International Journal of Advertising

The Review of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 0265-0487 (Print) 1759-3948 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rina20

Celebrity endorsements, self-brand connection

and relationship quality

Abhishek Dwivedi, Lester W. Johnson & Robert McDonald

To cite this article: Abhishek Dwivedi, Lester W. Johnson & Robert McDonald (2016) Celebrity
endorsements, self-brand connection and relationship quality, International Journal of Advertising,
35:3, 486-503

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1041632

Published online: 13 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 898

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rina20

Download by: [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] Date: 19 March 2017, At: 05:54
International Journal of Advertising, 2016
Vol. 35, No. 3, 486 503, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1041632

Celebrity endorsements, self-brand connection and relationship

quality
Abhishek Dwivedia*, Lester W. Johnsonb and Robert McDonaldc
a
School of Management & Marketing, Charles Sturt University, P.O. Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640,
Australia; bSwinburne Business School, Department of Marketing, Tourism and Social Impact, 200
Leicester Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia; cRawls College of Business, Texas Tech University,
Area of Marketing, MS 42101, Lubbock, TX 79409-2101, USA

(Received 29 October 2012; accepted 1 April 2014)

The extant literature on celebrity endorsement effects largely focuses on the

endorsement effects on consumer evaluations of the endorsed brand. The current
study extends the literature by assessing the impact of endorser credibility on two
consumer brand relationship-oriented outcomes brand relationship quality and
consumer self-brand connections. Additionally, the self-brand connection is
positioned as a partial mediator of the effect of endorser credibility on relationship
quality. A conceptual model is developed and estimated on a sample of 535
Generation Y (youth) consumers from India. The hypotheses are supported and the
model demonstrates acceptable fit to the data. Overall, the present study introduces a
relationship-building perspective to the celebrity endorsement literature. The results
suggest that celebrity endorsers possess the ability to provide meaningful self-
definitional benefits to consumers as well as cultivate enhanced relationship quality
with the endorsed brands, thus contributing novel insights into celebrity endorsement
dynamics.
Keywords: celebrity endorser credibility; self-brand connection; relationship quality

Introduction
Celebrity endorsements represent a multi-billion dollar industry globally, and continue to
be used regularly as part of marketing campaigns (Eisend and Langner 2010; Kelting and
Rice 2013). A reason for their continued usage is that celebrity endorsers possess sym-
bolic and aspirational associations (Escalas 2004) that are readily transferred to brands
that they endorse (Elliott and Wattanasuwan 1998). Brands with such added associations
are able to generate high visibility and persuasive impact in the market, generally culmi-
nating in greater levels of advertisement and brand recall (Stafford et al. 2002). Academic
research reveals that a major determinant of celebrity endorsement effects is consumer-
perceived credibility associated with an endorser (Amos et al. 2008; Ohanian 1990), rep-
resenting a dominant paradigm in the endorsement literature (Stafford et al. 2002).
Endorser credibility, as typically comprising consumer perceptions of a celebritys attrac-
tiveness, expertise with the endorsed product and trustworthiness (Ohanian 1990), is gen-
erally positively associated with greater persuasiveness of the delivered message
(Erdogan 1999), enhanced brand information recall (Speck et al. 1988), endorsed brand
evaluations (Stafford et al. 2002), as well as consumer-based brand equity (Spry et al.

*Corresponding author. Email: adwivedi@csu.edu.au

2015 Advertising Association

 International Journal of Advertising 487

2011). Despite advancements in examining the effects of endorser credibility on con-

sumer behavior, the celebrity endorsement literature provides relatively limited insights
into the influence of endorser credibility on certain critical aspects of consumer behavior
that are relevant to brand marketing. Two such aspects that are the focus of the current
investigation are consumer brand relationships and the consumer self-brand connection.
The marketing discipline has adopted a relationship-based paradigm whereby build-
ing long-term consumer brand relationship with consumers is considered vital to long-
term business success (Gr onroos 2006; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002). However to date,
explicit empirical investigations into celebrity endorsements effects on consumer brand
relationships has been limited to indirect support in the trade literature. For instance,
celebrity endorsements have shown to improve consumers emotional engagement with
an endorsed brand, culminating in stronger consumer relationships with the endorsed
brand (Yelin and Kinnear 2012). Similarly, practitioners also stress the need for the
endorsement process to be able to resonate with the intended target audience (Cahal
2012), thereby implying the need for investigating a relationship-building role of the
endorsement process.
From a theoretical standpoint, development of a consumer relationship with brands
serves the purpose of providing functional and emotional benefits such as enabling con-
sumers to look and feel better, as well as providing an opportunity to behave consistently
with valued ideology (MacInnis et al. 2009). Brands by virtue of fulfilling such emotional
and hedonic needs are increasingly being viewed as relational partners by consumers
(Fournier 1998). For firms, development of consumer brand relationships favorably
impact valued consumer outcomes, such as enhanced positive word-of-mouth, brand loy-
alty, brand forgiveness and involvement in brand communities (MacInnis et al. 2009).
Given the importance of consumer brand relationships to consumers and firms alike,
and the extensive use of celebrity endorsements, it is worthwhile to investigate the influ-
ence of endorser credibility on the strength of consumer brand relationships, i.e., rela-
tionship quality (Gregoire et al. 2009; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002). We define relationship
quality as perceived by consumers as their trust in and commitment to a brand, along
with the perceived social benefits gained from the relationship. Theoretically, the current
study contributes by extending the scope of endorsement effects from brand-related out-
comes to relationship-orientated outcomes. From a managerial perspective, the current
investigation has implications for using celebrity endorsers as facilitators of long-term
relationships with consumers.
The second aspect investigated in the current study is the potential impact of celeb-
rity endorsements on the consumer self-brand connection. The construct of self-brand
connection was first introduced by Escalas and Bettman (2003) who define it as the
extent to which a consumer integrates a brand into his or her self-concept. The construct
is relevant to understanding celebrity endorsement effects since consumers use celebri-
ties as reference groups for constructing and redefining their desired self-identities
(Escalas and Bettman 2005). Literature on self-concept theory (Belk 1988; Sirgy 1982)
and meaning-transfer models (McCracken 1989) supports this logic. Consumers actively
engage in the process of self-identity creation, and purchase of products and brands
helps to address such self-definitional needs (Belk 1988). Furthermore, brands endorsed
by celebrities can facilitate the transfer of cultural meaning as the meaning of a brand
for consumers ultimately draws from the culturally constituted world (McCracken 1989)
and the celebrity acts a conduit of meaning transfer to the brand. Consumers in turn use
this shared meaning as a resource (Holt 2002) to construct a more individualized mean-
ing (McCracken 1989), which is vital to fulfillment of self-definitional needs (Eisend
488 A. Dwivedi et al.

and Langner 2010; Escalas and Bettman 2013), resulting in formation of self-brand
connections.
Additionally, investigation of self-brand connection as an outcome of the endorse-
ment process helps address a vital issue in the advertising literature. A perplexing concern
typically raised in the context of celebrity endorsements is that despite consumers being
able to recall a particular celebrity-based advertisement, consumers are unable to recall
or relate to the advertised brand (Keller 2013; Rossiter and Percy 1987). This situation
raises questions about the effectiveness of an ad campaign. Therefore, within an endorse-
ment-type advertising scenario, experts have highlighted the need for the creation of
stronger links between consumers and an endorsed brand per se (Van Kuilenburg et al.
2011; Zdravkovic and Till 2012; Wang and Muehling 2012). More recently, in a large
practitioner-initiated multi-national study of brand consumption behavior, it was revealed
that self-identification with a brand is a vital factor leading to brand preference among
consumers (Sbarbaro et al. 2011; Van den Bergh and Behrer 2011). Despite possessing
theoretical appeal and practitioner relevance, empirical investigations into the impact of
celebrity endorsements on consumer self-brand connection are only beginning to emerge
in the literature. For instance, Escalas and Bettman (2008) as cited in Escalas and
Bettman (2013) observe that well-liked celebrity endorsers lead to formation of self-brand
connections among consumers. The present study extends this work, addressing a vital
gap in the literature by empirically examining the impact of endorser credibility on the
self-brand connection, representing the second contribution of the current study. Further-
more, we argue that the effect of endorser credibility on brand relationship quality may
materialize via two pathways. Endorser credibility is likely to have direct influence on
relationship quality, as well as indirectly via impacting a self-brand connection. Thus, a
self-brand connection acts as a partial mediator of the influence of endorser credibility on
relationship quality. The current study represents an attempt to examine such effects
under a holistic framework of celebrity endorsement effects, empirically examining the
proposed effects using structural equation modeling. The conceptual model of the current
study is presented next.

The conceptual model

The conceptual model (Figure 1) is developed to address the core issue of the present
research how do celebrity endorsements impact consumers brand relationship quality?
A starting point in model development is to understand and conceptualize endorser credi-
bility the prime endorser characteristic driving subsequent consumer behavioral
effects. With origins in source credibility theory (Hovland et al. 1953), endorser credibil-
ity receives substantial investigation in the literature as a major determinant of consum-
ers endorser-initiated behavior in the marketplace (Amos et al. 2008). Initially
conceptualized as being composed of perceived trustworthiness and expertise of a source
(Hovland et al. 1953), the construct was later expanded in the celebrity endorsement
domain by Ohanian (1990) who investigated it as a three-dimensional construct represent-
ing consumer evaluations of a celebrity endorsers level of trustworthiness, expertise and
attractiveness. Ohanians (1990) conceptualization of endorser credibility is adopted in
the present research. Trustworthiness refers to the honesty and integrity and the degree of
confidence associated with an endorser (Erdogan 1999; Ohanian 1990). Some experts
claim that trustworthiness of a source is a critical component of credibility in the persua-
sion process (Perloff 2010). Expertise is a consumer perception of knowledge, experience
or ability associated with an endorser with the product being endorsed (Erdogan 1999).
 International Journal of Advertising 489

Social
Trust Commitment benefits

Trustworthiness

Endorser H1+ Relationship

Expertise
credibility quality

H2+ H3+ H5+

Attractiveness
Self-brand H6+ Consumer
connection satisfaction

H4+

Endorser-
brand fit

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

Note: Endorser-brand fit and consumer satisfaction are specified in the model as control variables.

The expertise associated with a source is found to be positively associated with attitude
change (Ohanian 1990) as well as enhanced persuasive impact (Erdogan 1999). Finally,
the attractiveness dimension captures consumer perceptions of physical appeal of an
endorser (Ohanian 1990). Physical appeal of a communicator (endorser) facilitates
enhanced receiver (consumer) attention to message arguments, leading to favorable atti-
tude change (Erdogan 1999). The focus of the current research is on understanding the
effect of endorser credibility on relationship quality, which is hypothesized next.

Endorser credibility and relationship quality

Consumers tend to be generally attracted to celebrities (Thompson 2006) and to the
objects associated with them (Radford and Bloch 2013) as celebrities represent reposito-
ries of cultural meaning that is valued by consumers (McCracken 1989). This added
meaning is attached to the brands that are endorsed by admired celebrities, thereby imbu-
ing the endorsed brands with added value as perceived by consumers (Richins 1994). For
instance, a wrist watch endorsed by Leonardo DiCaprio is likely to be valued more by
consumers as a result of the added meaning (say, elegant and trustworthy) being associ-
ated with the product. Specifically, if an endorser is perceived as credible, that is, per-
ceived as attractive, trustworthy and an expert in the use of the endorsed product, such
perceptions are readily transferred to the endorsed brand (McCracken 1989). Moreover,
as a result of such endorser-infused value, consumers may begin to form emotional bonds
or relationships with an endorsed brand (Fournier 1998). Such relational bonding may
begin to manifest over time as various relationship-oriented behaviors, such as develop-
ment of enhanced trust in the brand (Arantola 2002), a greater commitment towards main-
taining the relationship (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995) and enhanced perception of deriving
social benefits (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002). Additional support for the expected relation-
ship is derived from reference-group theory (Bearden and Etzel 1989) that states people
compare themselves to reference groups to whom they look for guidance for their own
490 A. Dwivedi et al.

behavior. For consumers, celebrities represent aspirational reference groups (Escalas

2004), and consumers refer to the normative practices of celebrities and develop values
and standards for their own behavior (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995; Bearden and Etzel
1989). Shaping ones behavior in line with that of a reference group entails a dual benefit
for consumers. On one hand, there is a fulfillment of an aspirational motivation, and on
the other hand, a reduction of psychological risks (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). Therefore,
we argue that consumers will engage in favorable relationship behaviors with celebrities
that are perceived as credible (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995; Schiffman et al. 2011). Thus:
H1: Endorser credibility has a direct positive impact on relationship quality.

Endorser credibility and self-brand connection

The self-brand connection is an emergent concept in the marketing literature (Moore and
Homer 2008), and is defined as the extent to which a consumer integrates a brand into his
or her self-concept (Escalas and Bettman 2005). The concept of self-brand connection is
related to the self-identity theory (Belk 1988), the central premise of which is that con-
sumers use brands as tools for creation and maintenance of self-identity (Belk 1988).
Despite being related to the concept of a consumers sense of self, the current study con-
siders the self-brand connection construct as conceptually distinct from brand-engage-
ment in self-concept (BESC) (Sprott et al. 2009). The distinction is important as the two
constructs pertain to consumers sense of self and the role of brands in relation to consum-
ers sense of self. The difference lies primarily in the levels of abstraction of the two con-
structs. Sprott et al. (2009) define BESC as consumers propensity to include important
brands as part of how they view themselves (92). Where BESC is a generalized con-
sumer tendency to incorporate brands as a part of the self-concept, self-brand connection
is brand-specific in its level of abstraction and conceptualization. This distinction is also
acknowledged by Sprott et al. (2009). Additionally, a self-brand connection is individual-
specific in nature. Celebrity endorsers imbue brands with symbolic associations and con-
sumers use the brand symbolism to shape their self-concept and behavior (Cutright et al.
2013). The strength of this highly individualized self-definitional meaning is captured by
the construct of self-brand connection (Escalas and Bettman 2013).
Given that celebrities represent symbolic and aspirational reference groups for consum-
ers (Escalas 2004), a positive relationship is expected between endorser credibility and
self-brand connection. Support for this logic is derived from meaning transfer dynamics
(McCracken 1989) and the value-expressive function of reference groups (Bearden
et al. 1989). As stated previously, celebrity endorsements are a mechanism by which mean-
ing from the culturally constituted world transfers to brands (McCracken 1989). However,
brands not only possess a shared (common) culturally derived meaning, but also a highly
individualized meaning that is created by and is unique to a consumer (Alan et al. 2008).
The self-brand connection concept allows consumers to ascribe their own meanings to a
brand (Escalas and Bettman 2013), which is vital to fulfillment of their self-definitional
needs (Belk 1988; Escalas and Bettman 2013). For instance, consider a consumer who
aspires to be as successful and confident as Roger Federer, who endorses Gillette razors. In
order to appropriate Federers meanings to construct his own identity, this consumer may
engage in tennis and use Gillette razors. As a result, he may form a self-brand connection
with the endorsed brand. Furthermore, celebrities by virtue of their reference group status
provide a value-expressive function to consumers, meaning that consumers are motivated
to enhance individual self-concept by identifying themselves with the celebrity reference
 International Journal of Advertising 491

group (Bearden et al. 1989). Therefore, it is expected that when a brand is endorsed by a
celebrity who is perceived as credible, it is likely perceived by consumers as salient to ful-
fillment of self-definitional needs. Consumers are thus likely to emulate a celebrity
endorsers behavior and use the endorsed brand as a resource to craft an individual self-
meaning (Holt 2002), increasing the likelihood of integrating the brand as a part of their
self-concept. Emergent empirical evidence supports this theorization, whereby well-liked
celebrity endorsers were observed to facilitate self-brand connections among consumers
(Escalas and Bettman (2008) as cited in Escalas and Bettman (2013)).
Endorser trustworthiness, i.e., dependability, honesty, reliability and sincerity
(Ohanian 1990), may help reduce the psychological risk associated with incorporating the
brand into the self-concept. Endorser expertise may boost the consumers belief that the
brand will perform well, possibly increasing the consumers confidence enough to incor-
porate the brand into her/his self-concept. Endorser attractiveness, i.e., likeability, famil-
iarity and similarity (Amos et al. 2008), may affectively draw consumers closer to the
brand. Erdogans (1999) findings that endorser credibility leads to greater persuasiveness
may create positive associations with the brand. Enhanced brand information recall due
to endorser credibility (Speck et al. 1988) may indicate that the brand is more salient to
the consumer. Finally, endorsed brand evaluations (Stafford et al. 2002) may lead the
consumer to be more open to incorporating the brand into his or her self-concept. Thus,
the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2: Endorser credibility has a direct positive impact on self-brand connection.

Self-brand connection and relationship quality

It is expected that the self-brand connection is positively associated with relationship
quality. As outlined in the preceding section, development of a self-brand connection
directly fulfills self-definitional needs of consumers (Belk 1988; Sirgy 1982). Once
such vital self-concept motivations are addressed, consumers may begin to develop a
favorable relationship with the brand. Consumers may begin to develop greater trust in
the particular brand as it has served a vital purpose of self-identity creation (Wang and
Bloemer 2008). In addition, consumers may commit to using the brand in the future in
order to maintain the desired sense of self (Albert et al. 2013). Furthermore, a percep-
tion of social benefits may materialize as a result of possible enhancement in endorser-
inspired social self-image (Schiffman et al. 2011). Therefore, when consumers per-
ceive a brand as fulfilling self-definitional needs, they are likely to engage in long-
term relational behavior with such brands (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). Additional the-
oretical support for this logic is drawn from the theory of reciprocal action (Li and
Dant 1997), a central tenet of which is that consumers often develop a strong sense of
commitment towards a firm in response to its perceived relationship-building efforts.
The theory has been validated across diverse consumer brand relationship contexts
(Kim et al. 2008; Yoon et al. 2008), and can be extended to the present context. Thus,
consumers who perceive that a brand provides them with valuable self-identity-defin-
ing benefits are likely to reciprocate by engaging in long-term relational behavior with
the brand, enabling them to continue to derive such self-definitional benefits (Dolich
1969). This dynamic likely enhances the importance and quality of the relationship for
the consumer (Brodie et al. 2013). Hence:
H3: A self-brand connection has a direct positive impact on relationship quality.
Thus, we posit that endorser credibility influences consumer brand relationship qual-
ity through two routes. The first is a direct effect of endorser credibility on relationship
492 A. Dwivedi et al.

quality as per theoretical mechanisms outlined for Hypothesis H1. The second route is
mediated through the self-brand connection.

Impacts of endorser-brand fit and consumer satisfaction

Consumer brand relationship quality may be influenced by a number of factors other
than endorser credibility and a self-brand connection. Two factors that likely play an
important role in developing the consumer brand relationship are endorser-brand fit
and consumer satisfaction. Therefore, these are used as covariates in the current study.
Consumer-perceived endorser-brand fit is expected to positively influence perceived
relationship quality. Endorser-brand fit is defined as a degree of consumer-perceived
similarity between the image of the celebrity endorser and the brand being endorsed.
Our conceptualization of endorser-brand fit draws upon cognitive categorization mech-
anism that consumers use to make sense of the consumption environment (Cohen and
Basu 1987). Categorization theory explains how people group various stimuli in their
environment into discrete categories so as to make sense of the consumption environ-
ment, thereby enhancing information processing efficiency (Cohen and Basu 1987). In
a celebrity endorsement scenario, consumers would likely judge fit (or similarity)
between an endorser and a brand using nave mental explanations that are not based
on much scientific foundation (Murphy and Medin 1985, 290). Ultimately, endorser-
brand fit is judged based on the degree to which the pairing makes sense to the
perceiver (291). Such mechanism of consumer assessment of fit between entities
receives widespread support in the branding and advertising literatures (e.g., Bridges
et al. 2000; Zdravkovic and Till 2012). Given that celebrities personify consumers
diverse aspirational associations, enhanced endorser and brand fit potentially leads to
favorable relational behaviors on the part of consumers such as the development of a
greater trust in and relationship commitment towards the endorsed brand. The
endorser-brand match-up framework observes a positive relationship between
perceived endorser-brand fit and favorable outcomes such as enhanced brand attitude
(Misra and Beatty 1990) and purchase intentions (Kahle and Homer 1985). A similar
positive effect on relationship quality is expected. Therefore, the following hypotheses
are formulated:
H4: Endorser-brand fit has a direct positive impact on relationship quality.
Consumer satisfaction with a product (service) is also likely to play an explanatory
role in the hypothesized model. Hence, we include satisfaction as a covariate in the cur-
rent study. Satisfaction is defined as a customers overall evaluation of the performance
of an offering to date (Gustafsson et al. 2005). Conceptualized as relative (dis)confirma-
tion of expectations (positive or negative), the literature outlines a prominent role of over-
all satisfaction in affecting consumer relationships (Anderson and Mittal 2000; Hennig-
Thurau et al. 2002). Thus, a positive influence of satisfaction on relationship quality is
suspected. Additionally, satisfaction likely exerts an impact on consumer self-brand con-
nection. Brands are tools for consumers to differentiate themselves and to express their
personality and individuality (Escalas 2004). However, such creation and maintenance of
the desired self-image necessitates that consumers be satisfied with a brands performance
(i.e., a brand either meets or exceeds expectations), because non-performing brands carry
negative associations of incompetence, resulting in a possible dissonance. Thus, consum-
ers would not like to associate their self-identities with poorly performing brands (Markus
1977). Hence:
 International Journal of Advertising 493

H5: Consumer satisfaction has a direct positive impact on relationship quality.

H6: Consumer satisfaction has a direct positive impact on self-brand connection.

Research design
A self-administered cross-sectional survey was used to collect data from a convenience
sample of 620 users of telecom services. Data were collected from a management institute
in New Delhi, India, in 2012. The respondents, enrolled in business courses, were contacted
in classrooms at the beginning of lecture time for the purpose of the survey. The academics
were given explicit instructions by the research team regarding how to brief the respondents
prior to the start of the survey. The specific research objectives were not revealed to the
respondents so as to limit social desirability responding. The respondents were instructed
to attempt the survey on their own without consulting other participants. Data collection
was completed within three weeks of first contact. The respondents all belong to the Gener-
ation Y (youth, 18 25 years old) cohort. The young consumer segment (under 25 years
old) constitutes roughly half of the Indian population (Euromonitor 2007), and is consid-
ered as a major consumer segment for telecoms services (Evalueserve 2009). The segment
is speculated to be a driver of future growth in the telecom services sector (Chaturvedi
2011). The survey was targeted at respondents belonging to middle-income households,
which represent the biggest consumer group in the country (Ablett et al. 2007).

Stimulus design
The study was conducted in the telecom services industry. We chose this context for pri-
marily two reasons. First, the telecom service sector in India represents one of the domi-
nant adopters of celebrity endorsers (Indiantelevision.com 2009), thereby being suitable
for the current study. Second, India is one of the fastest growing mobile phone markets in
the world (Euromonitor 2007), with approximately 890 million subscribers nationally
(Telecomcircle.com 2012). Furthermore, in New Delhi, where the data for the current
study were collected, there are approximately 42 million active subscribers (Telecom-
circle.com 2012).
Around three-quarters of the market share of the Indian telecom services is controlled
by five brands, viz., Airtel (20% share), Reliance (17% share), Vodafone (16% share), Idea
(11% share) and BSNL (11% share) (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India 2011). Three
of the top five brands (i.e., Reliance, Idea and BSNL) were offered as choices to respond-
ents. Airtel was not offered as a choice in the current study since it is endorsed by multiple
celebrity endorsers, thereby potentially introducing confounding effects of different endors-
ers. Vodafone was excluded since its current advertising campaign in India uses spokes-
characters (called Zoo Zoos), study of which is beyond the scope of the current research
(see Garretson et al. 2012 for a discussion). The three brands that are offered as choices to
respondents are endorsed by Indian movie celebrities, namely, Hritik Roshan (for
Reliance), Abhishek Bachchan (for Idea) and Deepika Padukone (for BSNL), respectively.
The respondents were asked to base their responses on the endorser-brand combination for
a service brand that they use most of the time (i.e., their primary service brand).

Questionnaire, measurement and analysis

Several steps were taken to enhance the validity of the study. The survey questionnaire
was structured and formatted to minimize the potential of common method bias
494 A. Dwivedi et al.

(Podsakoff et al. 2003). Construct items are operationalized clearly (consistent with their
usage in the literature) in order to reduce the risks of ambiguity and item-demand charac-
teristics. Item intermixing was not adopted, thus eliminating a potential source of com-
mon method bias. Finally, respondent anonymity was ensured, and the questionnaire was
broken up into sections, design aspects that help to minimize common method bias
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). A post hoc test of common method bias was conducted to test its
severity in the data. Also, the context of the survey pertains to consumer assessment of
their telecom service brands (a general topic), which does not seem to be susceptible to a
social desirability bias.
We use previously validated scales to operationalize the constructs, measured on
multi-item five-point Likert scale type format. Relationship quality is the dependent vari-
able in the present study, and is investigated for the first time in the context of celebrity
endorsements. In the relationship marketing literature, relationship quality is operational-
ized variously in the literature, ranging from unidimensional measures (Goodman and
Dion 2001) to multi-dimensional ones (Gregoire et al. 2009), with no consensus to date
regarding its operationalization. In the present study, relationship quality is conceptual-
ized as a fully reflective second-order construct, defined as consumer perceptions of trust
in a brand, commitment towards maintaining a relationship and perceptions of social ben-
efits received from a brand. The first dimension, trust, is defined as consumer perception
that a brand is dependable and can be relied on to do the right thing (Ganesan 1994). The
second dimension, relationship commitment, is defined as consumers tendency to main-
tain the relationship (Aurier and NGaola 2010). Perception of social benefits received
(the third dimension) is defined as consumer perception of personal recognition by a
brand (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002). This conceptualization of relationship quality is con-
sistent with prominent conceptualizations adopted in the literature (Gregoire et al. 2009;
Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002). Moreover, relationship quality is conceptualized as a fully
reflective construct, that is, reflective at the first- and second-order levels (referred to as a
Type-I construct by Jarvis et al. (2003). Endorser credibility is operationalized as a sec-
ond-order fully reflective construct (Ohanian 1990), that is, measured using five items
each for perceived attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness as dimensions. Self-brand
connection is measured using four items derived from Escalas and Bettman (2003).
Finally, three items from Till and Busler (2000) operationalize endorser-brand fit, and
overall satisfaction is measured using three items derived from Aurier and NGoala
(2010).
Structural equation modeling is used as the analytic tool. A measurement model anal-
ysis is first conducted for the purpose of assessing the validity of the proposed factor
structure, followed by an analysis of the hypothesized structural model. Model fit is
assessed using four indices as recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (2012). These are Com-
parative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker and Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR).

Data analysis and results

Preliminary analyses
The raw data were first cleaned. Records with substantial extreme and mid-point
responses, and substantially large missing values, were eliminated. A total of 535 usable
responses were available as the usable dataset. Missing values were less than 3% of the
data, and were substituted using a full-information maximum-likelihood estimation
 International Journal of Advertising 495

procedure (Enders and Bandalos 2001). The usable sample adequately meets the 10:1
respondent-to-item ratio (Hair et al. 2009). We first examine the extent of common
method bias in the data using the single-factor test suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003).
We compared the five factor measurement model of the current study with a common-
methods factor. The single-factor model elicits a significant Chi-square (x2 D 3336.42,
degrees of freedom D 350, p < 0.01) with unacceptable fit to data (CFI D 0.58, TLI D
0.55, SRMR D 0.120 and RMSEA D 0.126). The research measurement model, on the
other hand, is significantly different from and better fitting than the single-factor model
(i.e., x2 (334) D 583.10; p < 0.01; CFI D 0.96, TLI D 0.96, SRMR D 0.039 and
RMSEA D 0.037), meeting the model fit cut-offs suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (2012).
Thus, no serious threat of common-method bias is suggested in the data. Furthermore,
these results indicate that the model fits the data well.

Descriptives
The means, standard deviations, inter-construct correlations and square root of average
variance extracted (AVE) scores are reported in Table 1. The construct means range from
3.09 to 3.67 (out of 5.0), and corresponding standard deviations range from 0.84 to 0.98.
Inter-construct correlations are positive and significant (p < 0.05) for all pairs of con-
structs. The only exception is the correlation between perceived endorser attractiveness
and consumer satisfaction that is significant at the 10% level.

Construct validity
We examine construct reliability and validity using traditional tests. Standardized factor
loadings, reliability estimates and AVE scores are reported in Table 2. All Cronbach
alphas are 0.75 or greater for all the constructs, exceeding the traditionally accepted level
of 0.70. Similarly, composite reliability estimates are above 0.75 for all constructs. Con-
vergent validity is demonstrated as factor-loadings are highly significant and load
strongly on respective constructs. The AVE score for each construct is greater than 0.50,
further supporting convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Furthermore, discrimi-
nant validity is evidenced as the square-root of AVE (refer to Table 1) for any given

Table 1. Descriptives, bivariate correlations and square root of AVE estimates.

Construct Mean S.D. TWR ATT EXP FIT SBC BT COM SOC SAT

Trustworthiness (TWR) 3.39 0.84 0.76

Attractiveness (ATT) 3.67 0.98 0.36 0.79
Expertise (EXP) 3.13 0.84 0.49 0.23 0.71
Endorser-brand fit (FIT) 3.28 0.86 0.36 0.19 0.48 0.73
Self-brand connection 3.09 0.93 0.20 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.78
(SBC)
Brand trust (BT) 3.33 0.93 0.27 0.14 0.30 0.34 0.49 0.79
Commitment (COM) 3.12 0.98 0.23 0.17 0.23 0.32 0.57 0.65 0.77
Social benefits (SOC) 3.31 0.88 0.23 0.15 0.23 0.32 0.59 0.59 0.52 0.77
Satisfaction (SAT) 3.33 0.96 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.24 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.79

Note: Significance at 0.01 level; significance at 0.10 level. The square root of the average variance extracted is
given in italics along the diagonal.
496 A. Dwivedi et al.

Table 2. Reliability and validity estimates.

Standardized
Construct and items loading (sig.) Alpha CR AVE

Trustworthiness 0.81 0.81 0.58

[Endorser] is trustworthy 0.80
[Endorser] is honest 0.77
[Endorser] is reliable 0.72
Attractiveness 0.83 0.83 0.63
[Endorser] is good looking 0.85
[Endorser] is attractive 0.77
[Endorser] is sexy 0.75
Expertise 0.75 0.75 0.50
[Endorser] is an expert 0.71
[Endorser] is knowledgeable 0.70
[Endorser] possesses experience 0.70
Endorser-brand fit 0.78 0.78 0.54
There is match-up 0.76
There is similarity 0.73
Combination is appropriate 0.71
Self-brand connection 0.86 0.86 0.61
I consider my telecom brand as a part of myself 0.85
I have a special bond with my telecom brand 0.78
I feel a personal connection with my brand 0.77
My brand is an important indication of who I am 0.71
Brand trust 0.86 0.84 0.63
The [brand] is honest in addressing my concerns 0.83
Cares about its customers 0.81
Can count on it to do what is right 0.74
Relationship commitment 0.84 0.82 0.60
Proud to be a customer 0.80
Intend to maintain an indefinite relationship 0.77
The brand has a lot of personal meaning 0.75
Social benefits 0.82 0.81 0.59
Relation based on brands ability to make me feel important 0.78
Relation based on brands ability to know my needs 0.77
Relation based on brands ability to build a one on one 0.75
connection
Performance satisfaction 0.83 0.83 0.62
I did the right thing when I signed up 0.84
I am satisfied with my service 0.80
My choice is a wise one 0.72

Note: Alpha refers to Cronbachs alpha reliability estimate; CR refers to composite reliability estimate; AVE
refers to average variance extracted. Significance at 0.01 level.
 International Journal of Advertising 497

construct is greater than the standardized correlation coefficient of that construct with all
other constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Moreover, the measurement model analysis
using a confirmatory factor analysis demonstrates acceptable fit to data, as noted previ-
ously. These results suggest that adequate construct validity can be assumed in the study.
We would like to clarify that we collected data on the original 15-item Ohanian
(1990) scale (i.e., five items for each of the three dimensions). However, preliminary
measurement analysis revealed that two items of each of the dimensions load weakly
(i.e., standardized factor loading < 0.70) on the respective construct. For instance, items
endorser is classy and endorser is elegant load inadequately on the attractiveness
dimension. Similarly, items endorser is dependable and endorser is sincere load
weakly on the expertise dimension. These items were eliminated from further analyses,
resulting in the use of a shortened version of the Ohanian scale.

Structural model analysis and hypotheses tests

The structural model analysis elicits a significant Chi-square statistic (i.e., x2 (335) D
583.12, p < 0.01). Other fit indices reveal an acceptable fit to data (CFI D 0.96, TLI D
0.96, SRMR D 0.039 and RMSEA D 0.037). The individual hypotheses are examined
next. Table 3 reports the parameters of the structural model. As expected, endorser credi-
bility exerts a direct significant impact on relationship quality (standardized beta coeffi-
cient, b D 0.16, C.R. D 2.48, p < 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis H1 is supported. Endorser
credibility exerts a direct significant impact on the self-brand connection (b D 0.16,
C.R. D 3.40, p < 0.01), eliciting support for Hypothesis H2. Relationship quality is sig-
nificantly impacted by self-brand connection (b D 0.19, C.R. D 3.10, p < 0.01), thus sup-
porting Hypothesis H3.
Endorser-brand fit exerts a direct significant influence on relationship quality (b D
0.15, C.R. D 2.92, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis H4. Overall satisfaction exerts a
strong significant impacts on relationship quality (b D 0.64, C.R. D 9.33, p < 0.01), sup-
porting Hypothesis H5. Finally, Hypothesis H6 was supported as satisfaction exerted a
significant impact on the self-brand connection (b D 0.70, C.R. D 13.15, p < 0.01).
Overall, the estimated model explains 56% of variation in self-brand connection and 82%
variation in relationship quality.

Table 3. Structural parameter estimates.

b CR Sig. 95% C.I. Bootstrap p

Hypothesized path
H1: Endorser credibility ! Relationship quality 0.16 2.48 0.013 0.01 0.32 0.040
H2: Endorser credibility ! Self-brand connection 0.16 3.40  0.05 0.26 0.006
H3: Self-brand connection ! Relationship quality 0.19 3.10 0.002 0.05 0.31 0.009
Controlled influences
H4: Endorser-brand fit ! Relationship quality 0.15 2.92 0.012 0.01 0.29 0.041
H5: Satisfaction ! Relationship quality 0.64 9.33  0.52 0.75 

H6: Satisfaction ! Self-brand connection 0.70 13.15  0.59 0.78 

Note: b refers to the standardized beta coefficient; CR refers to critical ratio; n.s. refers to not significant. p
< 0.001. Bootstrap p refers to the bootstrapped significance level (using 5000 bootstrap samples).
498 A. Dwivedi et al.

Assessing parameter stability

In order to assess stability of the parameter estimates in the preceding analysis, a boot-
strapping procedure in structural equation modeling was carried out. Bootstrapping is a
form of resampling in which the original data are repeatedly sampled with replacement
for model estimation. Multiple sub-samples of the same size are randomly drawn with
replacement from the original sample and data for the parameter distributions for each of
the spawned sub-samples are generated (Byrne 2010). Parameter stability is assessed
through an examination of bootstrap standard errors, bias estimates (i.e., difference
between the bootstrap estimates and the original estimates) and an examination of the
bias-corrected confidence intervals (Byrne 2010). In the current study, bootstrapping is
conducted using 5000 samples with 95% confidence intervals. The analysis reveals bias
(i.e., the difference between original and bootstrapped estimate) values are all below
0.01. More importantly, the 95% confidence intervals for the parameter estimates exclude
a zero point (refer to the last two columns of Table 3). These results suggest that the
parameters of the estimated model are stable, implying plausibility in a much larger sam-
ple than the one used in the current study (Byrne 2010).

Discussion and implications

The present study adds a consumer brand relational perspective to the celebrity endorse-
ment literature. Specifically, the impact of endorser credibility was modeled on consumer-
perceived relationship quality with the endorsed brand. The results suggest that endorser
credibility exerts a direct significant impact on consumer-perceived relationship quality
with an endorsed brand. A theoretical implication of our study pertains to extending the
conceptual scope of celebrity endorsement effects. Traditionally, such effects are modeled
on brand evaluations such as brand attitudes (Silvera and Austad 2004) and brand equity
(Till 1998). We add relationship quality as an outcome of celebrity endorsement effects,
thereby complementing the literature on consumer brand relationships (Fournier 1998). A
managerial implication of the finding is that celebrity endorsers can be used as relationship
building and enhancement tools. In an era of media fragmentation, a credible celebrity may
be able to break through the clutter and directly facilitate long-term relational ties with a
brands consumers.
The self-brand connection is introduced as another outcome in the nomological net-
work of celebrity endorsement effects. A desire to maintain and enhance ones self-con-
cept is considered as a core consumer motivation (Sirgy 1982). The present study
supports the notion that celebrities are repositories of cultural meaning, aspects of which
are used by consumers to construct a desired sense of self (Holt 2002). The results of the
present study reveal that endorser credibility directly impacts consumers self-brand con-
nection. A theoretical implication of this finding is that endorsement effects have more of
a multi-faceted impact than previously envisaged. Credible celebrity endorsers are thus
likely to engage the brand as part of long-term self-image development. A practical impli-
cation of the finding is that brand managers can consider using celebrities not only to
enhance or expand brand awareness, but to engage with consumers on a much deeper
self-concept level. A practitioner need for facilitating deeper connections with consumers
has been recently highlighted in the sponsorship/endorsement literature (Wang and
Muehling 2012; Zdravkovic and Till 2012). Consumer beliefs and perceptions that reso-
nate in relation to the self-concept are thus likely to be more enduring than simpler aware-
ness effects. Additionally, the results support the logic that celebrities can potentially play
 International Journal of Advertising 499

a more meaningful role in brand (re)positioning that is based on consumers aspirational

values. A case in point is that of the US automobile brand Lincoln that is attempting a
comeback in the domestic luxury auto sector (Black 2008). Lincolns use of the celebrity
rap artist Common for the brands Navigator model is designed to attain deep connections
(engagement) with the target market. A clear implication for brand managers is that
advertisements featuring celebrity endorsers must communicate deeper self-concept-
related benefits, possibly through the use of a transformational ad executional style and
symbolic visuals. However, choice of a celebrity endorser per se is also of critical impor-
tance. Practitioners suggest that celebrity-brand fit is a vital ingredient to attaining favor-
able outcomes and are likely to materialize only if credible celebrities endorse a brand
(Pringle 2012; Thompson 2010). In the present study, although celebrity-brand fit was
specified as a control variable, its positive impact on relationship quality is consistent
with the literature on the effects of endorser-brand fit (e.g., Misra and Beatty 1990).
Furthermore, self-brand connection was hypothesized as a partial mediator of the
effect of endorser credibility on relationship quality, which is empirically supported in
the analysis. Theoretically, the partial mediation via self-brand connection supports
McCrackens (1989) cultural meaning transfer mechanisms that underline endorsement
effects. Specifically, the study supports McCrackens logic of transference (through a
celebrity with mass appeal) of culturally constituted shared meaning into a more individu-
alized meaning for consumers in the form of self-brand connection. Thus, culturally
shared meaning created through credible endorsers not only directly leads to improve-
ment in consumer perception of brand relationship quality, but also indirectly via self-
brand connection that is the shared meaning first translates into individualized meaning
for consumers, which subsequently influences relationship quality. From a managerial
perspective, the partial mediation result implies that investments into recruitment of cred-
ible celebrity endorsers entail a multiple return on investment. In the first instance, con-
sumer experience enhanced relationship quality with the endorsed brand because of the
credible reference group associations. Second, consumers ascribe a highly individualized
meaning to the brand which further impacts relationship quality.

Limitations and future research

The findings of the current study should be accepted in light of its limitations. The current
study is conducted using Indian consumer responses to local celebrities, thereby limiting
the scope of our studys external validity. However, given the global similarity of Genera-
tion Y (youth) segments consumption of the celebrity culture, this limitation is not likely
to seriously impact the external validity of the findings. Future investigations should,
nonetheless, consider replicating the research model internationally in order to achieve
greater generalizability. The use of convenience sampling represents potential limitation
of the study though the demographic profile of the respondents closely resembled those
of the target population. A limitation pertains to the potential influence of self-generated
validity, which arises when a respondents answer to a survey question is influenced by
the preceding questions (Feldman and Lynch 1988), likely influencing the correlation
estimates. However, self-generated validity is not likely to be a serious threat as critical
questions were separated by sub-headings and page-breaks in the questionnaire. More
importantly, items measuring relationship quality and self-brand connection were listed
on separate pages. Future research may consider using multiple methods for measuring
antecedent and outcome variables to further mitigate self-generated validity concerns.
Furthermore, the current study investigates the hypothesized relationships at a given point
500 A. Dwivedi et al.

in time, thus limited with regard to capturing a change in perceptions. Consumer percep-
tions of endorser credibility may change over time as a result of a celebritys behavior in
personal (but well documented) life. Future research should consider examining the
research model using a longitudinal design to model such changes in consumer percep-
tions of relationship quality over the course of a celebritys involvement as an endorser of
a brand. Finally, the present study investigates direct effects, some of which are likely
moderated by consumer behavioral variables. For instance, consumer perception of the
level of a celebritys social connectedness (i.e., high versus low) may moderate the
impact of endorser credibility in relationship quality. Celebrities that are perceived as
being highly involved in the social media circuit may facilitate a greater transfer of aspi-
rational values from the celebrity to the endorsed brand, and vice versa.

Conclusion
The current study shows that the credibility of a celebrity endorser may play a crucial role
in strengthening the quality of the relationship between the consumer and the brand.
We show that this link occurs directly and through the consumers incorporation of the
brands meaning into their self-concept. These results enhance our understanding of the
role of celebrity endorsers and the mechanisms by which they effectively promote a
brand.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Dr. D. N. Dwivedi, Prof. N. K. Kakkkar and other academic staff
members at the Maharaja Institute of Management Sciences, New Delhi, India for their assistance
during the data collection phase in India.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ablett, J., A. Baijal, E. Beinhocker, A. Bose, D. Farrell, U. Gersch, E. Greenberg, S. Gupta, and S.
Gupta. 2007. The Bird of Gold: The rise of Indias consumer market. Report by McKinsey
Global Institute. http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Asia/The_bird_of_gold.
Alan, C.T., S. Fournier, and F. Miller. 2008. Brands and their meaning makers. In Handbook of con-
sumer psychology. 1st ed., ed., C.P. Haugtvedt, P.M. Herr, and F.R. Kardes, 781 822. New
York: Taylor and Francis.
Albert, N., D. Merunka, and P. Valette-Florence. 2013. Brand passion: Antecedents and consequen-
ces. Journal of Business Research 66, no. 7: 904 9.
Amos, C., G. Holmes, and D. Strutton. 2008. Exploring the relationship between celebrity endorser
effects and advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Advertising 27, no. 2: 209 34.
Anderson, E., and V. Mittal. 2000. Strengthening the satisfaction profit chain. Journal of Service
Research 3, no. 2: 107 20.
Arantola, H. 2002. Consumer bonding: A conceptual exploration. Journal of Relationship Market-
ing 1, no. 2: 93 107.
Aurier, P. and G. NGoala. 2010. The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship com-
mitment in service relationship maintenance and development. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science 38, no. 3: 303 25.
Bagozzi, R.P., and Y. Yi. 2012. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40, no. 1: 8 34.
 International Journal of Advertising 501

Bearden, W.O., and M.J. Etzel. 1982. Reference group influence on product and brand purchase
decision. Journal of Consumer Research 9, no. 2: 183 94.
Bearden, W.O., R.G. Netemeyer, and J.E. Teel. 1989. Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research 15, no. 4: 473 81.
Belk, R.W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15, no. 2:
139 68.
Black, I. 2008. Adjusting the consumer crosshairs: The use of celebrities in automotive marketing.
Automotive marketing reports. World Advertising Research Centre Database. www.warc.com.
Bridges, S., K.L. Keller, and S. Sood. 2000. Communication strategies for brand extensions:
Enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal of Advertising 29, no. 4:
1 11.
Brodie, R.J., A. Ilic, B. Juric, and L. Hollebeek. 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research 66, no. 1: 105 14.
Byrne, B.M. 2010. Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts, applications and programming.
New York: Routledge.
Chahal, M. 2012. Does your celebrity have the $-factor? Marketing Week, 16 18. http://search.
proquest.com/docview/1082293565?accountidD10344.
Chaturvedi, P. 2011. Indias big three mobile brands and life beyond the price war (WARC exclu-
sive), 1 11. World Advertising Research Centre Online Database. www.warc.com.
Cohen, J.B., and K. Basu. 1987. Alternative models of categorization: Toward a contingent process-
ing framework. Journal of Consumer Research 13, no. 4: 455 72.
Cutright, K.M., A. Samper, and G.J. Fitzsimons. 2013. We are what we buy. In The Routledge com-
panion to identity and consumption (Chapter 9). 1st ed., ed. A.R. Ayalla and R.W. Belk, 91 8.
New York: Routledge.
Dolich, I.J. 1969. Congruence relationships between self-images and product brands. Journal of
Marketing Research 6, no. 1: 80 4.
Eisend, M., and T. Langner. 2010. Immediate and delayed advertising effects of celebrity endorsers
attractiveness and expertise. International Journal of Advertising 29, no. 4: 527 46.
Elliott, R., and K. Wattanasuwan. 1998. Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of iden-
tity. International Journal of Advertising 19, no. 2: 131 44.
Enders, C.K., and D.L. Bandalos. 2001. The relative performance of full information maximum
likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation
Modeling 8, no. 3: 430 57.
Erdogan, B.Z. 1999. Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management
15, no. 4: 291 314.
Escalas, J.E. 2004. Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology 14, no. 1/2: 168 80.
Escalas, J.E., and J.R. Bettman. 2003. You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on
consumers connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13, no. 3: 339 48.
Escalas, J.E., and J.R. Bettman. 2005. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal
of Consumer Research 32, no. 3: 378 89.
Escalas, J.E., and J.R. Bettman. 2013. The brand is Me: Exploring the effect of self-brand connec-
tions on processing brand information as self-information. In The Routledge companion to iden-
tity and consumption (Chapter 37). 1st ed., ed. A.R. Ayalla and R.W. Belk, 366 74. New York:
Routledge.
Euromonitor. 2007. Top 10 consumer trends in India, 1 7. Business Source Complete, EbscoHost
Online Database.
Evalueserve. 2009. Uptake of 3G services in India, 1 8. Business Source Complete, EbscoHost
Online Database.
Feldman, J.M., and J.G. Lynch Jr. 1988. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement
on belief, attitude, intention and behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology 73, no. 3: 421 35.
Fornell, C., and D. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable varia-
bles and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, no. 1: 39 50.
Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research 24, no. 4: 343 73.
Ganesan, S. 1994. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer seller relationships Journal of
Marketing 58, no. 2: 1 19.
Garretson, J.A., R.G. Folse, and S. Burton. 2012. How the personality traits of sincerity, excitement,
and competence help to build equity. Journal of Advertising 41, no. 1: 17 32.
502 A. Dwivedi et al.

Goodman, L.L., and P.A. Dion. 2001. The determinants of commitment in the distributor manu-
facturer relationship. Industrial Marketing Management 30, no. 3: 287 300.
Gregoire, Y., T.M. Tripp, and R. Legoux. 2009. When customer love turns into lasting hate: The
effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Mar-
keting 73, no. 6: 18 32.
Gronroos, C. 2006. Adopting service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory 6, no. 3: 317 33.
Gustafsson, A., M.D. Johnson, and I. Roos. 2005. The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship
commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journal of Marketing 69, no. 4:
210 8.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson. 2009. Multivariate data analysis. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hennig-Thurau, T., K.P. Gwinner, and D.D. Gremler. 2002. Understanding relationship marketing
outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service
Research 4, no. 3: 230 47.
Holt, D. 2002. Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding.
Journal of Consumer Research 29, no. 1: 70 90.
Hovland, C.I., I.L. Janis, and H.H. Kelley. 1953. Communication and persuasion: Psychological
studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Indiantelevision.com. 2009. Snapshot on celebrity endorsement on TV during H109. http://www.
indiantelevision.com/tamadex/y2k9/aug/tam32.php.
Jarvis, C.B., S.B. MacKenzie, and P.M. Podsakoff. 2003. A critical review of construct indicators
and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 30, no. 2: 199 218.
Kahle, L.R., and P.M. Homer. 1985. Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adap-
tation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 11, no. 4: 954 61.
Keller, K.L. 2013. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity
(Chapter 7). 4th ed. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
Kelting, K., and D.H. Rice. 2013. Should we hire David Beckham to endorse our brand? Contextual
interference and consumer memory for brands in a celebritys endorsement portfolio. Psychol-
ogy and Marketing 30, no. 7: 602 13.
Kim, J.W., J.C. Chonnam, W. Qualls, and K. Han. 2008. It takes a marketplace community to raise
brand commitment: The role of online communities. Journal of Marketing Management 24, no.
3/4: 409 31.
Li, Z.G., and R.P. Dant. 1997. An exploratory study of exclusive dealing in channel relationships.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25, no. 3: 201 13.
MacInnis, D.J., C.W. Park, and J.R. Priester. 2009. Introduction: Why brand relationships? In Hand-
book of brand relationships. 1st ed., ed. D.J., MacInnis, C.W. Park, and J.R. Priester, ix xxi.
New York: ME Sharpe.
Markus, H. 1977. Self-schemata and the processing of information about the self. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology 35, no. 2: 63 78.
McCracken, G. 1989. Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement pro-
cess. Journal of Consumer Research 16, no. 3: 310 21.
Misra, S., and S.E. Beatty. 1990. Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence. Journal of Business
Research 21, no. 2: 159 73.
Moore, D.J., and P.M. Homer. 2008. Self-brand connections: The role of attitude strength and auto-
biographical memory primes. Journal of Business Research 61, no. 7: 707 14.
Murphy, G.L., and D.L. Medin. 1985. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological
Review 92, no. 3: 289 316.
Ohanian, R. 1990. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers perceived
expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising 19, no. 3: 39 52.
Perloff, R.M. 2010. The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century.
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology 88, no. 5: 879 903.
Pringle, H. 2012. How to use celebrity in brand building. WARC best practice. World Advertising
Research Centre Database. www.warc.com
Radford, S.K., and P.H. Bloch. 2013. Consumers online responses to the death of a celebrity.
Marketing Letters 24, no. 1: 43 55.
 International Journal of Advertising 503

Richins, M.L. 1994. Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of
Consumer Research 21, no. 3: 504 21.
Rossiter, J.R., and L. Percy. 1987. Advertising and promotion management (Chapter 11). New
York: McGraw Hill International.
Sbarbaro, S., J. Van der Bergh, E. Veris, and T. De Ruyck. 2011. We got a crush on you(th)! Involv-
ing influential Gen Yers from 15 global cities to learn why something is cool. In ESOMAR
research paper, collection: qualitative. World Advertising Research Centre Database. www.
warc.com (accessed November 13, 2011).
Schiffman, L., A. OCass, A. Paladino, S. DAlessandro, and D. Bednall. 2011. Consumer behavior.
5th ed. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.
Sheth, J.N., and Parvatiyar, A. 1995. Relationship marketing in consumer markets: Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23, no. 4: 225 71.
Silvera, D.H., and B. Austad. 2004. Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement
advertisements. European Journal of Marketing 38, no. 11/12: 1509 26.
Sirgy, M.J. 1982. Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer
Research 9, no. 3: 287 300.
Speck, P.S., D.W. Schumann, and C. Thompson. 1988. Celebrity endorsements scripts, schema
and roles: Theoretical framework and preliminary tests. Advances in Consumer Research 15,
no 1: 69 76.
Sprott, D., S. Czellar, and E. Spangenberg. 2009. The importance of a general measure of brand
engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing
46, no. 1: 92 104.
Spry, A., R. Pappu, and T.B. Cornwell. 2011. Credibility endorsement, brand credibility and brand
equity. European Journal of Marketing 45, no. 6: 882 909.
Stafford, M.R., T.F. Stafford, and E. Day. 2002. A contingency approach: The effects of spokesper-
son type and service type on service advertising perceptions. Journal of Advertising 31, no. 2:
17 35.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. 2011. Information note to the press (press release
No. 41 /2011), July 7, New Delhi. www.trai.gov.in
Telecomcircle.com. 2012. Snapshot: India telecom market. http://www.telecomcircle.com/2009/06/
india-telecom/.
Thompson, D. 2010. Celebrities must be relevant to increase brand engagement. Admap report.
World Advertising Research Centre Database. www.warc.com.
Thompson, M. 2006. Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers strong attachments to
celebrities. Journal of Marketing 70, no. 3: 104 19.
Till, B.D. 1998. Using celebrity endorsers effectively: Lessons from associative learning. Journal of
Product and Brand Management 7, no. 5: 400 9.
Till, B.D., and M. Busler. 2000. The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and
the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising 29,
no. 3: 1 13.
Van den Bergh, J., and M. Behrer. 2011. How cool brand stay hot: Branding to generation Y. 2nd
ed. London: Kogan Page.
Van Kuilenburg, P., M.D.T. De Jong, and T.J.L. Van Rompay. 2011. That was funny, but what was
the brand again? International Journal of Advertising 30, no. 5: 795 814.
Wang, J., and J.M.M. Bloemer. 2008. The impact of value congruence on consumer-service brand
relationships. Journal of Service Research 11, no. 2: 161 78.
Wang, A., and D. Muehling. 2012. The moderating influence of brand status and source confirma-
tion on third-party endorsement effects in advertising. International Journal of Advertising 31,
no. 3: 605 22.
Yelin, H., and K. Kinnear. 2012, September. Celebrity endorsement: Socialise the endorsement.
Admap report. World Advertising Research Centre Database. www.warc.com.
Yoon, D., S.M. Choi, and D. Sohn. 2008. Building customer relationships in an electronic age: The
role of interactivity of e-commerce web sites. Psychology and Marketing 25, no. 7: 602 18.
Zdravkovic, S., and B.D. Till. 2012. Enhancing brand image via sponsorship: Strength of associa-
tion effects. International Journal of Advertising 31, no. 1: 113 32.