Kervyn+Fiske+Malone+JCP, reklama

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
//-->This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institutionand sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third partywebsites are prohibited.In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further informationregarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:Author's personal copyAvailable online at www.sciencedirect.comJournal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 166–176Research DialogueBrands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and abilitycan map brand perceptionNicolas Kervyna, Susan T. Fiskeb,⁎, Chris MaloneacUniversity of Louvain, Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS), BelgiumbPrinceton University, USAcRelational Capital Group, USAReceived 30 June 2011; received in revised form 9 September 2011; accepted 10 September 2011Available online 3 March 2012AbstractBuilding on the Stereotype Content Model, this paper introduces and tests the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework. A growing body ofresearch suggests that consumers have relationships with brands that resemble relations between people. We propose that consumers perceivebrands in the same way they perceive people. This approach allows us to explore how social perception theories and processes can predict brandpurchase interest and loyalty. Brands as Intentional Agents Framework is based on a well-established social perception approach: the StereotypeContent Model. Two studies support the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework prediction that consumers assess a brand's perceived intentionsand ability and that these perceptions elicit distinct emotions and drive differential brand behaviors. The research shows that human social inter-action relationships translate to consumer–brand interactions in ways that are useful to inform brand positioning and brand communications.© 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Keywords:Brands; Intent; Agents; Stereotypes; Ability; ConsumersIntroductionArguably, people relate to brands in many ways similarly tohow they relate to people (Fournier,2009).Inspired by the intro-duction of human relationship theory and thinking into the brand-ing literature and marketing practice (Fournier,1998, 2009; Mark& Pearson, 2001),we propose that understanding how consumersperceive and relate to brands can profit from models of social per-ception developed in social psychology and specifically from thewell established Stereotype Content Model (Fiske,Cuddy, &Glick, 2007; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002).Research onbrand perception has shown that consumers not only care abouta brand's features and benefits but also about a relational aspectof brand perception (Aaker,Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Fournier,2009;seeMacInnis, Park, & Priester, 2009,for a review) as wellas an emotional part (Ahuvia,2005; Albert, Merunka, & Valette-⁎Corresponding author. Fax: +1 609 258 1113.E-mail address:sfiske@princeton.edu(S.T. Fiske).Florence, 2010; Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005).So not onlydoes a brand's delivery, its perceived ability or competence, matterbut also its perceived intentions or warmth affect how the way con-sumers perceive, feel, and behave toward that brand. This articlepresents a well-established social perception model, the StereotypeContent Model, and explores its usefulness in predicting how con-sumers perceive, feel, and behave toward brands.As we will review, different elements composing the Brands asIntentional Agents Framework (BIAF) already demonstrablyapply both to social and brand perception. The added value ofthe proposed BIAF is that it integrates the two dimensions(intentions and ability) and the three aspects of brand perception,from evaluative dimensions to emotional reaction to behavior,and thus it provides a more comprehensive model building onthe strengths of each dimensions and type of analysis takenseparately. We will start by reviewing the Stereotype Contentmodel, the social perception model that serves as the template forour BIAF. Then we will present existing evidence for treatingbrand perception as similar to social perception before introducingthe BIAF itself and testing it.1057-7408/$ -see front matter © 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.006Author's personal copyN. Kervyn et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 166–176167The stereotype content modelOver the last decade, social psychologists (Asbrock,2010;Asbrock, Nieuwoudt, Duckitt, & Sibley, 2011; Caprariello,Cuddy, & Fiske, 2009; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Cuddyet al., 2009; Fiske et al., 2002; Russell & Fiske, 2008)haveproposed, tested, and validated a model of social perceptioncalled the Stereotype Content Model. The Stereotype ContentModel maps out how people perceive social groups on the twodimensions of social perception: Warmth and Competence.The Stereotype Content Model is based on the idea that twodimensions of competence and warmth organize the waypeople perceive the social world around them. The StereotypeContent Model posits that people quickly assess two fundamen-tal dimensions—warmth and competence—to guide their deci-sions about and interactions with other people and social groups.Simply put, warmth perception answers the question,“Whatarethis other's intentions toward me?” Another (person or group)with positive, cooperative intentions appears warm, whereas an-other with negative, competitive, or exploitative intentionsseems cold. The second question is,“Isthat other able to carryout its intentions?” Another able to implement intentions is per-ceived as competent. And another perceived as unable to do sois perceived as incompetent. Warmth