics that make their brand identity salient and
trigger brand identication. Together, brand trust and brand
identication have the power to inuence the three
components of brand evangelism: brand purchase, positive
brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals.
4.1 Limitations and directions for future research
Our study has some inherent limitations. Although we
carefully pre-tested product categories and brand names
that were utilized in our study, we acknowledge that these
restrictions limit the applicability of our ndings to other
products categories and brands. Therefore, to better
understand brand evangelism, future researchers need to
enable respondents to self-select brands and categories or
provide more expansive lists. Further, although we followed
the example of other studies that have utilized student
samples to test their frameworks about consumer-brand
relationships, we acknowledge that our choice of sample limits
the generalizability of our ndings.
We also acknowledge the parsimonious nature of the
framework tested in this study and recognize that the
framework can be augmented by future researchers. For
instance, we included only one holistic trust construct.
However, drawing from other researchers who have
postulated the existence of different types of trust (Shapiro,
1987), such as competence-based trust, communication-
based trust, and interaction-based trust, it would be
interesting to explore frameworks depicting symbiotic
relationships between different types of trust and
subsequent inuences on brand evangelism. To further
expand the proposed framework, other variables depicting
consumer-brand relationships should be considered. For
example, brand commitment, brand passion, brand salience,
and brand relationship quality are promising candidates.
Recently, the approach-aversion perspective was proposed as
an alternative framework for understanding consumer-brand
relationships (Park et al., 2013; Schmitt, 2013). According to
the framework, the extent to which a brand entices (annoys),
enables (disables), and enriches (impoverishes) a consumers
self-concept inuences approach-aversion relationships,
which are conceptualized in terms on brand-self distance
and brand prominence (Park et al., 2013). Bran evangelism
behaviors are not easy to enact and Park et al. (2013)
emphasize that approach-avoidance relationships explain
consumers intentions to engage in difcult pro-brand and
anti-brand behaviors better than brand attachment, brand
attitude strength, or emotional valence measures.
Correspondingly, it would be interesting to examine whether
conceptualizing consumer-brand relationships based on
approach-avoidance, rather than brand trust and brand
identication, would explain brand evangelism behaviors
better. Furthermore, given the scope of our study, we
included purchase intentions as a measure of brand adoption.
However, researchers interested in exploring brand
evangelism pertaining to social causes, events, and not-for-
prot organizations can include other measures of brand
adoption such as donation, membership, subscription,
enrollment, and attendance behaviors.
With regard to motivating brand-related behavior,
organizations often incentivize consumers to provide
referrals especially in the online environment (Hu et al.,
2008). However, as brand evangelists are driven by their
passion and emotion, they cannot be bought (McConnell and
Huba, 2003). Therefore, it would be interesting to explore
other moderating variables that could be utilized to control
the intensity of brand evangelism. Relatedly, it would be
worthwhile to examine whether consistent brand evangelism
behaviors have a reinforcing effect via feedback loops on
consumer-brand relationships. Finally, with regard to
individual characteristics, factors such as reciprocity and
personality traits other than extraversion could also be
considered to enrich our understanding of brand evangelism.
It is important to consider the evolving nature of brand
evangelism in the technology-enabled marketspace. As
Schultz and Block (2012) highlight, it is important to
reevaluate archaic assumptions about consumer behavior in
the age of interactivity. They further demonstrate that there
are strong indications that consumers are becoming loyal to
recommendations from peers in the digital era. The online
marketplace continues to resemble a retail juggernaut, with
US online retail sales poised to grow a staggering 62 percent
between the years 2011 ($202 billion in total sales) and 2016
($327 billion in total sales) (Internet Retailer, 2013). Further,
the prevalence of online articles and blogs with user
comments enabled, brand-specic fan sites and discussion
forums, brand-specic social media sites (e.g. Facebook and
Twitter), and video channels (e.g. YouTube) with user
comments enabled make it increasingly easier for consumers
to provide, access, and respond to comments about brands.
The prolic diffusion of technological innovations, such as
smartphones and tablets, has also greatly enhanced the ability
of consumers to consummate purchases online or to provide
brand-related communication. Therefore, given that the
online environment is developing into the next proving
grounds to demonstrate brand evangelism, variations in the
nature and drivers of brand evangelism across ofine and
online environments needs to be studied as well.
As a nal note, we draw attention to the possible
ramications of causing dissonance among brand
evangelists. As stated earlier, brand evangelists are primed
to demonstrate support by adopting and advocating their
brand. However, in the event of failures, transgressions, or
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
379
perceived betrayal by the brand (Hess et al., 2011), brand
evangelists are likely to experience extreme disappointment
and retaliate against their brand (Rozanski et al., 1999).
Therefore, organizations and brand managers would greatly
benet from further research on managing expectations and
associations among brand evangelists, strategies for
cultivating and deepening relationships with them, and,
ultimately, leveraging the advantages of this inuential group
of consumers.
References
Aaker, J., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S.A. (2004), When good
brands go bad, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 1-16.
Aggarwal, P. (2004), The effects of brand relationship norms
on consumer attitudes and behavior, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 87-101.
Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008),
When consumers love their brands. Exploring the concept
and its dimensions, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61
No. 10, pp. 1062-1075.
Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2010),
Measuring the love feeling for a brand using interpersonal
love items, Journal of Marketing and Competitiveness, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 57-63.
Arruda-Filho, E.J.M., Cabusas, J.A. and Dholakia, N. (2010),
Social behavior and brand devotion among iPhone
innovators, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 475-480.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), Social identity theory
and the organization, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Badrinarayanan, V. and Laverie, D.A. (2011), Brand
advocacy and sales effort by retail salespeople:
antecedents and inuence of identication with
manufacturers brands, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 123-140.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), Brand love,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Beatty, S.E., Homer, P. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), The
involvement-commitment model: theory and implications,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-167.
Becerra, E.P. and Korgaonkar, P.K. (2011), Effects of trust
beliefs on consumers online intentions, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 936-962.
Belk, R.W. and Tumbat, G. (2005), The cult of Macintosh,
Markets and Culture, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 205-217.
Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2000), Self-categorization,
affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct
aspects of social identity in the organization, British
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 555-577.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), Consumer-company
identication: a framework for understanding consumers
relationships with companies, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. (2001), The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. (2002), Product-class
effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: the role
of brand trust and brand affect, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 33-58.
Chen, Y., Liu, Y. and Zhang, J. (2012), When do third-party
reviews affect rm value and what can rms do? The case of
media critics and professional movie reviews, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 116-134.
De Bruyn, A. and Lilien, G.L. (2008), A multi-stage model
of word-of-mouth inuence through viral marketing,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 151-163.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L. and Yague-
Guillen, M.J. (2003), Development and validation of a
brand trust scale, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-76.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: toward
and integrated conceptual framework, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Elliott, R. and Yannopoulou, N. (2007), The nature of trust
in brands: a psychosocial model, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 988-998.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), Self-construal,
reference groups, and brand meaning, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their brands:
developing relationship theory in consumer research,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler,
D.D. (2004), Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-
opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the internet?, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Hess, J., Story, J. and Danes, J. (2011), A three-stage model
of consumer relationship development, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 14-26.
Hu, N., Liu, L. and Zhang, J.J. (2008), Do online reviews
affect product sales? The role of reviewer characteristics and
temporal effects, Information Technology and Management,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 201-214.
Hughes, D.E. and Ahearne, M. (2010), Energizing the
resellers sales force: the power of brand identication,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 81-96.
Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1988), Social Identications: A
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes,
Routledge, London.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2011), The
role of brand experience and affective commitment in
determining brand loyalty, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 570-582.
Internet Retailer (2013), US online retail forecast, 2012-
2107, available at: www.internetretailer.com/trends/sales/
(accessed February 15, 2013).
Jevons, C. and Gabbott, M. (2000), Trust, brand equity and
brand reality in internet business relationships: an
interdisciplinary approach, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 619-634.
Johnson, A.R., Matear, M. and Thomson, M. (2011), A coal
in the heart: self-relevance as a post-exit predictor of
consumer anti-brand actions, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 108-125.
Keh, H.T. and Xie, Y. (2009), Corporate reputation and
customer behavioral intentions: the roles of trust,
identication, and commitment, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 732-742.
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
380
Keller, K.L. (2012), Understanding the richness of brand
relationships: research dialogue on brands as intentional
agents, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 186-190.
Keller, K.L. (2013), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 4th ed., Pearson,
Upper Saddle River, NY.
Kemp, E., Childers, C.Y. and Williams, K.H. (2012), Place
branding: creating self-brand connections and brand
advocacy, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 508-515.
Kempf, D.S. and Palan, K.M. (2006), The effects of gender
and argument strength on the processing of word-of-mouth
communications, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Kim, C.K., Han, D. and Park, S.-B. (2001), The effect of
brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty:
applying the theory of social identication, Japanese
Psychological Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 195-206.
Koufteros, X.A. (1999), Testing a model of pull production:
a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural
equation modeling, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 467-488.
Kuenzel, S. and Halliday, S.V. (2008), Investigating
antecedents and consequences of brand identication,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 293-304.
Lam, S., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y. and Schillewaert, N. (2010),
Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand
is introduced: a social identity theory perspective, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 128-146.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, D.F. (1995), An
integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002),
Building brand community, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 38-54.
McConnell, B. and Huba, J. (2003), Creating Customer
Evangelists: How Loyal Customers Become a Volunteer
Salesforce, Dearborn, Chicaco, IL.
McDaniel, S.R. and Kinney, L. (1998), The implications of
recency and gender effects in consumer response to ambush
marketing, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 385-403.
Morrison, E.W. (1996), Organizational citizenship behavior
as a critical link between HRM practices and service
quality, Human Resource Management, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 493-512.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), Alumni and their alma
mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identication, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 103-123.
Matzler, K., Pichler, E.A. and Hemetsberger, A. (2007),
Who is spreading the word? The positive inuence of
extraversion on consumer passion and brand evangelism,
Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Winter
Conference, pp. 25-32.
Muniz, A.M. Jr and Hamer, L.O. (2001), Us versus them:
oppositional brand loyalty and the cola wars, in Gilly,
M.C. and Meyers-Levy, J. (Eds), NA Advances in
Consumer Research, Volume 28, Association for Consumer
Research, Valdosta, GA, pp. 355-361.
Muniz, A.M. Jr and OGuinn, T.C. (2001), Brand
community, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 413-422.
Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B. and Park, J.W. (2013),
Attachment-aversion (AA) model of customer-brand
relationships, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 229-248.
Pimentel, R.W. and Reynolds, K.E. (2004), A model for
consumer devotion: affective commitment with proactive
sustaining behaviors, Academy of Marketing Science Review,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-45.
Powell, M. and Ansic, D. (1997), Gender differences in risk
behavior in nancial decision-making: an experimental
analysis, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 605-628.
Power, J., Whelan, S. and Davies, G. (2008), The
attractiveness and connectedness of ruthless brands: the
role of trust, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/
6, pp. 586-602.
Prendergast, G., Ko, D. and Yuen, S.Y.V. (2010), Online
word of mouth and consumer purchase intentions,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 687-708.
Reichheld, F.F. (2003), The one number you need to grow,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 12, pp. 46-55.
Rozanski, H.D., Baum, A.G. and Wolfsen, B.T. (1999),
Brand zealots: realizing the full value of emotional brand
loyalty, Strategy and Business, Vol. 17, pp. 51-62.
Sawhney, R. (2011), How do you turn your customers into
brand evangelists?, Fast Company, available at: www.
fastcodesign.com/1664135/how-do-you-turn-your-customers-
into-brand-evangelists (accessed March 1, 2013).
Scarpi, D. (2010), Does size matter? An examination of
small and large web-based brand communities, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 14-21.
Schmitt, B. (2013), The consumer psychology of customer-
brand relationships: extending the AA relationship model,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 249-252.
Schultz, D.E. and Block, M.P. (2012), Rethinking brand
loyalty in an age of interactivity, IUP Journal of Brand
Management, 9(3, p., pp. 21-39.
Scott, S.G. and Lane, V.R. (2000), A stakeholder approach
to organizational identity, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
Shapiro, S.P. (1987), The social control of impersonal
trust, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 93 No. 3,
pp. 623-658.
Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K. and Webster, C. (1998), Word-
of-mouth communications: a motivational analysis,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 527-531.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), The social identity theory
of intergroup behavior, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G.
(Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, IL, pp. 6-24.
Thompson, S.A. and Sinha, R.K. (2008), Brand
communities and new product adoption: the inuence
and limits of oppositional loyalty, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 65-80.
Underwood, R., Bond, E. and Baer, R. (2001), Building
service brands via social identity: lessons from the sports
marketplace, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
381
Wu, S.-H., Tsai, C.-Y.D. and Hung, C.-C. (2012), Toward
team or player? How trust, vicarious achievement motive,
and identication affect fan loyalty, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 177-191.
Zhu, F. and Zhang, X. (2010), Impact of online consumer
reviews on sales: the moderating role of product and
consumer characteristics, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74
No. 2, pp. 133-148.
Further Reading
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, J. (1991), Effects of
word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on
persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 454-462.
About the authors
Enrique P. Becerra is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Marketing at Texas State University San
Marcos. He received his PhD from Florida Atlantic
University, Boca Raton, Florida. His research revolves
around the inuence of culture and ethnicity on consumer
behavior, including effects on behavior toward brands and
retailers. His research has appeared in the Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Advertising Research,
European Journal of Marketing, and several other journals and
conference proceedings.
Vishag Badrinarayanan is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Marketing at Texas State University San
Marcos. He received his PhD from Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas. His research interests include marketing
strategy-related topics in branding, retailing, and sales
management domains. His research has appeared in the
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of
Advertising, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
and several other journals and conference proceedings.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benets of the
material present.
Relationships between consumers and brands exert
considerable inuence on consumer behavior that can
facilitate brand loyalty and benet the rm involved.
Consequently, research focusing on key attributes of
consumer-brand relationships has intensied. Various
concepts have emerged, relating both to the relationship and
to its behavioral consequences. Included among them are
brand devotion, brand love and brand advocacy.
Less attention has been afforded to brand evangelism,
where brand adoption and brand advocacy behaviors
manifest in both cognitive beliefs and emotional
connections are synthesized to generate a more forceful
and passionate endorsement of the brand. It incorporates
active behavioral and vocal support which prompts
purchasing behavior, positive word-of-mouth (WOM), and
denunciation of rival brands.
The importance of brand evangelism has heightened with
the emergence and expansion of online communities.
Consumers posting comments online are able to inuence
the purchase decision making of like-minded others. Sales,
performance and value of an organization can be affected to a
signicant extent.
Consumer-brand relationships have been widely explored
and researchers have identied several factors that determine
its nature and strength. Brand trust and brand identication
are considered signicant in this respect. Trust is critical in
any relationship and includes both cognitive and affective
dimensions. Regarding the rst, consumers who trust a brand
expect performance that is consistent and reliable and in
return are willing to overlook uncertainty or risk. The
emotional dimension generates hope of honesty and integrity.
The impact of brand trust can be wide-ranging and involve
attitudes and behaviors among which are purchase activity,
loyalty and commitment. Another notable consequence of
trust in this context is willingness to endorse and promote the
brand.
One theoretical perspective posits that individuals are more
likely to identify with an entity that they feel possesses certain
characteristics they regard as important to their self-concept.
When applied to brands, people integrate relevant brand
features into their own identity and this revised self-denition
is communicated to others. Studies refer to the emergence of
a psychological bonding with a brand that consumers are
henceforth willing to favor and act in ways that benet it.
Purchasing and recommendations are typical behaviors that
emerge.
A link between brand trust and brand identication has
been conrmed by various academics. Trust essentially serves
as an antecedent to identication as consumers will feel
greater pride in being associated with a brand they believe in.
Brand identication has also been described as a means by
which consumers signal their belongingness with a brand.
It is felt by Becerra and Badrinarayaan that the brand trust
and brand identication constructs will impact on the three
behavioral aspects of brand evangelism that they label
purchase intentions, positive brand referrals and
oppositional brand referrals. The authors also suggest that
the relationships might be inuenced by brand experience,
gender and extraversion and thus control these variables in
the study. For instance, it is assumed that consumers who
have experience with a brand are able to make more informed
judgments. Indications from previous research suggest that
purchase intentions and referral behavior may be subject to
gender inuence. And with regard to extraversion, the
rationale is that individuals are likelier to provide brand
referrals if they have an extrovert personality that by denition
makes them more sociable and outgoing.
Participants in the study were undergraduates from a large
university in Southwestern US. The 181 subjects completed
an online questionnaire relating to the likelihood of them
buying athletic shoes and cars during the next year.
Preliminary research had identied these products as most
relevant to this consumer type. The task was to select a brand
of athletic shoe and car they preferred most from the lists
included. Answers given to statements associated with the
choice were used to measure brand trust, brand identication
and positive and negative brand referral. Consumer
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
382
extraversion and brand experience were similarly measured,
while gender was indicated in the demographic details
provided.
Analysis showed that:
.
brand trust positively impacts on purchase intentions and
positive brand referral;
.
brand identication positively inuences both positive
brand referral and oppositional brand referral;
.
a positive relationship exists between brand trust and
brand identication; and
.
brand purchase intention positively impacts on consumer
intentions to provide both types of referral.
Contrary to expectation, no direct effect of brand trust on
opposition brand referral was found. No support was evident
either for the hypothesis that brand identication would
positively impact on purchase intention. Also, direct effect of
positive brand referral on oppositional brand referral was not
signicant.
With the control variables, neither extraversion nor brand
experience had any signicant impact on either of the brand
referrals. However, the inuence on brand purchase intention
from brand experience was found to be strong. The only
signicant impact of gender was on oppositional brand
referral, where it was indicated that such activity was likelier
among males.
Examining the total effects on brand evangelism, Becerra
and Badrinarayaan found:
.
brand trust then brand experience had the greatest impact
on purchase intentions;
.
strongest effect on brand referral was exerted by brand
trust, followed by brand purchase intentions and brand
identication; and
.
brand identications impact on oppositional brand
referral was the greatest, with brand trust and gender next.
From this, the authors conclude that consumers need to trust,
intend to purchase and identify with a brand before they will
recommend it to others. They also suggest that purchase
decisions are determined most by cognitive factors like faith in
a brands ability and performance evaluation. Another
assumption is that consumers must identify with and trust a
focal brand before they are prepared to denounce a
competitor brand.
Firms are therefore encouraged to develop brand trust as to
generate purchases and inspire band advocacy. Similar efforts
towards creating stronger brand identication might help
produce individuals who are prepared to vigorously protect
the brand while negatively judging its rivals.
Such objectives can be achieved through consistency of
performance and the communication of brand traits that
target consumers deem important. Becerra and
Badrinarayaan suggest that purchase and referral
behaviors can be encouraged in mature markets if the
company is able to entice customers strong on brand trust and
brand identication. The potential for such individuals to
make purchases and actively promote the brand has been
noted previously.
The unanticipated ndings with extraversion prompts the
notion that less outgoing people may engage in referral
behavior, particularly in an online setting where identities are
concealed. But a more striking possibility is that brand-
consumer relationships inuence brand referrals more than
individual personality.
Developing a unique, attractive and prestigious brand
identity can help foster an important psychological connect
between brand and consumer, especially when the latters
self-denitional requirements are satised.
A consideration of different brands, product categories and
samples is suggested for future studies. Investigating different
trust constructs is another idea, as is a consideration of such
as brand commitment, brand passion or other variables
associated with brand-consumer relationships. Scholars might
also explore alternative conceptualizations of these
relationships and measures of brand adoption. Other areas
to research further include different personality traits and
drivers of brand evangelism in online and ofine contexts.
Work to heighten understanding of brand evangelists is
recommended too.
(A precis of the article The inuence of brand trust and brand
identication on brand evangelism. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for Emerald.)
The inuence of brand trust and brand identication on brand evangelism
Enrique P. Becerra and Vishag Badrinarayanan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 22 Number 5/6 2013 371383
383
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints