J of Consumer Behaviour - 2021 - Youn - The Power of Brand Nostalgia Contrasting Brand Personality Dimensions and

Received: 17 September 2020 Revised: 8 March 2021 Accepted: 22 March 2021
DOI: 10.1002/cb.1941
ACADEMIC PAPER
The power of brand nostalgia: Contrasting brand personality

dimensions and consumer-brand relationships of nostalgic and
non-nostalgic brands
Seounmi Youn | Naa Amponsah Dodoo
Department of Marketing Communication,

School of Communication, Emerson College, Abstract
Boston, Massachusetts, USA Integrating the theories of nostalgia, brand personality, and consumer-brand relation-
Correspondence ships, this research examined the power of nostalgia in explaining brand personality
Seounmi Youn, Department of Marketing dimensions and five relational constructs. Online survey data across two separate
Communication, School of Communication,
Emerson College, 120 Boylston Street, Boston, studies (n = 374 for both studies) with two different sets of nostalgic and non-nostal-
Massachusetts 02116-4624, USA. gic brands was collected via Amazon MTurk with U.S. based participants to unravel
Email: [email protected]
relationships between constructs. The data analysis revealed that nostalgic brands
Funding information received stronger ratings on the brand personality dimensions of sincerity, excite-
Emerson College Faculty Development Fund
ment, and competence in both studies. In other words, the nostalgic status of brands
served as a differentiator to account for the strength of brand personality dimen-
sions. Nostalgic brands also showed stronger brand attachment, self-brand connec-
tions, separation distress, relationship quality, and brand engagement behaviors on
social media rather than non-nostalgic brands. These findings provide the utility of
nostalgia as a marketing communication tactic that can enhance important brand-
related outcomes. Furthermore, the sincerity and excitement brand personality
dimensions appeared to be important mediators to explain the link between the nos-
talgic status of brands and relational outcomes in both studies. Theoretically, this
research advances our knowledge of the theoretical mechanism behind how the nos-
talgic status of brands elucidates consumer-brand relationships by exploring the
mediating role of perceived brand personality. Practically, the findings provide strate-
gic insights into the power of channeling nostalgia in retro-marketing campaigns by
maintaining or emphasizing brand personality (e.g., sincerity, excitement, or compe-
tence), which leads to desired relational marketing outcomes.
KEYWORDS
brand attachment, brand personality, consumer-brand relationships, nostalgia, relationship
quality, self-brand connections
1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N 26 years ago. This was part of a new “Pepsi Generations” world cam-
paign signifying the brand's 120-year history (Lukovitz, 2018). Seeing
Nostalgia is an invaluable strategy for brand messaging, which mar- this nostalgic ad may have evoked Pepsi's warm and pleasant memo-
keters use to spark fond memories of the “good old days” inherent to ries. Indeed, nostalgia allows brands to shape their stories around their
brands (Heinberg et al., 2020). In 2018, Pepsi debuted their update of longevity and showcase their trustworthiness (Klara, 2018). Nostalgia
the iconic Cindy Crawford Super Bowl ad, which originally aired marketing has arguably grown in recent years as a marketing
J Consumer Behav. 2021;20:1373–1387. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cb © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1373
14791838, 2021, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.1941 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1374 YOUN AND DODOO
communication strategy. Over the past decade, some of the notable constructs: brand attachment, self-brand connections, and separation
advertisements demonstrate how marketers have tapped into nostal- distress in Study 1 (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Merchant et al., 2013;
gia to promote their products and services (Cook, n.d.). For instance, Park et al., 2010) and relationship quality and brand engagement
in October 2020, Bruce Willis reprised his role as the fabled action behaviors on social media in Study 2 (De Wulf et al., 2001; Youn &
movie character John McClane of the Die Hard franchise to promote Jin, 2017). Finally, we investigate whether perceived brand personality
Advance Auto Parts and its DieHard car batteries in a two-minute ad dimensions mediate the influence of brands' nostalgic status on con-
(Beer, 2020). In addition to storytelling, brands are banking on nostal- sumer-brand relationships.
gia in the hope of fostering their relationship with consumers This research makes unique theoretical contributions to scholar-
(Kohler, 2017). ship on nostalgia and brand personality. The findings help unravel the
Scholars have uncovered that nostalgic memories evoke positive intertwined relationships between the nostalgic status of brands,
feelings, offset boredom and anxiety, diminish the desire for money, brand personality dimensions, and consumer-brand relationships. By
and build social connectedness (Juhl et al., 2020; Lasaleta et al., 2014; doing so, we can better understand the distinct perception of brand
Van Tilburg et al., 2019; Wildschut et al., 2006). Further, nostalgic personality that consumers develop with nostalgic versus non-nostal-
advertising has been discovered to increase pleasant memories, favor- gic brands. An examination of perceived brand personality as a media-
able attitudes, and purchase intent (Merchant et al., 2013; Muehling tor also helps advance our knowledge of the underlying mechanism
et al., 2014). Despite the voluminous research on the influence of nos- behind how the nostalgic status of brands elucidates consumer-brand
talgia on consumer judgment and decision-making, few studies have relationships. Practically, the findings provide marketers with strategic
explored how the nostalgic status of brands impact relational market- parameters around which they can channel nostalgia in retro-market-
ing outcomes (Kessous et al., 2015). ing practices while accounting for the existing or evolving personality
The recent attention to nostalgia-infused marketing practices of nostalgic brands. Furthermore, the findings offer pragmatic insights
sparks the need to explore the influence of the nostalgic status of a for how to incorporate brand nostalgia into relational marketing
brand on consumer-brand relationships (Fan et al., 2020; Ford strategies.
et al., 2018; Gilal et al., 2020). Additionally, largely unexplored is how
brand personality, which builds and consolidates relationships with
consumers, differs across nostalgic vs. non-nostalgic brands. Due to 2 | LI T E RA T U R E RE V I E W
brand personality being likely to mature and evolve with time, study-
ing the efficacy of a brand's nostalgic status in influencing consumer 2.1 | Nostalgia and nostalgic brands
perception of brand personality is relevant and necessary. Given that
brand personality plays a pivotal role in developing relational conse- With Davis's (1979) pioneering work, nostalgia has been viewed as a
quences (Louis & Lombart, 2010; Pourazad et al., 2020), it is important yearning for fond memory or liking for personal experiences and pos-
to examine nostalgia as an antecedent of brand personality sessions of days gone by (Holbrook, 1993; Holbrook & Schin-
perceptions. dler, 1991). Merchant et al. (2013) defined nostalgia as a
By conducting two separate studies with different sets of brands contemplative look at the past made up of a blend of memories and
and participants, we attempt to achieve three major research objec- diverse emotions. We adopt this definition, which combines both cog-
tives. First, using Aaker's seminal work (Aaker, 1997) on brand person- nitive and affective components of nostalgia, along with the bitter-
ality, this research examines the extent to which brand personality sweet character of nostalgic recollections. We also highlight the
dimensions vary across nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands. Given that critical nature of individuals' personal memories and experiences asso-
brand personality, which develops over time and through experience, ciated with the good old days (Van Tilburg et al., 2019).
is an important differentiator of brands in the competitive landscape Scholars have integrated the emotional and cognitive compo-
(Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013a, 2013b), it is plausible that percep- nents of nostalgia. The emotional aspect of nostalgia is equivocal. Wil-
tions of the human characteristics of brands may diverge according to dschut et al. (2006) discovered that nostalgic narratives were more
their nostalgic status. Second, this research examines the effect of the related to positive emotions than negative emotions. Other scholars
nostalgic status of brands on consumer-brand relationship outcomes. view it as encompassing negative emotions or a repertoire of positive
When nostalgia is elicited by unique, personal experiences with and negative emotions (Holak & Havlena, 1992; Rutherford &
brands, it is affect-laden and emotional, and includes episodic memo- Shaw, 2011; Van Tilburg et al., 2019). Some studies showed that nos-
ries of the past (Merchant et al., 2013). This is because nostalgic talgia evokes strong emotions. For example, Ford and Merchant (2010)
brands are viewed as prominent brands that are linked to consumers' found that nostalgic appeals for charity produce stronger emotions
personal memories and feelings, and help them reconnect with close than non-nostalgic appeals. Additionally, these nostalgic appeals were
others with whom they consumed those brands together (Ford more effective compared to non-nostalgic ones when more significant
et al., 2018; Kessous et al., 2015). This experiential nature of brand memories for consumers were evoked. In a similar vein, personal nos-
nostalgia has a beneficial effect on brand relational outcomes (Ford talgia elicited by advertising was also discovered to enhance con-
et al., 2018). By incorporating the theories of nostalgia and consumer- sumers' bonds with the focal brand (Merchant et al., 2013). The
brand relationships, this study considers the following relational cognitive aspect of nostalgia is explained by episodic memories of
YOUN AND DODOO 1375
when people were younger (Holbrook & Schindler, 2003). By rec- obscurity about whether the research is measuring the perceptions of
ollecting past events with rose-tinted glasses, people become nostal- the brand or the product category in which the brand is located. Sec-
gic. In fact, because nostalgia is a self-relevant and self-referencing ond is the domain adjustment problem which is connected to the
emotion (Juhl et al., 2020; Muehling & Pascal, 2011) consisting of epi- adjectives that describe brand personality as these adjectives can
sodic memories, it is inevitable that nostalgia is closely tied to individ- express different meanings depending on the product category the
uals' personal experiences. brand belongs to (e.g., soup vs. jeans). Third is the descriptor selection
In line with this perspective, Ford et al. (2018, p. 20) defined problem which is associated with the absence of a benchmark on
brand nostalgia as a “reflection of the past comprised of memories, which a brand personality descriptor can be accepted or rejected.
emotions and thoughts related to the consumer's lived or idealized Romaniuk and Ehrenberg (2012) in their research contended that con-
experiences with the brand.” Nostalgic brands can be considered as sumers rarely link personality-based traits to brands, thus arguing
enduringly salient brands that are associated with individuals' personal against the theory of brand as person. More recently, expanding on
memories and feelings (Ford et al., 2018), whereas non-nostalgic ones current critiques of brand personality, Oklevik et al. (2020) introduced
exist in a more recent time frame both in terms of popularity and his- a new framework of human brand associations (HBA) and discovered
tory. Nostalgic brands evoke rich remembrances of the past and little evidence of brand personality traits in real associative networks
remind consumers of pleasant past and personally experienced for brands.
events; yet, consumers still buy them due to personal connection to Despite the criticism surrounding Aaker's (1997) conceptualiza-
brands (Kessous et al., 2015). Some scholars suggest that nostalgic tion and measurements of brand personality (Avis et al., 2014; Oklevik
brands refer to those that have a lengthy history of popularity, et al., 2020), it still holds weight in terms of its use within current liter-
whereas non-nostalgic ones are those that are currently popular but ature (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013a, 2013b). Drawing insights
may have been nonexistent or not as popular in the past (Loveland from a memory theory perspective, scholars argue that the memory
et al., 2010). Building on this definition, nostalgic brands can be those structures of an individual person are influenced by inferences about
that have a long history of popularity but are strongly connected to personality-trait dimensions, thus explaining certain behaviors (Hastie
consumers' episodic memories, given that nostalgia encompasses per- & Kumar, 1979; Lee et al., 2017; Orth & Bourrain, 2008). To illustrate,
sonal experiences unique to them (Heinberg et al., 2020). Lee et al. (2017) found that consumers' animosity and ethnocentric
The social, communal aspect of nostalgia offers a possibility that traits were rooted in episodic and semantic memory structures
nostalgic brands help consumers reconnect with their desirable past respectively and these traits had an impact on consumer boycott
and significant others with whom they consumed those brands behavior of foreign products. This argument helps justify why we
together in the past (Heinberg et al., 2020; Kessous et al., 2015; Love- adopt Aaker's brand personality model as our theoretical framework.
land et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2008). Nostalgia is viewed as a social As human personality traits are considered as organizing bases in
emotion, which is experienced and shared with close others around memory for impressions about individuals (Hastie & Kumar, 1979), we
the self (Van Tilburg et al., 2019). Prior studies provide empirical evi- contend that brand personality traits have an important linkage with
dence for the social function of nostalgia (Holbrook & Schindler, 2003; brand memory structures. Given that nostalgic brands are strongly
Van Tilburg et al., 2019). Consumers undoubtedly have varying brand associated with consumers' episodic memories of the past, the mem-
experiences associated with their past and social groups when it ory structures of nostalgic brands are more likely to be distinctive,
comes to nostalgic (vs. non-nostalgic) brands. Consequently, we unique, and personal (Ford et al., 2018; Heinberg et al., 2020; Kessous
expect that these brand experiences may influence consumers' per- et al., 2015; Merchant et al., 2013). If a brand is perceived as nostalgic,
ception of brand personality and consumer-brand relational it evokes more distinctive, episodic memories which may generate
constructs. stronger perceptions of brand personalities and subsequently influ-
ence certain consumer behaviors. Thus, we assert that Aaker's brand
personality-trait model (Aaker, 1997) can serve as a guidepost that
2.2 | Brand personality's link to nostalgic status elucidates the effect of the differential memory structures across nos-
talgic and non-nostalgic brands.
Brand personality is arguably one of the most essential determinants There is scholarly evidence showcasing the efficacy of Aaker's
that influence consumers' evaluative and behavioral outcomes. brand personality framework. To illustrate, Eisend and Stokburger-
Aaker (1997, p.347) defined it as “the set of human characteristics Sauer (2013a) in their meta-analysis of Aaker's brand personality iden-
associated with a brand” and identified five dimensions: sincerity, tified the antecedents and consequences of the five brand personality
competence, excitement, sophistication and ruggedness. dimensions, thus demonstrating the relevance of brand personality for
Aaker's (1997) work has been subjected to diverse critiques due to branding strategy. The same authors (Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer,
problems with the conceptual definitions (Avis, 2012) and measure- 2013b) in an additional meta-analysis of Aaker's brand personality
ments (Romaniuk & Ehrenberg, 2012). Specifically, Avis (2012) supported the idea of transferability of the human personality factors
expressed three concerns related to brand personality research using to nonhuman domains such as brands and the predictive power of the
factor methods. First is category confusion, the issue of assessing con- brand personality dimensions on brand performance (e.g., brand
sumers' perception of brand personality in instances when there is attitude).
1376 YOUN AND DODOO
Fournier's (1994) work, which permits the association between sincerity, (b) excitement, (c) competence, (d) sophistication, and
brand personality and nostalgia, conceptualizes nostalgic attachment (e) ruggedness?
as having the dual correlated factors of self-concept and nostalgic
connection. The self-concept connection entails the match between
one's self-image and that of the brand. The nostalgic connection 2.3 | Consumer-brand relationships linked to
denotes the carrying over of memories associated with the brand that nostalgic status
an individual possesses. Relatedly, brand personality is one way that
consumers can express their self-image through an interaction with a Empirical evidence offers support for the connection between nostal-
brand (Belk, 1988). gia and consumer-brand relationships (Fritz et al., 2017; Heinberg
Therefore, brand personality can enhance one's self-concept, con- et al., 2020). Kessous et al. (2015) discovered that certain consumer-
sequently deepening one's connection with the brand. For instance, brand relationship constructs (e.g., brand attachment, self-brand con-
literature suggests that consistency between a brand's personality and nections) were stronger for nostalgic brands compared to non-nostal-
a consumer's personality enhances the consumer's attachment to the gic brands. However, past attention on nostalgia's impact on
brand (e.g., Park & Lee, 2005; Parker, 2009). Consumers tend to have consumer-brand relationships do not offer a thorough reflection of
more positive attitudes toward a brand that has a personality that the breadth of significant relational outcomes that embody affective
closely aligns with their self-image (Bao & Sweeney, 2009; Huang and behavioral components. This study advances current research by
et al., 2012). Parker (2009) also found that consumers are inclined to comprehensively accounting for five relational constructs linked to
buy brands that mirror their own personality or self-image. Similarly, nostalgic brands: brand attachment, self-brand connections, and sepa-
Matz et al. (2016) discovered that people tend to buy products that fit ration distress in Study 1 and relationship quality and brand engage-
their personality and experience higher life satisfaction after such ment behaviors on social media in Study 2. An examination of these
purchases. relational outcomes is particularly relevant for our study, given that
By extension, nostalgic attachment to these brands entails a close nostalgia is linked to self-relevant, episodic memories which reconnect
attachment to the brands' distinct personalities. Nostalgic brands may consumers with social others who shared the same brand experiences
be imbued with distinct brand personalities (e.g., sincerity) that make (Ford et al., 2018; Kessous et al., 2015; Koetz & Tankersley, 2016;
them memorable (Ford et al., 2018). Nostalgic brands may have had a Merchant et al., 2013).
strong personality to attain popularity in the past. Non-nostalgic Study 1 examined three constructs of brand attachment, self-
brands may express distinct personalities as well. However, it is likely brand connections, and separation distress as indicators of brand rela-
that differences exist between these two categories of brands, given tionship quality because they collectively represent the brand's link-
that nostalgic brands tend to be more memorable than non-nostalgic age to the self as an identity basis (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Park
brands because nostalgic brands are linked to consumers' past experi- et al., 2010). This brand-self linkage is inherently affect-laden and
ences with the brands and significant others who shared the same emotional (Heinberg et al., 2020; Pourazad et al., 2019, 2020; Thom-
brand experiences (Ford et al., 2018; Sierra & McQuitty, 2007). son et al., 2005). Study 2 investigated relationship quality and brand
Though substantive research exists on antecedents and conse- engagement behaviors on social media because these constructs
quences of brand personality (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013a; largely stand for brand commitment or advocacy in the form of brand
Louis & Lombart, 2010), an unanswered question that remains is the loyalty or positive word-of-mouth (Park et al., 2010; Pourazad
predictive role of nostalgia in explaining brand personality. Though et al., 2019, 2020). Differences between nostalgic and non-nostalgic
scarce, past research provides some support for this inquiry. For brands are expected in these constructs due to a varying degree of
instance, brands that have early origins are imbued with sincerity commitment made for relationship-sustaining behaviors.
(Aaker, 2004; Merchant & Rose, 2013). Braun-LaTour and
LaTour (2007) in their research observed that sincerity was connected
to childhood memories. Ford et al. (2018) found that the brand per- 2.3.1 | Brand attachment
sonality dimension of sincerity positively influenced brand nostalgia.
Utilizing Aaker's framework (Aaker, 1997) of brand personality dimen- Brand attachment refers to the intensity of the connection between a
sions as a guidepost, our study endeavors to examine how consumers' consumer and a brand (Park et al., 2010). Park et al. (2010) conceptu-
perceptions of five distinct personality dimensions (sincerity, excite- alized the link between the brand and self, illustrated by a broad men-
ment, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness) vary for nostalgic tal representation that is comprised of people's thoughts and feelings
and non-nostalgic brands. However, the limited research on this topic about the brand and its relationship to themselves. Brand attachment
propels us to pose a research question as to the differences between has been found to influence purchase intentions (Esch et al., 2006),
nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands with regard to consumers' assess- actual purchase behaviors (Park et al., 2010), and loyalty, trust and
ment of each brand personality dimension. Formally: commitment (Belaid & Behi, 2011).
Indeed, research evidence suggests that people tend to have per-
RQ1. Compared to non-nostalgic brands, do nostalgic brands show sonal attachments to brands that evoke past events and personal
stronger perceptions on brand personality dimensions: (a) experiences (Heinberg et al., 2020; Sultan et al., 2010). This would be
YOUN AND DODOO 1377
because nostalgia-induced brands are linked to consumers' emotions brands may no longer exist or that consumers may no longer be able
and episodic memories of the past, which help consumers connect to access them may evoke negative emotions. It is plausible that such
back to significant others with whom they interacted with those nostalgic brands may likely elicit negative feelings of loss if consumers
brands together (Ford et al., 2018; Merchant et al., 2013). Kessous anticipate losing the brand. In contrast, non-nostalgic brands may not
et al. (2015) discovered that brands perceived as nostalgic positively elicit similar feelings of anticipated loss because of a lack of positive
influenced brand attachment. Thus, we expect that: memories associated with the brand and consequently less attach-
ment to the brand. Therefore, we expect that:
H1. Brand attachment will be stronger for nostalgic brands than non-
nostalgic brands. H3. Separation distress will be stronger for nostalgic brands than
non-nostalgic brands.
2.3.2 | Self-brand connections

2.3.4 | Brand relationship quality
Self-brand connections can be defined as an individual's tendency to
incorporate brands into their self-concept (Escalas & Bettman, 2003). Being rooted in relationship marketing literature, scholars acknowl-
The strength of self-brand connections is contingent on the similarity edge that relationship quality comprises three distinct but related sub-
of the consumer's image to that of the brand (Ferraro et al., 2013). dimensions: trust, satisfaction and commitment (De Wulf et al., 2001).
Therefore, the extent to which brands have been integrated into a Trust refers to the readiness one has to have reliance and confidence
consumer's self-concept represents a critical aspect of the consumer- in a market partner (Moorman et al., 1993). Satisfaction represents an
brand relationship (Tan et al., 2018). individual's affective state stemming from an overall evaluation of his/
Particular brands consumers integrate into their lives may have her relationship with a brand (Liang & Wang, 2007). Commitment con-
the ability to reinstate past feelings, memories or events (Belk, 1988, sists of an individual's constant desire to maintain a valuable partner-
1990; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). Nostalgic bonding in self-brand ship with a brand (Morris et al., 1999).
connections explains why nostalgia appeals work better in comparison Nostalgic brands, due to their longevity and brand history, may
with non-nostalgia ones (Holbrook & Schindler, 2003). Several studies inspire trust compared to non-nostalgic brands. Nostalgic brands tend
demonstrate that nostalgia-evoked qualities foster strong bonds in to be perceived as authentic which enhances brand relationship qual-
self-brand connections due to positive emotions and episodic memo- ity (Fritz et al., 2017). Nostalgic emotions have been found to be asso-
ries tied to the brands, thereby cultivating consumer-brand relation- ciated with consumer satisfaction in the context of food packaging
ships (Merchant et al., 2013; Park et al., 2010). Kessous et al. (2015) (Chen, 2014). Commitment, similar to loyalty (Sanchez-Franco, 2009),
also uncovered that brands evocative of nostalgia developed stronger may be influenced by nostalgia which triggers a strong attachment to
self-brand connections. Formally, we hypothesize that: a brand (Demirbag-Kaplan et al., 2015). Youn and Jin (2017) found
that increases in ad evoked nostalgia generated consumers' stronger
H2. Self-brand connections will be stronger with nostalgic brands relationship quality with the brand advertised on Pinterest. Alto-
than non-nostalgic brands. gether, we expect that:
H4. Relationship quality will be stronger for nostalgic brands than

2.3.3 | Separation distress non-nostalgic brands.
Separation distress is one of the emotional indicators of brand attach-

ment (Park et al., 2010). Otherwise stated, the strength of a con- 2.3.5 | Brand engagement behaviors on social
sumer's attachment to a brand will determine the level of distress s/ media
he experiences at the possibility of losing the relationship with the
brand (Park et al., 2010). Detachment from a brand connected with a Though still in its nascent research stages, academics and practitioners
consumer can cause emotional distress and its subsequent negative are giving more attention to the concept of consumer-brand engage-
emotions of anxiety (Park et al., 2010; Thomson et al., 2005). ment through social media (Gómez et al., 2019; Pourazad et al., 2020).
Research posits a connection between nostalgia memories cues and Social media platforms have materialized as powerful marketing tools
consumer behavior (e.g., Holak & Havlena, 1992; Muehling & through which brands can engender consumer engagement. Scholars
Sprott, 2004; Zauberman et al., 2009). Nostalgic brands are associated view engagement as a relational construct that mirrors the interactive
with past events and memories and typically represent strong feelings aspect of consumer-brand relationships (Gómez et al., 2019;
of brand attachment (Sultan et al., 2010). These past memories and Hollebeek et al., 2014). Consumer-brand engagement consists of the
events consumers typically associate with nostalgic brands can entirety of a consumer's positive associations of cognitive, emotional
encourage their purchase of nostalgic brands (Sierra & and behavioral actions produced during or connected to consumer-
McQuitty, 2007). Therefore, the cues that suggest that nostalgic brand interactions (Hollebeek et al., 2014).
1378 YOUN AND DODOO
Focusing on the behavioral aspect of consumer-brand engage- 3 | METHOD

ment on social media (i.e., commenting, sharing, liking brand posts),
we expect that nostalgic brands will generate more brand engagement Using the survey research method, we collected data employing Ama-
on social media than non-nostalgic brands (Koetz & Tankersley, 2016). zon MTurk as an online panel. Two pretests were conducted to select
Nostalgic brands elicit higher levels of brand-related feelings and nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands and two main studies were con-
thoughts due to past episodic memories connected with the brand ducted to examine the relationships between constructs. We con-
(Ford et al., 2018). In the context of social media, Youn and Jin (2017) ducted Study 1 and Study 2 separately for replication and extension
found that ad evoked nostalgia on Pinterest had a strong effect on purposes by using different sets of brands. The objective of Study 2
consumers' brand attitudes, purchase intention, and willingness to was twofold: (1) to replicate the findings of Study 1 with regard to the
pass along branded messages. Youn and Jin (2017) argued that ad difference between nostalgic versus non-nostalgic brands in brand
evoked nostalgia may function to enhance social bonds through facili- personality dimensions and (2) to extend Study 1 by examining differ-
tating eWOM within a network of friends. Similarly, Youn (2020) dis- ent relational constructs in the context of consumer-brand
covered that ad evoked nostalgia on Facebook increased consumers' relationships.
intention to involve in brand engagement on social media. Consumers
are more likely to utilize social media to actively engage with nostalgic
brands because of self-brand memories (Koetz & Tankersley, 2016). 3.1 | Pretests: Selection of brands and product
Otherwise stated, once brands produce reminiscence involving brand categories
memories, consumers are more likely to share such sentiments with
close others on social media by either endorsing, sharing or learning 3.1.1 | Pretest 1
more about these brands. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
Two pretests helped to select nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands. In
H5. Brand engagement behaviors on social media will be stronger for pretest 1, we asked two open-ended questions to obtain a list of nos-
nostalgic brands than non-nostalgic brands. talgic and non-nostalgic brands across seven product categories: (1)
Can you name the brands that you associated with “good old days” in
your life? What brands bring nostalgic feelings or thoughts into your
2.4 | Mediating role of brand personality mind? and (2) Can you name the brands that are not associated with
dimensions “good old days,” or nostalgic feelings or thoughts? In our research,
seven product categories include candy, beverage, breakfast, games/
Based on our discussion of the nostalgic status of brands, brand per- toys, apparel, vehicles, and cleaning products (see Table 1). These
sonality, and relational outcomes, we expect that brand personality product categories were selected because they were primarily exam-
dimensions mediate the influence of the nostalgic status of brands on ined in prior studies on brand nostalgia within the retro-marketing lit-
relational outcomes. We attempt to discover the theoretical mecha- erature (e.g., Ford et al., 2018; Kessous, 2015; Kessous et al., 2015;
nism underlying how the nostalgic status of brands could boost con- Loveland et al., 2010).
sumer-brand relationships. Extant studies have argued that brand Employing a snowball sampling method, northeastern college stu-
personality has direct and indirect impacts on consumer-brand rela- dents in the U.S. and their circle of friends and family members were
tionships, including trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand reached (n = 93) (female 58; age range: 18–65). Brands were listed,
(Louis & Lombart, 2010) and brand passion (Pourazad et al., 2020). tallied, and ranked by the frequency of responses. For each product
Not only can brand personality dimensions have an effect on con- category, 10 brands were selected for an initial list of nostalgic and
sumer-brand relationships, it can also elucidate behavioral outcomes non-nostalgic brands, thus leading to a total of 70 nostalgic and 70
(Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013a). Indeed, brand personality non-nostalgic brands. The full sets of nostalgic and non-nostalgic
explains intentions of future behavior such as brand choice and pur- brands were divided into two sets of nostalgic and non-nostalgic
chase intentions (e.g., Gordon et al., 2016; Swaminathan et al., 2009). brands for Study 1 and Study 2, thus resulting in 35 nostalgic and 35
In a meta-analysis on Aaker's brand personality dimensions, Eisend non-nostalgic brands for each study.
and Stokburger-Sauer (2013a) found that a consumer's prior experi-
ence with the brand is one of key antecedents of explaining brand
personality dimensions, and brand relationship strength is one of the 3.1.2 | Pretest 2
key consequences stemming from brand personality dimensions.
Thus, we predict the mediating role of brand personality dimensions In pretest 2, Amazon MTurk was used to recruit a sample of different
in explaining the influence of the nostalgic status of brands on rela- ages and genders to finalize a list of nostalgic and non-nostalgic
tional marketing outcomes. brands. The two sets of 35 nostalgic and 35 non-nostalgic brands
were assessed in a second sample from the U.S. (n = 146 for Study 1
H6. Perceived brand personality dimensions will mediate the effect and n = 153 for Study 2). Two questions were asked to create a nos-
of the nostalgic status of brands on relational outcomes. talgia index: “(Brand Name) reminds me of the good old days” and
YOUN AND DODOO 1379
TABLE 1 List of nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands
Study 1
Category Nostalgic brands (n = 21) Non-nostalgic brands (n = 21)

Candy M&M Reese's Kit Kat Bar Swedish Fish Sour Patch Kids Lindt
Beverage Kool-Aid Coca Cola Sunny D Red Bull Naked Juice Smart Water
Breakfast McDonald's Frosted Flakes Lucky Charms Fiber One Panera Bread Special K
Games/Toys Lego Operation Atari Cards Against Humanity League of Legends Wii
Apparel Converse Levi's Nike Patagonia Forever 21 Urban Outfitters
Vehicles Ford Volkswagen Jeep Lexus Tesler Subaru
Cleaning Products Arm & Hammer Windex Mr. Clean Swiffer Kaboom Febreze
Study 2
Category Nostalgic brands (n = 21) Non-nostalgic brands (n = 21)

Candy Hershey's Skittles Snickers Godiva Orbit Ferrero Rocher
Beverage Capri Sun Nestlé Pepsi Monster Poland Spring Vita Coco
Breakfast Kellogg's Pop-Tarts Cheerios Chobani Kind Bar IHOP
Games/Toys Super Mario Bros Monopoly Hot Wheels Assasin's Creed Call of Duty Candy Crush
Apparel Guess Tommy Hilfiger Adidas Zara Primark Lululemon
Vehicles VW Beetle Cadillac Chevrolet Prius INFINITI Audi
Cleaning Products Ajax Downy Pledge Mrs. Meyers Method OxiClean
“(Brand Name) makes me feel nostalgic” (Pascal et al., 2002). These college or vocational school, 41% had completed college, and 26%
two questions were measured with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from had some graduate school or completed graduate school. In Study 2,
1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree.” females were 48% of the sample (n = 179), with an average age of 36.
First, to create a brand nostalgia index, raw scores of these two Regarding education, about 9% of participants had finished high
questions were averaged for each brand, thus indicating that the school, 21% had attended some college or vocational school, 38% had
higher mean scores represent more nostalgic brands. Each brand's completed college, and 31% had some graduate school or completed
mean score of the nostalgia index was assessed. For each product cat- graduate school.
egory, the three strongest brands in the nostalgia index were selected The questionnaire consisted of three parts. First, participants in
for nostalgic brands, while the three weakest brands were chosen for each study were asked to choose one nostalgic brand from the list of
non-nostalgic brands. The mean scores comparison allowed us to nar- 21 nostalgic brands and then were directed to a series of questions to
row down to 21 nostalgic and 21 non-nostalgic brands for Study 1 assess brand personality and consumer-brand relationships. The nos-
and Study 2 respectively. Second, the results of paired-samples t-tests talgic brand was selected with the following instruction: “Choose a
showed that the majority of mean comparisons between nostalgic and brand from the list, which is important for you because it evokes rich
non-nostalgic brands were statistically significant, thus demonstrating remembrances of the past for you. It is a nostalgic brand you are emo-
that consumers perceived 21 nostalgic brands as nostalgic while per- tionally close to. It is a brand that reminds you vividly of past day-to-
ceiving 21 non-nostalgic brands as non-nostalgic for Study 1 and day or important events. Today, you still buy this brand occasionally
Study 2. The final list of 42 brands is presented across product cate- when you see it on the shelves.” For the second part, participants in
gories in Table 1 for Study 1 and Study 2. each study were asked to select one non-nostalgic brand from the list
of 21 non-nostalgic brands: “Select a brand that you know and have
eventually bought but which is not associated with particular nostalgic
3.2 | Data collection for main studies and sample memories.” These wordings were borrowed from Kessous
profile et al.'s (2015) work with minor modification (italics added). Next, iden-
tical questions measuring brand personality and consumer-brand rela-
The two main studies were parallel in terms of data collection. A total tionships were asked. The order of choosing and evaluating nostalgic
of 402 (Study 1) and 400 (Study 2) participants based in the U.S. were and non-nostalgic brands was randomized to counterbalance the
recruited from Amazon MTurk. After eliminating 28 and 26 partici- order bias. Randomly, half of the participants were asked to choose a
pants in Study 1 and Study 2 respectively who did not pass attention nostalgic brand and respond to a series of questions about that nostal-
check questions, a total of 374 participants were included in the final gic brand first, while the other half were asked to choose a non-nos-
data analysis for both studies. In Study 1, females made up 52% of the talgic brand and respond to a series of questions about the non-
sample (n = 193), with an average age of 36. As for education, about nostalgic brand first. Finally, the third part collected demo-
10% of participants had finished high school, 22% had attended some graphic data.
1380 YOUN AND DODOO
3.3 | Measures non-nostalgic brands. The respondents considered nostalgic brands

more sincere (Mnostalgic = 5.24 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 4.53, F = 116.60,
Brand personality was measured with Aaker's (1997) 42 items of five p < .001), more exciting (Mnostalgic = 4.94 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 4.57,
dimensions (Study 1—α = .84 .90 for nostalgic brands and F = 31.71, p < .001), more competent (Mnostalgic = 4.92 vs. Mnon-nostal-
α = .85 .92 for non-nostalgic brands and Study 2—α = .82 .89 for gic = 4.62, F = 29.66, p < .001), and more sophisticated
nostalgic brands and α = .85 .93 for non-nostalgic brands). In Study (Mnostalgic = 4.30 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 4.14, F = 6.11, p < .05).
1, brand attachment and separation distress were estimated with the
items adapted from Park et al.'s study (Park et al., 2010). Brand attach-
ment items included “To what extent is (brand name) a part of you 4.2 | Differences between nostalgic vs. non-
and who you are?” (6 items: nostalgic brands—α = .90; non-nostalgic nostalgic brands in consumer-brand relationships
brands—α = .93). Separation distress items included “To what extent (H1–H5)
is it difficult to imagine life without (brand name)?” (3 items: nostalgic
brands—α = .89; non-nostalgic brands—α = .91). The items to rate self- In Study 1, H1 to H3 predicted that brand attachment, self-brand con-
brand connection were adopted from Escalas and Bettman's nections, and separation distress would be stronger for nostalgic
study (2003). Items included “This brand reflects who I am” (5 items: brands than non-nostalgic brands. As shown in Table 2, nostalgic
nostalgic brands—α = .91; non-nostalgic brands—α = .95). brands received higher mean scores on all consumer-brand relation-
In Study 2, relationship quality items (De Wulf et al., 2001) ship constructs than non-nostalgic brands: brand attachment—
included “I feel loyal towards this brand” (9 items: nostalgic brands— Mnostalgic = 5.00 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 3.17, F = 454.54, p < .001; self-
α = .93; non-nostalgic brands—α = .94). Finally, the items to measure brand connections—Mnostalgic = 4.39 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 3.13,
brand engagement behaviors on social media (Youn & Jin, 2017) F = 188.15, p < .001; separation distress—Mnostalgic = 4.81 vs. Mnon-nos-
included “I write comments about this brand on social media” (5 talgic = 3.22, F = 205.76, p < .001.
items: nostalgic brands—α = .95; non-nostalgic brands—α = .97). All In Study 2, H4 and H5 predicted that nostalgic brands would
items were measured with a 7-point Likert scale and items' raw scores show stronger perceptions on relationship quality and brand engage-
were averaged for further analysis. ment behaviors on social media, compared to non-nostalgic brands.
As presented in Table 2, nostalgic brands received higher mean scores
on two relational marketing outcomes than non-nostalgic brands: rela-
4 | RESULTS tionship quality—Mnostalgic = 5.37 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 4.60, F = 97.61,
p < .001; brand engagement behaviors on social media—
Participants' evaluation of the dependent measures (brand personality Mnostalgic = 3.51 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 3.05, F = 40.80, p < .001.
dimensions and consumer-brand relationships) was completed twice
for nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands.
Otherwise stated, measurements for dependent variables were 4.3 | Mediating role of brand personality
repeated according to the status of the brand, nostalgic versus non- dimensions
nostalgic. Thus, repeated measures ANOVAs were employed by run-
ning the General Linear Model. With this analytical approach, we This research expected that brand personality dimensions would
examined RQ1, along with H1 through H5. mediate the effect of brands' nostalgic status on consumer-brand rela-
tionships (H6). To this end, we performed a mediation analysis by
using the MEMORE 2.1 macro, which enables the estimation of a
4.1 | Differences between nostalgic and non- mediation model with repeated measures (Montoya & Hayes, 2017).
nostalgic brands in brand personality (RQ1) We employed a parallel mediation analysis (Model 1) with 5,000 boot-
strap samples by including “five brand personality dimensions” (M) as
RQ1 inquired whether nostalgic brands would show stronger percep- parallel multiple mediators to explain the relationship between brands'
tions on brand personality dimensions than non-nostalgic brands. In nostalgic status (X) and outcome variables (Y). Five separate media-
Study 1, four brand personality dimensions except the sophistication tional analyses per each outcome variable were conducted.
one (d) were rated higher for nostalgic brands, compared to non-nos- In Study 1, the results revealed that the indirect effect of brands'
talgic brands. The respondents considered nostalgic brands more sin- nostalgic status on dependent measures was significant through sin-
cere (Mnostalgic = 5.19 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 4.32, F = 186.20, p < .001), cerity (β = .29, 95% CI = .16 to .43 for brand attachment; β = .27, 95%
more exciting (Mnostalgic = 4.67 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 4.40, F = 14.15, CI = .13 to .43 for self-brand connections; β = .32, 95% CI = .13 to .51
p < .001), more competent (Mnostalgic = 4.76 vs. Mnon-nostalgic = 4.36, for separation distress) and excitement (β = .06, 95% CI = .02 to .12
F = 44.64, p < .001), and more rugged (Mnostalgic = 3.74 vs. Mnon-nostal- for brand attachment; β = .09, 95% CI = .03 to .17 for self-brand con-
gic = 3.27, F = 38.45, p < .001) (see Table 2). nections). The competence dimension appeared to be significant for
In Study 2, nostalgic brands showed stronger perceptions on four only separation distress (β = .16, 95% CI = .05 to .31). The ruggedness
brand personality dimensions except for ruggedness (e), compared to dimensions appeared to be significant for only brand attachment
YOUN AND DODOO 1381
TABLE 2 Brand personality dimensions and consumer-brand relationships by nostalgic status of the brands: Study 1 and Study 2
Nostalgic brands Non-nostalgic brands

Constructs (Mean) (Mean) F value p value ηp2 Results
Study 1
Brand personality
Sincerity 5.19 4.32 186.20 .000 .33
Excitement 4.67 4.40 14.15 .000 .04
Competence 4.76 4.36 44.64 .000 .11
Sophistication 3.95 3.91 0.30 .585 .00
Ruggedness 3.74 3.27 38.45 .000 .09
Consumer-brand relationships
Brand attachment 5.00 3.17 454.54 .000 .55 H1 supported
Self-brand connections 4.39 3.13 188.15 .000 .34 H2 supported
Separation distress 4.81 3.22 205.76 .000 .36 H3 supported
Study 2
Brand personality
Sincerity 5.24 4.53 116.60 .000 .24
Excitement 4.94 4.57 31.71 .000 .08
Competence 4.92 4.62 29.66 .000 .07
Sophistication 4.30 4.14 6.11 .014 .02
Ruggedness 3.76 3.72 0.32 .571 .00
Consumer-brand relationships
Relationship quality 5.37 4.60 97.61 .000 .21 H4 supported
Brand engagement behaviors 3.51 3.05 40.80 .000 .10 H5 supported
(β = .06, 95% CI = .00 to .13). The indirect mediational effect through mechanism underlying the linkage between a brand's nostalgic status
the sophistication dimension was not significant for all dependent and consumer-brand relationships by exploring the mediating role of
measures (see Table 3). brand personality dimensions. In doing so, this research contributes to
In Study 2, the indirect effect of brands' nostalgic status on an understanding of the efficacy of nostalgia in the relationship mar-
dependent measures was significant through excitement (β = .08, 95% keting context and advances our knowledge of the interlinked rela-
CI = .03 to .15 for relationship quality; β = .11, 95% CI = .05 to .18 for tionships between nostalgia, brand personality dimensions, and
brand engagement behaviors) and competence (β = .08, 95% CI = .03 relational constructs. To our understanding, this research is the first
to .14 for relationship quality; β = .06, 95% CI = .01 to .12 for brand theoretical and empirical attempt to investigate the nostalgic status of
engagement behaviors). The sincerity dimension emerged to be signif- brands as an antecedent of brand personality dimensions and the
icant for only relationship quality (β = .29, 95% CI = .19 to .40). The mediating role of brand personality dimensions. Importantly, the
indirect mediational effect was not significant through sophistication incorporation of the different sets of brands and participants
and ruggedness. By and large, sincerity and excitement, among the broadens the theoretical and managerial implications of the findings in
five dimensions of brand personality, appeared to be important several ways.
dimensions that played a mediating role across Study 1 and Study 2. Contemporary examination of Aaker's framework is underserved
in the nostalgia literature. Using Aaker's (1997) brand personality
framework, this research discovered that the nostalgic status of
5 | C O N CL U S I O N A ND D I S C U S S I O N brands served as a differentiator to account for brand personality
dimensions. Consumers imbue brands with human personality traits
5.1 | Summary of major findings and theoretical and express their self-identity through brand personality (Aaker, 1997).
implications Given this self-expressive and symbolic role of brand personality, we
can argue that consumers use nostalgic brands to create and shape
This research presents the differential impact of the nostalgic status their self-identity. When brand personality is likely to mature, endure,
of a brand on perceived brand personality dimensions and consumer- and evolve through the passage of time, it is natural to discover that
brand relationships. Further, this study examines the theoretical nostalgic brands with longevity and in the connection to personal
1382 YOUN AND DODOO
TABLE 3 Mediated model examining the indirect effect of the nostalgic status of brands on consumer-brand relationships: Study 1 and Study
2 (H6)
Study 1 Study 2
Self-brand Brand engagement

Brand attachment connections Separation distress Relationship quality behaviors on SM
R2 = .33*** R2 = .29*** R2 = .20*** R2 = .37*** R2 = .18***
X à M1 (SI) .87 (.06)*** .87 (.06)*** .87 (.06)*** .71 (.07)*** .71 (.07)***
X à M2 (EX) .26 (.07)*** .26 (.07)*** .26 (.07)*** .37 (.07)*** .37 (.07)***
X à M3 (CO) .40 (.06)*** .40 (.06)*** .40 (.06)*** .30 (.06)*** .30 (.06)***
X à M4 (SO) .04 (.07) .04 (.07) .04 (.07) .16 (.07)* .16 (.07)*
X à M5 (RU) .47 (.08)*** .47 (.08)*** .47 (.08)*** .04 (.07) .04 (.07)
M1 (SI) à Y .33 (.07)*** .31 (.08)*** .36 (.10)*** .40 (.06)*** .05 (.06)
M2 (EX) à Y .24 (.07)*** .35 (.08)*** .16 (.10) .22 (.06)*** .30 (.07)***
M3 (CO) à Y .04 (.09) .11 (.10) .41 (.12)*** .27 (.08)** .21 (.09)*
M4 (SO) à Y −.09 (.08) .03 (.09) −.14 (.11) .05 (.06) −.05 (.07)
M5 (RU) à Y .12 (.06)* .13 (.06)* .05 (.08) −.06 (.06) −.01 (.06)
Direct (X à Y) 1.40 (.09)*** .79 (.10)*** 1.05 (.13)*** .32 (.08)*** .26 (.08)**
XàMàY
Indirect M1 (SI) .29 (.07) [.16, .43] .27 (.07) [.13, .43] .32 (.10) [.13, .51] .29 (.05) [.19, .40] .04 (.05) [−.07, .13]
Indirect M2 (EX) .06 (.03) [.02, .12] .09 (.04) [.03, .17] .04 (.04) [−.02, .12] .08 (.03) [.03, .15] .11 (.03) [.05, .18]
Indirect M3 (CO) .02 (.04) [−.06, .10] .04 (.05) [−.04, .14] .16 (.07) [.05, .31] .08 (.03) [.03, .14] .06 (.03) [.01, .12]
Indirect M4 (SO) −.00 (.01) [−.02, .01] .00 (.01) [−.01, .02] −.01 (.01) [−.04, .01 (.01) [−.02, .04] −.01 (.01) [−.04,
.02] .02]
Indirect M5 (RU) .06 (.03) [.00, .13] .06 (.04) [−.01, .15] .02 (.04) [−.05, .11] −.00 (.01) [−.02, −.00 (.01) [−.01,
.01] .01]
Total indirect .42 (.07) [.30, .56] .47 (.08) [.32, .64] .54 (.10) [.36, .74] .46 (.06) [.34, .58] .20 (.06) [.09, .31]
effect
Note: Coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. 95% CI in brackets. M1 is the sincerity; M2 is the excitement; M3 is the competence; M4 is the
sophistication; M5 is the ruggedness; X is the nostalgic status of brands (0 = non-nostalgic brands; 1 = nostalgic brands); Y is the relational outcome
variables. Significant mediation in bold.
*p < .01. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
experience are perceived as having stronger brand personality dimen- (Aaker, 1997). As humanlike characteristics linked to nostalgic brands,
sions than non-nostalgic brands. Our subsequent discussion of the it could be imagined that personalities of nostalgic brands exhibit
results highlights how this research complements existing studies on traits located in the human personality dimensions of “Agreeable-
nostalgia and brand personality as a research stream. ness,” “Extroversion,” and “Conscientiousness,” despite the differ-
Across both studies, the nostalgic brands were found to receive ences between brand personality and human personality.
higher ratings on the sincerity, excitement, and competence dimen- It should be noted that the differences between nostalgic and
sions of brand personality, compared to non-nostalgic brands. The non-nostalgic brands appeared to show small effect sizes (ηp2) in some
most salient effect for nostalgic brands was observed for the sincerity brand personality dimensions (e.g., excitement), although the differ-
dimension, which encapsulates the positive self-regard of nostalgia— ences are statistically significant. To explain this observation, we
integrity, nourishment, and social acceptance (Ford et al., 2018). employed Aaker's (1997) hierarchical brand personality framework,
Regarding the excitement dimension, consumers perceived nostalgic which is composed of five dimensions, 15 facets, and 42 traits. Specif-
brands more exciting, which connotes energy, spirit, and imagination. ically, we created an index of 15 facets and compared the mean
Nostalgic brands also received stronger ratings on the competence scores of the 15 facets across nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands (see
dimension capturing reliability, leader, and success. Thus, nostalgic Appendix A). With this analytical approach, we can delve into the dif-
brands are likely to be perceived to build up sincere, exciting, and ferences and similarities in facets between nostalgic and non-nostalgic
competent brand personalities over time. Interestingly, these three brands within each brand personality dimension. To illustrate, nostal-
brand personality dimensions relate to three of the Big Five human gic (vs. non-nostalgic) brands received higher ratings on the “excite-
personality dimensions (e.g., Agreeableness with Sincerity, Extrover- ment” dimension and this was mainly attributable to the “spirited”
sion with Excitement, and Conscientiousness with Competence) and “imaginative” facets in Study1 and Study 2. However, the “up-to-
YOUN AND DODOO 1383
date” facet did not contribute to the stronger perception of the bolstering consumer-brand relationships. In addition, such positive
excitement dimension for nostalgic brands in both studies. This differ- feelings or emotions associated with nostalgic brands offer an impor-
ential perception of the facets within the same brand personality tant theoretical interpretation for the effect of brands' nostalgic status
dimension could have led to the small effect size of the brand person- on brand personality dimensions.
ality dimensions when all mean scores of the facets were aggregated. The mediational analysis provided evidence that a brand's nos-
This sheds light on the importance of observing the differences of the talgic status influences consumer-brand relationships through brand
facets subsumed by the brand personality dimension. personality dimensions. Particularly, the sincerity and excitement
Different findings were also observed across two studies. Nostal- dimensions of brand personality appeared to be important mediators
gic brands were perceived stronger on the ruggedness dimension in in both studies. When nostalgic brands were perceived to be more
Study 1 only, whereas nostalgic brands were perceived stronger on sincere and exciting, they successfully nurtured consumer-brand
the sophistication dimension in Study 2 only. We speculate that these relationships. Our research finding aligns with Li et al.'s (2019)
different findings may be due in part to the small or medium effect research that connects nostalgia with hotel brand attachment via
sizes, thus indicating that the ruggedness and sophistication dimen- nostalgic emotions. Among nostalgic emotions, they uncovered that
sions are not diagnostic enough to discern the nostalgic status of nostalgia evoked two positive emotions (warm/tender and upbeat/
brands. This may be attributable to aspirational brand associations of elation) and that these positive emotions subsequently accounted for
ruggedness and sophistication, which are not necessarily related to an brand attachment. Although the two positive emotions in Li
innate part of human personality traits (Aaker, 1997). Alternatively, et al.'s (2019) study are not identical to brand personality dimensions,
these different findings may be related to the different sets of brands they may assist in shaping sincerity and excitement brand personali-
examined in two studies. Thus, caution should be taken when inter- ties, given the importance of the emotional function of nostalgia
preting the findings. Future research with a wider range of brand sets (Ford & Merchant, 2010; Wildschut et al., 2006). Perhaps, sincerity
is needed to untangle these differences. and excitement brand personalities serve as a major bridge between
The findings of our research showed that all five consumer-brand nostalgia and brand relational outcomes. The competence dimension
relational constructs, linking to the social aspect of nostalgia, received of brand personality emerged as an important mediator in Study 2.
stronger ratings for nostalgic brands compared to non-nostalgic This is important to note as competence has been found to influence
brands. Study 1 found that consumers feel a stronger attachment to brand trust and brand affect (Sung & Kim, 2010). Since competence
and greater self-brand connections with nostalgic brands. Notably, it can instill trust, nostalgic brands benefit from having such associa-
was found that consumers felt more distressed if they sensed that tions which may have influenced the brand relational outcomes in
nostalgic brands may not be around in their life. The nostalgic status Study 2. Yet, the ruggedness and sophistication dimensions, which
of brands is strong enough to create emotional distress, when con- are aspirational brand personalities, appeared to be less important
sumers anticipate the loss of the relationship with the nostalgic mediators across two studies. Overall, despite some differences
brands (Park et al., 2010). This is because nostalgic brands elicit rich across two studies, our findings help investigate the interlinked rela-
remembrances of the past and are associated with consumers' per- tionships between the brands' nostalgic status, brand personality
sonal, positive memories and feelings (Ford et al., 2018). With Study dimensions, and relational outcomes, thus advancing our knowledge
2, this research also enriches the current relational marketing litera- of the theoretical mechanism underlying nostalgia-relational out-
ture by showcasing the power of nostalgia in influencing relationship come linkages.
quality and brand engagement activities on social media (Koetz & Tan-
kersley, 2016; Youn & Jin, 2017). The nostalgic status of brands may
prompt consumers to interact with brands on social media for social 5.2 | Managerial implications
sharing. This can be in the form of any of either commenting or shar-
ing brand content on social media. Through social sharing, nostalgia On a practical level, this research provides brand managers with
may serve as a driver that positively impacts the development of actionable insights into the power of channeling nostalgia for branding
social bonds between consumers and brands on social media or in and marketing communication strategies. Findings from both studies
online communities (Koetz & Tankersley, 2016). demonstrate that a brand with nostalgia equity generates stronger
Differences across nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands lend cre- perceptions of brand personality dimensions as well as more positive
dence to the premise that the social, communal view of nostalgia consumer-brand relationship outcomes. Specifically, it is rec-
helps facilitate brands' social function, which connects consumers' ommended that brand personality dimensions such as sincerity,
own self with brands. It seems that the brands with nostalgic memo- excitement, and competence be maintained or even emphasized in
ries instill positive feelings to reconnect with close, significant others retro-branding campaigns. As discussed prior, it is notable to observe
that used the brands together in happier days gone by (Kessous that these personalities of nostalgic brands are comparable to traits
et al., 2015; Loveland et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2008). Supporting a found in the human personality factors such as agreeableness, extro-
restorative social function of nostalgia (Van Tilburg et al., 2019) as version, and conscientiousness. This finding is in line with the argu-
well as the emotional function of nostalgia (Ford & Merchant, 2010; ment that imbuing a brand with humanlike personalities serves as a
Wildschut et al., 2006), the findings on the five relational constructs valuable positioning strategy for brand managers (Aaker, 1997;
advance our knowledge about the value of brands' nostalgic status in Puzakova & Kwak, 2017).
1384 YOUN AND DODOO
This research shows that brand managers need to leverage the replicate the findings in other research sites for external validity,
differentiating power of nostalgia as a tool for maintaining brand rela- including cross-cultural or cross-national studies (Ford et al., 2018;
tionships with consumers. Given that nostalgic brands consistently Heinberg et al., 2020). In a similar vein, this research's findings have
performed better for all relational outcomes than non-nostalgic limited external validity because of our MTurk sample's demographics,
brands, managers need to capitalize on the nostalgic aspect of their which do not reflect the U.S. census data. The findings need to be val-
brand to foster attachment and connections to the brand as well as idated with a representative sample balanced across various
relationship quality. To develop relationships with their consumers, demographics.
managers can employ memory-triggering features such as sensory Caution should be taken when interpreting the differences
inputs, social interactions, brand history, vintage ads, and old posts in between nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands, because of question
the online and offline media landscape (Gross, 2018). wording used for brand selection in this research. For example, the
In conjunction with the mediating role of brand personality, mar- participants were asked to select the nostalgic brand that is important
keters are recommended to highlight brand personality in their nostal- for them because it evokes rich remembrances of the past and is emo-
gia-related marketing activities to strengthen a competitive edge of tionally close to them. This question wording may have inflated the
their brands. Enriching the brand personality of nostalgic brands over results, although it provides a clear definition of nostalgic vs. non-nos-
time possibly generates synergic effects, thus leading to desired rela- talgic brands to the survey participants.
tional marketing outcomes. Highlighting sincerity and excitement of As a future research agenda, it would be beneficial to examine
nostalgic brands in retro-marketing may be critical in shaping rela- similarities and differences in brand personality dimensions between
tional bonding with consumers. The key is to align the brand personal- luxury brands and non-luxury brands in the nostalgia category, given
ity inherent to nostalgic brands with modern relevance to resonate the assumption that luxury brands have different brand personality
with a specific target (e.g., Millennials or Generation Z). characteristics compared to non-luxury brands (Sung et al., 2015;
Marketers should also endeavor on building their nostalgic status Tong et al., 2018). Follow-up studies can be done with the inclusion
in deepening the relationship quality (i.e., trust, satisfaction and com- of different relational marketing outcomes such as brand passion and
mitment) with their consumers. Given that nostalgic brands induce brand love to expand the research topic of nostalgia and consumer-
positive feelings by connecting back with important social others who brand relationships (Albert & Merunka, 2013; Palusuk et al., 2019;
consumed the brands together in the past (Zhou et al., 2008), provid- Pourazad et al., 2020). Last but not least, future research should
ing reminders of the nostalgic memories associated with brands can investigate constructs that may moderate the impact of the brand's
serve to strengthen the relationship between the consumers and nos- nostalgic status on brand personality and relational marketing out-
talgic brands. Furthermore, we recommend that marketers take comes (e.g., need to belong or self-construal). Overall, research on
advantage of social media platforms to encourage consumer engage- these suggestions will advance our scholarship on nostalgia and
ment with their nostalgic brands. Nowadays, social media offers con- branding.
sumers the opportunity to periodically have a trip down memory lane.
Marketers are encouraged to emphasize nostalgic elements on social AC KNOWLEDG EME NT
media in an effort to invite consumers to engage with their brands. This work was supported by Emerson College Faculty Develop-
Moreover, marketers should leverage social media to showcase mar- ment Fund.
keting messages that elicit sincerity, excitement and competence for
nostalgic brands. Through social media platforms, brands can employ CONFLIC T OF INT ER E ST
the multitude of unique platform features to relay their sincerity (e.g., The authors have no conflict of interests.
consistent transparency and dialogic communication with their con-
sumers), excitement (e.g., presenting interactive and creative media DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
experiences) or competence (e.g., providing constant messaging on The authors elect to not share data.
their capable performance).
OR CID
Seounmi Youn https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3520-6319
5.3 | Study limitations and directions for future Naa Amponsah Dodoo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2870-024X
research
RE FE RE NCE S
Study limitations serve as opportunities for future research. First, the Aaker, D. A. (2004). Leveraging the corporate brand. California Manage-
findings should be replicated with a different set of nostalgic and non- ment Review, 46(3), 6–18.
nostalgic brands to increase external validity. Although we were cau- Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 34(3), 347–356.
tious about selecting brands with two pretests, the replication of the
Albert, N., & Merunka, D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-
findings will strengthen the validity of our findings. Second, the find- brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(3), 258–266.
ings should be confirmed within a different cultural context. Nostalgia Avis, M. (2012). Brand personality factor based models: A critical review.
consists of context-laden memories and thus it is necessary to Australasian Marketing Journal, 20(1), 89–96.
YOUN AND DODOO 1385
Avis, M., Forbes, S., & Ferguson, S. (2014). The brand personality of rocks: nostalgia in Belgium and the United States. Journal of Business
A critical evaluation of a brand personality scale. Marketing Theory, 14 Research, 83, 19–29.
(4), 451–475. Fournier, S. (1994). A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategy
Bao, J. Y. E., & Sweeney, J. C. (2009). Comparing factor analytical and brand management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
circumplex models of brand personality in brand positioning. Psychol- Florida.
ogy & Marketing, 26(10), 927–949. Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding–
Beer, J. (2020). ‘Die Hard’ is back—in an ad that demolishes the nostalgia for exploring antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. Euro-
the beloved ’80s action flick. Fast Company. Retrieved 2020, Novem- pean Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 324–348.
ber 10 from https://www.fastcompany.com/90565795/die-hard-is- Gilal, N. G., Zhang, J., Gilal, F. G., & Gilal, R. G. (2020). Bygone days and
back-in-an-ad-that-demolishes-the-nostalgia-for-the-beloved-80s-acti memories: The effects of nostalgic ads on consumer brand resurrec-
on-flick tion movements. Journal of Brand Management, 27(2), 160–180.
Belaid, S., & Behi, A. T. (2011). The role of attachment in building con- Gómez, M., Lopez, C., & Molina, A. (2019). An integrated model of social
sumer-brand relationships: An empirical investigation in the utilitarian media brand engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 196–206.
consumption context. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(1), Gordon, R., Zainuddin, N., & Magee, C. (2016). Unlocking the potential of
37–47. branding in social marketing services: Utilising brand personality and
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer brand personality appeal. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(1), 48–62.
Research, 15(2), 139–168. Gross, J. (2018, May 24). Use nostalgia to improve your marketing results.
Belk, R. W. (1990). The role of possessions in constructing and maintaining Forbes. Retrieved 2019, March 1 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/
a sense of past. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 669–676. forbesagencycouncil/2018/05/24/use-nostalgia-to-improve-your-mar
Braun-LaTour, K. A., & LaTour, M. S. (2007). Using childhood memory elici- keting-results/?sh=402993c562b9
tation to gain insights into a brand at a crossroads: The in-N-out bur- Hastie, R., & Kumar, P. A. (1979). Person memory: Personality traits as
ger situation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48 organizing principles in memory for behaviors. Journal of Personality
(3), 246–273. and Social Psychology, 37(1), 25–38.
Chen, J. C. C. (2014). The impact of nostalgic emotions on consumer satis- Heinberg, M., Katsikeas, C. S., Ozkaya, H. E., & Taube, M. (2020). How
faction with packaging design. Journal of Business and Retail Manage- nostalgic brand positioning shapes brand equity: Differences between
ment Research, 8(2), 71–79. emerging and developed markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Cook, K. (n.d.). 15 Ads That Prove Nostalgia Is a Powerful Marketing Tactic. Science, 48, 869–890.
HubSpot. Retrieved 2020, November 22 from https://blog.hubspot. Holak, S. L., & Havlena, W. J. (1992). Nostalgia: An exploratory study of
com/marketing/examples-nostalgia-marketing-ads#:~:text=Nostalgia themes and emotions in the nostalgic experience. ACR North American
%20marketing%20is%20the%20advertising%20equivalent%20of%20 Advances, 19, 380–387.
comfort%20food.&text=It%20would%20appear%20that%20advertise Holbrook, M. B. (1993). Nostalgia and consumption preferences: Some
rs,millennials%20as%20their%20main%20target emerging patterns of consumer tastes. Journal of Consumer Research,
Davis, F. (1979). Yearning for yesterday: A sociology of nostalgia. Free Press. 20(2), 245–256.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1991). Echoes of the dear departed
in consumer relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry explora- past: Some work in progress on nostalgia. Advances in Consumer
tion. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 33–50. Research, 18, 330–333.
Demirbag-Kaplan, M., Yildirim, C., Gulden, S., & Aktan, D. (2015). I love to Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (2003). Nostalgic bonding: Exploring
hate you: Loyalty for disliked brands and the role of nostalgia. Journal the role of nostalgia in the consumption experience. Journal of Con-
of Brand Management, 22(2), 136–153. sumer Behavior, 3(2), 107–127.
Eisend, M., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2013a). Brand personality: A meta- Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand
analytic review of antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters, engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development
24(3), 205–216. and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165.
Eisend, M., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2013b). Measurement characteris- Huang, H. H., Mitchell, V. W., & Rosenaum-Elliott, R. (2012). Are consumer
tics of Aaker's brand personality dimensions: Lessons to be learned and brand personalities the same? Psychology & Marketing, 29(5),
from human personality research. Psychology & Marketing, 30(11), 334–349.
950–958. Juhl, J., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Diebel, T., Cheung, W. Y., &
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence Vingerhoets, A. J. (2020). Nostalgia proneness and empathy: General-
of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of ity, underlying mechanism, and implications for prosocial behavior.
Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348. Journal of Personality, 88(3), 485–500.
Esch, F.-R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands for- Kessous, A. (2015). Nostalgia and brands: A sweet rather than a bitter cul-
ever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and tural evocation of the past. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(17–
future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(2), 18), 1899–1923.
98–105. Kessous, A., Roux, E., & Chandon, J. L. (2015). Consumer–brand relation-
Fan, Y., Jiang, J., & Hu, Z. (2020). Abandoning distinctiveness: The influ- ships: A contrast of nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands. Psychology &
ence of nostalgia on consumer choice. Psychology & Marketing, 37(10), Marketing, 32(2), 187–202.
1342–1351. Klara, R. (2018). Why are so many super bowl advertisers playing the nostal-
Ferraro, R., Kirmani, A., & Matherly, T. (2013). Look at me! Look at me! gia card? AdWeek. Retrieved 2019, March 1 from https://www.
Conspicuous brand usage, self-brand connection, and dilution. Journal adweek.com/brand-marketing/why-are-so-many-super-bowl-advertis
of Marketing Research, 50(4), 477–488. ers-playing-the-nostalgia-card/
Ford, J. B., & Merchant, A. (2010). Nostalgia drives donations: The power Koetz, C., & Tankersley, J. D. (2016). Nostalgia in online brand communi-
of charitable appeals based on emotions and intentions. Journal of ties. Journal of Business Strategy, 37(3), 22–29.
Advertising Research, 50(4), 450–459. Kohler, C. (2017). Nostalgia marketing products that pull our heart strings.
Ford, J. B., Merchant, A., Bartier, A. L., & Friedman, M. (2018). The cross- Nichemarket Advice. Retrieved 2019, March 10 from https://www.
cultural scale development process: The case of brand-evoked nichemarket.co.za/blog/nichemarket-advice/nostalgia-marketing
1386 YOUN AND DODOO
Lasaleta, J. D., Sedikides, C., & Vohs, K. (2014). Nostalgia weakens the Parker, B. T. (2009). A comparison of brand personality and brand user-
desire for money. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 713–729. imagery congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(3),
Lee, R., Lee, K. T., & Li, J. (2017). A memory theory perspective of con- 175–184.
sumer ethnocentrism and animosity. European Journal of Marketing, 51 Pascal, V. J., Sprott, D. E., & Muehling, D. D. (2002). The influence of
(7/8), 1266–1285. evoked nostalgia on consumers' responses to advertising: And explor-
Li, Y., Lu, C., Bogicevic, V., & Bujisic, M. (2019). The effect of nostalgia on atory study. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 24(1),
hotel brand attachment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospital- 39–49.
ity Management, 31(2), 691–717. Pourazad, N., Stocchi, L., & Pare, V. (2019). Brand attribute associations,
Liang, C. J., & Wang, W. H. (2007). Customer relationship management of emotional consumer-brand relationship and evaluation of brand exten-
the information education services industry in Taiwan: Attributes, ben- sions. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(4), 249–260.
efits and relationship. The Service Industries Journal, 27(1), 29–46. Pourazad, N., Stocchi, L., & Pare, V. (2020). The power of brand passion in
Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major sports apparel brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(5),
relational consequences (trust, attachment, and commitment to the 547–568.
brand). Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 114–130. Puzakova, M., & Kwak, H. (2017). Should anthropomorphized brands
Loveland, K. E., Smeesters, D., & Mandel, N. (2010). Still preoccupied with engage customers? The impact of social crowding on brand prefer-
1995: The need to belong and preference for nostalgic products. Jour- ences. Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 99–115.
nal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 393–408. Romaniuk, J., & Ehrenberg, A. (2012). Do brands lack personality? Market-
Lukovitz, K. (2018, January 11). Pepsi updates classic Cindy Crawford spot ing Theory, 12(3), 333–339.
for SB LII. MediaPost. Retrieved 2018, August 1 from https://www. Rutherford, J., & Shaw, E. H. (2011). What was Old is New Again: The His-
mediapost.com/publications/article/312847/pepsi-updates-classic-cin tory of Nostalgia as a Buying Motive in Consumption Behavior. In Pro-
dy-crawford-spot-for-sb-l.html?edition=107017 ceedings of the Conference on Historical Analysis and Research in
Matz, S. C., Gladstone, J. J., & Stillwell, D. (2016). Money buys happiness Marketing (Vol. 15, pp, 157–166.
when spending fits our personality. Psychological Science, 27(5), Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2009). The moderating effects of involvement on
715–725. the relationships between satisfaction, trust and commitment in e-
Merchant, A., Latour, K., Ford, J. B., & Latour, M. S. (2013). How strong is banking. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(3), 247–258.
the pull of the past? Measuring personal nostalgia evoked by advertis- Sierra, J. J., & McQuitty, S. (2007). Attitudes and emotions as determinants
ing. Journal of Advertising Research, 53(2), 150–165. of nostalgia purchases: An application of social identity theory. Journal
Merchant, A., & Rose, G. M. (2013). Effects of advertising-evoked vicarious nos- of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(2), 99–112.
talgia on brand heritage. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2619–2625. Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of con-
Montoya, A. K., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant sumer–brand identification. International Journal of Research in Market-
statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological ing, 29(4), 406–418.
Methods, 22(1), 6–27. Sultan, A. J., Muehling, D., & Sprott, D. E. (2010, July). The effect of personal
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust attachment and usage on consumers' response to nostalgia. In Allied
in market relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101. Academies International Conference. Academy of Marketing Studies.
Morris, D. S., Barnes, B. R., & Lynch, J. E. (1999). Relationship marketing Proceedings (Vol. 15, No. 2, pages 1–3). Jordan Whitney Enter-
needs total quality management. Total Quality Management, 10(4–5), prises, Inc.
659–665. Sung, Y., Choi, S. M., Ahn, H., & Song, Y. A. (2015). Dimensions of luxury
Muehling, D. D., & Pascal, V. J. (2011). An empirical investigation of the brand personality: Scale development and validation. Psychology &
differential effects of personal, historical, and non-nostalgic advertis- Marketing, 32(1), 121–132.
ing on consumer responses. Journal of Advertising, 40(2), 107–122. Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and
Muehling, D. D., & Sprott, D. E. (2004). The power of reflection: An empiri- brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639–661.
cal examination of nostalgia advertising effects. Journal of Advertising, Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. M., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When brand per-
33(3), 25–35. sonality matters: The moderating role of attachment styles. Journal of
Muehling, D. D., Sprott, D. E., & Sultan, A. J. (2014). Exploring the bound- Consumer Research, 35(6), 985–1002.
aries of nostalgic advertising effects: A consideration of childhood Tan, T. M., Salo, J., Juntunen, J., & Kumar, A. (2018). A comparative study
brand exposure and attachment on consumers' responses to nostalgia- of creation of self-brand connection amongst well-liked, new, and
themed advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 43(1), 73–84. unfavorable brands. Journal of Business Research, 92, 71–80.
Oklevik, O., Supphellen, M., & Maehle, N. (2020). Time to retire the con- Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind:
cept of brand personality? Extending the critique and introducing a Measuring the strength of consumers' emotional attachments to
new framework. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19(3), 211–218. brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.
Orth, U. R., & Bourrain, A. (2008). The influence of nostalgic memories on Tong, X., Su, J., & Xu, Y. (2018). Brand personality and its impact on brand
consumer exploratory tendencies: Echoes from scents past. Journal of trust and brand commitment: An empirical study of luxury fashion
Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(4), 277–287. brands. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Educa-
Palusuk, N., Koles, B., & Hasan, R. (2019). ‘All you need is brand love’: A tion, 11(2), 196–209.
critical review and comprehensive conceptual framework for brand Van Tilburg, W. A., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2019).
love. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(1–2), 97–129. How nostalgia infuses life with meaning: From social connectedness
Park, S. Y., & Lee, E. M. (2005). Congruence between brand personality to self-continuity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3),
and self-image, and the mediating roles of satisfaction and consumer- 521–532.
brand relationship on brand loyalty. ACR Asia-Pacific Advances, 6, Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia:
39–45. Content, trigger, functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Park, W. C., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. 91(5), 975–993.
(2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and Youn, S. (2020). A trip down memory lane: Antecedents and outcomes of
empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of ad-evoked nostalgia on Facebook. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19
Marketing, 74(6), 1–17. (4), 314–326.
YOUN AND DODOO 1387
Youn, S., & Jin, S. V. (2017). Reconnecting with the past in social media:
The moderating role of social influence in nostalgia marketing on Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, Journal of Broadcasting & Elec-
Pinterest. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 16(6), 565–576.
tronic Media, and Communication Research, among others.
Zauberman, G., Ratner, R. K., & Kim, B. K. (2009). Memories as assets:
Strategic memory protection in choice over time. Journal of Consumer Naa Amponsah Dodoo (PhD, University of Florida) is an assistant
Research, 35(5), 715–728.
professor of Digital Marketing and Consumer Behavior in the
Zhou, X., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., & Gao, D. G. (2008). Counteracting
loneliness: On the restorative function of nostalgia. Psychological Sci- Marketing Communication Department at Emerson College in
ence, 19(10), 1023–1029. Boston, MA, USA. Her research focuses on consumer psychology
and behavior, and message and contextual aspects of digital com-
munication on persuasion. She has published papers in Journal of
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Advertising, Telematics and Informatics, International Journal of
Advertising, Journal of Interactive Advertising and Journal of Market-
Seounmi Youn (PhD, University of Minnesota) is a full professor ing Communications, among others.
in the Department of Marketing Communication at Emerson Col-
lege in Boston, MA, USA. Her research interests focus on con-
sumers' information processing of marketing communication,
How to cite this article: Youn S, Dodoo NA. The power of
social media advertising, and youth and digital media. She has
brand nostalgia: Contrasting brand personality dimensions and
published papers in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
consumer-brand relationships of nostalgic and non-nostalgic
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Computers in
brands. J Consumer Behav. 2021;20:1373–1387. https://doi.
Human Behavior, Telematics and Informatics, Journal of Consumer
org/10.1002/cb.1941
Affairs, Journal of Advertising Research, International Journal of
APPENDIX A: B RAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND FACETS BETWEEN NOS TALGIC AND NON- NOSTALG IC
BRANDS
Study 1 Study 2
Brand personality Nostalgic Non-nostalgic Nostalgic Non-nostalgic
dimensions and facets brands (mean) brands (mean) F value ηp2 brands (mean) brands (mean) F value ηp2
Sincerity [5.19] [4.32] [186.20***] [0.33] [5.24] [4.53] [116.60***] [0.24]
Down-to-earth 4.85 3.97 118.47*** 0.24 4.88 4.20 64.74*** 0.15
Honest 5.19 4.72 42.61*** 0.10 5.25 4.88 25.98*** 0.07
Wholesome 5.27 4.61 69.94*** 0.16 5.35 4.76 49.86*** 0.12
Cheerful 5.47 4.08 288.05*** 0.44 5.53 4.36 174.20*** 0.32
Excitement [4.67] [4.40] [14.15***] [0.04] [4.94] [4.57] [31.71***] [0.08]
Daring 4.38 4.14 7.74** 0.02 4.74 4.40 16.89*** 0.04
Spirited 4.85 4.29 41.88*** 0.10 5.08 4.51 48.72*** 0.12
Imaginative 4.92 4.40 29.59*** 0.07 5.21 4.54 58.72*** 0.14
Up-to-date 4.60 4.77 4.80* 0.01 4.82 4.81 0.01 0.00
Competence [4.76] [4.36] [44.64***] [0.11] [4.92] [4.62] [29.66***] [0.07]
Reliable 5.00 4.51 39.03*** 0.10 5.03 4.74 16.71*** 0.04
Intelligent 4.05 3.87 6.48* 0.02 4.43 4.22 8.78** 0.02
Successful 5.24 4.72 57.16*** 0.13 5.30 4.90 36.67*** 0.09
Sophistication [3.95] [3.91] [0.30] [0.00] [4.30] [4.14] [6.11*] [0.02]
Upper class 3.74 3.80 0.50 0.00 4.10 4.07 0.12 0.00
Charming 4.15 4.02 3.13 0.01 4.50 4.21 16.67*** 0.04
Ruggedness [3.74] [3.27] [38.45***] [0.09] [3.76] [3.72] [0.32] [0.00]
Outdoorsy 3.77 3.25 49.82*** 0.12 3.82 3.72 2.06 0.01
Tough 3.69 3.29 15.41*** 0.04 3.65 3.71 0.35 0.00
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

J of Consumer Behaviour - 2021 - Youn - The Power of Brand Nostalgia Contrasting Brand Personality Dimensions and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J of Consumer Behaviour - 2021 - Youn - The Power of Brand Nostalgia Contrasting Brand Personality Dimensions and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J of Consumer Behaviour - 2021 - Youn - The Power of Brand Nostalgia Contrasting Brand Personality Dimensions and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 17 September 2020 Revised: 8 March 2021 Accepted: 22 March 2021

The power of brand nostalgia: Contrasting brand personality

Seounmi Youn | Naa Amponsah Dodoo

Department of Marketing Communication,

2.3.2 | Self-brand connections

H4. Relationship quality will be stronger for nostalgic brands than

Separation distress is one of the emotional indicators of brand attach-

Focusing on the behavioral aspect of consumer-brand engage- 3 | METHOD

TABLE 1 List of nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands

Category Nostalgic brands (n = 21) Non-nostalgic brands (n = 21)

Category Nostalgic brands (n = 21) Non-nostalgic brands (n = 21)

3.3 | Measures non-nostalgic brands. The respondents considered nostalgic brands

Nostalgic brands Non-nostalgic brands

Self-brand Brand engagement

Note: p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.

You might also like