thus includes helpfulness,sincerity, friendliness, and trustworthiness, whereas competenceincludes efficiency, intelligence, conscientiousness, and skill.In the initial, studiesFiske et al. (2002)first asked respon-dents to list“whatvarious types of people do you think today'ssociety categorizes into groups” and then selected the 23 groupsthat were listed by 15% or more of the respondents. They thenpresented these 23 groups to different samples of respondents(including middle-aged and elderly samples) and asked themto rate each group on several items of competence (competent,confident, capable, efficient, intelligent, skillful) and on severalitems of warmth (friendly, well-intentioned, trustworthy, warm,good-natured, sincere). The major outcome of these studies wasto show that the meaningful social groups spread out across thespace created by crossing the two dimensions of warmth andcompetence. And in that two dimensional space, the differentgroups were most often organized into four clusters, each clus-ter located in one of the quadrants obtained by crossing the twodimensions: the warm–competent quadrant, the warm–incom-petent quadrant, the cold–competent quadrant, and the cold–in-competent quadrant.In a more recent study replicating and extendingFiske et al.(2002)on a U.S. representative sample,Cuddy et al. (2007)col-lected warmth and competence ratings of 20 social groups. Inthe results, a cluster analysis showed that these 20 groups orga-nized into four groupings that correspond to the four quadrantsobtained when crossing the warmth and the competence dimen-sions (seeFig. 1).One cluster contained the groups rated aswarm and competent thatFiske et al. (2002)called the refer-ence groups (Americans, Middle-class). A second cluster com-prised the groups perceived as cold and incompetent, the mostderogated groups (welfare recipients, poor people). A thirdcluster comprised groups rated as warm and incompetent, thepaternalized groups (elderly, disabled). The remaining clusterFig. 1. Distribution of social groups on the competence and warmth dimensionin the Stereotype Content Model (Cuddyet al., 2007).NB:Group labels wereprovided by pretest participants in another study; the specific labels are not en-dorsed by the authors.included the groups perceived as competent and cold, theenvied groups (Asians, rich). These results thus showed thatnegative stereotypes can have important differences in contentand that stereotypes about discriminated groups are not neces-sarily completely negative but often mix positive and negativecontent.The difference between the warm–competent quadrant andthe cold–incompetent quadrant is obvious; a clear valence dif-ference separates the two on both dimensions. Essentially, awholly positive evaluation of the groups characterizes thewarm–competent cluster and a wholly negative evaluation ofthe groups characterizes the cold–incompetent cluster. One in-novation of the model is to identify the two mixed-impressionsquadrants, namely, the paternalistic quadrant and the enviedquadrant. Indeed, the difference between the two mixed-impressions quadrants is more subtle because each containsboth positive and negative impressions that coexist, yet thetwo overall impressions differ a great deal. For instance, pater-nalized groups such as the elderly are scorned because theyare perceived as being well intentioned but lacking the abilityto enact those intentions. On the other hand, envied groupssuch as rich people are perceived as having negative intentionsbut also as being able to reach their goals. So the two fundamen-tal dimensions of social perception together make sense of thedifferent impressions about these four quadrants.Using survey data (Cuddyet al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2002)and experimental data (Caprarielloet al., 2009),researchersidentified specific emotions elicited by the 4 different combina-tions of warmth and competence. Groups perceived as warmand competent, such as middle class, Christians, and Americans(for U.S. participants), elicit admiration. Groups seen as warmand incompetent, such as elderly and disabled people, elicitpity. Groups perceived as cold and competent, such as rich peo-ple, Asians, and Jews, elicit envy. And derogated groups seenas cold and incompetent, such as undocumented immigrants,homeless, and welfare recipients, elicit contempt. The percep-tion of a social group in the Stereotype Content Model is thusAuthor's personal copy168N. Kervyn et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 166–176not a mere combination of high or low warmth and compe-tence; that combination has in turn an emotional consequence,with a specific emotion elicited for each of the four quadrantsof the model.For example, the low–low quadrant's groups (homeless,drug addicts) elicit disgust and contempt; people reportbeing unable to imagine a day in their life and unlikely to in-teract with them (Harris& Fiske, 2009).Further, the cold andcompetent groups that elicit envy are more likely to elicitSchadenfreude when they encounter misfortunes (Cikara&Fiske, 2012).Schadenfreude is an emotion felt when onetakes pleasure at witnessing another's trouble. For the samekind of misfortune, subjectively positive emotions (i.e.,Schadenfreude) were elicited when it happened to a memberof group stereotypically perceived as cold and competent(e.g., investment bankers) but not when the same misfortuneshappened to members of a group stereotypically perceived aswarm and competent, warm and incompetent, or cold and in-competent. These emotional reactions specific to the differentquadrants of the Stereotype Content Model have been furthersupported by recent research in socio-neuroscience.Neurological evidence supporting the StereotypeContent ModelNeuro-imaging studies are beginning to show that groupsfrom different clusters of the Stereotype Content Model elicitsignature neurological responses (Cikara& Fiske, 2011;Harris & Fiske, 2006; Harris & Fiske, 2007).Harris and Fiskeconcentrated their neuro-imaging research on the medial–pre-frontal cortex, a part of the brain that is activated in essentiallyany social interaction or social cognition task (e.g., remember-ing a social interaction, thinking of a specific person, consider-ing someone's thoughts). For instance the medial–prefrontalcortex is activated when someone looks at a person performinga task, but it is not activated when watching a robot perform theexact same task. Participants in the scanner viewed pictures ofpeople that clearly belonged to one of a number of socialgroups. The position of these groups on the two-dimensionalspace of the Stereotype Content Model had previously beenmeasured. For each picture, participants were asked to ratewhether watching the picture elicited admiration, envy, pity,or contempt.Rating results showed that, as expected by the StereotypeContent Model, pictures of members of warm–competentgroups elicited admiration. Pictures of members of cold–competent groups elicited envy. Pictures of warm–incompetentgroup members elicited pity. And pictures of members of cold–incompetent groups elicited contempt. Furthermore, the neuro-imaging data showed that the medial–prefrontal cortex was ac-tivated when participants saw pictures of members of warm–competent groups, members of cold–competent groups, andmembers of warm–incompetent groups, but not when partici-pants saw pictures of the most extreme, low–low outgroups.So the main result of this experiment was to show that, unlikethe members of the other groups, members of groups stereotyp-ically perceived as cold and incompetent do not lead to signif-icant activation of the medial–prefrontal cortex, the socialinteraction part of the brain. Beyond identifying a signatureneurological response to cold–incompetent groups, this resultfurther underlines the fundamentally social nature of the two di-mensions of warmth and competence. In effect, members ofgroups seen a lacking both dimensions are dehumanized, noteasily viewed as having a mind, and less worthy of social inter-action than members of groups located in the three other quad-rants of the Stereotype Content Model.Research byCikara, Botvinick, and Fiske (2011)identified asignatureneurologicalresponseforthecold–competent quadrant. Participants were avid fans of two rivalbaseball teams: the Yankees and the Red Sox. The data firstshowed that fans of each team perceive the rival team as coldand competent. Then participants in the scanner viewed base-ball plays. Neuro-imaging data showed that seeing the otherteam fail activated the ventral striatum, an area of the brainassociated with subjective pleasure. Avid fans thus took plea-sure in watching the rival, cold and competent, team fail. Asreviewed above, this kind of subjective pleasure in others' mis-fortune is called Schadenfreude. Interestingly, that maliciousemotion was limited to the rival team that was perceived ascold and competent. When avid Yankees or Red Sox fanssaw the Blue Jays, another team that they did not typically per-ceive as cold and competent, fail, the subjective pleasure part ofthe brain was not activated. These two lines of studies showedthat beyond the traditional survey method, using a neuro-imaging method also supports the Stereotype Content Model.Intercultural evidence supporting the StereotypeContent ModelA number of researchers have studied the applicability ofwarmth and competence models across cultures. For instance,stereotype content data in seven European and three Asian na-tions (Cuddyet al., 2009)entailed a first sample of participantsasked to list the relevant social groups in their society. Then an-other sample of participants rated the most-often-cited groupson warmth and competence items. In all the countries, percep-tions of the relevant social groups consistently spread outacross the two dimensional space of the Stereotype ContentModel. And these groups clustered in the four quadrants ofthe model. The only notable difference was that the Asiancountries (Japan, South Korea, and China) showed no clearwarmth–competent cluster. The ingroups and reference groupsgenerally found in that quadrant were instead rated as moder-ately high on both dimensions, thus moving to the center ofthe two-dimensional space.Cuddy et al. (2009)interpretedthis as being due to a norm of modesty and humility in collec-tivistic cultures. But the general message remains that acrossthe world (including data recently collected in even more coun-tries,Durante, Fiske, Kervyn, Cuddy et al., submitted forpublication),the Stereotype Content Model is a useful tool tocreate a meaningful and readily understandable map of socialperceptions in a given society.More evidence for the cross-cultural relevance of the two di-mensions of social perception appears in the research ofYbarraet al. (2008)who studied the two dimensions of communion andagency, two dimensions that are very similar to the dimensionsAuthor's personal copyN. Kervyn et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 166–176169of warmth and competence respectively (Abele& Wojciszke,2007). Ybarra et al. (2008)analyzed the content ofBrown's(1991)list of human universals, a list of practices observed byanthropologists in a wide variety of cultures across the globe.Ybarra et al. (2008)gave a definition of communion and ofagency to independent raters. Communion was defined as prac-tices implicating social interactions, relationships, and the regu-lation of interpersonal behaviors. Agency was defined aspractices enabling people to perform tasks, solve problems,and attain their goals. The researchers then asked the raters toclassify the 372 human universals (Brown,1991)into 4 catego-ries: the communion-related category, the agency-related cate-gory, the“bothcommunion and agency-related” category andthe“neithercommunion nor agency-related” category. Exam-ples of universals that were classified as communion-relatedare: taboos; generosity admired; fairness; empathy. Examplesof universals that were classified as agency-related are: mentalmaps; memory; tools; practice to improve skills. Examples ofuniversals classified as“bothcommunion and agency-related”are: dance; government; healing the sick; division of labor;and collective decision making. And examples of universalsclassified as“neithercommunion nor agency-related” are: likingsweets; right-handedness as a norm; wariness of snakes; andsucking wounds. A large majority (66%) of the human univer-sals were classified into the communion-related, the agency-related or the“bothcommunion and agency-related category.”These results further support the idea that the two fundamentaldimensions of social perceptions occur across cultures.Warmth and competence perception of other social objectsWorking outside of the framework of the Stereotype ContentModel, two similar dimensions, communion and agency, appar-ently underlie individual person perception. For example(Wojciszke,1994),participants read instructions to rememberinstances that led them to a clear-cut evaluation of another per-son. A content analysis of 1000 such episodes showed that in75% of them the evaluative impression related to either thecommunion or the agency dimension. Similar results werefound in another study (Wojciszke,Bazinska, & Jaworski,1998)in which participants gave global evaluations of 20persons from their social environment and then evaluatedthose people on communion and agency traits. The datashowed that the communion and agency traits ascriptionaccounted for 82% of the variance of the global impressions.Finally, according toWojciszke, Abele, and Baryla (2009),the communion dimension links to liking of the target, andthe agency dimension links to respect toward the target (seealsoFiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999).So, a target perceivedas high in communion is liked, whereas one perceived as lowin communion is disliked. And a target perceived as high inagency is respected, whereas one low in agency is disrespected.To put it another way, a high-agency/high-communion personwill be liked and respected, a low-agency/low-communionperson will be disliked and disrespected, a low-agency/high-communion person will be liked but disrespected, and a high-agency/low-communion person will be disliked but respected.Wojciszke's (1994; Wojciszke, 2005; Wojciszke et al., 1998)model of person perception thus has similarities to the groupperception model proposed by the Stereotype Content Model.As a matter of fact, the Stereotype Content Model has beenshown to apply to person perception (Russell& Fiske, 2008),when individual people meet someone expected to be high orlow status (predicting competence) and cooperative or compet-itive (predicting warmth).The Stereotype Content Model has also been applied to theperception of countries.Cuddy et al. (2009)measured theway Europeans perceive the different countries of the EuropeanUnion. As for social groups, the two dimensions of warmth andcompetence allowed building a meaningful map of the stereo-types attached to the different countries. Germany for instancewas rated as competent but cold, whereas Portugal was ratedas warm but incompetent. Interestingly, the way participantsperceived their own country was generally consistent with theway their country was rated by citizens of other countries,ingroup perception thus matching other participants' outgroupsperception. To be sure, they had to rate how their country wasviewed within the EU, and slight ingroup favoritism appeared.Nevertheless, the two dimensions differentiated countries'images.Moreover, as for person perception, most of the research oncountry perception has been done outside the framework of theStereotype Content Model, but using two dimensions very sim-ilar to warmth and competence. Research byPhalet and Poppe(1997)andPoppe and Linssen (1999)measured a host of pos-sible predictors of the perception of a country's morality andcompetence. Perceived conflict between the country and theparticipants' country predicted perceived warmth (Phalet&Poppe, 1997).If a country was perceived as being in conflictwith the respondents' country, then it was perceived as lackingwarmth. And they found that the perceived power of a countrywas positively related to its perceived competence. So the morea country was perceived as a powerful nation, the more it wasperceived as a competent nation. Similarly, the size of the na-tion was a negative predictor of its perceived warmth (Poppe& Linssen, 1999):the larger countries were rated as colderthan the smaller ones. And perceived economic power and per-ceived political power were the main (positive) predictors of acountry's perceived competence.Applications of the Stereotype Content ModelAs reviewed above, the Stereotype Content Model and morewidely the two fundamental dimensions of social perceptionthus provide a robust model of social perception that appliesacross cultures and, more importantly for our present endeavor,it demonstrably applies to a variety of social targets. It can be auseful and simple way to map a given social world, whateverthe degree of granularity of the social object studied, from per-son perception to entire countries. It can also focus on onespecific social object and identify the content of the stereotypeassociated to it. For instance (Cuddy,Fiske, & Glick, 2004),the two dimensions of warmth and competence describe thecontent of the stereotype held about working women, which [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • klobuckfatima.xlx.pl