Communicating brand biographies effectively: the role of communication source

  • Ali TezerEmail author
  • H. Onur Bodur
  • Bianca Grohmann
Original Empirical Research


Although brands increasingly disseminate their brand biographies through brand sources, this research shows that this practice can decrease brand attitudes and consumer preferences. A brand source activates consumers’ persuasion knowledge, increasing negative thoughts and impeding narrative transportation into the brand biography. This research furthermore demonstrates that the negative impact of a brand source in the dissemination of brand biographies depends on self-congruence, such that a detrimental effect on consumer attitudes and preferences occurs when the brand biography is incongruent with consumer’s self-concept, but is mitigated when the brand biography is self-congruent. These findings suggest that the dissemination of brand biographies by brand sources requires consideration of source and congruence effects.


Brand biographies Brand narratives Source effects Narrative transportation Brand communication Self-concept 



  1. Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1998). The role of narratives in consumer information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 207–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andsager, J. L., Bemker, V., Choi, H.-L., & Torwel, V. (2006). Perceived similarity of exemplar traits and behavior effects on message evaluation. Communication Research, 33, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artz, N., & Tybout, A. M. (1999). The moderating impact of quantitative information on the relationship between source credibility and persuasion: A persuasion knowledge model interpretation. Marketing Letters, 10, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avery, J., Paharia, N., Keinan, A., & Schor, J. B. (2010). The strategic use of brand biographies. Research in Consumer Behavior, 12, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee, S. C., & Greene, K. (2012). Role of transportation in the persuasion process: Cognitive and affective responses to antidrug narratives. Journal of Health Communication, 17, 564–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banerjee, S. C., & Greene, K. (2013). Examining narrative transportation to anti-alcohol narratives. Journal of Substance Abuse, 18, 196–210.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In T. V. Merluzzi, C. R. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 309–342). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it: The use of the persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In C. Haugvstedt, P. Herr, & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 549–571). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Graaf, A. (2014). The effectiveness of adaptation of the protagonist in narrative impact: Similarity influences health beliefs through self-referencing. Human Communication Research, 40, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deighton, J., Romer, D., & McQueen, J. (1989). Using drama to persuade. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Escalas, J. E. (2007). Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamby, A., Daniloski, K., & Brinberg, D. (2015). How consumer reviews persuade through narratives. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1242–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jin, L., & Huang, Y. (2018). How power states influence the persuasiveness of top-dog versus underdog appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29, 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kao, D. T. (2015). Is Cinderella resurging? The impact of consumers’ underdog disposition on brand preferences: Underdog biography and brand status as moderators. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 14, 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2004). Goal seeker and persuasion sentry: How consumer targets respond to interpersonal marketing persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. (2010). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 775–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.Google Scholar
  27. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson, D. V., & Paharia, N. (2014). When underdog effects backfire: The effect of perceived market advantage on brand status. In J. Cotte & S. Woods (Eds.), North American advances in consumer research, 42 (pp. 17–21). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  30. Van den Hende, E. A., Dahl, D. W., Schoormans, J. P. L., & Snelders, D. (2012). Narrative transportation in concept tests for really new products: The moderating effect of reader-protagonist similarity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Laer, T., de Ruyter, K., Visconti, L. M., & Wetzels, M. (2014). The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vandello, J. A., Goldschmied, N. P., & Richards, D. A. R. (2007). The appeal of the underdog. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1603–1616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wiener, J. L., LaForge, R. W., & Goolsby, J. R. (1990). Personal communication in marketing: An examination of self-interest contingency relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MarketingHEC MontréalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.John Molson School of BusinessConcordia UniversityQuebecCanada
  3. 3.John Molson School of BusinessConcordia UniversityQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations