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