







































1 
 

 

 

Brand Personification and Money: 
The Effect of Collective vs. Solo Brands on Monetary 

Decisions 
 

Napatsorn Jiraporn 
State University of New York at Oswego  

 
 
For decades, marketing professionals have crafted brands with human-like traits, like Mr. Clean and 
Tony the Tiger, to create emotional connections and influence buying behavior. Scholars have 
explored brand personification, examining its effects and mechanisms. This research investigates 
anthropomorphic collective branding, which involves using multiple anthropomorphized brand entities to 
create a collective brand presence. Two experiments revealed that consumers evaluate collective 
brands more positively than solo ones, particularly in financial decisions such as Buy Now Pay Later 
services or donations. Trust was found to mediate this effect, enhancing positive evaluations. These 
findings contribute to the understanding of brand anthropomorphism, highlighting the effectiveness 
of collective branding strategies in specific decision-making contexts. Future research could explore 
how these strategies influence consumer behavior in diverse financial settings, like gambling or other 
financial transactions. For marketing professionals, this study emphasizes the nuanced impact of 
different types of brand anthropomorphism on brand evaluation, depending on the consumer 
decision context. Leveraging these insights can help optimize branding strategies to better engage 
consumers. 
 
Keywords: brand anthropomorphism, brand personification, brand trust, buy now pay later, 
consumer-brand relationship, monetary decision 
 

Introduction 
Over the past several decades, marketing practitioners have ingeniously imbued brands with 

human-like characteristics and personalities, creating iconic figures such as Mr. Clean (a well-known 
cleaning product in the United States), the Michelin Man (also known as Bibendum, a mascot of a 
French tire company), the Aflac Duck (a famous insurance company in North America), Pillsbury’s 
Doughboy (a well-known mascot for baking products in the United States), Tony the Tiger (a 
mascot for breakfast cereal from Kellogg’s), and Ronald McDonald (a mascot of McDonald’s, a 
global brand of fast-food restaurant). This strategic approach has consistently elicited consumers' 
perceptions of brands as living, breathing entities with emotions and thoughts (Aaker, 1996; 
Fournier & Alvarez, 2012; Kim & McGill, 2011; Puzakova et al., 2013). Studies show that when 
brands have personality, consumers tend to form stronger emotional bonds with them. Aaker’s 

http://journals.sfu.ca/abr 
       2024, Volume 14, pages 1-19 

http://journals.sfu.ca/abr


2 
 

(1996) work on brand personality suggests that consumers are more likely to stay loyal to brands that 
exhibit a personality similar to their own or one they admire. Furthermore, Kim and McGill (2011) 
highlight that personified brands are often seen as more trustworthy, as the human-like attributes of 
a brand can make its promises and commitments appear more credible. This trust is crucial for 
fostering consumer loyalty and encouraging repeat purchases. Aggarwal and McGill (2012) proposed 
that brand anthropomorphism triggered consumers’ automatic goals to have a successful social 
interaction, so people behave differently towards anthropomorphized vs. non-anthropomorphized 
brands. Additionally, research by Puzakova et al. (2013) indicates that consumers are more inclined 
to interact with brands that exhibit personality traits, whether through social media, brand 
communities, or other platforms. 

While some brands have taken the bold step of creating mascots capable of speech, movement, 
and emotional expression, Reavey et al. (2018) propose that brand personification can be achieved in 
more subtle ways. Simply referring to the brand using human language or imbuing the product itself 
with anthropomorphic traits can evoke similar feelings of connection and familiarity. For instance, a 
yogurt bottle shaped like an hourglass resembling the human body subtly reinforces notions of 
health and vitality, forging a personal bond between the consumer and the brand.  

Despite the widespread use of anthropomorphism in advertising, two critical areas remain 
relatively unexplored: i) the varying effectiveness of different forms of brand anthropomorphism 
and ii) the possible impact of these strategies across diverse product categories. Understanding these 
nuances is essential for marketers seeking to maximize the potential of brand personification in their 
campaigns and tailor their approaches to resonate with specific target audiences. In essence, the 
practice of imbuing brands with human-like qualities has become a cornerstone of modern 
marketing, blurring the lines between products and personalities, and forging enduring connections 
with consumers that transcend mere transactions. 

Recent research conducted by Puzakova & Kwak (2023) sheds light on these areas by revealing 
that the presence of multiple anthropomorphized entities, known as collective brands, can decrease 
advertising effectiveness compared to anthropomorphized solo brands. Anthropomorphized 
collective brands were conceptualized here as brand communication that includes cues of multiple 
entitles leading to the perception of a collective presence of the brand. Advertisements using 
multiple anthropomorphized entities (e.g., multiple humanlike characters, brand characters, or 
mascots) are quite common in the industry. Examples of such brands are Belgian Boys, Birch 
Benders, and M&M. The findings that such collective brands harm brand evaluation are robust 
across research studies and surprisingly, this effect is more pronounced among women, who tend to 
develop lower expectations of the consumer-brand relationship with collective brands. In contrast, 
studies found no effect of collective brands on men. This disparity in perception suggests a nuanced 
interplay between brand anthropomorphism and gender dynamics, shedding light on the divergent 
ways in which men and women engage with anthropomorphized collective brands. 

The evidence pointing to the negative effects of collective brands on brand evaluation sparks 
curiosity about why such brands remain popular in the industry. This raises interesting questions 
about the effectiveness of branding strategies and the contexts that might influence their impact. 
Although collective brands are widely used, their drawbacks compared to solo brands are unclear. 
This study aims to fill this gap by examining how different types of brand anthropomorphism—
specifically, collective versus solo—impact consumer monetary decision-making. Despite a growing 
interest in branding and consumer behavior, there is a lack of research exploring how branding 
strategies affect monetary decisions. Thus, this study seeks to shed light on how brand 
personification strategies influence financial choices, a crucial area for marketers and consumers 
alike. This research focuses on two main questions: first, does the type of brand 
anthropomorphism—collective or solo—affect monetary decisions? Second, what underlying 



3 
 

factors—mediators or moderators—contribute to consumers' preferences for collective brands over 
solo ones? By exploring these questions, this study aims to provide insights into how branding 
strategies shape consumer financial behavior. 

To address these questions, a series of theoretically grounded hypotheses were developed and 
tested through two between-subject experiments conducted in the contexts of financial services 
(Buy Now, Pay Later) and money donation. This research focuses on the consumers within the 
United States for a few reasons. First, the country boasts a vast diverse consumer market 
representing various demographics, cultures, and preferences. Conducting research in the country 
provides insights into a broad spectrum of consumers. Moreover, the selection of the United States 
as the primary locus of investigation is substantiated by its status as a global leader in technological 
innovation, particularly evident within the area of retail and payment technologies (IMD World 
Competitiveness Ranking, 2023; McKinsey & Company, 2022; World Intellectual Property 
Organization, 2023). Given the overarching goal of this study is to investigate the dynamics 
underpinning consumer evaluations of collective brands in the context of financial decisions, it 
becomes vital to anchor these empirical analyses within a context where consumers have been 
exposed to an innovative payment option of Buy Now, Pay Later.   

Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) is a financial service that allows consumers to purchase goods and 
services and defer payment over a specified period, often without interest if payments are made 
within the agreed timeframe (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2022). According to a survey 
conducted by Bankrate (2022), 39% of Americans reported that they have used BNPL service. Fifty-
five percent of participants in the Millennial age group reported that they have used BNPL and this 
is the larger percentage across age groups (Bankrate, 2022). During the period of this research 
endeavor, no definitive market leader had emerged within the realm of this payment option in the 
country. Noteworthy contenders competing in the industry included Affirm, Klarna, and Afterpay.  

The research participants were recruited through the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) 
platform where researchers can get online crowdsourcing participants to complete tasks. Strikingly, 
the findings remain consistent across both studies and both contexts, revealing that when monetary 
decisions are involved, collective brands are evaluated more positively than solo brands. The 
mediation analysis discovered that the underlying mechanism of the effect is possible because 
consumers perceive collective brands as more trustworthy.  

This research demonstrates the significant impact of branding on consumer monetary decisions, 
offering valuable theoretical insights. Specifically, it highlights the role of collective brand 
personification in shaping consumer perceptions and behavior within financial decision-making 
contexts. From a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that firms can enhance their marketing 
effectiveness by strategically leveraging collective brand personification to foster consumer trust and 
loyalty. By aligning branding strategies with consumer preferences, firms can cultivate stronger 
emotional connections with consumers, ultimately driving purchase intent and engagement. These 
insights underscore the importance of a nuanced approach to brand management and have 
implications for both theoretical discourse and practical marketing strategies. 

 
Literature Review 

 
Brand Personification Strategy 

In the United States, consumers are highly familiar with many brands anthropomorphized 
through their mascots such as the Pillsbury’s Doughboy, the Green Giant, Mr. Clean, and the Geico 
Gecko. Brand personification or brand anthropomorphism is a human-like representation that is 
associated with the brand with certain human characteristics and personality (Aaker,1996). This 
concept stems from the idea that consumers tend to anthropomorphize brands, attributing human 



4 
 

qualities to them, which can significantly influence their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors toward 
those brands. This literature review aims to provide an overview of the key theoretical frameworks, 
empirical findings, and practical implications associated with brand personification.  

The theoretical foundations of brand personification came from two streams of research. First, 
anthropomorphism theory suggests that individuals have a natural tendency to attribute human-like 
qualities to non-human entities including brands. This theory forms the basis for understanding how 
consumers anthropomorphize brands and the psychological processes underlying this phenomenon. 
Prior research shows that consumers’ ability to anthropomorphize a brand can be influenced by the 
extent to which the product is characterized by human schema such as a car with a front grill that 
looks like a smile (Aggarwal & McGill 2007). Second, the brand personality framework posits that 
brands can be conceptualized in terms of personality traits, similar to how individuals are 
characterized (Aaker, 1996). Researchers have adapted various personality dimensions, such as 
sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness, to assess and measure brand 
personalities (Aaker, 1996; Calderón-Fajardo et al, 2023; Coelho et al, 2020; Motoki et al., 2023). 

It is important to note that in the industry, brands can be anthropomorphized in various ways. 
Some brands utilize mascots or spokespersons to embody their brand personalities, such as the 
GEICO Gecko. Other brands incorporate human-like features into their products, exemplified by 
M&M’s characters with arms, eyes, and legs. Additionally, certain brands employ human language to 
describe or refer to their products, as seen in Goodyear’s (1987 )'Take Me Home' campaign. 
Similarly, the extant academic literature demonstrates a wide range of methods for manipulating 
brand anthropomorphism. Aggarwal and McGill (2007) demonstrated that products can be 
anthropomorphized through the inclusion of physical characteristics, such as a smiling grille on a 
car. In contrast, Kim and McGill (2011) employed linguistic techniques, using human language to 
anthropomorphize skin cancer, referring to it as 'these criminals' and using pronouns such as 'they' 
and 'their' to enhance the anthropomorphic effect. Reavey et al. (2018) examined varied degrees of 
brand humanization (overt and subtle) and found that consumers preferred subtle humanization 
when the ads did not use assertive language (Buy Now!). 

Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated that brand personification influences consumers' 
perceptions of brands. Brands perceived as having human-like traits are often evaluated more 
favorably in terms of likability, trustworthiness, credibility, and authenticity compared to brands 
lacking personified characteristics (Aggarwal & McGill 2012; Braxton & Lau-Gesk 2020; Delbaere et 
al., 2011; Eskine & Locander, 2014; Fournier, 1998; Han et al.,  2021; Kim & McGill, 2011). Brand 
personification has been shown to influence various aspects of consumer behavior, including brand 
preference, brand loyalty, purchase intentions, and willingness to pay premium prices (Braxton & 
Lau-Gesk,  2020; Fournier, 1998). Consumers tend to form emotional connections with personified 
brands, leading to stronger brand attachments and increased purchase likelihood. Prior research has 
also shown that brand personification can affect risk perceptions and behaviors. Specifically, an 
anthropomorphized slot machine increased liking among their research participants (Kim & McGill, 
2011). Chandler & Schwarz (2010) show that when consumers have humanized their car brands, 
they are less likely to replace them and put less importance on the quality when making a 
replacement decision.  Hence, anthropomorphized brands appear to gain brand loyalty and have 
stronger relationships with their consumers. Brand personification has been found to increase 
involvement with a non-profit organization (Stinnett et al., 2013) and changes in behavioral 
intentions (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012). The work of Aggarwal and McGill (2012) also demonstrated 
that brand personification can have a social role (e.g., partner, servant, leader) and consumers 
respond to various social roles differently. More recently, Rai et al. (2022) extended the literature on 
social roles by establishing that anthropomorphized brand roles can influence goal-directed 
consumers differently depending on how far along they are in the goal-pursuit journey. Recent work 



5 
 

by Zhang et al. (2020) revealed that brand position (distinctiveness vs. popularity) moderates the 
effect of brand personification on consumers’ brand attitudes. 

In general, these studies found a positive effect of brand personification. However, one very 
interesting finding from the work of Puzakova and Kwak (2023) found that when a brand 
anthropomorphized into multiple entities (anthropomorphized collective brand), the strategy led to 
a decrease in advertising effectiveness. As a result, it appears that not all brand personification 
strategies are equal, and these conflicting results shed light on the importance of understanding how 
variations of brand personification shape consumer’s responses to the brands. 

 
Collective vs. Solo Brand Anthropomorphism 

Marketing practitioners frequently endeavor to construct perceptions of their brands as 
humanlike entities, either as individuals (e.g. Tony, the Tiger) or collectives (e.g. M&M brand 
characters, Coca-Cola’s polar bears, Kellogg’s Rice Krispies, and Belgian Boys’ Waffles and 
Pancakes). However, the topic of solo vs. collective anthropomorphized brands has only been 
recently examined. Prior research studies can serve as a foundation for the predictions that 
consumers should vary in their reactions to individual brand entities vs. collective brand entities. For 
example, scholars found that collective and dyadic relationships are primarily distinguished by 
differences in relationship closeness and intimacy (Hoza et al., 2000; Williams, 2010). Puzakova and 
Kwak (2023) have contributed significantly to our understanding of anthropomorphized brands by 
introducing the concept of collective anthropomorphized brands. These brands go beyond the 
traditional notion of a singular anthropomorphized entity and instead incorporate cues from 
multiple brand entities, creating a perception of a collective presence. This novel approach suggests 
that consumers can develop relationships not just with individual brand characters but with a 
broader collective of brand personalities. In contrast to anthropomorphized solo brands, where the 
focus is on a single character representing the brand, collective brands offer consumers the 
opportunity to engage with a diverse array of brand personalities. This shift in perspective opens 
new avenues for consumer-brand interaction and relationship building.  

The research conducted by Puzakova and Kwak (2023) involved four studies, employing both 
fictitious and real-world brands in the food and furniture categories within the United States. Their 
findings revealed an intriguing gender difference in how participants evaluated collective brands. 
Female participants tended to view these brands less favorably than solo brands, driven by their 
expectation of greater relationship closeness with the brand. This suggests that women may have 
different preferences or expectations when it comes to brand relationships compared to men. 

Building upon this insightful discovery, the current research aims to delve deeper into the 
implications of these two variations of brand personification on consumer decision-making 
processes, particularly concerning financial choices. By exploring how individuals respond to 
collective versus solo anthropomorphized brands in the context of monetary decisions, we can gain 
further insights into the psychological mechanisms underlying consumer-brand interactions. 
Understanding the impact of brand personification on consumer behavior is crucial for marketers 
seeking to enhance brand engagement and loyalty. By examining the nuances of collective 
anthropomorphized brands and their effects on consumer decision-making, this research contributes 
to a more comprehensive understanding of branding strategies in today's market landscape. 

 
Consumer Monetary Decision-Making 

The realm of monetary decision-making within consumer behavior literature encompasses a wide 
array of topics, reflecting the multifaceted nature of financial choices individuals make in their daily 
lives. Scholars have explored various aspects such as consumer spending patterns (Kurt et al., 2011; 
Fornell et al., 2010), borrowing behaviors (Hirst et al., 1994), saving habits (Durante & Laran, 2016; 



6 
 

Loibl & Scharff, 2010), and the purchase of financial products (Howcroft et al., 2007; Dogra & 
Kaushal, 2022). Additionally, research has delved into areas such as donation and charity 
contributions (White & Peloza, 2009; Xu et al., 2022), illustrating the breadth of financial decisions 
studied within consumer behavior literature. 

Within this extensive body of literature, various factors have been identified as influential in 
shaping individuals' monetary decisions. For instance, education levels have been linked to financial 
decision-making processes, with studies highlighting the impact of education on financial literacy 
and decision outcomes (Estelami, 2009; Williams, 2007). Furthermore, the framing of choices has 
been shown to significantly influence decision outcomes, with different presentations of information 
leading to varying decision preferences (Petersen et al., 2015). Moreover, the disclosure of 
information regarding financial products or decisions can impact consumer perceptions and 
subsequent choices (Adams et al., 2021). 

Despite the breadth of research in this area, there remains a notable gap concerning the 
intersection of branding strategies and consumer monetary decision-making processes. The present 
research seeks to address this gap by examining how branding strategies, specifically the 
anthropomorphization of brands, influence consumer decisions related to money in two distinct 
contexts: financial services and charitable donations. By uncovering the impact of brand 
personification on financial decision-making processes, this research aims to provide valuable 
insights for marketing practitioners seeking to optimize branding strategies for financial products 
and philanthropic initiatives. Moreover, understanding the mechanisms underlying consumer 
financial decision-making not only benefits marketers but also holds implications for consumer 
welfare more broadly.  

 
Hypothesis Development 

The primary research inquiry pertains to whether or not the utilization of brand personification 
strategies, specifically contrasting collective versus solo brand representations, elucidates the 
variance observed in monetary decision-making processes. While extant scholarship has previously 
illuminated potential drawbacks associated with collective brand personification, positing a 
decrement in advertising efficacy (Puzakova & Kwak, 2023), the present investigation posits a 
divergent perspective. Specifically, it is hypothesized that within the context of monetary decision-
making, collective brand personification may engender more favorable evaluations and heightened 
effectiveness compared to solo brand counterparts. This proposition is underpinned by a few unique 
characteristics of monetary decisions. Firstly, financial decisions often exhibit a higher degree of 
irrevocability and permanence. Unlike many consumer goods, which can be returned or exchanged 
if deemed unsatisfactory, financial transactions are often irreversible, with limited avenues for 
recourse in the event of unfavorable outcomes. For instance, once an investment is made or a 
financial product is selected, reversing, or undoing that decision may not be feasible or may come at 
a significant cost. Second, financial decisions often have long-term implications that transcend the 
immediate transaction. Choices such as spending, budgeting, retirement planning, investment 
allocation, or mortgage selection can shape one's financial trajectory and lifestyle over extended time 
horizons. Consequently, the evaluation of financial options necessitates a forward-looking 
perspective and an awareness of how decisions made today may reverberate across years or decades.  

Moreover, there is evidence from the branding literature that suggests that collective brand 
entities tend to be perceived more favorably. First, research on co-branding and brand alliances 
provides substantial evidence that consumers often prefer collective brand entities. Co-branding 
involves the collaboration of two or more brands to create a combined product or service, which 
can enhance consumer perceptions of quality and trust. A systematic literature review by Pinello et 
al. (2022) highlights that co-branding alliances can lead to positive spillover effects, where the 



7 
 

strengths of each brand reinforce the overall perception of the collective brand entity. Research by 
Washburn et al. (2000) indicates that brand alliances can enhance brand equity by leveraging the 
strengths and reputations of the involved brands. This can lead to increased consumer preference 
for the collective brand entity, as the combined brand equity is perceived to be greater than the sum 
of its parts. 

Similarly, the concept of social proof, as discussed by Cialdini (2009), suggests that individuals 
look to the behavior and opinions of others to guide their own actions, especially in uncertain 
situations. When multiple brands endorse a product or service, it creates a sense of consensus, which 
can enhance consumer trust and preference for the collective brand entity. Hence, the first 
hypothesis is:  

 
H1: Consumers will develop greater preferences for a collective-anthropomorphized (versus 

a solo anthropomorphized) brand when making monetary decisions. 
 

Furthermore, a growing body of literature underscores the pivotal role of consumer trust in 
driving the adoption and sustained utilization of financial products and services. Empirical 
investigations have delineated how trust exerts a palpable influence on various facets of financial 
behavior, spanning the continued engagement with online financial platforms (Pi et al., 2012), the 
propensity to embrace novel banking offerings and the uptake of Islamic banking services within 
predominantly Muslim societies (Ashraf et al., 2015). Notably, the establishment and maintenance of 
consumer trust emerge as quintessential determinants shaping the contours of contemporary 
financial landscapes. 

This research inquiry pivots on a central concern: discerning consumers' perceptions regarding 
the relative trustworthiness of collective versus solo brand personifications.  Institutional theory 
suggests that consumers trust institutions more than individuals due to perceived stability, expertise, 
and accountability. Multiple brand entities reinforce this perception. Moreover, the work by 
Ingenhoff and Sommer (2010) sheds light on this issue by demonstrating a propensity among 
consumers to ascribe greater trust to corporate entities than to individual CEOs. One potential 
explanation for this phenomenon is that individuals, particularly high-profile figures such as CEOs, 
are often perceived as being more vulnerable to scrutiny and are judged more rigorously across 
various dimensions, such as competence, benevolence, and integrity. In contrast, corporate entities, 
by their collective identity, may appear more stable and less prone to the biases or idiosyncrasies of 
individual behavior, thereby fostering greater trust. 

Beyond the research in organizational behavior, social psychology offers additional valuable 
insights, indicating that group-based entities are often viewed as more trustworthy than individuals 
in various contexts. Studies conducted by Isenberg (1986) and Myers and Lamm (1976) demonstrate 
that groups tend to make more extreme and confident decisions, which can enhance credibility and 
perceived expertise in financial and organizational decision-making contexts. This phenomenon 
highlights the significance of collective decision-making in shaping trust and confidence. Consistent 
with the notion of risk reduction through collective entities, Bauer (1960) posits that consumers 
perceive diminished risk when entrusting collective groups, as the risk is dispersed among multiple 
entities. This phenomenon is echoed in online marketplaces, where consumers exhibit heightened 
trust in platforms featuring multiple sellers, such as Yelp and TripAdvisor (Kim et al., 2018). 
Furthermore, research indicates that collective ratings and reviews foster consumer trust, as 
evidenced by Fang et al. (2019).  

Analogously, within the context of brand personification, it is plausible to hypothesize that 
anthropomorphized solo brands may be understood as less intrinsically trustworthy relative to their 



8 
 

collective counterparts. Building on these insights, this study aims to investigate these assumptions 
empirically through the development of the following hypothesis. 

 
H2: Consumers will perceive greater trust for a collective-anthropomorphized (versus a solo-

anthropomorphized brand). 
 

Extensive research has demonstrated that trust serves as a mediator in various aspects of 
consumer behavior. For instance, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) found that trust mediates the 
relationship between brand affect—consumers’ emotional responses to a brand—and brand loyalty, 
which is the likelihood of consumers repeatedly purchasing the same brand. Similarly, Delgado-
Ballester and Munuera-Aleman (2005) identified that trust mediates the impact of brand personality 
on both brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction.  Building on this body of literature, the present 
study hypothesizes that: 

 
H3: BrandtTrust mediates the effect of the types of brand personification on brand 

evaluation. 
 

 

Figure 1 - Theoretical Model: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust 

 

 

 

 

 
Method and Results 

 
Study 1 

To test the hypotheses outlined, two distinct studies were conducted. The first experiment was 
designed specifically to examine H1, which posits the primary effect of collective-
anthropomorphized branding on consumer preference. This experiment employed a manipulation 
of brand conditions to observe participant responses. A total of eighty participants were recruited 
through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and subsequently randomly assigned to one of two 
distinct conditions of brand personification: collective brand or solo brand. Within these conditions, 
participants were presented with information regarding a novel Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) service 
named "ThereAfter," purportedly available at prominent retailers such as Walmart, Target, Sephora, 
and Amazon across the United States. The fictitious "ThereAfter" service was described as being 
accessible to any consumer who made a minimum purchase of $100 within the network of affiliated 
retailers. Participants were then prompted to indicate their likelihood of utilizing the "ThereAfter" 
BNPL service as their preferred payment method. Each participant was exposed to either a 
collective brand representation (depicted by an icon featuring three individuals) or a solo brand 

H3 H2 

Branding Strategy 
(Collective vs. Solo) 

Brand Trust 

Adoption/Donation 
Likelihood 

H1 



9 
 

representation (featuring a single individual). Visual representations of these brand conditions were 
included in the appendix provided to participants for reference during the study. 

The measures used in this experiment are adapted from prior literature (Puzakova and Kwak 
2023). Manipulation check questions asked the participants to answer the question “The logo of 
ThereAfter shows ____” (a person vs. a team) and “You think of ThereAfter as___” (a person vs. a 
team). Then participants report their previous experience related to the BNPL service. Then they 
reported their intention to adopt ThereAfter, their likelihood to recommend it to others, and their 
perception of the brand on multiple dimensions (e.g., trust, warmth, competence). The last section 
asked for demographic information and included gender, age, and income. The key measures are 
listed in the appendix. 

The final subject pool consists of 52% male and 48% female participants. The average age is 37 
years old. More than half of the participants reported their household income to fall in the range of 
55,000 – 99,000 US dollars. To check whether the brand conditions were successfully manipulated, 
participants were asked to identify the brand condition they were in, and the results show that all 
participants were able to do so correctly.  
 
Brand Preference (Adoption Likelihood) 
      To test the first hypothesis, which proposes that participants in the collective brand condition 
should report stronger brand preference than those in the solo brand condition, an independent-
sample t-test was performed using the likelihood of using the BNPL service as a dependent variable. 
The results show that consistent with the hypothesis, those in the collective brand condition 
reported a greater likelihood to use ThereAfter than those in the solo brand condition (Mcollective = 
4.10 vs. Msolo = 3.20, t = 4.45, p <.01). In other words, there is a significant main effect of branding 
strategy on the brand preference, so the first hypothesis was supported.  
      Additionally, Puzakova and Kwak (2023) found a significant interaction between gender and 
solo vs. collective branding strategy. A similar analysis was conducted in this study to examine such 
effect of gender. The results of PROC GLM (similar to ANOVA) showed that there is no 
significant main effect of gender on brand preference (p >.05) and the interaction effect of gender X 
branding strategy is also not significant (p > .05). No significant gender differences were observed 
across all analyses. Therefore, gender is not discussed further in the paper as it was not found to be a 
meaningful factor in this study. 
 
Word of Mouth 
      To test the strength of the brand preference, a similar analysis was conducted on another 
dependent variable, the likelihood of telling others about the brand. The results are consistent with 
the earlier findings. Specifically, participants in the collective brand condition reported greater 
likelihood than those in the solo brand condition ((Mcollective = 4.30 vs. Msolo = 2.40, t = 7.89, p <.01). 
Hence, the findings are robust across the two dependent variables. Study 1 provided compelling 
evidence supporting the primary hypothesis (H1) regarding the impact of collective-
anthropomorphized branding strategies on consumer preference within a specific context of 
monetary decision-making. However, the generalizability of these findings to broader consumer 
behaviors and diverse populations remained an area of inquiry, prompting the design and execution 
of Study 2. 
 
 
 
 
 



10 
 

Figure 2 - Mean Scores Across Brand Conditions in Study 1 
 

 

 
Study 2 
      The objectives of study 2 are i) to replicate the results of study 1, ii) to test H1 in a different 
context of monetary decision: charity donation, and iii) to investigate the underlying mediating role 
of trust as hypothesized in Figure 1. Similar to Study 1, a total of 78 research participants from 
MTurk were invited to participate in a brand study where they were exposed to one of the two 
brand personification conditions, collective vs. solo brand condition. They read information about 
an opportunity to donate money to “Children’s Dream” (or “Child’s Dream”) a non-profit 
organization focusing on child and youth charity as prior research found that this type of charity 
sector is the most recognizable by general consumers (Michaelidou et al., 2015). In each scenario, 
the participant saw either a collective vs. solo brand (an icon of three men vs. a man and an icon of 
children vs. a child) as shown in the appendix. Consistent with Study 1, they reported their 
likelihood to donate money, likelihood to donate their time, brand trust, warmth, and competence. 
Then they proceeded to report their demographic information before being dismissed. 
      The subject pool consists of 53% female and 47% male participants, and the average age is 37.97 
years old. Sixty percent of the participants reported their household income to fall in the range of 
55,000 – 99,000 US dollars. Overall, the demographic characteristics of participants are very similar 
to those of Study 1. The manipulation check reveals that all participants correctly identified the 
branding condition in which they were. Two participants were dropped from the analysis due to 
excessive missing values.  
 
Brand Preference (Money Donation Likelihood) 
      An independent-sample t-test reveals that H1 was supported. Specifically, the participants in the 
collective brand condition reported a higher likelihood of donating money to this fictitious 
organization than those in the solo brand condition (Mcollective = 4.22 vs. Msolo = 3.12, t = 6.26, p 
<.01). Consequently, this result establishes the possibility of the generalization of the main effect of 
collective branding strategy outside the financial service context. 

4.1
4.3

3.2

2.4

0

1

2

3

4

5

Mean Adoption Likelihood Mean WOM Likelihood

Collective Brand Solo Brand



11 
 

  
Brand Preference (Time Donation Likelihood) 
Consistent with the money donation, the analysis of the time donation shows consistent results. 
Specifically, the participants in the collective brand condition are more willing to donate their time to 
this organization than those in the solo brand condition (Mcollective = 3.83 vs. Msolo = 3.02, t = 3.26, p 
<.01). Hence, H1 was again supported.  
 
Brand Trust 
A similar t-test shows a significant difference in brand trust across the two branding conditions. 
Specifically, as hypothesized in H2, participants in the collective brand condition reported greater 
trust (Mcollective = 4.16 vs. Msolo = 3.06, t = 6.65, p <.01). 
 
Figure 3 - Mean Scores Across Brand Conditions in Study 2 
 

 
 
Mediation Analysis 

The mediation analysis conducted in this study, following the three-step mediation test proposed 
by Baron and Kenny (1986), offers valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms of brand trust 
as delineated in Figure 1 and hypothesis H3. This rigorous analytical approach enables a 
comprehensive examination of the mediating role of brand trust in the relationship between 
branding strategy and donation likelihood. 

In the first step of the mediation analysis, a regression analysis was conducted to ascertain the 
main effect of branding strategy on brand preference, operationalized as donation likelihood in this 
study. The results of this initial regression model reveal a significant main effect of branding strategy 
on brand preference, as evidenced by the regression coefficient displayed in Figure 4 (path c). This 
finding provides empirical support for the notion that branding strategy plays a substantive role in 
shaping consumer preferences and behavioral intentions regarding donation likelihood. 

Moving to the second step of the mediation analysis, a separate regression model was employed 
to assess the influence of branding strategy on brand trust (path a). Consistent with theoretical 
expectations, the results of this regression model demonstrate a significant effect of branding 

4.22
3.83

4.16

3.12 3.02 3.06

0

1

2

3

4

5

Money Donation
Likelihood

 Time Donation Likelihood Trust

Collective Brand Solo Brand



12 
 

strategy on brand trust, thereby confirming the hypothesized relationship between these constructs. 
This finding underscores the importance of branding strategies in engendering consumer trust and 
confidence in the brand, which, in turn, can have significant implications for consumer behavior and 
decision-making processes. 

In the final step of the mediation analysis, a regression model incorporating both branding 
strategy and brand trust as independent variables was constructed to evaluate the mediating role of 
brand trust in the relationship between branding strategy and donation likelihood. The results of this 
mediation model reveal that brand trust fully mediates the effect of branding strategy on donation 
likelihood, as evidenced by the attenuation of the direct effect of branding strategy (path c') and the 
persistence of a significant indirect effect through brand trust (path b). This finding provides 
compelling empirical evidence in support of hypothesis H3, confirming that brand trust serves as a 
crucial mechanism through which branding strategy influences consumer preferences and behavioral 
intentions regarding donation likelihood. Overall, the results of the mediation analysis offer robust 
empirical support for the hypothesized relationships outlined in the conceptual framework. 

 
Figure 4 - Mediation Analysis 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
  Study 2 builds upon the framework established in Study 1, aiming to uncover the mechanisms 

driving consumer evaluations of collective brands in monetary decision-making. Through mediation 
analysis, it validates the main theoretical prediction that collective brands evoke greater trust, thereby 
influencing positive evaluations in monetary decisions. Additionally, Study 2 replicates these effects 
in the donation context, enhancing the external validity of the findings. These results contribute to 
both theoretical understanding and practical marketing strategies, emphasizing the importance of 
collective branding in fostering consumer trust and influencing decision-making processes. 

 
Discussion 

  The exploration of collective anthropomorphic branding and its impact on consumer behavior 
spans two distinct studies, each highlighting unique contexts of monetary decision-making and 
drawing from diverse subject pools. Through these investigations, compelling evidence emerges 
showcasing the potential of collective anthropomorphic brand appeals to significantly influence 
various facets of consumer brand evaluation, adoption or donation decisions, and the inclination 
towards word-of-mouth advocacy. This research represents a notable departure from previous 
studies, such as the work conducted by Puzakova and Kwak (2023), which suggested that collective 
brands may be less effective than their solo counterparts. Contrary to this prior finding, the current 
research underscores the efficacy of collective anthropomorphic branding, particularly within the 
realm of monetary decision-making.  

  In the context of financial choices, consumers exhibit an increased tendency towards factors of 
trust and reliability. Collective anthropomorphic brands, characterized by their representation 

Path b: 
β = .50, p <.01 

Path a: 
β = 1.10, p <.01 

Branding Strategy 
(Collective vs. Solo) 

Brand Trust 

Adoption/Donation 
Likelihood 

Path c: β = 1.09, p <.01 
Path c’: β = .54, p >.05 



13 
 

through multiple personified entities, appear to convey a sense of communal reliability and 
credibility to consumers. This perception of trustworthiness associated with collective branding 
likely contributes to the observed positive impact on consumer brand evaluation and decision-
making. Moreover, this research reveals the mediating role of trust in shaping consumer perceptions 
toward anthropomorphized brands. The degree of trust placed in a brand significantly influences 
how consumers evaluate and engage with the brand, particularly in scenarios involving monetary 
decisions. By illuminating the underlying mechanisms through which trust mediates the relationship 
between collective anthropomorphic branding and consumer responses, this research advances our 
understanding of the intricate dynamics at play within the domain of brand-person interactions.  

 
Conclusion 

  The research findings offer significant theoretical implications for marketers and scholars by 
discovering the important linkage between collective branding strategy, perceived trust, and 
subsequent brand evaluation. This work contributes to the broader body of literature on brand 
anthropomorphism by demonstrating the positive impact of collective branding strategies within 
specific contextual settings.  

  Moving forward, future research avenues may explore the role of brand trust and collective 
branding strategy across diverse monetary contexts, such as gambling or financial 
borrowing/lending decisions. By extending the investigation beyond the current scope, scholars can 
gain deeper insights into the nuanced dynamics governing consumer behaviors across various 
financial domains.  

 Moreover, the managerial implications of the current findings are noteworthy for marketing 
practitioners operating within the industry. Despite the growing adoption of brand 
anthropomorphism techniques to enhance marketing effectiveness, this research underscores the 
importance of considering variations in the type of brand anthropomorphism employed, particularly 
in the context of decision-making scenarios. Understanding how different forms of 
anthropomorphism may impact brand evaluation can inform more nuanced and contextually 
sensitive branding strategies, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of marketing efforts.  

  Furthermore, future research efforts may seek to extend the current study by investigating the 
effects of collective versus solo branding on key marketing metrics, including brand loyalty, repeat 
purchase behavior, brand switching tendencies, and consumers' willingness to pay premium prices 
for preferred brands. By examining these outcomes, scholars can gain deeper insights into the long-
term implications of branding strategies on consumer-brand relationships and purchase behavior. 
Additionally, the topic holds the potential for extension into cross-cultural contexts, where 
researchers can explore how collective versus solo branding strategies interact with cultural 
dimensions such as collectivism versus individualism. By examining these dynamics across diverse 
cultural contexts, scholars can shed light on the complex interplay between branding strategies and 
cultural influences on consumer behavior.  

  For policymakers, the research findings carry profound implications for the design and 
implementation of public policy campaigns aimed at promoting various societal objectives, ranging 
from encouraging charity donations to enhancing financial literacy and regulating financial products. 
By gaining insights into how collective brands influence perceived trust among consumers, 
policymakers can tailor their campaigns to capitalize on the potential benefits of collective branding 
strategies, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and impact of their initiatives.  

In sum, these research avenues offer promising opportunities for scholars to deepen their 
understanding of the multifaceted dynamics between branding strategies and consumer spending 
behavior in today's complex marketplace, thereby enriching both theoretical discourse and practical 
marketing strategies. 



14 
 

 
References 

 
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity across Products And Markets. California Management 
Review, 38(3).  
Adams, P., Hunt, S., Palmer, C., & Zaliauskas, R. (2021). Testing The Effectiveness Of Consumer 
Financial Disclosure: Experimental Evidence From Savings Accounts. Journal of Financial 
Economics, 141(1), 122-147 
Agarwal, S., & Mazumder, B. (2013). Cognitive Abilities And Household Financial Decision 
Making. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(1), 193-207 
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is That Car Smiling At Me? Schema Congruity As a Basis for 
Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468-479.  
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act Like Brands? 
Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects Of Brand Anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer 
Research, 39(2), 307-323.  
Amar, M., Ariely, D., Ayal, S., Cryder, C. E., & Rick, S. I. (2011). Winning The Battle But Losing 
The War: The Psychology Of Debt Management. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(SPL), S38-S50.  
Ashraf, S., Robson, J., & Sekhon, Y. (2015). Consumer Trust and Confidence in the Compliance Of 
Islamic Banks. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 20, 133-144.  
Bankrate. (2022). Survey: 56% of buy now, pay later users have experienced issues like overspending 
and missing payments. Retrieved from https://www.bankrate.com/loans/personal-loans/buy-now-
pay-later-survey/ 
Bauer, R. A. (1967). Consumer behavior as risk taking. Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and 
Management, 593, 13-21. 
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction In Social 
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, And Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.  
Braxton, D., & Lau-Gesk, L. (2020). The Impact of Collective Brand Personification on Happiness 
and Brand Loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 54(10), 2365-2386 
Çal, B., & Lambkin, M. (2017). Brand Equity of Stock Exchange as a Mediator in Financial 
Decisions. Journal Of Financial Services Marketing, 22, 14-23. 
Calderón-Fajardo, V., Molinillo, S., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Ekinci, Y. (2023). Brand Personality: 
Current Insights and Future Research Directions. Journal of Business Research, 166, 114062 
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 51-96). Boston: Pearson education. 
Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use Does Not Wear Ragged The Fabric Of Friendship: 
Thinking Of Objects as Alive Makes People Less Willing To Replace Them. Journal of Consumer 
Psychology, 20(2), 138-145.  
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to 
brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93. 
Coelho, F. J., Bairrada, C. M., & de Matos Coelho, A. F. (2020). Functional Brand Qualities and 
Perceived Value: The Mediating Role of Brand Experience and Brand Personality. Psychology & 
Marketing, 37(1), 41-55. 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2022). Buy now, pay later: Market trends and consumer impacts 
[Research report]. https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-
market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf 
Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising: Using a visual 
metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121-130.  

https://www.bankrate.com/loans/personal-loans/buy-now-pay-later-survey/
https://www.bankrate.com/loans/personal-loans/buy-now-pay-later-survey/
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf


15 
 

Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Aleman, J. L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? 
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(3), 187-196. 
Dogra, P., & Kaushal, A. (2022). The Impact of Digital Marketing And Promotional Strategies On 
Attitude and Purchase Intention Towards Financial Products and Services: A Case Of Emerging 
Economy. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1-28 
Du, R. Y., & Kamakura, W. A. (2008). Where Did All That Money Go? Understanding How 
Consumers Allocate Their Consumption Budget. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 109-131.  
Durante, K. M., & Laran, J. (2016). The Effect of Stress On Consumer Saving and Spending. Journal 
of Marketing Research, 53(5), 814-828.  
Eskine, K. J., & Locander, W. H. (2014). A name you can trust? Personification effects are 
influenced by beliefs about company values. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 362-372.  
Estelami, H. (2009). Cognitive Drivers Of Suboptimal Financial Decisions: Implications For 
Financial Literacy Campaigns. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 13, 273-283.  
Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., & McCole, P. (2019). Trust building in electronic markets: An 
empirical study of the role of rating systems. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 35, 100854. 
Fornell, C., Rust, R. T., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2010). The Effect of Customer Satisfaction on 
Consumer Spending Growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 28-35 
Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands As Relationship Partners: Warmth, Competence, and In-
Between. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 177-185. 
Han, H.-E., jin 
, G.-Q., & Jin, C.-H. (2021). The role of human brands in consumer attitude formation: 
Anthropomorphized messages and brand authenticity. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1923355 
Hart, P., & Royne, M. B. (2017). Being Human: How Anthropomorphic Presentations Can Enhance 
Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 38(2), 129-145.  
Hirst, D. E., Joyce, E. J., & Schadewald, M. S. (1994). Mental Accounting And Outcome Contiguity 
In Consumer-Borrowing Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 136-
152. 
Hoza, B., Bukowski, W. M., & Beery, S. (2000). Assessing peer relations and group entry. Social 
Development, 9(2), 196-214. 
Howcroft, B., Hamilton, R., & Hewer, P. (2007). Customer involvement and interaction in retail 
banking: An examination of risk and confidence in the purchase of financial products. Journal of 
Services Marketing, 21(7), 481-491. 
IMD World Competitiveness Center. "World Digital Competitiveness Ranking." IMD Business 
School, link (accessed September 2, 2024). 
Ingenhoff, D., & Sommer, K. (2010). Trust in Companies and in CEOs: A Comparative Study of 
The Main Influences. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 339-355.  
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141. 
Kamakura, W. A., & Yuxing Du, R. (2012). How Economic Contractions and Expansions Affect 
Expenditure Patterns. Journal of consumer research, 39(2), 229-247.  
Kim, J., Lee, J., & Kim, B. (2018). Understanding consumer trust in online marketplaces: A 
multilevel perspective. Journal of Business Research, 86, 187-197. 
Kim, G., Shin, B., & Lee, H. G. (2009). Understanding Dynamics Between Initial Trust and Usage 
Intentions of Mobile Banking. Information Systems Journal, 19(3), 283-311. 
Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming With Mr. Slot Or Gaming The Slot Machine? Power, 
Anthropomorphism, and Risk Perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94-107. 



16 
 

Kurt, D., Inman, J. J., & Argo, J. J. (2011). The Influence of Friends on Consumer Spending: The 
Role Of Agency–Communion Orientation and Self-Monitoring. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 
741-754.  
Loibl, C., & Scharff, R. L. (2010). Examining The Effect of Expressing A Quantitative Goal on 
Consumer Savings. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(1), 127-154. 
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological bulletin, 83(4), 
602. 
McKinsey & Company. (2022). The 2022 McKinsey global payments report. 
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-2022-mckinsey-global-
payments-report 
Michaelidou, N., Micevski, M., & Siamagka, N. T. (2015). Consumers’ Intention To Donate To Two 
Children’s Charity Brands: A Comparison of Barnardo’s and BBC Children in Need. Journal of Product 
& Brand Management. 24(2), 134-146. 
Motoki, K., Nakahara, T., & Velasco, C. (2023). Tasting Brands: Associations Between Brand 
Personality and Tastes. Journal of Business Research, 156, 113509.  
Petersen, J. A., Kushwaha, T., & Kumar, V. (2015). Marketing Communication Strategies and 
Consumer Financial Decision Making: The Role of National Culture. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 44-
63. 
Pi, S. M., Liao, H. L., & Chen, H. M. (2012). Factors That Affect Consumers' Trust and Continuous 
Adoption of Online Financial Services. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), 108.  
Pinello, A., Pichierri, M., & Vanucci, A. (2022). Co-branding strategies: A systematic review and 
future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 145, 533-545. 
Puzakova, M., & Kwak, H. (2023). Two’s Company, Three’sa Crowd: The Interplay between 
Collective versus Solo Anthropomorphic Brand Appeals and Gender. Journal of Advertising, 1-21.   
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong: The 
Detrimental Effect of Brand Anthropomorphization Amid Product Wrongdoings. Journal of 
Marketing, 77(3), 81-100.  
Rai, D., Lin, C. W. W., Jiraporn, N., & Juntongjin, P. (2022). Brand As A Leader Or A Servant? The 
Effect of Anthropomorphized Brand Roles and Goal Types on Consumer Responses. Management 
& Marketing, 17(4), 471-484.  
Reavey, B., Puzakova, M., Larsen Andras, T., & Kwak, H. (2018). The Multidimensionality of 
Anthropomorphism in Advertising: The Moderating Roles of Cognitive Busyness and Assertive 
Language. International Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 440-462.  
Solomon, M. R., & Dunnam, R. (1985). On the categorization of groups and dyads: A cluster 
analysis approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 931-943. 
Stinnett, R. C., Hardy, E. E., & Waters, R. D. (2013). Who Are We? The Impacts of 
Anthropomorphism and The Humanization of Nonprofits on Brand Personality. International Review 
on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10, 31-48.  
Williams, K. D. (2010). Group dynamics and social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
98(5), 775-789. 
Washburn, J. M., Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2000). Co-branding: Brand equity and trial effects. Journal 
of Consumer Research, 27(4), 471-485. 
White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their 
Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124.  
Williams, T. (2007). Empowerment of Whom and for What? Financial Literacy Education and The 
New Regulation of Consumer Financial Services. Law & Policy, 29(2), 226-256.  
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2023). Global innovation index 2023: Innovation in the face of 
uncertainty. https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4679 

https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4679


17 
 

Xu, L., Mehta, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2022). Leveraging Creativity In Charity Marketing: The Impact of 
Engaging in Creative Activities on Subsequent Donation Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 86(5), 79-94.  
Zhang, M., Li, L., Ye, Y., Qin, K., & Zhong, J. (2020). The Effect of Brand Anthropomorphism, 
Brand Distinctiveness, and Warmth on Brand Attitude: A Mediated Moderation Model. Journal of 
Consumer Behavior, 19(5), 523-536. 

 
 

Appendix 
 

BNPL Solo Brand Condition 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ThereAfter 
 
ThereAfter is the latest Buy Now Pay Later service available through various big retailers. 
ThereAfter is a smart way to pay over time with no late fees or hidden fees so you can get things you 
love without breaking your budget. ThereAfter allows you to pay in 4 simple payments every two 
weeks. Shop at your favorite online or in-store merchants with ThereAfter. You will see ThereAfter 
logo at the checkout or you can request a virtual card in our app. Unlike credit cards, ThereAfter 
does not impact your credit score and you will never owe more than what you agree to upfront.  

Payments are made simpler with ThereAfter. 
 

 
BNPL Collective Brand Condition 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

ThereAfter 
 
 

ThereAfter is the latest Buy Now Pay Later service available through various big retailers. 
ThereAfter is a smart way to pay over time with no late fees or hidden fees so you can get things you 
love without breaking your budget. ThereAfter allows you to pay in 4 simple payments every two 
weeks. Shop at your favorite online or in-store merchants with ThereAfter. You will see ThereAfter 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 



18 
 

logo at the checkout or you can request a virtual card in our app. Unlike credit cards, ThereAfter 
does not impact your credit score and you will never owe more than what you agree to upfront.  

Payments are made simpler with ThereAfter. 
 
 

Money Donation Solo Brand Condition 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Every child needs a safe, nurturing place to call home, and the chance to achieve its potential 
through education. Sadly, not every child is so fortunate. Child’s Dream has cared for orphans and 
vulnerable children around the world since 1965. The organization helps the most desperate 
children—orphans, unwanted girls, abandoned or abused children, and children with HIV/AIDS. 
Your donation will go towards: 

1. Scholarships to promising students who cannot afford higher education. With your help, a 
student can earn a degree and break the cycle of poverty. 

2. Funds for home improvement focusing on toilets, clean water, beds with mosquito nets, 
libraries, and playground equipment. 

3. Vulnerable children rescued from human trafficking, exploitation, and illegal child marriage. 
 

You can change a child’s life forever. 
 
 

Money Donation Collective Brand Condition 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Every child needs a safe, nurturing place to call home, and the chance to achieve its potential 
through education. Sadly, not every child is so fortunate. Children’s Dream has cared for orphans 
and vulnerable children around the world since 1965. The organization helps the most desperate 

♥♥♥ Children’s Dream ♥♥♥ 

♥♥♥ Child’s Dream ♥♥♥ 



19 
 

children—orphans, unwanted girls, abandoned or abused children, and children with HIV/AIDS. 
Your donation will go towards: 

1. Scholarships to promising students who cannot afford higher education. With your help, a 
student can earn a degree and break the cycle of poverty. 

2. Funds for home improvement focusing on toilets, clean water, beds with mosquito nets, 
libraries, and playground equipment. 

3. Vulnerable children rescued from human trafficking, exploitation, and illegal child marriage. 
 

You can change a child’s life forever. 
 
 
 
Measures 
 
Adoption Likelihood (study 1) 
How likely are you to choose ThereAfter as your payment method?  
(1 = extremely unlikely, 5 = extremely likely) 
 
Word of Mouth (study 1) 
How likely are you to recommend or mention this new BNPL brand to others? 
(1 = extremely unlikely, 5 = extremely likely) 
 
Trust (studies 1 & 2) 
__________ brand is trustworthy. 
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) 
 
Money Donation Likelihood (study 2) 
I will contribute some money to Children’s Dream. 
(1 = extremely unlikely, 5 = extremely likely) 
 
Time Donation Likelihood (study 2) 
I will contribute some personal time to Children’s Dream. 
(1 = extremely unlikely, 5 = extremely likely) 
 

 
 
 

 


