literature review
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
1
My Samsung is my baby! Humanising Brands: A Literature Review
One could imagine a teenager declaring “My Samsung is my baby!” It is not news
that many people are strongly attached to their smartphones, characterising them as masters,
servants or friends (Schweitzer et al., 2019), humanising the branded product through
anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is defined as “this practise of imbuing nonhuman
entities with human characteristics, motivation, attitudes and behaviours” (Guthrie 1993 as
cited in Aggarwal & McGill, 2007). The concept of humanising branded products in the
context of anthropomorphism is important to understand as humanised brands are often seen
as stronger contenders for longer business success (Hosany et al., 2013) and marketers often
encourage anthropomorphised brands (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007). Furthermore, as numerous
studies have described how consumers perceive a brand in such anthropomorphic terms
(MacInnis & Folkes, 2017) understanding humanising brands provides fundamental insight
into consumers’ choices (Guido & Peluso, 2015) and has managerial implications that
provide actionable insights to enhance marketing strategies.
This paper will critically review 1) how anthropomorphism is vital for humanising
brands, 2) how relationships with brands are created, 3) brand perceptions from humanising
brands and 4) consequences of humanising brands. It will also evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of anthropomorphism as the key theory to understand brand humanisation.
Limitations and future research will also be discussed. Due to space constraints, this literature
review will omit cultural and religious effects on humanising brands, the impact of
anthropomorphism over a life cycle and the evolution of humanising brands.
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
2
How anthropomorphism is vital for humanising brands
Anthropomorphism is a key theory for understanding brand attachment (MacInnis &
Folkes, 2017), product appearance (Wan et al., 2016), young consumers (Veer, 2013),
product functionality (Herak et al., 2020), brand success (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007), reasons
why we anthropomorphise (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017) and effects of humanising brands, both
positive (Wan et al., 2016) and negative (Kwak et al., 2015). As anthropomorphisation is
prevalent in the literature, it is vital to understand in the context of brand humanisation.
The most used definition for anthropomorphism, as presented in the introduction, is
by Guthrie (1993). Guthrie’s seminal book has been cited over 2200 times and the definition
is dominant in the literature presented (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Epley, Waytz &
Cacioppo, 2007; Hede & Watne, 2013; Herak et al., 2020; Huang, et al., 2019; Guido &
Peluso, 2015; Touré-Tillery & McGill, 2015). This key definition, however, is a limitation as
it prevents the field from moving forward. There is insufficient consideration of how
personification and other intermediate steps limits our understanding of how brands are
humanised.
Personification is defined as “a figure of speech in which inanimate objects are
characterised in terms of human attributes, thus representing the object as a living and feeling
person” (Ricoeur 1977 as cited in Delbaere et al., 2019). This definition comes from seminal
work, cited over 3000 times. However, it has not been identified as a theory to explain the
understanding of humanising brands. Its exclusion is an opportunity for future research to
further understand how brands are humanised and the consequences of this, compared to
anthropomorphism. Personification has been mentioned in relation to anthropomorphism
(Hede & Watne, 2013), although it is not used to the same extent that we see
anthropomorphism has been. However, it has been used to understand how
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
3
anthropomorphism can lead to humanising possessions (Fernandez & Lastovicka, 2011).
Such an approach could be used to move forward the field of anthropomorphising brands.
How relationships with brands are created
Consumers form relationships with brands (Fournier, 1998) for a myriad of reasons.
Some research supports the lack of social connection with other humans as a catalyst for
forming relationships with branded products (Lastovicka & Sirianni, 2011).
Anthropomorphised agents are capable of powerful social connections where a human
connection is absent (Epley et al., 2007) and so, in the consumers mind, there is a goal
implied by the brand, to socially interact (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012). Furthermore,
relationships to brands can be determined by self-congruity, formed by brand
anthropomorphisation (Guido & Peluso, 2015), how well the brands enrich the
‘self’(MacInnis & Folkes, 2017) and align with a young consumer’s sense of self (Veer,
2013). Relationships can develop as a result of having a sense of place, the ability to tell a
story, bridging the gap between brands and humans or a consumer’s personality (Hede &
Watne, 2013). Furthermore, relationships can develop due to a sense of interpersonal trust
(Touré-Tillery & McGill, 2015).
There are evidently a multitude of ways that a consumer can form a relationship with
a brand. While the literature is fragmented in understanding why relationships with brands
are formed, anthropomorphism provides a comprehensible understanding as to how this
occurs. The more understood about anthropomorphism, the more can be understood about
how brands are humanised, further explaining its consistent appearance in the literature.
However, using anthropomorphism can also be detrimental to the phenomenon. As
mentioned, by only focusing on the theory of anthropomorphism to explain how relationships
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
4
are formed, other theories are excluded that could explain humanising brands. Hede and
Watne (2013) begin to explore beyond anthropomorphism, using a sense of place, narratives,
personification and user imagery, combined with anthropomorphism to explain brand
humanisation, yet this extension appears to be lacking in the literature. Future research should
explore past anthropomorphism to understanding humanising brands.
Brand perceptions from humanising brands
Whether or not a brand is humanised by the consumer will change the perception of
that brand. The literature explores the consumer’s choice to anthropomorphise as brand
distinctiveness (Puzakova & Aggarwal, 2018), brand personality (Aaker, 1997), product
appearance (Wan et al., 2016), need for control (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017), lack of social
connection (Epley et al., 2007), personality type (Guido & Peluso, 2015), comparative
judgment (Huang et al., 2019), brand attachment (Veer, 2013) and brand character preference
(Hosany et al., 2013). Yet the desired and actual result of brand perception can be
mismatched.
This mismatch can be bridged by brand personality, defined as “the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997), increasing consumer preference, thus
perceiving the brand positively. While a conceptually distinct process, brand personality
influences anthropomorphisation (Guido & Peluso, 2015) and the perception consumers have
on a brand (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017). Mismatch is also evident where humanised brand
prices are perceived negatively in comparison to brands that are not humanised (Kwak et al.,
2015). The relative attractiveness of a humanised product to the consumer (Huang et al.,
2019) will see a brand perceived as desirable. The reasons a consumer will anthropomorphise
the brand i.e. beauty, price or personality, will affect how the brand is perceived yet
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
5
incorporating personality in anthropomorphism is an opportunity for future research to
explore success of the desired brand outcome.
Conversely, dehumanisation, inverting anthropomorphism to strip one of human
attributes (Epley et al., 2007), can also affect brand perception and, often, has a more
favourable outcome (Herak et al., 2020; MacInnis & Folkes, 2017; Touré-Tillery & McGill,
2015). Humanised brands often have favourable perceptions when the brand character
represented is trustworthy and reliable (Hosany et al., 2013), this is contrasted with brands
negatively perceived when a consumer feels betrayed by them (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017),
when brands are consumed publicly (Puzakova Aggarwal, & 2018) or when the brand is not
viewed as functional (Huang et al., 2019). Therefore, it is evident how humanising brands
will alter perceptions, is dependent on the reasons a consumer will anthropomorphise.
The research is limited by anthropomorphism analysing human attachment to
nonhuman entities. Future research could explore the influence of brand personality or look at
other psychological determents such as sexual preferences and adverse personalities to
further understand anthropomorphism and humanised brand perceptions. Understanding why
consumers choose to anthropomorphise brands can enable more desirable outcomes for the
success of the brand yet there are evidently more complexities to the phenomenon than
understood.
Consequences of humanising brands
Consequences can be positive (Aaker, 1997; Aggarwal & McGill, 2012; Herak et al.,
2016; Guido & Peluso, 2015; Wan et al., 2016; Veer, 2013) and negative (Aggarwal &
McGill, 2007; Herak et al., 2020; Kwak et al., 2015; Puzakova & Aggarwal, 2018; Touré-
Tillery & McGill, 2015; Veer, 2013). Positive consequences encourage strong connections to
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
6
brand loyalty and personality (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017), thereby creating a strong position
for brand strategy and performance (Guido & Peluso, 2015). Positive consequences also
occur when brands are fulfilling their function (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012) and when the
brand is trusted (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017), arising from when the brand personality is
trusted by the consumer (Aaker, 1997). Furthermore, it can assist in forming the identity of a
young consumer (Veer, 2013), invoking kinship and enabling children to make sense of the
world. A key distinction that Veer (2013) makes is about anthropomorphised brand
characters, not products. While Veer highlights that there is a contrast, other research does
not. Therefore, one type of entity cannot directly apply to another. Hosany et al., (2013)
highlights key components to the success and longevity of anthropomorphised brands such as
brand licencing, extension, simplicity and sustaining consumer interest. Thereby, stressing
the need to anthropomorphise brand characters.
Negative consequences arise when marketing practitioners do not understand their
consumers. This is evident when, brand evaluations are negatively impacted (Herak et al.,
2020) due to undesirable products, in the consumers eyes, being anthropomorphised. If an
anthropomorphised brand is marketed to be distinctive, it is less favourable to the consumer
(Puzakova & Aggarwal, 2018). Furthermore, the intrinsic schema of a consumer must be
understood to match the characteristics imbued on the brand (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007).
