Abstract
This study establishes the relationship among three concepts (attachment, love, and engagement) that have attracted the interest of both practitioners and researchers lately. Based on the consumer–brand relationship literature, a theoretical model is proposed. Using data obtained from a survey to 320 consumers from Madrid (Spain), the results show that only two constructs actually exist: attachment and active engagement, with love being part of attachment (passion) or engagement (long-term relationship). Thus, emotional attachment must be based on emotions that generate captivation. This admiration activates engagement, turning the consumer into the best brand promoter.
Highlights
Relationships between consumers and brands encompass several dimensions that have attracted the attention of those in marketing research
Three related notions were identified in the literature survey: emotional attachment, brand love, and customer engagement
This process was undertaken to study the relationships between the different elements of each construct and to determine the items to be included in the confirmatory analyses (CFA)
Summary
Relationships between consumers and brands encompass several dimensions that have attracted the attention of those in marketing research Terms such as emotional attachment (Thomson et al 2005), brand love (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Batra et al 2012), or engagement (Brodie et al 2011; Hollebeek et al 2014; Vivek et al 2014) refer, a priori, to different stages of the relationship developed between brands and individuals. Criticism regarding recent consumer–brand relationship concepts in the marketing literature, especially in the case of brand love (Rossiter 2012; Moussa 2015), highlights the importance of establishing the boundaries between attachment, love, and engagement This conceptual delimitation is relevant, since the different terms may constitute either antecedents or consequences of different conceptual models that have been researched separately except for four recent studies (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen 2010; Wallace et al 2014; Sarkar and Sreejesh 2014; Vernuccio et al 2015). The research tradition that shapes their theoretical frameworks and main definitions has not converged
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
