Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09519-7

Boys do not cry: the negative effects of brand

masculinity on brand emotions

Benjamin Boeuf 1,2

Published online: 16 June 2020

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Building on the literature on gender role theory and brand gender, this research
examines how gender-based stereotypes regarding emotional behaviors can influence
consumers’ response to brand emotions. Three experimental studies demonstrate that
consumers hold the same gender-based expectations of brands as they do with human
emotions. In particular, they show that masculine brands can suffer from the stereotype
that masculinity is typically associated with emotional control. Consumers will judge
the emotional expression of a masculine brand less appropriate, which will negatively
affect the perceived sincerity of the brand. Downstream negative consequences of
brand masculinity include message attitude, brand attitude, and intentions to recom-
mend the brand. Evidence of this effect is provided for emotions that are typically
associated with femininity (happiness and sadness) and masculinity (anger and pride).

Keywords Brand gender . Gender-based stereotypes . Emotion appropriateness . Brand

sincerity . Persuasion

1 Introduction

Masculine brands regularly use emotional expression as a marketing communication

strategy. Axe is “psyched” to announce a new partnership, Budweiser is “delighted” to
have won an award, Red Bull “[mourns] the passing of [a] dear friend”, and Mountain
Dew is “pumped” for the debut of a basketball player. These examples raise the
question of consumers’ response to brand emotions. Do consumers evaluate brand
emotions as sincere or as commercial mimicry of human behavior? Based on what
expectations do consumers judge brand emotions? In particular, do individuals hold
gender-based stereotypes regarding brand emotions?

* Benjamin Boeuf
b.boeuf@ieseg.fr

1
IESEG School of Management, 1 Parvis de La Défense, 92044 Paris-La Defense, France
2
LEM-CNRS 9221 , 1 Parvis de La Défense, 92044 Paris-La Defense, France
248 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

Prior research has established that consumers associate brands with gender traits
(Grohmann 2009). That is, consumers imbue brands with masculine and feminine
personality traits that mirror the bidimensionality of human psychology: consumers
perceive brands as more tender and fragile (brand femininity, BF) or more adven-
turous and dominant (brand masculinity, BM). A high level of femininity or
masculinity positively relates to brand equity (Lieven et al. 2014). Similarly, brand
gender can positively affect consumer attitudes and behaviors, including brand
evaluation, trust, and loyalty (Grohmann 2009; Waytz et al. 2014). The current
research challenges the previously identified positive effects of brand gendering,
exploring the key role of gender-based stereotypes in shaping the attitudinal con-
sequences of brand gender. In particular, it extends prior research on brand gender
by considering how BM can negatively affect consumers’ response to brand emo-
tional expression.
While many companies use brand emotional expression as a communication
strategy to connect with consumers (Thompson et al. 2006), the role of brand
gender in that context has not been investigated. Consumers largely use gender-
based stereotypes to interpret an emotional expression and assess its appropriateness
(Hess et al. 2016; Shields 2005). Women are believed to be emotional and expres-
sive, while emotional control and inexpressivity are typically associated with men
(Jost and Kay 2005).
This research predicts, and shows, that consumers associate BM with emotional
control because they hold the same gender-based stereotypes for brand emotion
that they hold for human emotions. Accordingly, brands with a high level of
masculine traits would suffer from the prescriptive dimension of the stereotype
that men should not express emotions (Hutson-Comeaux and Kelly 2002). Three
experimental studies identify a negative impact of BM on emotion appropriateness
and brand sincerity, which in turn affect consumer responses toward the message
and the brand.
The current research offers two significant contributions. First, the existing literature
and current managerial practice portray brand emotional expression as a strategy that
helps improve consumers’ attitudes (Thompson et al. 2006). This research challenges
this assumption by showing that the gendering of brands can have a detrimental impact
on persuasion attempts. A high level of masculinity could activate skepticism and
negatively affect attitudinal responses toward brand emotional strategies. Second, it
extends research on brand gender, which focused on the positive effects of brand
gendering on attitudinal responses. This is the first study to show a detrimental impact
of brand masculinity on consumer responses and to explore the key role that gender-
based stereotypes play in shaping perceived emotion appropriateness and brand
attitude.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Brand gender

Research on the application of the concept of gender to brands has only recently
begun to flourish. This line of research suggests that brand gender is a salient
Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264 249

basis for brand categorization and is independent of product category (Ulrich et al.
2011). Mirroring human genders, BM and BF are two continuous and independent
dimensions of brand personality (Azar, 2013), even though they tend to be
negatively correlated: consumers typically associate highly masculine brands with
low BF and vice versa. Examples of highly masculine brands include Old Spice
and Mountain Dew, while Dove and Chanel are perceived to be highly feminine
brands (Grohmann 2009).
Companies can shape the gendering of brand personality through brand design,
brand name, type font, and the choice of spokespeople (Grohmann 2009; Guevremont
and Grohmann 2015; Lieven et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2013). As an example, brand logos
using bold and angular fonts increase BM perceptions, while logos using round and
slender fonts lead toward BF perceptions (Lieven et al. 2015).
By attributing uniquely human personality traits to brands (Aaker 1997), brand
gendering stimulates consumers’ tendency to anthropomorphize brands (MacInnis
and Folkes 2017). Consumers become more likely to endow brands with human
emotions (Aggarwal and McGill 2012), as well as humanlike intentional agency, goals,
and motivations (Epley et al. 2007; Fournier and Alvarez 2012). Brand gender thus
leads to a greater likelihood of assessing the appropriateness of anthropomorphic
behaviors, such as brand emotional expression, using the same standards as human
behaviors.

2.2 Gender roles and emotions

Individuals judge whether an emotion conforms to what can be expected in a specific

situation (what emotion and in which quantity), known as emotion appropriateness
(Shields 2005; Warner and Shields 2009). Since they cannot gain access to the actual
emotional experience, consumers typically use gender-based stereotypes to interpret
others’ emotional expressions (Neel et al. 2012). In particular, they associate men with
emotional control (Barrett and Bliss-Moreau 2009; Jost and Kay 2005). Emotional
control has been conceptualized as emotional inexpressivity or a lack of emotional
reaction, in opposition to the open demonstration of emotion (Shields 2005). An
appropriate emotional reaction associated with masculinity involves control over the
expression of authentic feelings (Shields 2005). Men are perceived as more emotionally
competent when they show emotional control, and their emotion is deemed more
appropriate (Hess et al. 2016).
Importantly, individuals form their gender-based judgments of appropriate emotion-
al responses based on emotional expressivity vs. control, independent of the nature of
the emotion. Transgressing norms (i.e., men not restraining their emotions) would be
considered inappropriate or strategic (Hess et al. 2016). Notably, these results hold for
any type of emotion, whether typically associated with femininity (e.g., sadness) or
masculinity (e.g., anger).

2.3 The present research

Building on both research areas (brand gender and gender role theory), the current
research proposes that consumers project gender-based stereotypes onto brand emo-
tional behaviors: emotional expression from a masculine brand would trigger
250 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

skepticism and raise suspicions about what could appear to be a strategic and insincere
reaction from the brand.
Contextual factors shape the judgments that individuals make about the appro-
priateness of others’ emotional expressions (Kalokerinos et al. 2017) and can
activate concerns about power relations and social position vis-à-vis one another
(Shields 2005). If the emotional expression transgresses expectations, consumers
might wonder what the agenda of the emotion expresser is. By analogy, this
research argues that, in line with gender-based stereotypes, masculine brands
would be expected to control their emotions. Accordingly, in a marketing com-
munication context, transgressing expectations for BM would activate concerns
about the brand’s agenda in expressing an emotion. While a feminine brand would
be considered to be genuinely expressing an emotion, a masculine brand would be
seen as engaging in a persuasive attempt. BM should thus raise awareness of the
persuasive nature of emotional expression and negatively affect brand perceived
intentions and motivations (Boerman et al. 2014; Thompson and Malaviya 2013).
Consequently, BM should negatively affect brand sincerity, i.e., the extent to
which consumers perceive the brand as sincere when it expresses emotions (Jain
and Posavac 2004).
Consumers should attribute dishonest and manipulative intentions to a mas-
culine brand because they assess its emotional expression as inappropriate.
Negative brand sincerity should, in turn, affect how consumers perceive the
message and the brand, as well as their intention to contribute to brand success
(i.e., through purchase intentions, recommendation intentions and willingness to
pay). Based on that rationale, it is predicted that attitudinal responses will be
negatively affected by BM through (serially) emotion appropriateness and brand
sincerity (Fig. 1).
Importantly, these effects are predicted for any emotion, whether typically associat-
ed with femininity (e.g., sadness and happiness) or with masculinity (e.g., anger and
pride). Indeed, Hess et al. (2016) demonstrated that emotional restraint (operationalized
by a delayed reaction) was considered more appropriate than an immediate reaction for
men only. Their findings were consistent for both sadness and anger. Other studies
have also shown that both men and women are expected to feel similar emotions, which
can be both consistent and inconsistent with their gender (Else-Quest et al. 2012). It is
thus predicted that individuals form a judgment toward brand emotional expression
based on the type of reaction (control vs. expressivity) independently from the nature of
the emotion.

Emotion
Brand Sincerity
Appropriateness

Brand Masculinity Consumer Responses

Fig. 1 Conceptual model

Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264 251

& H1: Brand masculinity (vs. brand femininity) is associated with lower attitudinal
responses to brand emotional expression.
& H2: The relationship between brand gender and attitudinal responses is serially
mediated by (a) emotional appropriateness and (b) brand sincerity.

In the present research, three experiments tested the predictions. Studies 1 and 3
manipulated brand gender with a fictitious brand primed as either feminine or
masculine, while study 2 used real-life brands. To gather evidence of robustness,
the studies tested the effect of brand gender on attitudinal responses with
emotions of either negative (sadness and anger) or positive (happiness and pride)
valence. They also considered emotions typically associated with femininity
(sadness and happiness) or masculinity (anger and pride) (Barrett and Bliss-
Moreau 2009).

3 Study 1

3.1 Method

The primary objective of study 1 was to provide an initial test of the prediction
of a negative impact of BM on consumer responses to brand emotional expres-
sion. A total of 102 individuals (53 female, Mage = 37.2) responded to a self-
administered questionnaire delivered at the participants’ homes in a large city in
the UK. Half of the participants were randomly allocated into the feminine brand
condition, while the other half were exposed to stimuli with masculine brand
priming. Priming was operationalized with a short text describing the values of a
fictitious clothing-retail brand, Vivop, as either openness, proximity, and enthu-
siasm (feminine brand priming) or hard work, fearless exploration, and unwa-
vering originality (masculine brand priming). Pictures of a store accompanied the
text (see Appendix 1).
Questions measuring brand gender were asked on two independent unidimen-
sional 7-point scales (BM: adventurous, aggressive, brave, daring, dominant, and
sturdy; α = .91; BF: expresses tender feelings, is fragile, graceful, sensitive, sweet,
and tender; α = .94) (Grohmann 2009). Then, in line with current practice of
brands tweeting after the death of celebrities, the participants were exposed to a
tweet of Vivop expressing sadness over the death of George Michael. The
message was congruent with clothing retailing (“We miss you. Your influence
on fashion will live on forever.”) (see Appendix 2). It was followed by items
measuring the evaluation of the message (positive, I like, favorable; α = .94, Nan
and Heo 2007) and brand sincerity (dishonest/honest, manipulative/
nonmanipulative, insincere/sincere; α = .88, Jain and Posavac 2004). The ques-
tionnaire ended with demographic questions.

3.2 Results

Participants’ gender, age, and income were used as covariates and dropped from the
reported analyses because they did not statistically influence the results. A one-way
252 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

MANOVA yielded a significant effect of priming on brand gender (Wilks’ λ = .35, F

(2, 99) = 89.66, p = .001, η2 = .64). One-way ANOVAs confirmed a significant effect
for each dependent variable (BM: p < .001, η2 = .49; BF: p < .001, η2 = .51).
Additionally, BM (BF) in the masculine priming condition was not significantly
different from BF (BM) in the feminine priming condition (dominant gender:
MMascPriming = 4.52, SD = 1.18; M FemPriming = 4.53, SD = 1.18; F(1, 100) = .001,
p = .979; secondary gender: M MascPriming = 2.18, SD = 1.12; M FemPriming = 2.49,
SD = .89; F(1, 100) = 2.43, p = .122). These analyses confirmed that brand gender
had been successfully primed.
The evaluation of the message was less favorable in the masculine brand priming
condition than in the feminine brand priming condition (MMascPriming = 4.43, SD =
1.29; MFemPriming = 4.98, SD = 1.35; F(1, 100) = 4.24, p = .042, η2 = .04). To test
whether brand sincerity mediated the effect of brand gender on attitude toward
the message, model 4 from the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2017) was used
based on bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 resamples. It generated a 95%
confidence interval (95% CI) around the indirect effect of brand sincerity. BF was
coded “0” and BM “1.” The analysis revealed that brand sincerity mediated the
relationship between brand gender and attitude toward the message: BM negatively
affected attitude through reduced brand sincerity (Β = − .35, SE = .17, 95% CI = [−
.75; − .05]).

3.3 Discussion

These findings support the prediction that a masculine brand will be perceived as
less sincere than a feminine brand when it expresses an emotion, leading to a less
favorable evaluation of emotional expression. However, they could be interpreted
as the impact of the gender inconsistency of emotions on consumers’ response.
Consumers will respond less favorably to the expression of an emotion that is
typically associated with femininity (sadness) when it is expressed by a highly
masculine brand. To rule out this alternative explanation and to provide evidence
confirming the proposed process, i.e., masculine brands will suffer from the
stereotypes that emotional expression is associated with femininity and emotional
control with masculinity, the findings must also be replicated with an emotion
typically associated with masculinity.

4 Study 2

4.1 Method

Ninety individuals (44 female, Mage = 39.2) recruited through Clickworker, a large
crowdsourcing platform, were exposed to a fictitious Facebook message that expressed
anger from either Lynx (also known as Axe; masculine brand condition) or Dove
(feminine brand condition) (“Our Twitter account has been locked. Again! Enough is
enough! We decided to officially close our Twitter account on Monday. We are done
with Twitter.”) (see Appendix 3).
Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264 253

A pretest (N = 80) that measured BM (α = .92) and BF (α = .91) led to the selection
of Lynx and Dove as, respectively, the masculine and feminine brands. Importantly,
there were no significant differences between Lynx’s BM (BF) and Dove’s BF (BM)
(dominant gender: MLynx = 4.36, SD = 1.35; MDove = 4.32, SD = 1.41; F(1, 78) = .02,
p = .889; secondary gender: MLynx = 2.53, SD = 1.13; MDove = 2.70, SD = 1.31; F(1,
78) = .38, p = .538). The level of familiarity of both brands was also similarly high
(M Lynx = 6.03, SD = 1.32, vs. M Dove = 5.57, SD = 1.50, Δ = .46, t(78) = 1.43,
p = .154).
As a manipulation check, the participants were asked to select an emoji from among
six (three masculine and three feminine) that would best represent the brand emotional
expression (neutral, sad, or angry): by selecting an emoji, the respondents indicated
what gender they associated the brand with and what emotion it was expressing. Then,
they answered questions measuring the message emotion (this message expresses
anger), evaluation of the message (α = .93), and brand sincerity (α = .88). The ques-
tionnaire ended with demographic questions.

4.2 Results

Because none of the comparisons involving participants’ gender, age, or income was
significant, these variables were dropped from the reported analyses. A manipulation check
showed that the message strongly expressed anger, with no difference between the
masculine and feminine brand conditions (MLynx = 6.11, SD = .82; MDove = 6.09, SD =
1.09; F(1, 88) = .008, p = .931). Chi-square analyses revealed no main effect of brand
gender on the emotion expressed by the selected emoji (MLynxAngry = 63.0% vs.
MDoveAngry = 63.6%; χ2 (2) = .73, p = .69); however, there was a significant effect of
brand gender on the emoji gender (MLynxMale = 80.4% vs. MDoveMale = 40.9%; χ2 (1) =
14.78, p = .001). These results confirmed that the manipulations of emotion and brand
gender had been successful.
As predicted, the evaluation of the message was less favorable in the masculine than
in the feminine brand condition (MLynx = 2.85, SD = 1.31; MDove = 3.47, SD = 1.74;
F(1, 88) = 3.65, p = .059, η2 = .04). Mediation analysis using model 4 from the
PROCESS macro (bootstrapping of 5000 resamples) showed that brand sincerity
mediated the relationship between brand gender and attitude toward the message:
BM negatively affected attitude through reduced brand sincerity (Β = − .18, SE = .11,
95% CI = [− .49; − .02]).

4.3 Discussion

Overall, the findings of studies 1 and 2 are in line with the prediction that BM will raise
awareness of the persuasive nature of the expression of any emotion. The current
research has yet to provide more evidence on the process explaining this negative effect
of BM on brand sincerity. Why do consumers judge a masculine (vs. feminine) brand
as less sincere when it expresses an emotion? The prediction stated that by
transgressing the gender-based stereotype that masculinity is associated with emotional
restraint, emotional expression would be considered less appropriate when it is related
to BM, in turn activating a more critical processing of the brand’s intentions. Study 3
tested this process.
254 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

5 Study 3

The objective of study 3 was to investigate (1) the role of emotional appropriateness as
a determinant of brand sincerity and (2) the negative impact of BM on additional
attitudinal responses (i.e., attitude toward the brand, purchase intentions, recommen-
dation intentions, and willingness to pay). To provide additional support for the
observed effects of BM on consumer responses to any emotion, two emotions were
selected based on their typical association with either femininity (happiness) or mas-
culinity (pride) (Barrett and Bliss-Moreau 2009).

5.1 Method

This study used a 2 (brand gender: feminine vs. masculine) × 2 (emotion: happiness vs.
pride) completely randomized factorial experimental design. A total of 200 American
participants from Amazon MTurk (87 female, Mage = 34.6) completed the study. Each
participant was exposed to the same brand gender priming stimuli (Vivop) as in study
1, followed by a fictitious Facebook message expressing either happiness or pride (see
Appendix 4).
The participants answered questions on attitude toward the brand (positive, I like,
favorable, α = .95), intentions to purchase (likely, inclined, willing, α = .95) and rec-
ommend (α = .95), and willingness to pay (on a 12-point scale, from 10% of the retail
price to 120% of the retail price; Rucker and Galinsky 2008). The subsequent questions
measured attitude toward the message (α = .94), brand sincerity (α = .93), and appro-
priateness of the emotional expression (The emotion displayed was wrong (reversed), I
would not have shown the type of emotion that the brand displayed (reversed), The
emotion was exactly the kind that was called for, α = .89; Warner and Shields 2009).
The questionnaire ended with demographic questions.

5.2 Results

As in studies 1 and 2, participants’ gender, age, and income were entered as covariates
and were excluded from the reported findings because they did not significantly
influence the study results.
A two-way MANOVA with brand attitude, message attitude, intention to purchase,
intention to recommend, and willingness to pay as dependent variables yielded a signif-
icant effect of brand gender (Wilks’ λ = .93, F (5, 192) = 2.78, p = .019, η2 = .06). No other
effect was significant (emotion: p = .718; interaction: p = .403).
One-way ANOVAs confirmed that BM had a negative effect on brand attitude (MFem =
5.26, SD = 1.30; MMasc = 4.81, SD = 1.63; F(1, 196) = 4.93, p = .028, η2 = .02), message
attitude (MFem = 5.50, SD = 1.20; MMasc = 4.76, SD = 1.79; F(1, 196) = 12.08, p = .001,
η2 = .05), and intention to recommend (MFem = 4.82, SD = 1.55; MMasc = 4.36, SD = 1.76;
F(1, 196) = 4.64, p = .032, η2 = .02). No significant effects were identified for intention to
purchase (p = .202) or willingness to pay (p = .209).
To test the mediating effect of emotional appropriateness and brand sincerity on the
relationship between brand gender and consumer responses, PROCESS Multiple
Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264 255

Emotion Paths a3
B = .74*** Brand Sincerity
Appropriateness Paths b2
(M2) BBrandAttitude = .54***
(M1)
BMessageAttitude = .75***
BRecoIntentions = .57***
Paths a1 Paths b1
B = -.45* Paths a2 BBrandAttitude = .18*
B = -.33* BMessageAttitude = .07
BRecoIntentions = .19*

Brand Gender
Consumer
(0 = BF
Paths (c) Paths c’ Responses
vs. 1 = BM)
BBrandAttitude = .01 M1:
BMessageAttitude = -.20 BBrandAttitude = -.08 M1&M2:
BRecoIntentions = .01 BMessageAttitude = -.03 BBrandAttitude = -.18*
BRecoIntentions = -.08 BMessageAttitude = -.25*
M2: BRecoIntentions = -.19*
BBrandAttitude = -.18*
BMessageAttitude = -.25*
BRecoIntentions = -.19*

Fig. 2 Serial mediation on consumer responses

Table 1 Serial mediation effects of emotion appropriateness and brand sincerity on consumer responses

Outcome: mediators Emotion appropriateness Brand sincerity (M2)

(M1)
Β SE t Β SE t
Constant 5.59*** .12 43.95 1.24** .38 3.25
Brand gender − .45* .12 − 2.53 − .33* .16 − 2.01
Emotion appropriateness .74*** .16 11.44
Total R2 .03* .42***

Outcome: dependent Attitude toward the brand Attitude toward the Intentions to recommend
variables message
Β SE t Β SE t Β SE t
Constant 1.27*** .37 3.39 1.02** .32 3.15 .64 .44 1.45
Brand gender .01 .16 .06 − .20 .14 − 1.43 .01 .18 .07
Emotion appropriateness .18* .08 2.31 .07 .06 1.07 .19* .09 2.03
Brand sincerity .54*** .06 8.01 .75*** .05 12.63 .57*** .08 7.18
Total R2 .45*** .62*** .39***

Indirect effects
Β SE LLCI ULCI Β SE LLCI ULCI Β SE LLCI ULCI
Total − .45 .15 − .76 − .16 − .54 .18 − .92 − .20 − .47 .15 − .79 − .18
M1 − .08 .06 − .21 .01 − .03 .04 − .14 .05 − .08 .06 − .22 .01
M2 − .18 .09 − .38 − .008 − .25 .13 − .54 − .002 − .19 .10 − .40 − .008
M1 + M2 − .18 .08 − .36 - .03 − .25 .10 − .48 − .05 − .19 .09 − .39 − .03

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

256 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

Mediation Model 6 (bootstrapping of 5000 resamples) was used. BF and BM were

coded “0” and “1,” respectively. The results revealed that brand gender affected the
dependent variables through two pathways (Fig. 2; Table 1). In line with H2, one
pathway serially ran through M1 (emotion appropriateness) and M2 (brand sincerity)
(brand attitude: Β = − .18, SE = .08, 95% CI = [− .36; − .03]; message attitude: Β = − .25,
SE = .10, 95% CI = [− .48; − .05]; recommendation: Β = − .19, SE = .09, 95% CI = [−
.39; − .03]). The second pathway ran through M2 only (brand attitude: Β = − .18,
SE = .09, 95% CI = [− .38; − .008]; message attitude: Β = − .25, SE = .13, 95% CI = [−
.54; − .002]; recommendation: Β = − .19, SE = .10, 95% CI = [− .40; − .008]).

5.3 Discussion

The findings of study 3 identified additional attitudinal responses affected by BM, i.e.,
attitude toward the brand and recommendation intentions. The analyses did not yield
any significant effect on purchase intentions or willingness to pay. This result could be
explained by the use of a fictitious brand and the nature of the message. Indeed, since
the message conformed with branding communication objectives and did not mention
any product, it affected brand-related responses (attitude and brand recommendation
intentions) but not product-related responses (purchase intentions and willingness to
pay). A product-focused message is more likely to evidence effects on these outcomes.
In addition, the findings confirmed that BM negatively impacts emotion appropriate-
ness. They showed that emotion appropriateness and brand sincerity serially mediate
the relation between BM and consumer responses and identified the simple mediation
of brand sincerity. Consumers may perceive the emotion per se as appropriate but still
question its source (i.e., the brand) and identify it as manipulative.

6 General discussion

The present research demonstrates that BM negatively affects consumers’ response to

brand emotional expression. First, it extends the literature on brand gender by offering
preliminary evidence that consumers may apply gender-based stereotypes to brands.
Prior research is indeed particularly sparse in terms of demonstrating how consumers
associate the gendering of brands with gender role stereotypes. The findings suggest
that consumers may apply not only uniquely human gender traits to brands but also the
stereotypes they hold toward gender roles. Second, while prior research suggests that
consumers respond more positively to brands imbued with personality traits that mirror
human genders (Lieven et al. 2014, Waytz et al. 2014), the findings identify a negative
effect of BM on attitudinal responses. Because consumers associate masculinity with
emotional control (Barrett and Bliss-Moreau 2009), BM has a detrimental impact on
consumers’ response to the expression of any emotion. Finally, the findings contribute
to research on emotions by showing that consumers base their assessment of the
appropriateness of brand emotional expression on brand gender. They also identify
new downstream impacts of emotion appropriateness, such as brand sincerity, message
attitude, brand attitude, and recommendation intentions.
Along with the conceptual contributions, the results provide practical implica-
tions for brands. The findings indicate that companies need to carefully consider
Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264 257

brand gender when using emotional expression as a marketing communication

strategy. In particular, to alter the negative consequences of BM, marketers could
use the voice of spokespeople or employees (e.g., “we at Mountain Dew are proud
to announce…”) instead of that of the brand (e.g., “Mountain Dew is proud to
announce…”). This should distance the message from the brand and thus hinder
the effects identified in this study. Brands should also avoid the use of emoticons
or other anthropomorphic cues (wording, images) to lower the attribution of
human-like characteristics and prevent the role of gender-based stereotypes in
consumers’ response to the emotional expression. Additionally, current practice
shows that companies often use capital letters or exclamation points to express
emotions (e.g., Mercedes-AMG F1 posted on Twitter: “HOW. ABOUT. THAT.
THEN!!! LEWIS HAMILTON WINSSSSSS IN MEXICO”). The findings imply
that masculine brands should avoid such practices to reduce the intensity of
emotional reactions and better match expectations for emotional control. Finally,
marketers should consider correcting the dishonest and manipulative intent asso-
ciated with a masculine brand expressing an emotion. Companies may need to
articulate the congruence with both the topic and the emotion so that consumers
will judge the emotion as more appropriate.
These findings suggest a number of interesting directions for future research. First,
this research only considered the effects of BM. Since femininity is associated with
emotional expression, BF may have a negative effect on consumer responses in an
emotional control context. Further research should test this proposition. Second, this
research considered only unigendered brands. Ulrich et al. (2011) classified brand
gender across three types: masculine, feminine, and low masculine/feminine brands.
It is plausible that gender-based stereotypes hardly apply to low masculine/feminine
brands. Third, future research could test the potential moderating effects of the level of
consumers’ stereotype endorsement and different cultural stereotypes on consumers’
response to brand emotions. Fourth, more research should explore if consumers’
response would depend on the level of congruence between brand gender and emo-
tional reaction: could a high level of incongruence lead to surprise and novelty? Finally,
other avenues for further research pertain to other types of gender role stereotypes. If
individuals apply emotional behavior stereotypes, then does their perception of brands
also echo their other gender-based expectations? Are masculine brands perceived as
unfaithful, better at math and more permissive? Do consumers trust feminine car brands
less? Addressing these questions would make important contributions extending the
results of this research.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Jessica Darveau (Université Laval) for her helpful
suggestions and comments.

Funding information This work was supported by IÉSEG School of Management.

Data availability The author confirms the availability of the data for all studies: https://osf.io/XPY3J/
258 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

Appendix 1. Brand priming (studies 1 and 3)

a) Masculine priming. Vivop is a clothing-retail company. Vivop is considered a highly adventurous brand.
Its values are hard work, fearless exploration and unwavering originality.

b) Feminine priming. Vivop is a clothing-retail company. Vivop is considered a highly sensitive brand. Its
values are openness, proximity and enthusiasm.
Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264 259

Appendix 2. Study 1

a) Masculine brand condition

260 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

b) Feminine brand condition

Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264 261

Appendix 3. Study 2 Stimuli

Manipulation check
262 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

Appendix 4. Study 3
Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264 263

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic
behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 307–323.
Azar, S. L. (2013). Exploring brand masculine patterns: moving beyond monolithic masculinity. The Journal
of Product and Brand Management, 22(7), 502–512.
Barrett, L. F., & Bliss-Moreau, E. (2009). She’s emotional. He’s having a bad day: attributional explanations
for emotion stereotypes. Emotion, 9(5), 649–658.
Boerman, S. C., Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship disclosure timing on the
processing of sponsored content: a study on the effectiveness of European disclosure regulations.
Psychology and Marketing, 31(3), 214–224.
Else-Quest, N. M., Higgins, A., Allison, C., & Morton, L. C. (2012). Gender differences in self-conscious
emotional experience: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 947–981.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism.
Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship partners: warmth, competence, and in-between.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 177–185.
Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 105–
119.
Guevremont, A., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Consonants in brand names influence brand gender perceptions.
European Journal of Marketing, 49(1/2), 101–122.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-
based approach. New York City, NY: Guilford Publications.
Hess, U., David, S., & Hareli, S. (2016). Emotional restraint is good for men only: the influence of emotional
restraint on perceptions of competence. Emotion, 16(2), 208–213.
Hutson-Comeaux, S. L., & Kelly, J. R. (2002). Gender stereotypes of emotional reactions: how we judge an
emotion as valid. Sex Roles, 47(1–2), 1–10.
Jain, S. P., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). Valenced comparisons. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 46–58.
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes:
consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88(3), 498.
Kalokerinos, E. K., Greenaway, K. H., & Casey, J. P. (2017). Context shapes social judgments of positive
emotion suppression and expression. Emotion, 17(1), 169–186.
Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J. R., & van Tilburg, M. (2014). The effect of brand
gender on brand equity. Psychology and Marketing, 31(5), 371–385.
Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J. R., & van Tilburg, M. (2015). The effect of brand
design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. European Journal of Marketing, 49(1/2), 146–
169.
MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: when brands seem to be like me, part of me, and
in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355–374.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives:
examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74.
Neel, R., Becker, D. V., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2012). Who expressed what emotion? Men grab
anger, women grab happiness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 583–586.
Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: powerlessness and compensatory consumption.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257–267.
Shields, S. A. (2005). The politics of emotion in everyday life: “appropriate” emotion and claims on identity.
Review of General Psychology, 9(1), 3–15.
Thompson, D. V., & Malaviya, P. (2013). Consumer-generated ads: does awareness of advertising co-creation
help or hurt persuasion? Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 33–47.
Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the
doppelgänger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50–64.
Ulrich, I., Tissier-Desbordes, E., & Dubois, P. L. (2011). Brand gender and its dimensions. In A. Bradshaw, C.
Hackley, & P. Maclaran (Eds.), European advances in consumer research (Vol. 9, pp. 136–143). Duluth,
MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Warner, L. R., & Shields, S. A. (2009). Judgements of others’ emotional appropriateness are multidimen-
sional. Cognition & Emotion, 23(5), 876–888.
264 Marketing Letters (2020) 31:247–264

Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an
autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117.
Wu, L., Klink, R. R., & Guo, J. (2013). Creating gender brand personality with brand names: the effects of
phonetic symbolism. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(3), 319–330.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.