Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26

DOI 10.1007/s11002-014-9283-4

Falling in love with brands: a dynamic

analysis of the trajectories of brand love

Tobias Langner & Daniel Bruns & Alexander Fischer &

John R. Rossiter

Published online: 13 May 2014

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract This article presents a study designed to investigate and map the trajectories
of brand love. Consumers described experiences related to the initiation and evolution
of their relationships with their most loved brand. Participants were asked to graphi-
cally trace the course of their feelings toward their currently most loved brand and to
recall the events that influenced those feelings. The paths toward brand love followed
five distinct trajectories, labeled as “slow development,” “liking becomes love,” “love
all the way,” “bumpy road,” and “turnabout.” The formative experiences shaping these
trajectories often include individual, personal, and private experiences that are largely
outside any marketer’s control.

Keywords Brand love dynamics . Brand love trajectories . Critical incidents . Formative
experiences

1 Introduction

The consumer construct of brand love has been the topic of many recent inves-
tigations (e.g., Batra et al. 2012; Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen 2010; Lastovicka and
Sirianni 2011; Rossiter 2012; Rossiter and Bellman 2012). These studies have all
been static, cross-sectional studies that investigate already formed brand love at a
particular point in time without considering its development over time. The present
investigation instead seeks to address brand love from a dynamic perspective by
asking what may be termed the “trajectory” question: How does brand love
develop or change over time?

T. Langner (*) : D. Bruns : A. Fischer : J. R. Rossiter

Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
e-mail: langner@wiwi.uni-wuppertal.de

J. R. Rossiter
Institute for Innovation in Business and Social Research, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW,
Australia
16 Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26

During open-ended interviews about consumers’ self-stated “most loved brand,”

participants recalled and described their experiences with their most loved brand and
graphically traced the trajectory of their feelings toward the brand, from first contact to
the present. Five different forms of dynamic development of brand love are found. The
experiences that are most pivotal to the development of brand love appear unpredict-
able, personal, and private in nature and therefore largely outside a marketer’s control.

2 Theoretical background

Since its arrival in consumer research, brand love mostly has been conceptualized as
analogous to human interpersonal love (e.g., Ahuvia 1993; Lastovicka and Sirianni
2011; Shimp and Madden 1988; Whang et al. 2004). Despite criticisms of this approach
(e.g., Albert et al. 2008; Batra et al. 2012), theorizing about the origins and trajectories
of brand love can profit from a consideration of literature related to interpersonal love,
because of the similarity of the attribute of love in both constructs, though the objects
clearly differ (cf. Rossiter 2011).
A review of literature on interpersonal relationships reveals two fundamental aspects
that underlie love relationships: deep affection (e.g., Sternberg 1986; Walster 1971) and
anticipated separation distress (e.g., Ainsworth 1985; Bowlby 1960; Hazan and Shaver
1987). Berscheid (1983) stresses that the magnitude of separation distress is an
indicator of relationship closeness; Sternberg (1986) proposes an “absence test” to
distinguish between mere liking and love on the basis of the person’s reaction to the
absence of a beloved person. Following this approach, analogous to Bergkvist and
Bech-Larsen (2010) and Rossiter (2012; Rossiter and Bellman 2012), we regard brand
love as a relationship between consumers and their brands that is pivotally character-
ized by long-lasting, deep affection for the brand and anticipated separation distress. By
building on this definition, we avoid allowing participants to use the word “love”
loosely when referring to brands.

2.1 Trajectories of love

Not everyone falls in love “at first sight,” like Shakespeare’s fabled Romeo and Juliet.
Some couples have known each other for years before they fall in love. Between these
extremes, there are various interpersonal circumstances that initiate falling in love. Huston
et al. (1981), Surra (1985, 1987), and Chang and Chan (2007) distinguish interpersonal
love trajectories that differ in their speed and steadiness. Riela et al. (2010) find that 56 %
of the participants in their study rate their speed of falling in love as “fast or very fast” and
44 % as “slow or very slow.” Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) indicate that the speed
of falling in love is unrelated to the ultimate duration or perceived quality of the
relationship. Following Sternberg’s (1986) tri-component theory of love, they also note
that couples who experience love at first sight subsequently feel a significantly higher
level of passion, though similar levels of intimacy and commitment, compared with
couples in gradually developing “friends-first” relationships. In addition, Fournier
(1998) reveals great variability in the trajectories of brand relationships. Whereas some
brand relationships resemble a steady growth pattern, others reach a stable level very
quickly. Different trajectories likely appear on the paths to brand love.
Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26 17

2.2 Formative experiences as relationship turning points

The feelings a person has for a close other sometimes undergo major changes, up or
down. Consider a girl whose best friend participates in an overseas student exchange
program while she stays at home. She begins to miss him and can hardly wait for his
return. Her feelings become more intense; after a while, she realizes that she wants to be
more than just friends. His departure would be classified as a “boundary-breaking
experience” (Aron and Aron 1986; see also Ahuvia 1993). Baxter and Bullis (1986)
show that emotion-charged critical incidents, such as a first meeting, first kiss, or first
saying “I love you,” mark turning points in interpersonal relationships.
Alea and Bluck (2007) and Alea and Vick (2010) also emphasize the importance of
the memory of formative experiences. Their studies show that retrieving the memory of
a positive emotional event, such as a romantic vacation, increases the perception of
relationship intimacy and marital satisfaction. Whereas favorable autobiographical
memories serve to nurture interpersonal relationships (Bluck et al. 2005), unpleasant
memories are equally likely to hasten a relationship’s demise. The importance of
memories of past incidents also has been noted for material possession attachment
(e.g., Kleine et al. 1995) and consumer–brand relationships (e.g., Braun-LaTour et al.
2007). For example, a participant in Braun-LaTour et al.’s (2007, p. 51) study told the
following story: “When I was about 4 years old, I remember going to the beach in my
Dad’s Toyota truck. The day stood out because it was my birthday, and my Dad took
off work to bring me to the beach. I can smell and taste the saltwater breeze mixed with
the exhaust of this off-road machine, and to this day, I have a fascination with Toyota
trucks.”

3 Study

3.1 Purpose

The purpose of this study is twofold: to trace the relationship dynamics in the
trajectories of brand love and to identify formative experiences that shape those
trajectories.

3.2 Method

Thirty-eight volunteer participants (mean age, 31 years, 63 % female) provided the data
for this study. About two-thirds were undergraduate and graduate students at a German
university, and one-third were non-students from the area where the university was
located.
Qualitative interviews were conducted first. Participants were interviewed individ-
ually. The interviews began with a question asking each participant to name brands he
or she felt deep affection for and regret if it were to become no longer available. Then,
they were asked to pick the brand he or she loved the most. Thus, the meaning of “love”
in this context should be clear and distinct from simple liking. This approach also
should be an effective means to prevent people from using the word “love” too loosely.
The interviewer next asked several questions about this most loved brand. The
18 Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26

questions requested an open-ended description of the brand and the love relationship,
reasons for loving the brand, the nature of first contact with the brand, and subsequent
experiences with the brand over time. Probe or follow-up questions were added as
appropriate. After this deliberate memory priming review, each participant was asked to
sketch (freehand draw) the pattern of his or her feelings about the brand, using the
templates in Fig. 1. The horizontal axis was time (from the first contact with the brand
to the day of the interview), and the vertical axis represented the direction and intensity
of affect toward the brand (from hatred at the strong negative end, through dislike,
neutrality, and liking, to love at the strong positive end). This vertical axis corresponded
with the five categories in Rossiter’s (2012) brand love measure. The interviewer then
asked for a verbal description of the trajectories. The interviews were tape-recorded and
transcribed for analysis.

3.3 Findings

The analysis of the trajectories was conducted with two objectives in mind. The first
was to classify the dynamic patterns of feelings leading to brand love. The second was
to document the formative experiences that sparked brand love and shaped each
participant’s trajectory.

3.3.1 Trajectories of feelings toward loved brands

This section presents an analysis of the developmental trajectories of brand love from
the start to the present state. The 38 sketched trajectories were visually inspected, and
similar trajectories were categorized within a single development type. The groupings
were obvious, and no disagreements arose.

Initial feelings at the start of brand love. The described trajectories reveal that
brand love relationships differ in terms of the predominant feeling that arises at the
first contact with the brand. Most brand love relationships started with neutral
feelings or with brand liking, not love. Some even started with dislike of the brand,
though none started with a feeling of hate. Others started by loving the brand from
the first contact onward.
Trajectories of brand love. Most trajectories of brand love are characterized by
a rise of positive affect toward the brand. Whereas some brand trajectories
show a steep or almost vertical rise, with love developing in a very short
time, others indicate a shallow rise, often with flat periods of no growth.
Some patterns indicate unsteady growth, with phases of setbacks and declines
in feelings toward the brand. When brand love is constant throughout, the
whole trajectory remains flat.

Thus, five different brand love trajectory types emerged, as shown in Fig. 1:

& Trajectory type 1: “Slow development” describes a relatively slow upward transi-
tion to the feeling of love that begins with a neutral feeling during the first contact
with the brand. A typical qualitative description reads as follows “[…] at first, it
was totally neutral and I would say eventually it turned into liking. And this kind of
Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26 19

Fig. 1 Brand love trajectories

obsession, if I may call it that, developed over time and I think it is not increasable
anymore” (participant 24, age 41, female). In some cases, it took years for brand
love to emerge. As another respondent stated, his love for Adidas developed “over
the years” (participant 1, age 25 years, male).
20 Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26

& Trajectory type 2: “Liking becomes love” illustrates a transition from merely liking
the branded product to actually loving it. A typical description of this trajectory
indicated, “I would say, when I got to know it [the brand], I already liked it […].
And, in the course of time, during my studies, it constantly increased until today”
(participant 5, age 22 years, female).
& Trajectory type 3: “Love all the way” refers to brand love that occurred either at
first sight or in a very short time after the initial contact and has been maintained to
the present. Typifying this trajectory, one consumer (participant 18, age 51 years,
male) described his love for BMW cars as present before he even owned one:
“Perception. Desire to own it. Big, big love.”
& Trajectory type 4: “Bumpy road” describes a fluctuating, even erratic, path to the
consumer’s current state of brand love. One consumer (participant 26, age 24 years,
female) loved MAC (cosmetics), but once when she bought herself a MAC product,
she found it disappointing, and her feelings toward the brand declined for a while:
“It started between liking and loving. It actually rose upwards continuously until I
bought myself a concealer I was not enthusiastic about at all. I was very disap-
pointed […]. The next time I went into the store, I sought advice. They recom-
mended other [MAC] products to me and then the love grew again. Completely. Up
to the immeasurable.” A fluctuating trajectory also might occur when feelings for a
brand that the person liked or loved in childhood decline, because the brand loses
personal significance, even if the loss is not permanent. Thus, another consumer
(participant 3, age 23 years, female) told the story of her grandfather regularly
picking her up from nursery school and bringing her a Milka chocolate bar. When
she grew older and went to school, “Grandpa wasn’t there anymore” and couldn’t
bring her any more chocolate, so her strong feeling toward the brand fell away.
When she started studying and things began getting stressful, she returned to eating
Milka chocolate and, she said, her feeling of love for the brand returned.
& Trajectory type 5: “Turnabout” describes paths that begin with a feeling of dislike
toward the brand that changes to love over time. Reasons for initially disliking the
brand in all cases were “identity issues” with the brand. An older participant said
that she initially disliked her loved brand because “one always dissociates oneself
from one’s parents” (participant 14, age 51 years, female). Another participant
reported that his new teacher wore G-Star brand trousers: “[there] was a new young
teacher and like the other kids, we trash-talked about him and I made fun about his
trousers because their cut was strange. […] At first, I felt aversion to the brand.
Then I saw the trousers in the mall and I tried them on and liked them. […] Now I
buy more and more [clothes] from this brand and I’m feeling love toward it”
(participant 35, age 23 years, male).

3.3.2 Formative experiences

Emotion-charged incidents occurring at the beginning or during the consumer–brand

relation shape the trajectories. The aforementioned relationship of participant 3 with
Milka chocolate provides a typical example of how experiences can change a brand
relation trajectory, both upward and downward (see Fig. 1, trajectory type 4). Early
interpersonal experiences with her grandfather shaped the trajectory and led to brand
Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26 21

love. After her grandfather passed away though, her love for Milka degenerated to just
liking. Later in life, the stressful experience of writing university exams caused a
revival of the brand love relation for this consumer. Finally, the combination of the
different experiences formed a brand love relation that revealed powerful emotional
consequences (e.g., “makes me happy”), which in turn induced behavioral conse-
quences such as loyalty or willingness to pay a price premium.
The different formative experiences recalled by the participants appear in the
descriptions that follow. Multiple assignments of experiences are possible, such as
when living abroad is also a transitional stage. All participants except one (97 %)
recalled one or more significant experiences. One-third of the participants (34 %)
recalled a negative incident.
Highly frequent, at 79 %, were positive product-usage and brand-related experiences
(incidents of outstanding product performance and the feeling resulting from those).
Participant 4 (age 27 years, male), for example, loves the Audi brand and described the
experience of driving an Audi on the highway at 137 miles per hour: “Well, if you can
push a BMW in front of you […], that’s a feeling of power and strength.” Viewed
another way, only one in five consumers (21 %) did not mention favorable product
usage experiences.
The great majority of participants (92 %) recounted personal experiences with the
brand. In contrast with product and brand experiences that fall under managers’ control,
these personal experiences are unrelated to the performance of the product and largely
beyond managers’ control. For example, more than half the respondents (55 %) recalled
childhood memories (e.g., the brand was important in or reminded them of their
childhood or youth). Reporting on her love for Coca-Cola, participant 33 (age 26 years,
female) stated, “it’s some kind of reward. […] in childhood, Coca-Cola was only for
special occasions. […] it was only allowed at birthdays and celebrations and so it
always was something special.” Another participant reported, “I remember, when I was
very small, I don’t know, maybe I was in nursery school, my Dad came home and I
always waited with excitement for him to come back because he usually brought me
crayons. […] I prepared everything so I could start drawing. I was thrilled and excited”
(participant 5, age 22 years, female). The report of participant 23 (age 22 years, female)
about her love for Brandt rusk exemplifies the typical emotional impact of childhood
experiences on feelings of warmth provided by the brand: “[…] I know it from an early
age […], through my parents and my grandparents who lived next to [the factory], and
we always used to shop there, that’s why it is so important to me. […] I think I love this
brand because it gives me a feeling of home.”
The next largest category, mentioned by 39 %, was personal relationships,
such that the branded product reminded the consumer of a family member or
friend, or else the participant learned about the brand from a friend. Participant
9 (age 25 years, female) said that she came to love Gauloises cigarettes,
“because my then heartthrob and later boyfriend started smoking these ciga-
rettes and offered them to me. So, of course, I thought, ‘I have to smoke them
too.’ And then I always had to think of him.”
Through hobbies, 34 % of participants connected the brand to their personal
interests. Participant 8 (age 25 years, female) said, “[…] I have played basketball since
I was eight, and, therefore, Nike has always been a part of my life.” Her love for the
game “developed within months and with that also the love for Nike.”
22 Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26

Next, brand reminders of vacations and being abroad were important for 32 % of
participants, who often recalled noticing the brand for the first time while traveling or
living abroad. Reporting on her love for Dunkin’ Donuts, participant 24 (age 41 years,
female) said: “I lived in America for 1 year and I associate this year very strongly with
the brand. […] I think that because I loved living in America so much, it [Dunkin’
Donuts] immediately became a part of it.”
Transitional experiences also appeared in 24 % of mentions (e.g., buying a first car,
being allowed to drink Coca-Cola when older). Participant 6 (age 28 years, male)
reported that he noticed that he loved Alfa Romeo “when I got my driving license and I
was allowed to drive on my own.”
Finally, gifts provided a fairly often recalled category of positive influence, at 18 %.
Participant 30 (age 24 years, female) gave the following example: “It started with a
special fragrance […]. I received it as a gift for the first time. […] I was definitely very
pleased with the fragrance and found it great […] somehow it was something special
[…] and some day I decided to buy it again and it was a feeling of happiness to have it
again.”
Importantly, some loved brands were associated with negative (unpleasant) experi-
ences, mentioned by 34 % of participants, such as Nike basketball shoes reminding a
person of an injury, recall of a first contact with a brand in an unpleasant social setting,
negative experiences with other brands that affirmed usage of the loved brand, or
negative experiences related to the brand’s own product quality.

4 Discussion

The findings show that brand love development is a complex, multifaceted phenome-
non, not simply synonymous with enhancement of brand liking (see also Rossiter
2012). As would be expected from literature on interpersonal love, positive experiences
with the brand exerted a strong effect on the development and maintenance of brand
love. The positive affect evoked by emotional experiences in the presence of a brand
likely influences subsequent evaluations and emotional reactions to the brand, as is the
case for interpersonal relationships (Lott and Lott 1960). According to feelings-as-
information theory, as does any other information, subjective experiences such as
moods, emotions, or bodily sensations affect judgments (Schwarz 2012; Schwarz and
Clore 2007). The affect triggered by product experiences and personal experiences then
serves as information to evaluate the brand. Feelings-as-information theory distin-
guishes integral and incidental sources of judgment (cf. Bodenhausen 1993), which
also applies to the distinction of experiences that lead to brand love. Product experi-
ences are integral to brand evaluations, whereas personal experiences are incidental
sources of feelings that cannot be controlled by the manager but nonetheless affect
judgments of and feelings toward the brand. Providing (integral) brand and product
experiences is not always sufficient for establishing and maintaining brand love
relationships. Many critical incidents that shape brand love trajectories are positive
(incidental) personal experiences, related to childhood, interpersonal relationships,
transitional periods, hobbies, gifts, vacations, and living abroad. Thus, the trajectories
are strongly shaped by (incidental) personal experiences. This powerful impact likely is
based on the superior accessibility and diagnosticity of prior experiences (cf. Feldman
Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26 23

and Lynch 1988; Dick et al. 1990). Highly relevant emotional memories, such as the
personal experiences presented here, may be even more accessible and diagnostic to
consumers than mere product usage satisfaction. Feelings evoked by emotional expe-
riences are more likely to be used as input for judgments of loved brands than, for
example, cognitive information.
Berscheid (2010) and Latané (1981) have called for the use of dynamic
approaches to study social interactions and relationships, though this recom-
mendation has been widely ignored in brand love research thus far. Yet in
contrast with static measurements, only dynamic approaches, as applied in the
present study, can effectively reveal relationship development and the processes
by which relationships change.

5 Further research and limitations

Extensions of research on brand love development could address the interplay of

integral product and brand experiences and incidental personal experiences in the
dynamics of brand love. Further, research into brand love relationships might consider
individual differences in responsiveness to emotions and feelings. The concept of brand
love in general may be more crucial to consumers who tend to rely on their feelings
when forming judgments. Jung’s (1971) personality type distinction between feelers
and thinkers might be an insightful moderator of the impact of experiences on the
development of brand love. For example, thinkers might tend toward trajectories in
which brand love develops slowly (e.g., trajectory 1: slow development to love),
whereas feelers could be more likely to develop brand love at first sight (e.g., trajectory
3: love all the way).
The present study focused solely on consumers’ currently loved branded
products, rather than products for which love had been lost, though the down-
ward parts of the trajectories suggest some likely reasons for a loss of brand
love. Moreover, the study objective was to understand the development of brand
love by analyzing its trajectories and trajectory-shaping experiences. This study
therefore does not provide any insights into the trajectories’ effect on outcomes
such as brand loyalty, price premiums, or forgiveness. Trajectories such as love
all the way may be caused by similar reasons, such that they lead to predictable,
specific outcomes. Our reports imply that this trajectory is driven by intense,
passionate experiences that should correlate with outcomes such as word of
mouth or price premiums. Yet, some other trajectories likely do not relate to
specific outcomes and behaviors. The bumpy road trajectory, for example, stems
from various incidents that could lead to different outcomes. Similarly, Barelds
and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) indicate that the speed of falling in love is unrelated
to the ultimate duration or perceived quality of the interpersonal relationship.
Further studies should address this issue and the potential links.
Finally, research on brand relationships could benefit from combining the qualitative
trajectory sketching technique used in this study with quantitative methods.
Researchers who seek to study brand love may profit from this method, which helps
bring out the many subtleties involved in consumers’ varied development of this
special brand relationship.
24 Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26

6 Conclusions and management implications

Previous studies of brand love were “static” investigations. The present study
adds to our understanding of brand love by identifying its different trajectories
and formative experiences. This “dynamic” perspective is unique to brand love
research.
In general, managers seeking to attract brand love must ensure that their brand
provides not only high quality products but extraordinary, unique, favorable brand and
product experiences. Yet, even these experiences often are not sufficient for establish-
ing and maintaining brand love relationships. Instead, the trajectories to brand love are
strongly shaped by personal (incidental) experiences that are not accessible to brand
managers. Managers thus should try to involve their brands in personal brand love-
stimulating experiences (e.g., being abroad, transitional life phases, childhood).
Marketers in the United States, for example, have long participated in multi-brand
packaged promotions for first-year college students, who usually experience a major
life transition; this practice is widely uncommon in the rest of the world. The impor-
tance of transitional and childhood experiences suggest that there may be a “first mover
advantage” to companies that manage to be the first brand a consumer gets to know or
interacts with after a major transition. A car manufacturer that recognizes that receiving
a driver’s license is critical to the development of brand love therefore should promote
the use of its cars in driving schools or offer early learners’ test drives. Similarly,
advertising themes that “model” favorable emotional experiences with the brand (cf.
Baumgartner et al. 1992; Sujan et al. 1993) could be employed, as exemplified by
Kodak’s Memories campaign.
Practitioners may use dynamic trajectory analysis as a tool to understand their
customers’ brand love relationships and identify central turning points in established
relationships. Such analyses would help companies maintain existing brand love
relationships, as well as potentially initiate new ones.
Finally, the findings presented here suggest that the achievement of brand love is
rather serendipitous but that brand managers can increase its likelihood by offering a
worthwhile, distinctly branded, and advantageously performing product or service in
the first place. Then, managers can try to increase the likelihood that the brand is
present when consumers undergo brand love-fostering experiences.

References

Ahuvia, A. C. (1993). I love it! Towards a unifying theory of love across diverse love objects. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Marketing, Northwestern University, Evanston.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine,
61(9), 792–812.
Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). When consumers love their brands: Exploring the
concept and its dimensions. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1062–1075.
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2007). I’ll keep you in mind: The intimacy function of autobiographical memory.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(8), 1091–1111.
Alea, N., & Vick, S. C. (2010). The first sight of love: Relationship-defining memories and marital satisfaction
across adulthood. Memory, 18(7), 730–742.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26 25

Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner
personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 24(4), 479–496.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1–16.
Baumgartner, H., Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1992). Autobiographical memories, affect, and consumer
information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(1), 53–82.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human
Communication Research, 12(4), 469–493.
Bergkvist, L., & Bech-Larsen, T. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand
love. Journal of Brand Management, 17(7), 504–518.
Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G.
Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110–168). New
York: Freeman.
Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1–25.
Bluck, S., Alea, N., Habermas, T., & Rubin, D. C. (2005). A TALE of three functions: The self-reported uses
of autobiographical memory. Social Cognition, 23(1), 91–117.
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1993). Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgements: A heuristic model of affect and
stereotyping. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive
processes in group perception (pp. 13–37). San Diego: Academic.
Bowlby, J. (1960). Separation anxiety: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 1(4), 251–269.
Braun-LaTour, K. A., LaTour, M. S., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2007). Using childhood memories to gain insight into
brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 71(2), 45–60.
Chang, S.-C., & Chan, C.-N. (2007). Perceptions of commitment change during mate selection: The case of
Taiwanese newlyweds. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 55–68.
Dick, A., Chakravarti, D., & Biehal, G. (1990). Memory-based inferences during choice. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(1), 82–93.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief,
attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421–435.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
Huston, T. L., Surra, C. A., Fitzgerald, N. M., & Cate, R. M. (1981). From courtship to marriage: Mate
selection as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships. Vol. 2:
Developing personal relationships (pp. 53–88). London: Academic.
Jung, C. G. (1971). The collected works of C. G. Jung, volume 6: Psychological types. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Kleine, S., Kleine, R. E., & Allen, C. T. (1995). How is a possession “me” or “not me”? Characterizing types
and an antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 327–343.
Lastovicka, J. L., & Sirianni, N. J. (2011). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers in the throes of material
possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 323–342.
Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.
Lott, B. E., & Lott, A. J. (1960). The formation of positive attitudes toward group members. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(2), 297–300.
Riela, S., Rodriguez, G., Aron, A., Xu, X., & Acevedo, B. P. (2010). Experiences of falling in love:
Investigating culture, ethnicity, gender, and speed. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4),
473–493.
Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Measurement for the social sciences: The C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace
psychometrics. New York: Springer.
Rossiter, J. R. (2012). A new C-OAR-SE-based content-valid and predictively valid measure that distinguishes
brand love from brand liking. Marketing Letters, 23(2), 905–916.
Rossiter, J. R., & Bellman, S. (2012). Emotional branding pays off: How brands meet share of requirements
through bonding, companionship, and love. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(3), 291–296.
Schwarz, N. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, &
E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 289–308).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385–407). New York: Guilford.
26 Mark Lett (2016) 27:15–26

Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T. J. (1988). Consumer-object relations: A conceptual framework based analogously
on Sternberg’s triangular theory of love. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 15,
pp. 163–168). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135.
Sujan, M., Bettman, J. R., & Baumgartner, H. (1993). Influencing consumer judgments using autobiographical
memories: A self-referencing perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(4), 422–436.
Surra, C. A. (1985). Courtship types: Variations in interdependence between partners and social networks.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 357–375.
Surra, C. A. (1987). Reasons for changes in commitment: Variations by courtship type. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 4(1), 17–33.
Walster, E. (1971). Passionate love. In B. I. Murstein (Ed.), Theories of attraction and love (pp. 85–99). New
York: Springer.
Whang, Y.-O., Allen, J. A., Sahoury, N., & Zhang, H. (2004). Falling in love with a product: The structure of a
romantic consumer-product relationship. In B. E. Kahn & M. F. Luce (Eds.), Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 31, pp. 320–327). Valdosta: Association for Consumer Research.