See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280778393

Can Brands Move In from the Outside? How Moral Identity Enhances Out-Group
Brand Attitudes

Article  in  Journal of Marketing · March 2013

DOI: 10.1509/jm.11.0544

CITATIONS READS
55 311

2 authors:

Woo Jin Choi Karen Page Winterich

University of Seoul Pennsylvania State University
5 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   1,532 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Charitable Donations Communication View project

Power and gift giving View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Karen Page Winterich on 05 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Can Brands Move In from the Outside?:

How Moral Identity Enhances Out-group Brand Attitudes

WOO JIN CHOI

KAREN PAGE WINTERICH*

August 22, 2012

Accepted for publication in Journal of Marketing

*Woo Jin Choi (wjchoi@uos.ac.kr) is an Assistant Professor of Business Administration, 

College of Business Administration, University of Seoul, South Korea. Karen Page Winterich

(kpw2@psu.edu) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing, Smeal College of Business,

Pennsylvania State University, 449 Business Building, University Park, PA, 16802. This

research was completed while the first author was a doctoral student at Texas A&M University

with the five studies reported in this manuscript conducted in the Jeffrey S. Conant Behavioral

Research Lab, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University. We appreciate the insightful

comments of Lisa Bolton, Haipeng (Allan) Chen, Rajdeep Grewal, and William Ross on prior

versions of this manuscript.  

1 

 
 Can Brands Move In from the Outside?:

How Moral Identity Enhances Out-group Brand Attitudes

Consumers tend to have more favorable attitudes for their in-group brands than their out-group

brands. However, little is known regarding how brand managers can overcome consumers’

negative attitudes toward out-group brands. Drawing upon the moral identity literature, the

authors theorize that moral identity may enhance out-group (but not in-group) brand attitudes

through decreased psychological distance. Four studies demonstrate that moral identity increases

out-group brand attitudes. Two important boundary conditions of this moral identity effect are

also identified. These findings suggest that brand managers seeking to overcome the less than

favorable perceptions associated with out-group brands may benefit from drawing upon

consumers’ moral identity in marketing communications. Theoretically, this research establishes

that moral identity extends beyond prosocial behaviors to influence marketplace judgments (i.e.,

brand attitudes and categorization).

Keywords: brand attitude, moral identity, outgroup, reference group, psychological distance

2 

 
 In one of the most beloved and long-running advertising campaigns (Adweek 2010), “Get

a Mac” portrayed the Mac as the in-group computer of choice in relation to the out-group PC.

Such brand positioning strategies can be effective given that brand value is enhanced for brands

to which consumers relate (Chernev, Hamilton, and Gal 2011). Extensive research on reference

group influence has consistently demonstrated that consumers have more favorable attitudes

toward brands that are associated with the groups that they belong to and feel a part of (i.e., in-

group brands) than brands that are associated with the groups that they don’t belong to and don’t

feel a part of (i.e., out-group brands) (Escalas and Bettman 2003, 2005). Conditions under which

consumers’ in-group brand attitudes increase or decrease have been examined (e.g., Bearden and

Etzel 1982; Chan, Berger, and Boven 2012), and research has also recognized that consumers’

negative attitudes for out-group brands may be stronger for out-groups that are avoided (i.e.,

dissociative; White and Dahl 2006, 2007). However, one topic that has been overlooked in the

extant research, yet is important for brand managers, is an inquiry into the conditions under

which consumers’ out-group brand attitudes can be improved.

Starbucks was once perceived as an out-group by many given its positioning as a niche

coffee brand for those with highly refined coffee tastes, yet it is now a global giant coffee chain

(Daley 2009). Likewise, managers of brands that are currently perceived as out-group brands by

mass market consumers are struggling to overcome the less than favorable attitudes toward them

and widen their customer base to succeed (Aaker 1991; Erdem and Sun 2002). Thus, determining

how consumers’ out-group brand attitudes can be improved is a critical issue for brand managers.

This research seeks to provide insight into this question. Specifically, we propose that moral

identity may enhance out-group brand attitudes.

3 

 
 Moral identity is the cognitive schema a person holds about the virtuosity of his or her

character (Aquino et al. 2009). As detailed later, the virtuosity of one’s character refers to the

accessibility of moral traits, goals, and behaviors such as honesty, compassion, or fairness

(Aquino and Reed 2002; Blasi 1984).1 Prior research shows that individuals for whom moral

identity is either chronically important or temporarily accessible have more expansive group

boundaries (Reed and Aquino 2003; Winterich, Mittal, and Ross 2009). That is, consumers with

higher moral identity are more inclusive of outgroups such that they perceive a wider range of

outgroups as their ingroups relative to someone with lower moral identity (Reed and Aquino

2003). Although the expansiveness of moral identity has been examined in regard to other

individuals, we draw from the reference group literature (Escalas and Bettman 2005; White and

Dahl 2007) to theorize that the expansiveness of moral identity may also influence a consumer’s

brand attitude, which refers to the degree to which the consumer considers a brand as being

positive or negative including quality perception (Aaker and Keller 1990).

Specifically, we propose that consumers with a situationally accessible moral identity

will have more positive out-group brand attitudes than those without an accessible moral identity.

This effect may occur because moral identity acts as a conduit that reduces the psychological

distance, which is consumers’ subjective perceptions regarding how far an object (i.e., brand) is

from themselves (Trope and Liberman 2010). That is, those with an accessible moral identity

will perceive less distance between themselves and brands with which their outgroups are

associated, resulting in more favorable attitudes toward the brands. However, given the existing

tendency to favor in-group brands (Escalas and Bettman 2005; White and Dahl 2007), moral
                                                            
1
 The specific traits that are most strongly associated with a moral identity differ by individual such that for some
individuals generosity and compassion may come to mind whereas for others hardworking and fairness may
represent moral identity. These differences are captured by each person’s cognitive schema that links various moral
traits together through their associative cognitive network. See Aquino and Reed (2002) for further details.  
4 

 
identity will not influence in-group brand attitude. Thus, moral identity moderates the effect of

brand group membership on brand attitude, which is mediated by psychological distance. In

addition, to clarify the extent to which moral identity can enhance out-group brand attitude, we

also examine the effect of moral identity on (1) aspirational versus dissociative out-group brands

and (2) brands perceived as (im)moral.

Our research makes several important contributions. First, we contribute to the moral

identity and reference group literatures by demonstrating that moral identity can influence

marketplace judgments unrelated to morality such that out-group brand attitude can be improved.

Second, we demonstrate this moral identity effect occurs through decreased psychological

distance. Third, we recognize the role of brand morality (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001) in the

effect of consumer morality on brand attitude. In doing so, we provide practical insights for

eliciting moral identity in marketing communications to enhance out-group brand attitude.

We organize the paper as follows. First, we review the moral identity literature and

briefly report a pilot study that demonstrates moral identity can influence marketplace judgments

unrelated to morality. We then review the literature on reference group influence on brand

attitude and theorize how moral identity may moderate the effect of brand group membership on

brand attitude and the underlying role of psychological distance. Next, we present the results of

four studies to test the moderating effect of moral identity, the underlying mechanism, and two

boundary conditions.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT

Moral Identity

As briefly defined earlier, moral identity represents an individual’s associative cognitive

network of related moral traits (e.g., being kind), feelings (e.g., concern for others), and

5 

 
behaviors (e.g., helping others; Aquino & Reed, 2002). 2 Within this associative cognitive

network, the strength of these moral associations reflects the degree to which a person’s moral

identity is chronically important. For example, an individual who is characterized by high moral

identity would likely have more thoughts, both in quantity and speed, regarding moral traits such

as fairness and generosity as well as goals and behaviors of helping others. To be sure, this

conceptualization does not indicate that an individual with low moral identity does not have any

associations with moral traits or behaviors, but simply that their associative cognitive network is

not as chronically strong as someone with a higher moral identity.

Importantly, moral identity influences consumers’ behaviors when it is either chronically

important or temporarily active (Aquino, McFerran, and Laven 2011; Reed, Aquino, and Levy

2007; Winterich, Mittal, and Ross 2009), which is consistent with effects of social identity more

generally. That is, a consumer’s identity may be accessible as a result of either chronic

identification or situational priming that temporarily activates an identity (Zhang and Khare

2009). Differences in these two forms of identity can lead to different outcomes (Wheeler and

Berger 2007). A chronically important identity resides in one’s long-term memory whereas a

temporarily accessible identity is more similar to information stored in working memory

(Wheeler, DeMarree, and Petty 2008). Thus, in comparison to a chronically important identity, a

temporarily accessible identity is more likely to affect one’s immediate behavior because it is

                                                            
2
We note that Aquino and Reed’s (2002) conceptualization of moral identity consists of two dimensions:
internalization and symbolization. The former reflects the subjective experience and cognitions of moral identity that
are held privately whereas the latter reflects the desire to express moral traits to the public. The internalization
dimension has been referred to as moral identity centrality because the internalization of moral traits makes them
easier and faster to retrieve, hence being more influential (i.e., central) on attitudes and behaviors (Aquino et al.
2009). Indeed, internalization has been a more robust predictor of moral behaviors than symbolization (Aquino and
Reed 2002; Aquino et al. 2009; Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007), particularly in regard to out-group evaluations. For
instance, Reed and Aquino (2003; Study 3) show that the internalization dimension positively affects the amount of
money that people are willing to donate to outgroups, whereas the symbolization dimension does not. Therefore, in
this research, our theorizing regards the internalization dimension of moral identity. 
6 

 
currently more accessible than other identities. Notably, Zhang and Khare (2009) show that both

chronic and temporarily accessible identities can lead to the same behavioral outcome, which is

consistent with research finding that chronically important and temporarily activated moral

identity have similar effects (Aquino, McFerran, and Laven 2011; Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007;

Winterich, Mittal, and Ross 2009). Based on these findings, we expect both chronic and

temporarily active moral identity to result in the same effect; however, in the current research,

we focus on temporarily accessible moral identity.

Moral identity has emerged as a particularly useful predictor for moral behaviors such as

charitable donations, altruistic helping, and on-time loan payments (Aquino et al. 2009; Hardy

2006; Herzenstein, Sonenshein and Dholakia 2011). Of particular relevance to this research is

the role that moral identity plays in individuals' perceptions of outgroups, which we define as a

group of individuals to which a given individual does not belong (Escalas and Bettman 2005).

Research shows that moral identity mitigates negative responses to outgroups, resulting in more

generous attitudes toward outgroups and greater willingness to help out-group members (Aquino

and Reed 2002; Hardy et al. 2010; Reed and Aquino 2003). These effects occur due to the

expanded in-group boundary associated with moral identity (Reed and Aquino 2003; Winterich,

Mittal, and Ross 2009). That is, when moral identity is either chronically important or

temporarily active, group boundaries tend to encompass a wider range of individuals who may

otherwise be perceived as out-group members such that less distance is perceived between

oneself and outgroups3. However, to date, research has not considered whether moral identity

can impact judgments unrelated to morality.

                                                            
3
Trope and Liberman (2003) state that individuals perceive the distance between an object and themselves in terms
of a range of measures, including time, space, and social identity. Since our focus in the current research is on
7 

 
 To the extent that research has demonstrated that consumers do not process product

information in the same manner as human-related information (Yoon et al. 2006), the effect of

moral identity on consumer judgments unrelated to morality is unique from prior effects of moral

identity on morality-based judgments. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study to clarify if the

effect of moral identity extends to judgments for which there should be no regard for morality

(i.e., categorization of general objects). If moral identity influences consumers to make broader

categorizations of objects (Isen and Daubman 1984; Mikulincer, Kedem, and Paz 1990;

Ülkümen, Chakravarti, and Morwitz 2010), then we can conclude that moral identity has the

potential to influence marketplace judgments such as brand attitude that are unrelated to morality.

In a pilot study, participants (N = 75 undergraduates; see Web Appendix for full study

details) were primed so either moral identity or student identity was situationally accessible.

Then they completed a categorization task adopted from Rosch (1975) and Isen and Daubman

(1984) in which they indicated the extent to which each of eight items belonged to a specific

category (i.e., clothing, vegetables). The results revealed that those with moral identity accessible

perceived weak and moderate exemplars of the category to belong to the given category to a

greater extent than those with an accessible student identity. Given that those with moral identity

tend to make broader, more inclusive categorizations than those with another social identity (i.e.,

student identity), these results provide initial support that the expansiveness associated with

moral identity impacts judgments beyond contexts associated with moral behavior. Thus, moral

identity may impact brand attitude.

In-group and Out-group Brand Attitudes

                                                                                                                                                                                                
consumers’ perceptions of distance between oneself and a brand, psychological distance refers to the consumers’
subjective perceptions of the distance between a brand and themselves. 
8 

 
 Establishing that moral identity impacts general marketplace judgments of categorization,

we consider how moral identity may differentially influence attitudes toward in-group and out-

group brands. Research has established that people tend to prefer things that are similar to

themselves to boost their self-esteem and self-evaluations (Brewer 1991). That is, people

categorize themselves in terms of groups of individuals to which they are similar or different to

determine their social identities (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner 1985). Based on these

categorizations, people respond more positively to their ingroup, which is defined as a group of

individuals to which one feels they belong, than their outgroup, defined earlier as a group of

individuals to which one does not feel they belong (Escalas and Bettman 2005). These in-group

preferences extend to consumer behaviors and marketplace judgments (Berger and Heath 2007;

Berger and Rand 2008; Escalas and Bettman 2005; White and Dahl 2006, 2007). For example,

Escalas and Bettman (2005) demonstrated that consumers connect more strongly (i.e., self-brand

connection) to brands associated with their ingroups than their outgroups due to a greater

perceived “fit” between themselves and the in-group brands.

Given these in-group preferences, prior research on reference groups has generally been

conducted along two lines. First, boundary conditions of in-group preferences have been

identified (e.g., public vs. private consumption and luxury vs. necessity: Bearden and Etzel 1982;

need for uniqueness: Chan, Berger, and Boven 2012; self construal: Escalas and Bettman 2005;

compromised individuality by mass production: White and Argo 2011). Second, White and Dahl

(2006, 2007) demonstrate that the type of outgroup may impact consumer’s response. Yet,

research examining the conditions under which consumers’ less than favorable attitudes toward

out-group brands can be improved is limited. This question is the focus of the current research

for which we consider the moderating role of moral identity.

9 

 
The Moderating Effect of Moral Identity on In-group and Out-group Brand Attitudes

How might consumers’ moral identity influence the less than favorable attitudes toward

out-group brands? First, while moral identity influences one’s regard for out-group members

(Reed and Aquino 2003), the effect of moral identity on moral regard for out-groups may not

occur for brand attitude due to the lack of relevance to morality and the different processes used

for brand judgments (Yoon et al. 2006). On the other hand, as in human relationships, consumers

develop relationships with brands (Fournier 1998). More specifically, the in-group preference

initially established among groups of individuals exists for brand attitudes (Escalas and Bettman

2003, 2005; White and Dahl 2007). Thus, it is plausible that the expansiveness of moral identity

that improves moral regard for out-groups (Reed and Aquino 2003; Winterich, Mittal, and Ross

2009) may also overcome unfavorable out-group brand attitudes. Moreover, our pilot study

demonstrated that the expansiveness associated with moral identity can impact judgments

unrelated to morality such that moral identity may carryover to impact brand attitude. Thus, we

expect moral identity to moderate attitudes toward in-group and out-group brands.

The distinction between ingroups and outgroups can vary according to context (Berger

and Heath 2007; Brewer and Gardner 1996) since the preference for ingroups occurs from the

association with group members (Bearden and Etzel 1982). When these group associations are

altered, then consumers’ brand attitudes may also be altered. Gómez and colleagues (2011) find

that as individuals categorize an outgroup in a more inclusive manner, they respond more

favorably to this group because this inclusive categorization provides a common ground for the

two groups. Similarly, thinking about the shared characteristics of women and men can reduce

negative gender stereotypes (i.e., math performance) because the focus on similarities reduces

the focus on differences between genders (Rosenthal and Crisp 2006).

10 

 
 Drawing from these findings, we theorize that moral identity, which increases perceived

similarities with out-group members and expands the psychological boundaries of group

membership (Reed and Aquino 2003; Winterich, Mittal, and Ross 2009), will affect consumers’

brand attitudes. Specifically, we predict that moral identity will impact the degree to which a

consumer perceives a brand as being an out-group brand. That is, consumers with accessible

moral identity will perceive less distance between themselves and out-group brands, thereby,

responding more favorably toward these brands relative to those without accessible moral

identity. To be clear, we do not propose that the differences between consumers and the

individuals they associate with an out-group brand are physically decreased; rather, consistent

with prior research (Gómez et al. 2011; Rosenthal and Crisp 2006), consumers may simply focus

on similarities, thereby perceiving less distance and being more inclusive.

If moral identity improves attitudes toward out-group brands, how will it impact attitudes

toward in-group brands? Consumers tend to naturally perceive more similarities and feel closer

to in-group brands (Escalas and Bettman 2003, 2005), evaluating them favorably (White and

Dahl 2007). Therefore, we posit that consumers will have more positive attitudes toward in-

group brands regardless of moral identity because their boundaries already extend to ingroups,

unlike outgroups, and thus are not subject to the expanding group boundaries of moral identity.

This effect is theorized as follows:

H1: Moral identity will moderate the effect of brand group membership on brand
attitude such that moral identity will enhance out-group brand attitudes but will
not influence in-group brand attitudes.

The Role of Out-group Type

Thus far, our theorizing has utilized the dichotomous distinction of ingroups and

outgroups, following previous research (Berger and Heath 2007; Escalas and Bettman 2005;

11 

 
White and Argo 2011). However, outgroups can be further classified as dissociative groups and

aspirational groups. A dissociative group refers to a group for which individuals hold negative

associations and wish to avoid (White and Dahl 2007; McFerran et al. 2010), whereas an

aspirational group refers to a group for which an individual has positive associations and desires

to belong (Escalas and Bettman 2003). Given these positive versus negative associations,

aspirational groups do not have the same effects as dissociative groups (McFerran et al. 2010).

Specifically, consumers respond most negatively to dissociative groups (White and Dahl 2007),

whereas they tend to favor brands associated with aspirational groups (Escalas and Bettman

2003). Although dissociative and aspirational groups are similar in that consumers do not belong

to either group, the negative out-group response is much stronger for dissociative groups.

H1 theorized that moral identity could improve out-group brand attitudes, without

specifying effects for dissociative versus aspirational groups. Given that consumers respond

favorably to aspirational group brands similar to in-group brands (Escalas and Bettman 2003) but

negatively toward dissociative group brands (McFerran et al. 2010; White and Dahl 2007), we

theorize that moral identity will only affect attitudes toward dissociative group brands (vs. in-

group and aspirational group brands). Specifically, since consumers tend to avoid dissociative

groups, the expansiveness of moral identity will be necessary to reduce the psychological

distance to the dissociative group brand, resulting in more favorable dissociative group brand

attitudes. If moral identity enhances dissociative group brand attitudes, this would suggest that

the effect of moral identity is not limited to neutral outgroups but extends to outgroups that have

stronger negative associations. In contrast, if a brand is associated with an aspirational outgroup,

consumers favor the brand due to their desire to associate with this aspirational group. In this

case, the expansiveness of moral identity does not influence brand attitude since the

12 

 
psychological distance to the brand, similar to in-group brands, is already minimal. Thus, we

expect moral identity to only influence dissociative group brand attitudes. Therefore,

H2: The moderating effect of consumers’ moral identity on the effect of brand group
membership on brand attitude will be influenced by the type of outgroup
associated with the brand. Specifically, moral identity will enhance brand
attitudes for brands associated with dissociative groups, but this effect will be
weaker for brands associated with aspirational groups, similar to the case for in-
group brand attitudes.

The Mediating Role of Psychological Distance

Based on our theorizing that moral identity enhances out-group (i.e., neutral and

dissociative) brand attitudes because moral identity decreases the distance perceived between

oneself and out-group brands, we predict that the moral identity effect will be mediated by the

psychological distance between oneself and a brand. The social psychology literature

demonstrates that psychological distance influences the use of conflict between groups as a basis

for evaluation. Specifically, people are more likely to treat others favorably if they perceive that

others are close to them (Liberman, Samuels, and Ross 2004). For example, undergraduate

students allocated more money to those listed higher on their list of the 100 closest people to

them (Jones and Rachlin 2006) such that psychological distance influenced altruism. Moreover,

individuals who categorize out-group members using a common identity with them and thus

perceive a greater connection to them are less willing to display bias toward their own group

(Gόmez and colleagues 2011). In a similar vein, Winterich, Mittal, and Ross (2009) find that the

psychological distance between consumers and out-group members mediates their willingness to

donate money to the outgroup.

Though psychological distance tends to be examined as the distance between two

individuals rather than between a consumer and a brand, it is possible that the perception of

13 

 
distance from others applies to brands given the relationships and group associations with brands

(Escalas and Bettman 2003, 2005; Fournier 1998). Thus, we theorize that moral identity will

decrease the psychological distance between a consumer and their out-group brands, resulting in

more favorable out-group brand attitudes. That is, the association of human outgroups with

brands will result in an effect of moral identity on the psychological distance between the

consumer and the brand. In other words, the expansiveness associated with moral identity that

decreases psychological distance should carryover to judgments regardless of the judgment type.

Formally,

H3: The moderating effect of consumers’ moral identity on the effect of brand group
membership on brand attitude will be mediated by the psychological distance
between the consumer and the brand.

Next, we test our hypotheses in a series of four studies. Study 1 tests the moderating

effect of moral identity on brand attitudes toward self-identified in-group and out-group brands

(H1), using temporarily accessible moral identity versus student identity. Study 2 replicates the

findings of Study 1 for dissociative out-group brand attitudes but not for aspirational out-group

or in-group brand attitudes (H2). Study 3 provides managerial implications by examining the

effect of temporarily activating a moral identity versus a business identity in an advertisement for

a hypothetical brand. In doing so, we examine the mediating role of the psychological distance

between the consumer and a brand, supporting H3. Study 4 replicates the mediating role of

psychological distance on out-group brand attitude while taking into account a brand’s morality

in addition to consumers’ moral identity.

STUDY 1

Study 1 was designed to examine H1, which proposed that MI would enhance out-group

brand attitude but not in-group brand attitude, such that in-group brand attitude would remain

14 

 
constant irrespective of MI. We tested this hypothesis by using self-identified in- and out-group

brands and temporarily activating either a moral (MI) or student (SI) identity.

Method

Participants and Procedure. Ninety undergraduates (57% male) participated in this

study in exchange for course credit. A 2 (brand group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) X 2

(accessible identity: SI vs. MI) mixed design with brand group membership as a within-subjects

factor was used. The experiment consisted of three parts; each presented as an unrelated study

with a distinct cover story. First, following Escalas and Bettman (2005), participants were asked

to list one group that they belonged to and felt a part of and another group that they didn’t belong

to and didn’t feel a part of. Immediately after listing each group, they self-identified one brand

associated with their stated ingroup and one brand associated with their outgroup. For example,

the following groups (brands) were listed: Zeta Tau Alpha (Columbia), Sigma Phi Epsilon (Polo),

and Kappa Delta (Vera Bradley) for ingroups; Athletes (Adidas), Korean students (Hello Kitty),

and Greeks (Sperry) for outgroups. Note that the groups and brands were idiosyncratic,

consistent with White and Dahl (2007).

Next, each participant was primed with one of two randomly assigned social identities: SI

or MI. Then, participants indicated their attitudes toward the two brands that they identified in

part 1 along with two filler brands. Brand attitudes were assessed using four items (in-group: α

= .92, out-group brand: α =.95) on a 7-point scale (Sood and Keller 2012; White and Dahl 2007).

At the end of the study, participants were asked to guess the purpose of this study, but no one

guessed it correctly in this or subsequent studies. All measures used in this and all subsequent

studies are summarized in Appendix A.

15 

 
 Social Identity Prime. In the “writing assessment” task, participants were asked to write

three short essays about themselves that included a set of nine words, corresponding to the

identity condition. The two sets of nine words utilized were: book, car, chair, computer, desk,

pen, street, table and trash can (SI) and caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful,

hardworking, honest, and kind (MI; Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007). Using the nine words

corresponding to their condition, participants were asked to write about: 1) several things they

experienced and enjoyed daily as a student (moral person), 2) a few reasons why being a student

(moral person) is important to them, and 3) one of the most positive experiences that they had as

a student (moral person; adapted from LeBoeuf, Shafir, and Bayuk 2010).

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check. An ANOVA tested the main effect of identity condition (SI vs. MI)

with each of the four manipulation check items as dependent variables. MI (vs. SI) participants

indicated their writing was more reflective of them as a moral person (MMI = 5.93 vs. MSI = 5.04;

F(1,88) = 9.89, p < .01). Those in the SI (vs. MI) condition indicated their writing was more

reflective of them as a student (MMI = 5.14 vs. MSI = 5.68; F(1,88) = 2.96, p = .08). The other

two items did not differ by identity condition (p > .10).

Brand Attitude. We conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA with brand group

membership, accessible identity, and their interaction with brand attitude as the dependent

variable. Brand group membership (ingroup = 0, outgroup = 1) was a within-subjects factor and

identity condition (SI condition = 0, MI condition = 1) was a between-subjects factor. Brand

group membership was significant (F(1,88) = 100.87, p < .01) such that out-group brand

attitudes were less positive (M = 4.55) than in-group brand attitudes (M = 6.51). Importantly, the

16 

 
interaction of identity condition and brand group membership was significant (F(1,88) = 11.96, p

< .01).

Further analyses revealed that the effect of identity condition on in-group brand attitudes

was not significant (F(1,88) = 1.71, p = .19) but was significant for out-group brand attitudes

(F(1,88) = 8.89, p < .01). Those in the MI condition had more favorable attitudes toward out-

group brands than those in the SI condition (MMI = 5.14 vs. MSI = 4.03), supporting H1 (see

Figure 1). There were no effects on the attitude toward filler brands (p > .50). The effect size for

the interaction was small: η =.015 and Cohen’s d = .24, which is likely due to un-captured

variation arising from self-identified in-group and out-group brands.

[Insert Figure 1 about here]

Discussion. Study 1 demonstrates that consumers with MI have more favorable attitudes

toward their out-group brands than those with SI. However, attitudes toward in-group brands

were equally favorable, regardless of identity condition. Thus, Study 1 provides support for H1

such that consumers’ MI can enhance attitudes toward out-group brands. Next, we examine

whether MI enhances out-group brand attitudes even when brands are associated with

dissociative outgroups versus aspirational outgroups and ingroups, testing H2.

STUDY 2

Participants and Procedure. Eighty-four undergraduate students (53% male) participated

in this study in exchange for course credit. A 3 (brand group membership: in-group vs.

dissociative out-group vs. aspirational out-group) X 2 (accessible identity: SI vs. MI) mixed

design with brand group membership as a within-subjects factor was used. As in Study 1, the

experiment consisted of three parts each with a distinct cover story. Participants first listed one

group and a corresponding brand for each of the following groups: ingroups, aspirational out-
17 

 
groups, and dissociative out-groups. Definitions for each group were provided to participants to

aid in accurate self-identification of groups (Escalas and Bettman 2003, 2005; White and Dahl

2007). Examples of groups (corresponding brands) included: Business Student Council (Apple),

AITP (Association of Information Technology Professionals; HP), and Pi Beta Phi (Nike) for

ingroups; Honors Program (Tory Burch), Lions Club (Juicy Couture), and Phi Beta Lambda

(Vineyard Vines) for aspirational groups; and Greek Life (Sperry), Sorority (Polo Ralph Lauren),

and student government (American Eagle) for dissociative groups. As in Study 1, the groups and

brands were idiosyncratic. In part 2, participants completed a randomly assigned (SI vs. MI)

essay task used in Study 1, which was followed by the same manipulation check items. In part 3,

the three brands identified in part 1 were presented in random order and evaluated using the same

four items as Study 1 (dissociative group brand: α = .93, aspirational group brand: α = .93, in-

group brand: α = .91).

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check. MI (vs. SI) participants indicated their writing was more reflective

of them as a moral person (MMI = 5.44 vs. MSI = 4.73; F(1,82) = 4.84, p < .05). Those in the SI

(vs. MI) condition indicated their writing was more reflective of them as a student (MMI = 4.88

vs. MSI = 5.64; F(1,82) = 5.23, p < .05). The other two items did not differ by identity condition

(p > .80).

Brand Attitude. A repeated-measures ANOVA with brand group membership as a

within-subjects factor, identity condition as a between-subjects factor, and their interaction

indicated that the main effect of brand group membership on brand attitude was significant

(F(2,164) = 209.32, p < .01; MIn-group = 6.18, MAspirational-group = 6.10, MDissociative-group = 2.78). More

importantly, the interaction was significant (F(2,164) = 3.73, p < .05). As depicted in Figure 2,

18 

 
planned contrasts demonstrated that the effect of MI was significant only for the dissociative

group brands such that dissociative group brand attitudes were more positive in the MI condition

than those in the SI condition (MMI = 3.14 vs. MSI = 2.38; F(1,164) = 4.33, p < .05). This was not

the case for aspirational group brands (F(1,164) = .38, p > .53) nor in-group brands (F(1,164)

= .90, p > .34). The effect size of the interaction was small-to-medium (η =.044; Cohen’s d

= .42), which, as in Study 1, may be due to variation from self-identified brands.

[Insert Figure 2 about here]

Discussion. This study clarifies the moderating effect of MI on out-group brand attitude:

MI enhances brand attitudes even for dissociative group brands which are avoided, but not for

the desired aspirational group brands, supporting H2. One question that may arise is the

distinction between these dissociative group brands and the neutral out-group brands examined

in Study 1. Comparing the magnitude of brand attitudes suggests that the outgroups and

corresponding brands identified in Study 1 (M = 4.58; also Study 3: M = 4.84) were not disliked

and avoided as strongly as were those listed for the dissociative groups in Study 2 (M = 2.76).

This pattern is consistent with distinctions between neutral and dissociative outgroups (White

and Dahl 2007), but also makes it more notable that MI enhanced dissociative group brand

attitudes. These findings extend White and Dahl (2007)’s research by identifying additional

conditions (i.e., MI) under which dissociative group brand attitudes can be improved.

Importantly, the attenuation of the MI effect for aspirational group brands was due to the

favorable attitudes toward aspirational group brands regardless of MI rather than an inability of

MI to enhance unfavorable brand attitudes.

Recognizing that the effect of MI extends to dissociative group brands, we next seek to

examine the underlying process of the effect of MI on out-group (vs. in-group) brand attitudes,
19 

 
testing H3. In doing so, we also examine whether consumers’ MI can be activated through an

advertisement. Though previous studies on MI (Aquino, McFerran, and Laven 2011; Reed,

Aquino, and Levy 2007; Winterich, Mittal, and Ross 2009) have temporarily activated MI, to the

best of our knowledge, this study is the first attempt to temporarily activate MI via an

advertisement. Demonstrating the ability to prime this distinct social identity in an advertisement

would offer managers the opportunity to temporarily activate moral identity in their marketing

communications to improve brand attitude. In addition, we use a hypothetical brand in the next

two studies to overcome potential confounding effects arising from individual differences in

prior knowledge and experience when examining self-identified brands, used in Studies 1 and 2.

STUDY 3

The objective of Study 3 was two-fold. First, we tested H3, which theorizes that the effect

of MI is mediated by psychological distance such that MI results in less psychological distance

to out-group brands. Second, we primed one of two social identities in an advertisement for a

hypothetical brand, thereby making the identity temporarily accessible. The use of a hypothetical

brand allowed the brand to be described as either an in- or out-group brand. Since brand

associations and attachment require time to develop through repeated interactions (Hazan and

Shaver 1994; Swaminathan, Stilley, and Ahluwalia 2009), a hypothetical brand will likely not

result in the same strength of in-group preference observed in past studies, but the hypothesized

effect should emerge regardless. That is, participants with MI accessible will have more

favorable attitudes toward out-group brands compared to those with another accessible social

identity, but the social identity primed in the advertisement should not influence in-group brand

attitudes, consistent with H1. 

Method

20 

 
 Stimuli Development. We used the hypothetical watch brand, Mardi, which was

previously used as a portable clock brand by Swaminathan, Stilley, and Ahluwalia (2009). For

the accessible identities, we selected MI and business identity (BI) because BI was relevant to

our sample of undergraduate business students as well as for advertising watches. To prime MI

and BI, two distinct advertisements activating the corresponding identity were developed (see

Appendix B for the advertisements). Two short pretests verified: 1) the advertisements

temporarily activated the corresponding identity as intended without altering advertisement

evaluations and 2) perceptions of brand morality4 were not influenced by the identity prime.

In the first pretest (N = 67 undergraduates), participants viewed either the MI or BI

advertisement and evaluated the advertisement with two items (r = .65, p < .01; see Appendix A).

An ANOVA revealed that the effect of identity was not significant (F(1,65) = 2.17, p > .10),

indicating that attitudes toward the advertisement did not vary by identity prime. Thus, any

differences in brand attitudes toward the Mardi brand assessed in the main study are not

attributable to differences in advertisement evaluations from the identity prime. In addition, we

measured the manipulation check items from prior studies. Conducting an ANOVA, we find that

MI (vs. BI) condition participants thought more about themselves as moral individuals (MMI =

4.37 vs. MBI = 2.97; F(1,65) = 12.02, p < .001) whereas BI (vs. MI) condition participants

thought more about themselves as business leaders (MMI = 3.69 vs. MBI = 4.63; F(1,65) = 5.18, p

= .02). The other two items did not differ by identity condition (p > .30). Thus, the advertisement

successfully primed BI or MI without altering advertisement evaluations.

                                                            
4
We define brand morality as the degree to which a consumer perceives a brand to be virtuous. Similar to how a
consumer’s moral identity consists of moral characteristics (Aquino and Reed 2002), a brand’s morality may be
based on perceptions of the brand’s virtuosity or moral characteristics, such as the degree to which the brand
expresses moral sentiments and is involved in moral behaviors.
21 

 
 In the second pretest (N = 80 undergraduates), participants were randomly assigned to

view the advertisement associated with one of the two identity conditions (MI vs. BI). They

indicated their attitude toward the advertisement as in the first pretest (r = .91, p < .01) as well as

the quality and morality of the Mardi brand (see Appendix A). An ANOVA revealed that the

identity condition did not influence advertisement evaluations (F(1,78) = 2.13, p = .14), the

perceived quality of the Mardi brand (F(1,78) = 2.76, p > .10; MMI = 4.64, MBI = 5.18), or the

perceived morality of the Mardi brand (F(1,78) = .11, p > .73; MMI = 4.45, MBI = 4.55). This

latter result, though perhaps surprising, is particularly important as it demonstrates that eliciting

MI in an advertisement does not significantly alter the perceived brand morality. Thus, the

advertisement activated MI but did not influence consumers’ perceptions of brand quality, brand

morality, or advertisement evaluations so we used these two advertisements in the main study.

Participants and Procedure. A total of 109 undergraduates (39% male) participated in

exchange for course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2

(brand group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) X 2 (accessible identity: BI vs. MI) between-

subjects design. The study consisted of two parts that were presented as unrelated studies with

separate introduction pages. In part 1, participants listed one group which they perceived as an

ingroup and one as an outgroup. In part 2, a hypothetical watch brand, Mardi, was presented and

participants were informed that they saw several members of their self-identified ingroup

(outgroup) wearing Mardi watches, depending on their randomly assigned brand condition. Then,

participants were shown either the BI or MI advertisement, depending on their randomly

assigned identity condition. They evaluated the advertisement with the two items used in the

22 

 
pretests (r = .89, p < .01)5 and then indicated their attitudes toward the Mardi brand with the four

items used in Studies 1 and 2 (α = .91 for both in-group and out-group brand attitudes).

Last, participants completed the Inclusion of Others in Self scale adapted for the brand

(IOS; Aron, Aron, and Smollan 1992) to measure the psychological distance between themselves

and the brand (see Appendix A). This measure assesses perceptions of interconnectedness

between oneself and another person and was adapted to assess perceptions of interconnectedness

between oneself and a brand such that this measure taps into consumers’ general perceptions of

the distance between themselves and a brand. Higher scores indicate less psychological distance.

Results and Discussion

Brand Attitude. A 2 (accessible identity) X 2 (brand group membership) ANOVA on

brand attitude revealed a significant interaction effect for identity and brand group membership

(F(3,105) = 5.61, p = .01). No other effects were significant (p’s > .40). As expected, planned

contrasts demonstrated that when Mardi was presented as an out-group brand, those in the MI

condition evaluated it more favorably than those in the BI condition (MMI = 5.18, MBI = 4.51,

F(1,105) = 4.23, p < .05). In contrast, when the brand was presented as an in-group brand, the

difference between the MI and BI condition was not significant (MMI = 4.80, MBI = 5.25, F(1,105)

= 1.71, p = .19; see Figure 3). Thus, activating consumers’ MI as opposed to a BI in an

advertisement enhances brand attitudes when the brand is affiliated with an outgroup, but has no

effect when the brand is affiliated with an ingroup, supporting H1. We did not find the main

effect of brand group membership evident in Studies 1 and 2, but we believe this is due to the use

of a hypothetical brand for which participants have not developed associations through repeated

interactions over time (Hazan and Shaver 1994). Additionally, the effect size of the interaction
                                                            
5
 As in the pretests, advertisement evaluations were not influenced by identity condition, brand group membership
condition, or their interaction (p’s > .10) and are not discussed further. 
23 

 
was moderate (η = .077; Cohen’s d = .57). This is likely larger than that of Studies 1 and 2 due

to the reduced variation in participant responses when using one hypothetical brand rather than

self-identified real-world brands.

[Insert Table 1 and Figure 3 about here]

Mediating Role of Psychological Distance. To test H3 regarding the mediating role of

psychological distance, we used a bootstrapping approach for assessing mediated moderation

(Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes 2007). Recall that psychological distance was measured by IOS

(see Table 1 for the IOS means). First, we found that the 95% CI for the higher order identity

prime × brand group membership interaction excluded zero (.0063 to .8029). Thus, we

proceeded to examine the pattern of mediation by in-group and out-group brands. The 95% CI

for the conditional indirect effect of identity did not include zero for the out-group brand (.0548

to .6363), but it did include zero for the in-group brand (-.3151 to .2228). These findings support

H3 such that psychological distance mediated the effect of identity for out-group brands. 6 We do

note that it may be surprising that the IOS means for the ingroup are not higher, but we believe

these relatively low IOS in-group means be due to the hypothetical brand used in this study for

which the main effect of brand group membership found in Studies 1 and 2 was not replicated.

Discussion. In Study 3, we replicated the moderating effect of MI on brand group

membership on brand attitude when MI was activated through an advertisement. This method

provides practical implications for marketing managers to utilize MI in their marketing

                                                            
6
We utilized Model 2 of Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007), which examines mediation when the effect of brand
group membership on the mediator is moderated by moral identity. Support for this model confirms our theorizing
that brand group membership interacts with moral identity to influence the psychological distance between a
consumer and a brand, which in turn affects brand attitude. We also employed Model 3 to examine the alternative
possibility that the moderation was occurring not before the mediator but rather after the mediator such that brand
group membership predicted psychological distance and identity only moderated the effect of distance on brand
attitude. For this model, the 95% CI for the indirect effect of identity included zero for both the in-group brand
(-.0473 to .4155) and out-group brand (-.0432 to .3922), indicating that the alternative model is not supported. The
same analysis was conducted for Study 4 with support for Model 2.
24 

 
communications. Additionally, we demonstrated the mediating role of psychological distance for

the effect of identity on out-group brands, thereby providing insight into the process through

which MI enhances out-group brand attitudes. These findings are particularly noteworthy in that

we used a hypothetical brand, thus avoiding potential confounds from using real brands.

One possible concern is that the moral words used in the MI advertisement influenced

perceptions of brand morality, thereby enhancing attitudes toward out-group brands, but our

pretest indicated this did not occur. Furthermore, the analysis in the main study demonstrated

that those in the MI condition had more favorable out-group brand attitudes due to decreased

psychological distance between themselves and the out-group brand. If the more favorable brand

attitudes in the MI condition resulted from perceptions of brand morality, then psychological

distance should not be influenced and brand attitudes should be more favorable in the MI

condition than the BI condition regardless of brand group membership. This was not the case.

Thus, the MI advertisement enhanced out-group brand attitude relative to another social identity

(i.e., BI) due to the decrease in psychological distance to the out-group brand rather than through

brand morality. However, we next consider the role of brand morality.

STUDY 4

Though our focus has been on consumers’ MI thus far, the role of brand morality such as

CSR (corporate social responsibility) behaviors on consumer attitudes is an emerging area of

research. For example, brands’ CSR activities can positively impact brand attitudes (Brown and

Dacin 1997), purchase intentions (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001), and donations to corporate-

supported nonprofit organizations (Lichtenstein, Drumwright and Braig 2004). This positive

effect of CSR may occur by strengthening consumers’ identification with the brand (Sen and

Bhattacharya 2001), which is consistent with decreased psychological distance. Additionally,

25 

 
Verrochi, Reed, and Tong (2009) find that MI predicts attitudes toward firms engaging in CSR

activities through values-driven attributions of the firm. However, this stream of research has

focused on either (1) brands’ morality (i.e., CSR activities) without considering consumers’

morality or (2) consumers’ morality without considering varying levels of brand morality.

Therefore, in our last study, we take into account both brands’ and consumers’ morality. We

propose that the effect of brand morality on brand attitude will be jointly influenced by

consumers’ MI and brand group membership given that CSR effects may occur through one’s

connection to (i.e., psychological distance from) a brand.

We theorize that when a brand is perceived as being moral (immoral), consumers will

have more (less) favorable brand attitudes, regardless of MI and brand group membership. This

effect should occur because consumers, even those without an activated MI, have a base level of

moral standards (Bandura 1999) and should respond (un)favorably to firms (not) engaging in

CSR activities, consistent with past research (Lichtenstein, Drumwright and Braig 2004). That is,

when a brand is perceived as clearly (im)moral, consumers will (not) be closer to the brand and

(dis)like the brand. In contrast, when a brand is not clearly moral but reveals a tendency or

possibility of being moral through CSR activities, MI may moderate the effect of brand group

membership on brand attitude, as proposed in H1. That is, if a brand’s morality is unknown, the

expansiveness of MI can be exercised such that activated MI will enhance out-group brand

attitude. This effect should occur through decreasing psychological distance to the out-group

brand. This theorizing manifests in a three-way interaction of brand morality, consumer MI, and

brand group membership on brand attitude. Specifically, we hypothesize:

H4: The moderating effect of consumers’ moral identity on the effect of brand group
membership on brand attitude will be influenced by brand morality. When a brand
is perceived as being moral or immoral, moral identity and brand group

26 

 
 membership will not influence brand attitude. In contrast, when brand morality is
neutral, moral identity will enhance out-group brand attitude.

We tested H4 in this study. Additionally, as in Study 3, we examined support for H3.

Method

Stimuli Development. We used the hypothetical watch brand name, Mardi, as in Study 3.

Brand morality was manipulated by having participants read a newspaper article describing

Mardi’s decision to contribute/not contribute/undecided to an educational program to reduce the

educational gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S. for the moral/immoral/neutral

conditions, respectively (see Appendix C). Pretest participants (N=55 undergraduates) were

randomly assigned to one of the three brand morality conditions and read the corresponding

newspaper article. Then, they indicated perceived brand morality on five items (α = .90; see

Appendix A). An ANOVA confirmed a significant effect of brand morality condition on brand

morality perceptions (F(2,51) = 7.27, p < .01). Additionally, one-sample t-tests were conducted

for the moral and immoral conditions against the mean of the neutral condition (4.14). In the

moral (immoral) condition, the mean was significantly higher (lower) than the neutral condition

(Mmoral = 4.82, t(17) = 2.27, p < .05; Mimmoral = 3.44, t(17) = -3.54, p < .01). Article realism and

relevance were also examined, but brand morality did not affect either (ps > .70; see Appendix

A). Taken together, these results demonstrate that the brand morality primes worked as intended.

Participants and Procedure. Participants were 317 undergraduates (49% male) who

participated for course credit. A 2 (brand group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) X 2

(accessible identity: SI vs. MI) X 3 (brand morality: moral, immoral, and neutral) between-

subjects design was used. The experiment was presented as three separate studies. Part 1 was

identical to Study 3 in which participants listed one ingroup and one outgroup. In part 2, they

27 

 
completed either the MI or SI writing assessment task as in Studies 1 and 2. In part 3, they were

randomly assigned to one of six conditions: moral/in-group brand, neutral/in-group brand,

immoral/in-group brand, moral/out-group brand, neutral/out-group brand, and immoral/out-

group brand. The pretested newspaper article about the hypothetical watch brand, Mardi, was

presented along with the information used in Study 3 that several members of their self-identified

ingroup (outgroup) wear Mardi watches. Then, participants indicated their attitude toward the

Mardi brand with the same four items used in earlier studies (α = .88).

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check. As expected, MI (vs. SI) participants indicated their writing was

more reflective of them as a moral person (MMI = 5.80 vs. MSI = 4.50; F(1,315) = 46.06, p < .01).

Those in the SI (vs. MI) condition indicated their writing was more reflective of them as a

student (MMI = 4.84 vs. MSI = 5.73; F(1,315) = 21.07, p < .01).

Brand Attitude. To examine the three-way interaction proposed in H4, we conducted an

ANOVA on brand attitude with identity condition, brand morality, brand group membership and

the interaction terms of these three variables. The effect of brand morality was significant

(F(2,305) = 38.93, p < .01): the moral brand was perceived more favorably than the neutral and

immoral brand and the neutral brand was favored over the immoral brand (MMoral = 4.81 >

MNeutral = 4.49 > MImmoral = 3.47). The effect of brand group membership was also significant

(F(1,305) = 3.81, p = .05; MIN = 4.38 > MOUT = 4.13) such that consumers favored in-group

brands more than out-group brands. Importantly, the three-way interaction of identity condition,

brand morality, and brand group membership was significant (F(11,305) = 4.15, p = .01). Thus,

we next examined the effect of identity prime by each brand morality level.

28 

 
 First, the two-way interaction between identity condition and brand group membership

was not significant for the moral brand (F(1,102) = .84, p > .36) or the immoral brand (F(3,98)

= .65, p > .42; see Figure 4). In contrast, the two-way interaction between identity condition and

brand group membership was significant for the morally neutral brand (F(3,105) = 13.10, p

< .001). Planned contrasts revealed that when Mardi was presented as an out-group brand that

was morally neutral, MI (vs. SI) resulted in more favorable brand attitudes (F(1,105) = 13.37, p

< .001; MMI = 4.97, MSI = 3.96). When Mardi was presented as an in-group brand, there was no

effect of identity (F(1,105) = 2.14, p > .10; MMI = 4.71, MSI = 4.31). The effect size of the

interaction of identity condition and brand group membership in the neutral condition was large

(Cohen 1992; η =.110; Cohen’s d = .70). These results support H4.

[Insert Figure 4 about here]

Mediating Role of Psychological Distance. We used the bootstrapping approach from

Study 3 to assess the mediating role of psychological distance in the morally neutral brand

condition (see Table 1 for the IOS means). First, the 95% CI for the accessible identity × brand

group membership interaction excluded zero (.0113 to .7175), so we examined the pattern of

mediation for in-group and out-group brands. The 95% CI for the conditional indirect effect of

identity condition did not include zero for the out-group brand (.3632 to 1.2047) but included

zero for the in-group brand (-.2518 to .5262). These findings indicate that psychological distance

mediated the effect of identity condition for the out-group brand, supporting H3 and consistent

with Study 3. As anticipated, psychological distance did not underlie attitudes toward moral and

immoral brands since there was no effect of identity.

Discussion. Study 4 identified a boundary condition of the MI effect. When brands are

perceived as moral or immoral, consumers’ MI does not appear to influence the effect of brand
29 

 
group membership on brand attitude since brand (im)morality perceptions tend to override in-

group preferences that otherwise occur. However, when brand morality is neutral, MI can

enhance out-group brand attitude such that morally neutral out-group brands may benefit more

from MI than moral or immoral brands. We also replicated the mediating role of psychological

distance found in Study 3. Together, these four studies provide strong support for our theorizing

that MI can aid in overcoming the negative attitudes otherwise associated with out-group brands.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of four studies, this research offers important insights into the effects of moral

identity in the marketplace beyond consumer donations and prosocial behavior. A pilot study

provides initial evidence that the effect of moral identity extends beyond moral behaviors to

marketplace judgments unrelated to morality (i.e., object categorizations). Then, theorizing how

moral identity may influence attitudes toward in-group and out-group brands, we demonstrate

that moral identity can increase out-group brand attitude (Study 1). Importantly this occurs not

only for neutral out-group brands, but also for dissociative out-group brands, which tend to have

stronger negative associations (Study 2). Additionally, we show that while consumers’ moral

identity does not influence out-group brand attitude for moral or immoral brands, moral identity

is beneficial to out-group brands with more neutral brand morality perceptions (Study 4).

Moreover, this effect occurs because consumers with an accessible moral identity perceive less

distance between themselves and out-group brands (Studies 3 and 4). In the case of in-group

brands as well as aspirational group brands, since the perceived distance between consumers and

these brands is minimal, moral identity does not exert an influence. Hence, MI influences out-

group brand attitude through reduced psychological distance due to smaller distinctions between

objects rather than a decrease in prejudice toward outgroups.

30 

 
Theoretical Contributions for the Role of Moral Identity in Marketplace Judgments

Our primary theoretical contributions are to literature on reference groups, moral identity,

and accessible and chronic identities. First, we contribute to the reference group literature by

identifying one of the few ways in which unfavorable attitudes toward outgroups can be

overcome: moral identity. While the extant reference group literature (e.g., Chan, Berger, and

Boven 2011; White and Argo 2011) has identified the unfavorable attitudes toward outgroups,

we provide new insights into the process through which this effect occurs by examining

psychological distance. To be sure, past work has shown that the effect of moral identity on

charitable donations to ingroups and outgroups was mediated by IOS (Winterich, Mittal, and

Ross 2009). However, the present research moves beyond this existing research by

demonstrating that the psychological distance between a consumer and a brand can be assessed.

Moreover, psychological distance constitutes the underlying process affecting brand attitude

rather than being limited solely to processes involving judgments of other individuals.

We also augment the moral identity literature by demonstrating that the effect of moral

identity extends beyond morally relevant judgments and behaviors (Aquino, McFerran, and

Laven 2011; Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007; Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, and Walker 2008) to brand

attitudes and categorization, substantially extending the scope of moral identity. We believe

these results will open up future research to consider the unique benefits of moral identity in

marketing strategy that extend beyond that of brand morality and may be distinct from the effects

of other social identities used in marketing communications. Moreover, our results provide

insight into the relationship between accessible and chronic identities. In the present studies, the

strength of the accessible moral identity was positively correlated with chronic moral identity (r

31 

 
= .17 ~ .25, ps < .05)7, which is consistent with findings that the effect of a temporarily

accessible identity is stronger when it is compatible with an individual’s chronic identity (Zhang

and Khare 2009). Furthermore, in additional studies not reported here, chronic moral identity

increased out-group brand attitude, demonstrating that chronic moral identity has an effect

similar to that of accessible moral identity, consistent with prior research (Aquino, McFerran,

and Laven 2011; Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007). Thus, we do not believe that the source of

moral identity (chronic or situational) significantly impacts the findings demonstrated here,

though a contrasting identity that is situationally accessible may attenuate the effects of chronic

moral identity, consistent with Aquino et al. (2009). Taken together, our findings are consistent

with existing research such that traits (i.e., chronic moral identity) are malleable because they are

multifaceted, whereas temporarily accessible identities have more predictable effects, though for

a shorter period of time (Wheeler, DeMarree, and Petty 2010).

Managerial Implications

Our findings offer several insights for brand managers. First, recognizing that today’s

diverse society consists of many outgroups and a small number of ingroups (Pitts and Jarry

2007), improving consumers’ less favorable attitudes toward an out-group brand is an important

issue for brand managers. Brands may seek to expand beyond niche submarkets which they

originally served to reach a broader consumer base (Aaker 1991; Erdem and Sun 2002) as is the

case for brands such as Adidas, Cadillac, and Whole Foods. Our results are likely to be of

particular benefit to such brands attempting to reposition to an in-group brand for current out-

                                                            
7
Chronic moral identity was measured by the internalization dimension of the Self-Importance of Moral Identity
Scale (Aquino and Reed 2002).When chronic moral identity was entered in the model with accessible moral identity
and brand group membership on brand attitudes, it was not significant nor were there any significant interactions.
While some research studies the interaction of chronic and situationally accessible identities (Aquino et al. 2009;
Zhang and Khare 2009), this was not the intent of this research.
32 

 
group consumers or those attempting to expand their existing brand image beyond their current

in-group consumers.

Of course, marketers are unlikely to know the level of any given consumer’s moral

identity, making these results difficult to apply. However, we demonstrate that out-group brand

attitude may be improved when activating moral identity in an advertisement. While the

elicitation of moral identity through an advertisement (Study 3) may be subtle, it is likely to be

effective for many consumers given that most consumers hold a base level of morality as

important to themself (Aquino and Reed 2002) that just needs to be made accessible. That is,

even consumers for whom moral traits are not chronically active, a relatively subtle prime in an

advertisement could activate thoughts regarding one’s moral identity, making this identity more

relevant than other identities, even if only temporarily. Thus, marketers need to ensure that the

communications eliciting moral identity are presented near the point of purchase or at the final

stages of the decision-making process (e.g., POP advertising displays or storefront signs eliciting

moral identity).

Marketers can also appeal to consumers’ chronic moral identity. A benefit of appealing to

chronic moral identity to increase out-group brand attitudes is that the proximity of the appeal to

the point of purchase may not be as critical such that television commercials or other types of

marketing communications (e.g., direct mail, email) may be effective for consumers with

chronically high moral identity even when occurring at some point prior to the purchase.

Additionally, marketers may think that it is not necessary to elicit moral identity through

advertisements for those with chronic moral identity; however, doing so may prevent other

identities that are temporarily accessible from overriding the effect of chronic moral identity

(Aquino et al. 2009). Future research should consider whether the effectiveness of an

33 

 
advertisement eliciting moral identity depends on consumer characteristics such as chronic moral

identity as well as product characteristics such as industry.

We also offer insight into how consumers’ morality can interact with brands’ morality

(as evidenced through CSR activities; Lichtenstein, Drumwright and Braig 2004; Sen and

Bhattacharya 2001), which may be particularly important to brands managers depending on

consumers’ current perceptions of their brand’s morality. Though some firms prominently

engage in CSR initiatives likely resulting in consumer perceptions of brand morality (e.g.,

TOMS shoes, Ben & Jerry’s), other brands may be perceived as morally neutral either because

they do not engage in CSR activities or simply because consumers are not aware of the brands’

moral initiatives. We demonstrate that accessible moral identity can increase brand attitudes for

morally neutral out-group brands such that eliciting moral identity in promotional campaigns

may enhance out-group brand attitudes even if brands are not actively engaged in CSR activities

or other moral behaviors. In other words, out-group brands need not be perceived as moral to

reap the benefits of an accessible moral identity. We also find that consumers have more

favorable brand attitudes toward moral brands regardless of accessible identity, which suggests

that firms engaging in CSR activities will likely benefit from increasing consumers’ awareness

of such activities even if they forgo eliciting moral identity. For example, if a company is not

perceived as particularly moral (e.g., offering gambling, cigarettes, weapons, or unhealthy food),

they may benefit by increasing consumer awareness of CSR activities in which they are engaged.

Examining these effects is an important avenue for future research as the managerial

implications may be substantial.

To be sure, not all brands desire to improve out-group members’ brand attitudes. Niche

alternative brands such as Hot Topic and Irn Bru or luxury brands such as Hermes and

34 

 
Mercedes-Benz may strive to be perceived as out-group brands as this increases the desirability

of the brand to the ingroup (Kapferer 2001; Štrach and Everett 2006). Thus, there are some

benefits to being perceived as out-group brands. These brands may want to continue to use

specific social identities (i.e., student, business professional, soccer mom, etc.) in their

advertisements to ensure that the ingroup/outgroup distinction remains.

Limitations and Future Research

It is important to note that the effect sizes were weaker in studies using real brands

compared to those using hypothetical brands, which may be due not only to the variation in self-

identified brands but also to the heterogeneity of associations that consumers have for real brands.

To overcome this limitation, Study 3 utilized a hypothetical brand, but, in doing so, failed to

obtain the significant main effect of brand group membership. Study 4 also used a hypothetical

brand to avoid consumers’ pre-existing perceptions of brand (im)morality, but doing so may

have limited the nuances of the joint effect of consumer moral identity and brand morality on

out-group brand attitudes if consumers hold strong brand morality perceptions. These are

important limitations that advocate for additional research with real brands. Replicating the

current findings with real brands is essential to understand whether these effects are strong

enough to withstand the realities of the marketplace in which an array of factors influence

consumers’ brand attitudes and choices.

Future research should also seek to identify additional factors that may attenuate

consumers’ unfavorable attitudes toward out-group brands. Though prior research on reference

groups has primarily focused on boundary conditions of favorable in-group brand attitudes (see

White and Dahl 2007 for an exception), we believe that out-group brand attitudes can be

increased in diverse ways, one of which includes appealing to consumers’ moral identity.

35 

 
Additionally, our pilot study revealed that moral identity can influence categorization such that

accessible moral identity results in more holistic categorizations. This suggests the possibility

that moral identity might come into play for other marketplace judgments. For example,

consumers’ perceptions of brand extensions or line extensions might vary depending on their

level of moral identity, as this type of assessment involves categorization to a certain extent.

Similar to past research which has demonstrated that interdependence, which is associated with

more relational, holistic processing, may result in more favorable attitudes toward brand

extensions with low fit (Ahluwalia 2008), future research should examine whether the

expansiveness associated with moral identity may result in more favorable attitudes toward brand

extensions, particularly for those extensions that are otherwise perceived to have low fit. Given

that accessible moral identity resulted in flexible categorizations of objects, they may also be

more likely to perceive a greater fit between parent and extended brands.

In sum, this research opens up the possibility that moral identity influences marketplace

judgments such that consumers’ less favorable attitudes toward out-group brands may be

improved. Future research should examine when and for whom, either by consumer or brand

characteristics, the effectiveness of moral identity accessibility can be maximized, so firms can

construct their marketing strategy and advertising campaigns accordingly. We conclude that

moral identity may act as a gatekeeper, determining which brands are acceptable to consumers,

and marketers may be able to utilize this relationship to their benefit.

36 

 
 REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press.

_____ and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of
Marketing , 54 (January), 27-41.

Adweek (2010), “Apple's 'Get a Mac,' the Complete Campaign,” (assessed October 31, 2011)
[available at http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/apples-get-mac-complete-campaign-130552].

Ahluwalia, Rohini (2008), “How Far Can a Brand Stretch? Understanding the Role of Self-
Construal,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (June), 337-50.

Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992), “Inclusion of the Other in the Self
Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63 (October), 596-612.

Aquino, Karl and Americus Reed II (2002), “The Self-Importance of Moral Identity,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (December), 1423-40.

_____, Dan Freeman, Americus Reed II, Vivien K. G. Lim, and Will Felps (2009), “Testing a
Social-Cognitive Model of Moral Behavior: The Interactive Influence of Situations and
Moral Identity Centrality,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 123-141.

_____, Brent McFerran, and Marjorie Laven (2011), “Moral Identity and the Experience of
Moral Elevation in Response to Acts of Uncommon Goodness,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100 (4), 730-18.

Bandura, Albert (1999), “Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities,” Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 3 (3), 193-209.

Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), “Reference Group Influence on Product and
Brand Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-94.

Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity
Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (August), 121-34.

 ______ and Lindsay Rand (2008), “Shifting Signals to Help Health: Using Identity Signaling to
Reduce Risky Health Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (August), 509-18.

Blasi, Augusto (1984), “Moral Identity: Its Role in Moral Functioning,” in Morality, Moral
Behavior, and Moral Development, ed. William Kurtines and Jacob Gewirtz, New York:
Wiley, 128–39.

Brewer, Marilynn B. (1991), “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same
Time,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (5), 475-82.
37 

 
______ and Wendi Gardner (1996), “Who Is This ‘We’? Levels of Collective Identity and Self
Representations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1), 83–93.

Brown, Thomas J. and Peter Dacin (1997), “The Company and the Product: Corporate
Associations and Consumer Product Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (January), 68-84.

Chan, Cindy, Jonah Berger, Leaf Van Boven (2012), “Identifiable but Not Identical: Combining
Social Identity and Uniqueness Motives in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research,
forthcoming.

Chernev, Alexander, Ryan Hamilton and David Gal (2011), “Competing for Consumer Identity:
Limits to Self-Expression and the Perils of Lifestyle Branding,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (3),
66-82.

Cohen, Jacob (1992), “A Power Primer,” Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155-9.

Daley, Jason (2009), “That’s a Starbucks?” Entrepreneur, November, available at

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/203704

Erdem, Tűlin and Baohong Sun (2002), “An Empirical Investigation of the Spillover Effects of
Advertising and Sales Promotions in Umbrella Branding,” Journal of Marketing Research,
39 (November), 408-20.

Escalas, Jennifer E. and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence of
Reference Groups on Consumer Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13 (3), 339-48

______ and ______ (2005) “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 32 (December), 378-89.

Fournier, Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 323-73.

Gόmez, Ángel, John F. Dovidio, Carmen Huici, Samuel L. Gaertner, and Isabel Cuadrado (2011),
“The Other Side of We: When Outgroup Members Express Common Identity,” Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (December), 1613-26.

Hazan, Cindy and Phillip R. Shaver (1987), “Attachment as an Organizational Framework for
Research on Close Relationships,” Psychological Inquiry, 5 (1), 1-22.

Hardy, Sam A. (2006), “Identity, Reasoning, and Emotion: An Empirical Comparison of Three
Sources of Moral Motivation,” Motivation and Emotion, 30 (3), 207-15.

38 

 
______, Amit Bhattacharjee, Americus Reed II, and Karl Aquino (2010), “Moral identity and
Psychological Distance: The Case of Adolescent Parental Socialization,” Journal of
Adolescence, 33, 111-23.

Herzenstein, Michal, Scott Sonenshein, and Utpal M. Dholakia (2011), “Tell Me a Good Story
and I May Lend You My Money: The Role of Narratives in Peer-to-Peer Lending Decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (Special Issue), S138-49.

Isen, Alice M. and Kimberly A. Daubman (1984), “The Influence of Affect on Categorization,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (December), 1206-17.

Jones, Bryan and Howard Rachlin (2006), “Social discounting,” Psychological Science, 17 (4),
283-86.

Kapferer, Jean-Noel (2001), Reinventing the Brand: Can Top Brands Survive the New Market
Realities?, Kogan Page, London.

LeBoeuf, Robyn A., Eldar Shafir, and Julia Belyavsky Bayuk (2010), “The Conflicting Choices
of Alternating Selves,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processe, 111 (1), 48-
61.

Liberman, Varda, Steven M. Samuels, and Lee Ross (2004), “The Name of the Game: Predictive
Power of Reputations versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner’s Dilemma
Game Moves,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (9), 1175-85.

Lichtenstein, Donald R., Minette Drumwright, and Bridgette Braig (2004), “The Effect of
Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate‐Supported Nonprofits,”
Journal of Marketing, 68 (October), 16-32.

McFerran, Brent, Darren W. Dahl, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, and Andrea C. Morales (2010), “I’ll
Have What She’s Having: Effects of Social Influence and Body Type on the Food Choices of
Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (6), 915-29.

Mikulincer, Mario, Peri Kedem, Dov Paz (1990), “Anxiety and categorization - 1. The structure
and boundaries of mental categories,” Personality and Individual Differences, 11 (8), 805-14.

Pitts, Davis and Elizabeth M. Jarry (2007), “ Ethnic Diversity and Organizational Performance:
Assessing Diversity Effects at the Managerial and Street Levels,” International Public
Management Journal, 10(2), 233‐54.

Preacher, Kristopher J., Derek D. Rucker, and Andrew Hayes (2007), “Addressing Moderated
Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions,” Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42, 185-227.

39 

 
Reed, Americus II and Karl Aquino (2003), “Moral Identity and the Expanding Circle of Moral
Regard toward Out-Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (June), 1270-
86.

______, ______, and Eric Levy (2007), “Moral Identity and Judgments of Charitable Behaviors,”
Journal of Marketing, 71 (January), 178-93.

Rosch, Eleanor H. (1975), “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories,” Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 4 (3), 192-233.

Rosenthal, Harriet E. S., and Richard J. Crisp (2006), “Reducing stereotype threat by blurring
intergroup boundaries,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 501-11.

Sen, Sankar and C.B. Bhattacharya (2001), “Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better?
Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38
(May), 225-43.

Skarlicki, Daniel P, Danielle D. van Jaarsveld, and David D. Walker (2008), Getting Even for
Customer Mistreatment: The Role of Moral Identity in the Relationship Between Customer
Interpersonal Injustice and Employee Sabotage,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (6),
1335-47.

Sood, Sanjay, and Kevin Lane Keller (2012), “The Effects of Brand Name Structure on Brand
Extension Evaluations and Parent Brand Dilution,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (June),
373-82.

Štrach, Pavel and André M. Everett (2006), “Brand Corrosion: Massmarketing’s Threat to
Luxury Automobile Brands after Merger and Acquisition”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 15 (2), 106-20.

Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen Stilley, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2009), “When Brand Personality
Matters: The Moderating Role of Attachment Styles,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35
(April), 985-1002.

Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner (1979), “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” The
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003), “Temporal Construal,” Psychological Review, 110 (3),
403-21.

______ and ______ (2010), “Construal Level Theory and Psychological Distance,”
Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440-463.

40 

 
Turner, John C. (1985), “Social Categorization and The Self- Concept: A Social Cognitive
Theory of Group Behavior”, in E. J. Lawler (ed.), Advances in Group Processes: Theory
and Research, 2, 77-121.

Ülkümen, Gülden, Amitav Chakravarti, and Vicki G. Morwitz (2010), “Categories Create Mind-
Sets: The Effect of Exposure to Broad versus Narrow Categorizations on Subsequent,
Unrelated Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (August), 659-71.

Verrochi, Nicole, Americus Reed II, and Jennifer Tong (2009), “Moral Identity and Attributions
of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 51-52.

Wheeler, S. Christian, and Jonah Berger (2007), “When the Same Prime Leads to Different
Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (October), 357-68.

______, Kenneth G. DeMarree, and Richard E. Petty (2008), “A Match Made in the Laboratory:
Persuasion and Matches to Primed Traits and Stereotypes,” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 1035-47.

White, Kate and Darren Dahl (2006), “To Be or Not Be: The Influence of Dissociative Reference
Groups on Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (4), 404-13.

______ and ______ (2007), “Are All Out‐Groups Created Equal? Consumer Identity and
Dissociative Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (December), 525-36.

______ and Jennifer J. Argo (2011), “When Imitation Doesn’t Flatter: The Role of Consumer
Distinctiveness in Responses to Mimicry,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (December),
667-80.

Winterich, Karen P., Vikas Mittal, and William T. Ross Jr. (2009), “Donation Behavior toward
In‐Groups and Out‐Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 36 (August), 199-214.

Yoon, Carolyn, Angela H. Gutchess, Fred Feinberg, and Thad A. Polk (2006), “A Functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of Neural Dissociations between Brand and Person
Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 31-40.

Zhang, Yinlong and Adwait Khare (2009), “The Impact of Accessible Identities on the
Evaluation of Global versus Local Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (October),
524-37.

41 

 
 Table 1. Means for Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) by Brand Group Membership and
Accessible Identity (Studies 3 and 4)

Accessible Identity Brand Group Membership

In-group brand Out-group brand
Study 3
BI condition 2.23 2.00
MI condition 2.14 2.81
Study 4 (Neutral condition only)
SI condition 3.07 1.88
MI condition 3.43 3.73

42 

 
 Figure 1. Effect of Accessible Identity and Brand Membership on Brand Attitude (Study 1)

7 SI condition 6.61
6.40
MI condition
6
5.14
5
Brand Attitude

4.03
4

1
Out‐group brands In‐group brands

43 

 
 Figure 2. Effect of Accessible Identity and Brand Membership on Brand Attitude (Study 2)

7
SI condition 6.28  6.10  6.17  6.04 
6 MI condition

5
Brand Attitude

4
3.14 
3 2.38 
2

1
Dissociative‐group In‐group brand Aspirational‐group
brand brand

44 

 
 Figure 3. Effect of Accessible Identity and Brand Membership on Brand Attitude (Study 3)

7
BI condition MI condition
6
5.18 5.25
5 4.80
Brand Attitude

4.51

1
Out‐Group Brand In‐Group Brand

45 

 
 Figure 4. Effect of Brand Morality, Accessible Identity, and Brand Membership on Brand
Attitude (Study 4)

A. Moral Brand
7
SI condition MI condition
6
5.13
4.70 4.86
5 4.56
Brand Attitude

1
Out‐Group Brand In‐Group Brand

B. Neutral Brand
7
SI condition MI condition
6
4.97 4.71
Brand Attitude

5 4.31
3.96
4
3
2
1
Out‐Group Brand In‐Group Brand

C. Immoral Brand
7
SI condition MI condition
6
Brand Attitude

5
4 3.57 3.71 3.57
3.02
3
2
1
Out‐Group Brand In‐Group Brand
46 

 
 Appendix A. Description of Study Measures

1. Identity Prime Manipulation Check (Study 1, 2, 4, from Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007)
Please indicate the extent to which your writing reflects how you see yourself as: 1) a student, 2)
a member of an organization, 3) a moral person, and 4) safety conscious (to some extent = 1, to a
great extent = 7). In the second pretest for Study 3, safety conscious was replaced with a
business leader and “your writing” was replaced with “this advertisement”.

2. Brand Attitude (Study 1-4, from Sood and Keller 2012; White and Dahl 2007)
An attitude toward each brand was assessed with four items on a 7-point scale anchored by:
bad/good, unfavorable/favorable, negative/positive, and low quality/high quality.

3. Advertisement Evaluation (Study 3 Pretests 1 and 2, Main Study 3)

Please indicate your evaluation of the advertisement of Mardi: 1) very unfavorable/very
favorable and 2) dislike very much/like very much (on a 7-point scale).

4. Quality/Brand Morality (Study 3 Pretest 2)

Please indicate the quality and morality of the Mardi brand on two items (very low quality/very
immoral = 1, very high quality/very moral = 7).

5. Psychological Distance (Study 3, 4, from Aron, Aron, and Smollan 1992)

Please indicate which set of overlapping circles below best represents how you feel regarding
(brand name).

6. Brand Morality (Study 4, from Aquino and Reed 2002 Moral Identity Instrument)
Please indicate to what extent the following characteristics describe a watch brand, “Mardi”
(caring, fair, friendly, generous, and kind; 1 = not at all; 7 = very much).

7. Newspaper Article Check (Study 4 Pretest)

How realistic/relevant was the newspaper article? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much).

47 

 
 Appendix B. Advertisements Priming Moral Identity and Business Identity

A: Moral Identity Condition

You are a person who is caring,

compassionate, fair, friendly,
generous, helpful, hardworking,
honest and kind.


 
For people such as you –
Mardi watches.

Being caring, compassionate, fair, friendly,

generous, helpful, hardworking, honest an
d kind

B: Business Identity Condition

You are a business professional,

who has high standards,
exceeds expectations, and is
committed to success.

 
For business professionals
like you –Mardi watches.

Being caring, compassionate, fair, friendly,

generous, helpful, hardworking, honest an
dk d
 
   

48 

 
 Appendix C. Newspaper Articles Presented in Study 4

All participants read the following paragraph, which ended with one of the three randomly-
assigned brand morality conditions.

For the fourth year in a row, several states like Maryland and California have topped the
nation in the proportion of high school graduates who successfully passed the rigorous
Advanced Placement exams, suggesting that the commitment of these states to investment in
education is paying off in with the kind of advanced, high-level academic skills necessary to
compete successfully. However, the huge gap between the highest and lowest performing
schools tracks almost exactly the differences in wealth between the state's richest and poorest
jurisdictions, which is great cause for concern.

A. Moral Brand Condition

Mardi, the watch brand, has recently launched a special initiative aimed at thwarting the
widening educational gap between the rich and poor. Mardi says they will donate $2 for each
Mardi watch sold in the US. Representatives of Mardi say educating America’s future is a
top priority.

B. Immoral Brand Condition

Recently, companies from several large consumer brands, including Mardi, held a meeting to
discuss ways to address the widening educational gap between the rich and poor. Several
companies announced that they will launch a special initiative to improve education by
donating $2 for each of their products sold in the US. However, reports state that Mardi, the
watch brand, has decided not to participate in this initiative since it may decrease profits.
Representatives from Mardi could not be reached for comment.

C. Neutral Brand Condition

 
Mardi, the watch brand, is considering launching a special initiative aimed at thwarting the
widening educational gap between the rich and poor. At this time, representatives from
Mardi did not specify if or when such a program would begin.

Note: These manipulations were developed from an actual newspaper article that was
adapted to influence brand morality.

49 

 
 Web Appendix

PILOT STUDY

Procedure

Seventy-five undergraduates (65% male) participated in the study in exchange for course

credit. First, participants completed the essay writing task used in Studies 1, 2, and 4 for moral

identity (MI) or student identity (SI) and responded to the manipulation check items. Then, in an

ostensibly unrelated study, participants categorized eight clothing items and eight vegetables

used in Rosch (1975) and Isen and Daubman (1984). For each category, there were two excellent

exemplars (shirts and pants for clothing; peas and carrots for vegetable), two medium exemplars

(stockings and sandals for clothing; tomatoes and artichoke for vegetable), and four weak

exemplars (purse, rings, cane and gloves for clothing; mushrooms, potatoes, green onions and

pumpkin for vegetable). The first item for the category was always an excellent exemplar with

the seven remaining items presented in random order.

Participants rated the extent to which each item belonged to the given category on a 10-

point scale (1 = definitely does not belong to the category, 5 = does not belong to the category

but is very similar to members of that category, 6 = does belong to the category but is not a very

good example of it, 10 = definitely belongs to the category). We expected differences for the

weak and medium exemplars, but not the excellent exemplars (Isen and Daubman 1984). Since

there were no differences in the effect of identity by category type (i.e., vegetables or clothing),

we collapsed the prototypicality ratings into the eight weak exemplars (α = .65; four per

category), the four medium exemplars (α = .22; two per category) and the four strong exemplars

(α = .67; two per category). We note that reliability for the four medium exemplars is low, but

we believe this is due to the inherent variation in the categorization of medium exemplars.
50 

 
 Results

Manipulation Check. As expected, participants in the MI condition indicated their

writing reflected them as a moral person more than those in the SI condition (MMI = 5.42 vs. MSI

= 4.51; F(1,73) = 7.20, p < .01). In contrast, those in the SI condition indicated their writing

reflected them as a student more than those in the MI condition (MMI = 4.87 vs. MSI = 5.97;

F(1,73) = 15.21, p < .001). Thus, the identity primes were successful.

Categorization. To determine whether MI would result in broader categorizations such

that weaker exemplars would be perceived as more similar to a given category, we conducted a

repeated-measures ANOVA with exemplar type (weak, moderate, excellent) as a within-subjects

factor and identity condition as a between-subjects factor. As expected, there was a main effect

of exemplar type (F(2,146) = 259.90, p < .001; Mhigh = 9.59. Mmedium = 7.32, Mweak = 6.11). The

main effect of identity condition was also significant (F(1,73) = 14.99, p < .0001). Moreover, the

results revealed a significant interaction between exemplar type and identity condition (F(2,146)

= 7.13, p < .01). The effect size of the interaction of exemplar type and identity condition was

large (Cohen 1992; η =.089; Cohen’s d = .625).

Further analysis revealed that the effect of identity was not significant for excellent

exemplars (MSI = 9.43, MMI = 9.75; t(73) = -1.35, p > .18), as expected and consistent with Isen

and Daubman (1984). However, the effect of identity was significant for medium exemplars (MSI

= 6.95, MMI =7.67; t(73) = -2.03, p = .04) as well as for weak exemplars (MSI = 5.37, MMI = 6.84;

t(73) = -6.12, p < .01) such that those with accessible MI perceived weak and moderate

exemplars to belong to a given category to a greater extent than those with accessible SI. These

results are consistent with our prediction that an accessible MI results in broader, more inclusive

categorization of objects even when the objects are unrelated to morality.  

51 

View publication stats