Kwak et al., 2015 demonstrated that brand humanisation has a detrimental effect on the
perception of price fairness. Comparative judgment of a consumer is also affected by
anthropomorphism (Huang et al., 2019), further supporting negative consequences of brand
humanisation.
Limitations arise with regards to the types of anthropomorphised inanimate objects
analysed and the extent to which consumers are understood. Future research could be
explored in the context of technology and social media. During an unprecedented global
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
7
pandemic in the digital age, consumers are likely to grasp at a sense of normality by using
technology. A consequence of an era of social distancing may result in consumers developing
a strong connection with technological devices and the effect of this is unknown. Some
research has explored this the context of trusting anthropomorphised messengers rather than
humans (Touré-Tillery & McGill, 2015), the role that anthropomorphised brands take on
(Aggarwal & McGill, 2012) and brand personality (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017), yet there is
more to explore in the field of technology. When consumers are understood,
anthropomorphism has a desired effect, therefore marketing practitioners will be in a strong
position to leverage the success of brand anthropomorphism.
Conclusion
This literature review has covered how anthropomorphism is vital for brands, how
relationships with brands are created, brand perceptions and consequences of humanising
brands. There are limitations with using anthropomorphism as the key theory to explain
humanising brands, however, this is both a strength and a weakness as it allows exploration
into a myriad of research, yet it also limits theoretical contribution to humanising brands.
Concepts such as the effect of brand personality, personification or alternative psychological
determents could be explored to further understand humanising brands.
Future research can explore beyond anthropomorphism, brand characters, types of
products anthropomorphised, and the effect anthropomorphised entities being trusted more
than humans. Exploring humanising brands and technology, given its prevalence in the digital
age and the current global pandemic experienced by consumers, how we humanise brands
may adopt a new meaning as we adapt to the post-pandemic world. This new world may
provide deeper insight into the phenomenon. Understanding the impact of humanising
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
8
brands, in the context of other theoretical lenses, will be vital to provide a more profound
insight into the phenomenon and to marketing practitioners who wish to utilise this tool for
their marketing strategy.
Word count: 1984
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
9
Reference List
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151897
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a
Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products. Journal of Consumer Research,
34(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/518544
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. https://doi.org/10.1086/662614
Delbaere, M., Mcquarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2019). Personification in advertising : Using
a Visual Metaphor to Trigger Anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising (1), 121–
130https://www.jstor.org/stable/2304873740.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory
of Anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
Fernandez, K. V., & Lastovicka, J. L. (2011). Making Magic: Fetishes in Contemporary
Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 278–299.
https://doi.org/10.1086/659079
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–353.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209515
Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2015). Brand anthropomorphism: Conceptualization,
measurement, and impact on brand personality and loyalty. Journal of Brand
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
10
Management, 22(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.40
Hede, A. M., & Watne, T. (2013). Leveraging the human side of the brand using a sense of
place: Case studies of craft breweries. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1–2), 207–
224. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.762422
Herak, I., Kervyn, N., & Thomson, M. (2020). Pairing People with Products:
Anthropomorphizing the Object, Dehumanizing the Person. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 30(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1128
Hosany, S., Prayag, G., Martin, D., & Lee, W. Y. (2013). Theory and strategies of
anthropomorphic brand characters from Peter Rabbit, Mickey Mouse, and Ronald
McDonald, to Hello Kitty. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1–2), 48–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.764346
Huang, F., Wong, V. C., & Wan, E. W. (2019). The Influence of Product Anthropomorphism
on Comparative Judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 936–955.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz028
Kwak, H., Puzakova, M., & Rocereto, J. F. (2015). Better not smile at the price: The
differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness. Journal of
Marketing, 79(4), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0410
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.
https://doi.org/10.1086/658338
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003
Student’s name XXX Literature Review Student ID
11
Puzakova, M., & Aggarwal, P. (2018). Brands as rivals: Consumer pursuit of distinctiveness
and the role of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 869–
888. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy035
Schweitzer, F., Belk, R., Jordan, W., & Ortner, M. (2019). Servant, friend or master? The
relationships users build with voice-controlled smart devices. Journal of Marketing
Management, 35(7–8), 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1596970
Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015). Who or what to believe: Trust and the differential
persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messengers. Journal of Marketing,
79(4), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0166
Veer, E. (2013). Made with real crocodiles: The use of anthropomorphism to promote
product kinship in our youngest consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1–
2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.759990
Wan, E. W., Chen, R. P., & Jin, L. (2016). Judging a Book by Its Cover? The Effect of
Anthropomorphism on Product Attribute Processing and Consumer Preference. Journal
of Consumer Research, 43, ucw074. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw074