Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-concept and brand loyalty: Insights from major life events and coping mechanisms

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current research is the first to investigate the influence of a positive or a negative self-concept on behavioral brand loyalty. Research has established that consumers choose brands with personalities that are in alignment with their self-concept, and this self-brand congruence can affect brand loyalty. Moreover, people’s actual or ideal self-brand congruence has been found to positively influence brand loyalty. In the current research with one pretest and one study, we identify people’s positive or negative self-concept when compared to a past self that was influenced by a negative life event such as the 2020 pandemic. We find evidence that people who identify with a positive self, compared to a past self, tend to be more brand loyal than those who identify with a negative self. We also test the mediating role of coping mechanisms—active coping, positive reinterpretation, and seeking social support—and find a positive influence of seeking social support on brand loyalty. Theoretical and practical implications beyond the 2020 pandemic are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D.A. 1991. Managing brand equity capitalizing on the value of a brand. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alharahsheh, H.H., and A. Pius. 2020. A review of key paradigms: positivism vs interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 2 (3): 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, N.J., and J.P. Meyer. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational PsychOlogy 63 (1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., E.N. Aron, and D. Smollan. 1992. Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (4): 596–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A.B., D. Du, and D. Derks. 2019. Major life events in family life, work engagement, and performance: a test of the work-home resources model. International Journal of Stress Management 26 (3): 238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, D.M., and O. Urminsky. 2011. On intertemporal selfishness: How the perceived instability of identity underlies impatient consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 38 (1): 182–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., T. Kwang, and S.D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M.D., S. Talaifar, and S.D. Gosling. 2018. An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13: 149–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A.M. 2020. An increasing risk of family violence during the covid-19 pandemic: strengthening community collaborations to save lives. Forensic Science International: Reports 2: 100089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruana, A. 2002. Service loyalty: the effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing 36 (7/8): 811–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C.S., M.F. Scheier, and J.K. Weintraub. 1989. Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (2): 267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chieng, F., Sharma, P., Kingshott, R. P., and Roy, R. 2022. Interactive effects of self-congruity and need for uniqueness on brand loyalty via brand experience and brand attachment. Journal of Product and Brand Management.

  • Crawford, F.W., O. Morozova, A.L. Buchanan, and D. Spiegelman. 2019. Interpretation of the individual effect under treatment spillover. American Journal of Epidemiology 188: 1407–1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, A.S., and K. Basu. 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2): 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Sahoo, S., Lim, W. M., & Joshi, Y. 2023. Thirty years of product and brand management research: a retrospective review of the Journal of Product and Brand Management using bibliometric analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management.

  • Donthu, N., and A. Gustafsson. 2020. Effects of COVID-19 on business and research. Journal of Business Research 117: 284–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drigotas, S.M., and C.E. Rusbult. 1992. Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (1): 62–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, G.R., and C. Eisdorfer. 1982. Stress and human health: an analysis and implications of research. A study by the Institute of medicine. National Academy of Sciences 79: 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escalas, J.E., and J.R. Bettman. 2003. You are what they eat: the influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (3): 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escalas, J.E., and J.R. Bettman. 2005. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research 32 (3): 378–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fajer, M. T., and Schouten, J. W. 1995. Breakdown and dissolution of person-brand relationships. ACR North American Advances.

  • Folkman, S., R.S. Lazarus, R.J. Gruen, and A. DeLongis. 1986. Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 571–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, G. 2003. When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research 5 (4): 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino, E., and M.S. Johnson. 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing 63 (2): 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gierveld, J.J., and P.A. Dykstra. 1993. Life transitions and the network of personal relationships: theoretical and methodological issues. Advances in Personal Relationships 4: 195–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J.K., Broniarczyk S., Griffin J. and McAlister, L. 2012. Help or hinder? When recommendation signage expands consideration sets and heightens decision difficulty. Journal of Consumer Psychology.

  • Hammen, C. 2005. Stress and depression. Annual Review Clinical Psychology. 1: 293–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammen, C. 2016. Depression and stressful environments: identifying gaps in conceptualization and measurement. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping 29 (4): 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, K.L., and S.M. Monroe. 2016. The assessment and measurement of adult life stress: basic premises, operational principles, and design requirements. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 125 (5): 727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A.F. 2018. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs 85 (1): 4–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S.E. 1989. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist 44 (3): 513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, F., A. Eisele, and F. Meyer. 2018. The role of actual, ideal, and ought self-congruence in the consumption of hedonic versus utilitarian brands. Psychology and Marketing 35 (1): 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A.M. 2001. An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology 11: 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A.M., and Means, B. 1983. Positive affect as a variable in decision making. Social Cognition

  • Ismail, A. R., Nguyen, B., Chen, J., Melewar, T. C., and Mohamad, B. 2020. Brand engagement in self-concept (BESC), value consciousness and brand loyalty: a study of generation Z consumers in Malaysia. Young Consumers.

  • Jacoby, J., and R. Chestnut. 1978. Brand loyalty: measurement and management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. 2007. Unleashing the power of word of mouth: creating brand advocacy to drive growth. Journal of Advertising Research 47 (4): 448–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettlewell, N., R.W. Morris, N. Ho, D.A. Cobb-Clark, S. Cripps, and N. Glozier. 2020. The differential impact of major life events on cognitive and affective wellbeing. SSM-Population Health 10: 100533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kressmann, F., M.J. Sirgy, A. Herrmann, F. Huber, S. Huber, and D.J. Lee. 2006. Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research 59 (9): 955–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khamitov, M., Wang, X., and Thomson, M. 2019. How well do consumer-brand relationships drive customer brand loyalty? Generalizations from a meta-analysis of brand relationship elasticities. Journal of Consumer Research 46 (3): 435–459.

  • Lang, L.D., W.M. Lim, and F. Guzmán. 2022. How does promotion mix affect brand equity? Insights from a mixed-methods study of low involvement products. Journal of Business Research 141: 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R.S. 1966. Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R.S., and S. Folkman. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W.M. 2015. Enriching information science research through chronic disposition and situational priming: a short note for future research. Journal of Information Science 41 (3): 399–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W.M. 2018. Demystifying neuromarketing. Journal of Business Research 91: 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W.M. 2021. History, lessons, and ways forward from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Quality and Innovation 5 (2): 101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W.M. 2022. The art of writing for premier journals. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 41 (6): 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W.M., P.K. Ahmed, and M.Y. Ali. 2019. Data and resource maximization in business-to-business marketing experiments: methodological insights from data partitioning. Industrial Marketing Management 76: 136–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Verma, D., & Kumar, D. 2023. Evolution and trends in consumer behaviour: Insights from Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour.

  • Luhmann, M., I. Fassbender, M. Alcock, and P. Haehner. 2021. A dimensional taxonomy of perceived characteristics of major life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 121 (3): 633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, R., P. Maguire, and M.T. Keane. 2011. Making sense of surprise: an investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37 (1): 176–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • McManus, J. F., Carvalho, S. W., & Trifts, V. 2021. The role of brand personality in the formation of consumer affect and self-brand connection. Journal of Product & Brand Management.

  • Molouki, S., and D.M. Bartels. 2017. Personal change and the continuity of the self. Cognitive Psychology 93: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, S. M., and Slavich, G. M. 2019. Major Life Events. The Oxford handbook of stress and mental health, 7.

  • Moschis, G.P. 2007. Stress and consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (3): 430–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R.L. 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63 (4_suppl1): 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., K. Elmore, and G.S. Smith. 2012. Self, self-concept, and identity. Handbook of Self and Identity 2: 69–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., J. Chandler, and P.G. Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 411–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C.L. 2010. Making sense of the meaning literature: an integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin 136 (2): 257–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlin, L. I. 1982. The social contexts of stress. In L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz, eds. Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. New York: The Free Press.

  • Pressman, A. 2021. PC sales have surged for at-home workers and learners during the pandemic. Fortune https://fortune.com/2021/01/11/covid-computer-sales-lenovo-hp-dell-apple/ Accessed May 19 2022.

  • Rahman, R., T. Langner, and D. Temme. 2021. Brand love: conceptual and empirical investigation of a holistic causal model. Journal of Brand Management 28 (6): 609–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichheld, F.F. 1996. The Loyalty Effect. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocereto, J.F., and J.B. Mosca. 2012. Self-concept, gender, and product type: an investigation of brand loyalty. Journal of Business and Economics Research 10 (1): 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutt, J.L., and C.E. Löckenhoff. 2016. From past to future: temporal self-continuity across the life span. Psychology and Aging 31 (6): 631–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D.O. 1986. College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (3): 515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M.J. 2018. Self-congruity theory in consumer behavior: a little history. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 28 (2): 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprott, D., S. Czellar, and E. Spangenberg. 2009. The importance of a general measure of brand engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (1): 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Y., and S.M. Choi. 2012. The influence of self-construal on self-brand congruity in the United States and Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43 (1): 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, A., and R. Kaur. 2015. Relationship between self-concept and attitudinal brand loyalty in luxury fashion purchase: a study of selected global brands on the Indian market. Management Journal of Contemporary Management Issues 20 (2): 163–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, M., D.J. MacInnis, and C.W. Park. 2005. The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15 (1): 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Westhuizen, L.M. 2018. Brand loyalty: exploring self-brand connection and brand experience. Journal of Product and Brand Management 27 (2): 172–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G.F., J.T. Beck, C.M. Henderson, and R.W. Palmatier. 2015. Building, measuring, and profiting from customer loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (6): 790–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, K., K. Daniloski, N. Schwarz, and K. Cottone. 2015. The role of social comparison for maximizers and satisficers: Wanting the best or wanting to be the best? Journal of Consumer Psychology 25 (3): 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., and P. Aggarwal. 2015. Looking ahead or looking back: current evaluations and the effect of psychological connectedness to a temporal self. Journal of Consumer Psychology 25 (3): 512–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Computing, Georgia Southwestern State University, 800 GSW State University Dr., Americus, GA, 31709, USA

    Irina T. Toteva

  2. Davis College of Business, Jacksonville University, 2800 University Blvd. N, Jacksonville, FL, 32211-3321, USA

    Selen Savas-Hall & Justin R. Hall

Authors
  1. Irina T. Toteva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selen Savas-Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justin R. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irina T. Toteva.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix

Pretest—Self-Concept Manipulation

In the pre-pandemic self (a version of a past self) condition, participants were presented with “You can think about yourself in terms of your personality, mood, likes and dislikes, beliefs, values, and goals. Take a moment and think about yourself right before the 2020 pandemic started, let's think of this version of yourself as "X". Now that you have thought about it, please describe your pandemic self "X", followed by a text box.

In the high-school self (a version of a past self) condition, participants were presented with “You can think about yourself in terms of your personality, mood, likes and dislikes, beliefs, values, and goals. Take a moment and think about yourself when you were in high school, let's think of this version of yourself as "X". Now that you have thought about it, please describe your high school self “X”, followed by a text box.

In the ideal self (a version of a self, other than a past self) condition participants were presented with “You can think about yourself in terms of your personality, mood, likes and dislikes, beliefs, values, and goals. Take a moment and imagine the best version of your self—your ideal self—let's think of this version of yourself as “X”. Now that you have thought about it, please describe your ideal self “X”, followed by a text box. All participants were able to proceed after 90 s.

Manipulation Check and Additional Results: Participants were presented with the inclusion of other in the self (IOS) scale (Aron et al. 1992) and asked: Based on overlap, which pair of circles below best describes the relationship between the “X” version of themselves they just described and the person they are now "You".

In the manipulation check question “Please choose the number that represents the overlap between You and X, there was a significant difference between pandemic self and high school self (Mpandemic = 5.13, SD = 1.43; Mhighschool = 4.50, SD = 1.57, t(1,123) = 2.34, p < 0.05). The pre-pandemic self group did not differ significantly from the other groups (Mideal = 4.83, SD = 1.57, F(2,186) = 2.65, p = 0.07). Thus, participants felt more overlap between their current self and the pre-pandemic self compared to the overlap between their current self and their high school self. While both the pre-pandemic self and the high-school self are versions of a past self, participants felt more overlap with the pre-pandemic self, and this was an intuitive result. These findings expanded our understanding of the various versions of people’s self-concept.

Main study—Mediators scales

Scales were adopted from Carver et al. 1989 (p.272)—to evaluate the mediating effect of active coping, seeking social support, and positive reinterpretation and growth.

Participants were presented with the following:

When you think back to when the 2020 pandemic started, please also think about the things that you generally did or felt about any additional problems or issues that the 2020 pandemic may have brought to your life. Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements (from 1/disagree to 5/agree).

Active coping

  • I took additional action to try to get rid of the problem.

  • I concentrated my efforts on doing something about it.

  • I did what had to be done, one step at a time.

  • I took direct action to get around the problem.

Seeking social support for emotional reasons

  • I talked to someone about how I feel.

  • I tried to get emotional support from friends or relatives.

  • I discussed my feelings with someone.

  • I got sympathy and understanding from someone.

Positive reinterpretation and growth

  • I looked for something good in what was happening.

  • I tried to see the situation in a different light, to make it seem more positive.

  • I learned something from the experience.

  • I tried to grow as a person, as a result of this experience.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toteva, I.T., Savas-Hall, S. & Hall, J.R. Self-concept and brand loyalty: Insights from major life events and coping mechanisms. J Brand Manag 31, 79–93 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-023-00334-9

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-023-00334-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation