Brand Congruence in Interpersonal Relations: A Social Network Analysis PETER H, REINGEN BRIAN i, FOSTER JACQUELINE JOHNSON BROWN STEPHEN B, SEIDMAN" kv~ nuuwr WUnO am me ~Kw~ 01 :'L*E anorwna lulll Ina 9WaWnlW m(yy#l 01 P~n~P alrlp4ron.,ilm: o~ro~mao~ or Dau] cmgnnncl Inccu, uld m~a~q~ul mnMn DI::! lY#l 01 IWI' rInIn.:o Overwre now ~honeomap~, py rwenl It~! ~Sll FnM·LrmmhC 101111 ~MO~rt ~EMIOU# VI exMDU WVWlOnU *~30n~3 we WYYI CMX mun# in *luu mvwnnn. the ~ euQIO! adlvguUI I a IWli "'PO"I~P mn eompma to mo~e or lam~e Inwrwr lewl vnoP nooucsa, ly#l pf well ~~lpn, we ypn pi DaK wop~wl Il~ueav, Ioyr i. FbOU, W 2gwIJ. WnYe IQu%nl OrvQ eenc=ma eewts were oot~wwl, LnYT were EMI)IM in I Ihu pmcJcu nwOlrK )v lv31( ct u~ nuwn. Cc~Dan~Mnl d me pwuer, a adnovui arnrc. wa lOuod to Jn namsw P ICWUm IIPICW Ihonpt. Thst humans are innurncrd by others has iPng Although most research on social influence focuses b~tn a IUbjK: SI interest 10 IOei01ogisll and on prinY goua, mmiiml::sm of social inlurnec lodal p~ycheigiru. Since Ik tllrrW work br hxh do na~ sppur to be conlnd :o Ih:=. For 11 an 119STi, much r~idtnr~ ha been pmdurrd that gPup be construed as IKondar! I:,ups. Burnl~ran~ and influence members' behavior (see Shaw 1976 for a Cousineau (]9isl. Coha 1~: Golden 119731, and review), and it is not surprising that students oT Rdnsm (198!) shosd that:.:e me:: presentation of consumer behavior have focused on social innuencr information about others' br.r! n·aluarionr dr behah to explain consumer productibrand choices (c.E Va· ior influenced subieftr' responses to stimuli, ~or does haan 19661. The imponanee attached to the locial racial influence appear to be:trtrjerel to membership in0ucna of relevant others is also reflected in F~lhbcjn groups. For example, CoemP~E~tr and Bmcr /1971) and ~len's (1915, Chapter 7) behavioral intention found that socialir distant F:~upr li.c, groups with paradigm in hi subjective norm component Iser Ba· which a consumer does no:::gul?r$ interact) can Joui 1981:~IinilrC ad Cohm 1981: and Rvm lpB! influence consumers if conc-t:l hold favorable ac for recent rexarchl, and in maiceung Pnaitioncrr titudts toward the members or activities of that group, who ma~l substantial use olinterpersonal inllurnce and Qrm6n and alannheim l:?·91 iemonnrated IL rccnmol in communications (see Hlrtins, best, and influence of nonmc~nbcrship I;Pups on I plf·image Conev 1983, Chapter ·: Larig and Parli 1978: and development of architects. The overall evidence Ihrrc· Zallman and I~ailendori 1981. Chapter 6 for Iseirir lare lu~cnr bnl ronrumen sly oncnt 8eMcila tnmpia), to mrmbcohip IrPupl(prima~ or I~~ond~~ groupsl as well a to nonmembershif j:oupr I~~B~~ aspiration - I groupsl in shaping their brhrion. These various 'h n. Rnapn is Alarit~ Irolruo~ or Mlrhlnt o Ihe lvpes of groups are eommoni! referred to in texts of Colkle olBuaonr dmmlannloo. Bnm L Foster I! Froinsor consumer behavior as reference groups when they ad Deoartnent tbs of ~nlropoiop, md leceueIinc Johnlon ritnihcandy influence In inC:\ldua,"s bcha\ior (~~0~· Broun a Idononl ~lad~bl~ la ~rltanL In An101 IWt Enled and black\vclt 1981, C~~~~cr 6: Haul;ins et aI. Cnivmll~, Time U I!:I:. Slcp~n 8, kidmu is I~oci~l~ 1983' Chapter 7).: P~ :010. ~lhe research ·u lu:JwuC br I hlull) Gnnl·llhAid to O tnt be author. we ~P~D::~U the Lipiul comments b! uillilm O 8arden, Richud Ilu~St, lurl CIOtd!, Yitl Hull, ]nome I;cb ' I" mJnv cases, ah:ao pPUDI ;I:n :Ir :.',lrJclensilcs uldlv ola. end in ~nonyeour ICR reviewer. ellnbuled to Iroup In:l: looli·p!:::.plla: Ilhmprc. The lenn ~ ICam~ir..) t IO;Ruu OF m~upn I1El~d~i( ii, ii I anna iesa N Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 1~· 3· ·-. I I· ·.~-l-r·~C tnE XlUFtNAl OF COWSUYE~ IEIORCI P~FEIESCE C1OUP I~FLUE~CE vig at hma~ odi~4 PPBld b! lolmr dSD B~~D ~01~ O~J71 burden and E~d 1 1915 aCadd Ipon Fark and talil'l ~r~ in In rxrellenl nPdg rYcl b~n· Yueh ollhr euln IileratUre on R(APO POI~. ied r;hen ntrlo ap aen Id~rr ~ Innlenre on ronlF~a lrand chiee B~I into t~o ~nwPed p~pm, it rl L~ah~bd $p lier ~w~~h nnllr r~eh ran be CniPldrbrd h ~lr-~oru~iTnau~i~rmTlii~~l Lit of ~nh~dol~ lad IDPE~PIII Ld: inbrm~ 4Y he llronl hlo CnPO iOdlOpPUOI ~~ (rolp on6n and pXdrCd inaUeDCe ~IILL pd~pb l0DlllJ Ilboa Cplp ~dia The inlorrnal InlpouCo bf Stldord (19661 Wht rtcd P hCPP Idln lubjeflr 119691. and ~~t and brute 119'10, 1971 have i their alreernenr with nftmeP1 Jl~~ill be ppa ropaon II PPmr to relate yelp rolnbenal ~ olreferener poPp LPlcPn a tl:r Il~ia to prdla bnnd ddP o~nap ~Ob CI~. L da nd· · b"d tlcdol ~d~oa, n: pah nRond burden and EueI'I hvy8cir Ibdm d~nPra i it Clp Ico~Zp ~a lasl~d 11 61 IPh( toi~ relerence lrelp ilPrl ~a yr~~ asn of Il~ePI O nornjnare othen ~J· fn;udr, ~hd~r r *j~bn~ Indlhtn b! oYdll Id, 1I1 pdP'dl ol·l~ p~*l Rp~t Yorht (1976) eado!tj ~jlpir 1~!9 bpap olthl norninm. not 1960 arxrt ~I rheorv ~ril al~pl p ~~iE t~ ib~~ hbmd gorpr Lltn inOurnce lo~l~ coPlmePP FIPI illocno Purcharinl btil~or: Gel) hbb on member brand r.loiea Ie.g, SoBd 1966) and II lhe ~nr d mlr*e pda 18 Imlp edb b~ t' ibmi~ bl hldnl~r~ i601 hir rivenesr i~h lrr ·d Le nmr 11 the nmdlcl b'0' dC'·' ~d'P'P'·'B'.U·r (vin and InFr 19'6. 197~. Hcrct the rddena eolaC ~clr I al are sirnilar to rhox o[mt friends" (p 14!). ~hColll Yor~l found dP lb In Ilppon of de hlml poPp hluePFe bgpol~C bn9 lroupl acn I~illPCIP 01 Ldr ~r~h~' b conm~ao?. For ~xlm~e Hanren 11969) sr Purehalinl beha\lion" (p !~011 klpp~n la no unable 10 Ilpp0D ~e exiIlenee d I ~h~onpl aanlI h)nl Clp \uere exlahed a YI nld~ bn~cn lroup robri~ro· and hand eollnepa. SuBrd (196~ bn~na~~nd Ford aod EIIir 1196~ 4a nnIblr p qror L~ limitations olPnials BP6a new nldi9 have yielded iepome C~Pa iro Paedvcd lo8nc3et Sludics ~taPte lroUP bllCIFIIDI(OCIIPC hbla0f and Ilr idenlified an ilpont area br:aer~ Sie le Clob~ ·Ila· nlC· t laden ltd tnL~n Lq ·ir bl ngnl TI~~Lm rYd EPd (1982 and P~t md tail 119'11) em~oyrd render Iurnut ~rmin Irpar d Or ~lodlad te· !I~g Inhoddolp 1~1 ~~dOOl pp of pereeived dcle~ rererenee yelp bllrla lewl pPdPar Bred op Group DdlP~. One Pdar p~,~rm ril the the ~o~ b~ Dcernh and Cerard 119J~. Jlhd~ ibml Droup nPCa by SP~d(~6h: Fia ~nik. (nT~. rd tdP11IH#) hb rd UI ~~d6~ and W~I and Bruee (197~ 15'~ c:~~n around a lCale to mroun helPlald. IlrPdlP, and lrwo definition. Since I polp condaed Ola pom~ 9Cbe~pnak~ n8Rnrr golp hdetPet Snyto were a~ld to Illat that an individual had dcided aPo~ and Icrenl PoPhcn in 11011 Idin, i ~ PiYe that the ~tnBa Procedure ~ddcd polpr a plnhm I product but had not ~n deddtd which whjeh were di*Pe in bale ~ddoiPI amalr, for band ofihe orodurt to bu~ ~ht~ then were liven CIIP~L i one em a Iroup P~plEOPPlOli6dd· vabl derertPtionr aldlu~~n! ~p~~en~nl the ~F p~r neL Olwholn is tied to c~ca aha bldi LRm ~ad! of reference Eroup $dleoce Fina]Ir. tlrr ~P sbd a hlar B exl nrDdle: to rh~arn IhhOl kC YabY~, ~~L p uala ir~~ the PoPinaor lilt be tied to Irl~ IODblC bll alh situation ~ nhtlr to bil or her brand clda. the nominrn mly not be tied ~ aeh ~ht~ That Overall. the Pit and Ladl(l9;fl ioClp lugen two nmnl~l Lire eol~ndy 6~Rm I*abitd lrearer IlwtpiYTg o reference Inlp iIluenee for nldlml than for brr6ba, leiPp. The la EIo Punnur I balio onara ddd) dxrlrd i wddol!-$r d~ll For 1081 Ilrla, be rold ala~e aq la pl~ib a In C 'LLac voud' 111 ~lr IOYll(b illlqL I i i inlorrnal broup at II i the ~ddJr~ wale: ooR (I1~~1 Lie H~~PC. 01~1 rkml Cs) l~lo lid O pmnL for ianore are either not br~rpeadtn or ~a I~ yl· ~a~ ~~ dla~·p I~t·llld~ eOan/etel!. IP11R d Pb I~R b~dC. ic~C ~lwl (aol Ud~~l dm J I ~a dlyr~ol ~I ~hl dpel rl la ·I ~l~se I~u~l~CI~L *IIIJ bit rml Iss P: lY eellllde:rC I P:~P ~I lhev A :LIP ~I YQ~1 n~YI nnd) bC ~I nl=~L C;~ (pJ ia~lbl r a n(i id cr:~R1 ·1 81 nll tie I I bl~ kl I I Csw: ~~ca I~! ~-"-C- ' ~"-- ·---·-- ~-~ ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni NETWORK ANALySI9 Or BRANO CUGRUENtE ;7] fhs the second case is nor In un$il$ phenomenon important inlormion on \.ariOus lypa of influence is lupaed by Ford led Ellb i1PSO1 u~ho, in their and On vh~n/whv relercnce groups may aLr; buln replication Irud!· olSlar;srd(lP66l. ~uPd that aIleast khl~ior, by their Fer: IIIIUI( Ih~~ onlr ss~s~ the four el Sdr 10 groups had mreha Fho did not poribilily DlaCrtnaBroup innuencc, line: no dirm kaor the o~hrr group blrmbm Ip. Iii).! Also, wilt evidence is provided, (1969, note !~ points out that h!s group selection procedure may have p:idcd "groc:I" that weA rcf· ~'F~ olSociol Relationr. There is In additional erents for the nominala: but nor for the other mrm· shortcoming in the literature uhich is common to bm II is unlil;rb Lal maningiui data are obtained both research streams: the investigators assumed that when there is substantial heterogeneity in the nature El""i" types olsocial relationships form the basis for pi Ihc unia Cue la Ihr ;Jnccp: oll:3up btinp Iwrir drma ~Pup innuma. Fli~nd~ rrb~iver, nti~~on defined. In bet in these poviour informal group OT f~liar students mlv pr ma~ not he the rcrrrcnts oi studies, some groups ea not h\e been groups e '" i"diuaull crnpiolcd in brand d~caion·msliing P all-era under ven~ relaxed eoetilions for what 'hC products examined in the Hansc(1969). S~oxhis connbum such Illrueluc, h more !:p9ng slrwgy. (19761, Slafford (19661, win 119691 and \c~h and both ronap;ually and laiidb ,In it pmt oT B"II(IP70. 197!) nudts. Slmiluiv. an individual.l mlnlmalne extraneous sources oll!l;:matic vlr;ace ftll0w wor~rrr may or mq not be the appropriate and error rmancr aririnE irom at imprecise group ICB'C"" lar pool tables in Burdtn and Erlcj's uOl~ dchnl~ion), would be to assess brand congruence in (198!, p, 1871. It would seem ad~iJabic, thcretorc, to groups uhox dologin: and form, Ivuc~unl prop cumi"' band congruFno in basic sociological rrrub cnin an lynrmaticail! and ptedxii controlled, fU'" Ihll arise tom diAamr I!pa ollMial rrtuion· ships, Onl may find brand congruence for bnd A lecong major plDblllll among family members. for example, but such con· with several of the informal group I:udin relates ~o ylence is Ins likely in 1 group of acquaintanca who how informal group inaurnce is rscsxd, Suliord play touch football, 'fhus the t!:pe olsocial rehdon· (19661, for instance. lu~eru that informal group Ships under investigation ma) be an important ptc· influence is demonstraIed rhm ri;iin~reup band diabr aibnnd conprurnel, choices an limLr, but when the groups vary among A second reason why an examination olthe etTm thcmrrircr ip, tll. 'fhis may not hold in pnml, of type dlocU relation on bnnd congrueoce may Consider IL following I;:nlria Al: group members be important concerns the notion olbnnd viribiiilL and all groups agree on the same brant "X," According In the traditional approach, a pnvale product is op to the S~afford crienon. then would he no informal erationallv ddntd II one used at a person's residence group innuea. ~lbinl, however, an eorng~risons Ilcaldm;nd EmI 198!, p. 166), Since brand con btrran persons who are in a gmE: Jnd;hose who sumptiDa or such 1 produc: uould not be Mciallr are in no group. In a Ie:snd xano, imasinc that conspicuous. it is argued that purchasing behavior is such Eontroir Ire Jvaila?ie, Supper: further that 1I1 largely governed by ntribur# rather than b~ intluencer persons who are not in a group ch:%e brand "\', of others(Bourne 1911. However. then is a potential ~hr inferences about group inllan;: rnulting rrom problem with this traditional argument, It fails to talie IL two scenarios would be dilmnrinll~ opposed, H'e into account the effect olsoeiai interaction on brand suggested that 1 mom con\incing can an be madr visibility, Social rrlallonrhipr may channel oppanu· for or against the inrorrr.i group h!;srhs by com· nkirr Tor Obur~ilionabnd :hoier. sndI~l~iiv paring the brand choicer urlin 1 group against ~he providea sumuluiTar brand·tcll~cd verbJrommu· choices of individols aho In in a 6llrrror group ~lians.~TL is, social nlattons ml~ malr nnnd ond in no Eloup:_ln !hcr,. inlonn~l~souo studies choice behavior wibk~v~i~ilii"- which cl~mine chore behavior oni\ u.rbnlaos For ~-m7~o~n7-m~iiinaSriiihi~s youpl contain 1 xacus ~:a~n713u: poup Inllumcl eongruence -- · -· -"" group members or a~fDu~l~flsuc""~ interacting Inmds ii·iiii~imr~e~ Iven~r "pnrlli" produce such as bundr~ dae3ml. 1116 ;IJ presence or TD!~nt. a not dllCah I:ldDI~ Iha~n Inl~nm": ~iiC$D soap, ~illClnl(nlOR und Ihtli~i~i~ijl~ ;n~ih~;?Fo;d~a?l~ii;~ d_sle clmmr art not lublal to Irouplnlluace je.~ are not to Pmi:lud ~ll~aar. ~l:~pUph the ;Crcllvld inlu· Al~ci IYB1, pp, jJ~-Tjjl. 1 nur conspicuousness, a ence s;udier d~ Barden ~nd iud ·:9Sll. ~orchi~ '"dilionsllv d~f~nrd. mlr n7;i;i?c~ii~i;~Fa;;;~~ a 11l:41, and ~ai and i:lig (19.'~ hp~r lirldrd ~iediclor olband congru~nrt- - - __ O 'h:na this alnue ue! ,'ord and i:,;l IIOSPI bdle la O\'ER\'IE~' I~ Inlic~ III( Sub:d daa Slr~~ 119(6, t '?I elalms lpl bl poupl;sellnd d wprr· uk; un Inmdl;:nsrd each oln:r Although group inaucncrs on FonrumCI behavior and Iho :tlmc:1 le,r,l o:: sthel, bu::: Cn::: data are am commonly judged to be pr:\aive Ie,g,, tlhm3n iurnlshed and Wallendorl 19Sj, p. 1971, the previous discussion *··- ··--·· Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111