Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disentangling the meanings of brand authenticity: The entity-referent correspondence framework of authenticity

  • Conceptual/Theoretical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although marketing researchers agree that brand authenticity has various meanings, little consensus exists concerning the number of meanings and what those meanings entail. This paper addresses this lack of clarity in the literature by introducing the Entity-Referent Correspondence (ERC) Framework of Authenticity. The ERC Framework provides an overarching definition of authenticity—a consumer’s perception of the degree to which a supposed authentic entity corresponds with or is “true to” something else, which we label a referent. The ERC Framework also suggests three types of authenticity—true-to-ideal, true-to-fact, and true-to-self—that are consistent with the general definition yet are distinct. Each type may manifest in a variety of ways in a brand context, suggesting that brand authenticity is not a singular concept. The framework also proposes nomological nets that explain how consumers form perceptions of each type, how the types lead to managerially relevant outcomes (e.g., expected quality, trust), and how the types affect each other. This research advances the literature on brand authenticity by offering three types of conceptual contributions as identified by MacInnis (2011): integrating, differentiating, and delineating.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 3
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The chosen conceptualizations are illustrative examples and are not an exhaustive list.

  2. The correspondence theory of truth assumes a reality exists that is independent of the mind. However, as we discuss subsequently, we do not apply this for all three types of authenticity. Our conceptualization of authenticity relies on the correspondence theory only for the idea that, for truth or authenticity, an entity must be consistent with or correspond with something else.

  3. Earlier versions of these ideas were presented at the 2017 ACR Annual Conference (Moulard et al. 2017) and the 2019 AMS Annual Conference (Moulard et al. forthcoming).

  4. While our proposed outcomes for all three authenticity types likely influence product and brand attitudes and purchase/patronage intentions, we do not formally propose those effects for simplicity and because most of these relationships have been previously established.

  5. While this rationale suggests that perceived ability mediates the effect of TTI on perceived quality, we opted to only propose a direct relationship for simplicity.

  6. Only the correspondence of certain physical objects may be easily determined. A gold looking necklace can be determined to be actual gold, and carbon dating can determine the time during which an artifact existed.

References

  • Akbar, M. M., & Wymer, W. (2016). Refining the conceptualization of brand authenticity. Journal of Brand Management, 24(1), 14–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Algo, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘other-praising’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 105–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (2000). Authenticating acts and authoritative performances: Questing for self and community. In S. Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick, & C. Huffman (Eds.), The why of consumption: Contemporary perspectives on consumer motives, goals and desires (pp. 140–163). London and New York: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnham, C. (2009) Essence: the structure and dynamics of the brand. International Journal of Market Research, 51(5), 1–14.

  • Becker, M., Wiegand, N., & Reinartz, W. J. (2019). Does it pay to be real? Understanding authenticity in TV advertising. Journal of Marketing, 83(1), 24–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014). The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverland, M., & Farrelly, F. J. (2010). The quest of authenticity in consumption: Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 838–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverland, M., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. (2008). Projecting authenticity through advertising. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverland, M., & Luxton, S. (2005). Managing integrated marketing communication (IMC) through strategic decoupling: How luxury wine firms retain brand leadership while appearing to be wedded to the past. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond Jr., C. F., Omar, A., Pitre, U., Lashley, B. R., Skaggs, L. M., & Kirk, C. T. (1992). Fishy-looking liars: Deception judgment from expectancy violation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 969–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry Jr., J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of postmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J., & Owen, M. (2002). Developing brands with qualitative market research. In G. Ereaut, M. Imms & M. Callingham (Eds.). Qualitative market research. London: Sage Publications.

  • Chronis, A., & Hampton, R. D. (2008). Consuming the authentic Gettysburg: How a tourist landscape becomes an authentic experience. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cinelli, M. D., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2020). Keeping it real: How perceived brand authenticity affects product perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(1), 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. B., & Basu, K. (1987). Alternative models of categorization: Toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 455–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy: The motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 186–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, D. (2015). The actual Hollister. The New Yorker, (July 20), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-actual-hollister.

  • Euromonitor International (2019). 2019 Megatrends: State of play. http://blog.euromonitor.com/.

  • Fine, A. (1994). Science made up: Constructivist sociology of scientific knowledge. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and powers (pp. 231–251). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G. A. (2003). Crafting authenticity: The validation of identity in self-taught art. Theory and Society, 32, 153–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortune (2019, February 2). The world’s most admired companies. 179 (2), 75–80.

  • Fotsch, B., & Case J. (2017). Using transparency to build a better company. Forbes (January 24), [accessible at https://www.forbes.com/sites/fotschcase/2017/01/24/using-transparency-to-build-a-better-company/#20b9420a72c6].

  • Fournier, S. (1988). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, J. H., & Pine II, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: What customers really want. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N. D. (1980). Values, attitudes, and beliefs. In O. G. Brim Jr. & J. Kagan (Eds.), Constancy and change in human development (pp. 596–640). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, P. N., Mitra, D., & Moorman, C. (2012). What is quality? An integrative framework of processes and states. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, J. (1999). The new marketing manifesto. Knutsford: Texere Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 296–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, W. H. (1976). A concise introduction to philosophy (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576–1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, S. A., & Hoch, S. J. (1992). Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 212–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, S. A., Hoch, S. J., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2001). Low-involvement learning: Repetition and coherence in familiarity and belief. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Interbrand (2018). Best Global Brands 2018. https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/methodology/

  • Johnson, A. R., Thomson, M., & Jeffrey, J. (2015). What does brand authenticity mean? Causes and consequences of consumer scrutiny toward a brand narrative. Review of Marketing Research, 12, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. K. (2006). Memory and reality. American Psychologist, 61(8), 760–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, C. G. (1953). Two essays in analytical psychology. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (2000). The brand report card. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of consumer knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnear, T. C. (1999). A perspective on how firms relate to their markets. Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 112–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: The multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 481–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loken, B. (2006). Consumer psychology: Categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 453–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McReynolds, P. (1971). The nature and assessment of intrinsic motivation. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (pp. 157–177). Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpandé, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulard, J. G., Garrity, C. P., & Rice, D. H. (2015). What makes a human brand authentic? Identifying the antecedents of celebrity authenticity. Psychology & Marketing, 32(2), 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2016). Brand authenticity: Testing the antecedents and outcomes of brand management’s passion for its products. Psychology & Marketing, 33(6), 421–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2017). The entity-referent correspondence framework of authenticity. In A. Gneezy, V. Griskevicius, & P. Williams (Eds.), NA - advances in consumer research (pp. 264–269). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (forthcoming). Disentangling the meanings of brand authenticity: An abstract. In F. Pantoja & S. Wu (Eds.), Developments in marketing science: Proceedings of the academy of marketing science. Cham: Springer.

  • Moulard, J. G., Rice, D. H., Garrity, C. P., & Mangus, S. M. (2014). Artist authenticity: How artists’ passion and commitment shape consumers’ perceptions and behavioral intentions across genders. Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), 576–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, C. L., Wood, N. T., & Solomon, M. R. (2006). Real or blarney? A cross-cultural investigation of the perceived authenticity of Irish pubs. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5(3), 222–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1090–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napoli, J., Dickinson-Delaporte, S., & Beverland, M. B. (2016). The brand authenticity continuum: Strategic approaches for building value. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(13–14), 1201–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, A. (2002). The correspondence theory of truth: An essay on the metaphysics of predication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E. J., Garry, M., Bernstein, D. M., Kantner, J., & Lindsay, D. S. (2012). Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 969–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 418–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olmsted, L. (2016). Real food/fake food: Why you don’t know what you’re eating and what you can do about it. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parloff, R. (2018, February 6). How VW paid $25 billion for ‘Dieselgate’ – And got off easy, Fortune, accessed October 28, 2019, [available at https://fortune.com/2018/02/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scandal-penalties/].

  • Peterson, R. A. (2005). In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1083–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, J. O., & Entin, E. E. (1983). The function of future orientation as a determinant of human behavior in step-path theory of action. International Journal of Psychology, 18(1–4), 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (pp. 184–256). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlossberg, M. (2015). Hollister’s elaborate history was completely fabricated by the company. Business Insider (July 20), [available at https://www.businessinsider.com/hollisters-fabricated-backstory-2015-7].

  • Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006). Converting web site visitors into buyers: How web site investment increases consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase intensions. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shockoe Atelier (n.d.). https://shockoeatelier.com/pages/about3, viewed June 27. 2019.

  • Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: Brand extension authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 967–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, D. J. (1996). From epistemology and metaphysics to concrete connections. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and powers (pp. 255–286). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sujan, M., Bettman, J. R., & Sujan, H. (1986). Effects of consumer expectations on information processing in selling encounters. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 346–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and consumers’ (anticorporate) experiences of glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the doppelganger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobak, S. (2017). “Jessica Alba’s ‘Honest’ Mess.” https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/291906.

  • Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trobe, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • True grit. (2006), New Zealand Management, 53 (May), p.8.

  • Varadarajan, R. (2003). Musings on relevance and rigor of scholarly research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 368–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, C., Batra, R., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2019). Brand coolness. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 36–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartofsky, M. W. (1968). Conceptual foundations of scientific thought: An introduction to the philosophy of science. London: Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, P. M., Brown, C. L., & Hoch, S. J. (1994). Consumption vocabulary and preference formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 120–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A. (1998). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and a synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of the ideas offered in this paper were presented at the 2017 ACR Annual Conference (Moulard et al., 2017) and the 2019 AMS Annual Conference (Moulard et al., forthcoming).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing & Analysis, Balsley-Whitmore Endowed Professor in Business, College of Business, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, 71272, USA

    Julie Guidry Moulard

  2. Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, 23173, USA

    Randle D. Raggio

  3. Ourso Family Distinguished Chair of Marketing Research, Department of Marketing, E. J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA

    Judith Anne Garretson Folse

Authors
  1. Julie Guidry Moulard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randle D. Raggio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judith Anne Garretson Folse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Guidry Moulard.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

John Hulland and Mark Houston served as Editors for this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moulard, J.G., Raggio, R.D. & Folse, J.A.G. Disentangling the meanings of brand authenticity: The entity-referent correspondence framework of authenticity. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 49, 96–118 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00735-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00735-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation