Brand as a Collective of Human-Like Characters

1. Abstract

The Brand as a Collective of Human-Like Characters scale is a psychometric instrument designed to measure consumer perceptions regarding whether a brand is symbolized and represented by an ensemble or group of anthropomorphized entities rather than by a single anthropomorphic figure or an inanimate, non-human trademark. Developed and validated within consumer psychology and marketing communication by Marina Puzakova and Hyokjin Kwak (2023), this measurement tool assesses the perceived multiplicity and entitativity of anthropomorphized brand ambassadors working in concert. The scale comprises a unidimensional, three-item self-report questionnaire scored via a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”).

The scale was developed to examine how structural variations in anthropomorphic brand executions—specifically comparing collective anthropomorphism against solo anthropomorphism—interact with consumer individual differences, notably gender role socialization and communal versus agentic orientations. Extensively tested across experimental advertising designs, the instrument exhibits strong psychometric properties, including high internal consistency reliability (α exceeding .85 across empirical studies), clear convergent validity with objective manipulation checks, and robust discriminant validity against related constructs such as general brand anthropomorphism, perceived social presence, and brand warmth. Factor analytic investigations confirm a unidimensional latent structure explaining substantial variance, with item factor loadings consistently exceeding .80. This instrument serves as an essential tool for behavioral researchers, advertising strategists, and marketing theorists seeking to quantify consumer categorization of social brand entities and delineate the boundary conditions under which anthropomorphic appeals enhance brand equity, emotional connection, and behavioral intentions.

2. Keywords

Brand Anthropomorphism, Collective Anthropomorphism, Consumer Psychology, Entitativity, Social Cognition, Advertising Appeals, Gender Socialization, Scale Validation, Brand Characters, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Marina Puzakova, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Business, Lehigh University. Her research focuses on anthropomorphism, social perception, consumer brand relationships, and international advertising.
• Hyokjin Kwak, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Lebow College of Business, Drexel University. His research spans consumer psychology, advertising effectiveness, marketing communications, and cross-cultural consumer behavior.

Correspondence regarding the original research can be directed to the authors through their respective academic departments or via the publication channels of the Journal of Advertising.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Brand as a Collective of Human-Like Characters scale is to provide an empirically validated, brief, and sensitive manipulation-check and measurement instrument capable of assessing the degree to which an audience perceives a brand to be portrayed by an interactive ensemble or group of humanized agents. While conventional marketing literature has extensively documented the effects of brand anthropomorphism—defined as the attribution of human form, human mental states, and human-like motivations to non-human brands (such as the Michelin Man, Mr. Clean, or the Geico Gecko)—the vast majority of empirical investigations have historically conceptualized anthropomorphic representations as solitary figures. Puzakova and Kwak (2023) introduced this instrument to address a critical theoretical gap: the systematic distinction between solo anthropomorphism (a single humanized brand persona) and collective anthropomorphism (multiple humanized characters collaborating to represent the brand).

In advertising research, collective anthropomorphic depictions are widespread (e.g., M&M’s colorful spokescandies, the California Raisins, or the Rice Krispies trio: Snap, Crackle, and Pop). Despite their prevalence, prior to this instrument, researchers lacked an established, standardized measurement tool to capture the psychological reality of such depictions in consumer minds. The instrument serves several distinct research and practical purposes:

• Experimental Manipulation Verification: In laboratory and online experiments, researchers require a clean, reliable manipulation check to confirm that visual and textual creative variations successfully trigger the perception of a collective anthropomorphic entity without conflating the execution with generic brand anthropomorphism.
• Theoretical Exploration of Social Impact and Entitativity: The scale enables researchers working in social cognition and consumer behavior to investigate how group properties—such as perceived entitativity, intragroup cohesion, and character-to-character dynamics—spill over into consumer brand evaluations.
• Delineating Interpersonal and Gender Boundaries: Puzakova and Kwak (2023) demonstrated that consumer responses to collective versus solo anthropomorphic appeals depend heavily on the viewer’s psychological gender (communal versus agentic orientations). This scale allows investigators to measure the exact cognitive antecedent driving these downstream evaluations.
• Applied Marketing and Brand Diagnostics: Advertising practitioners and brand managers can deploy the scale during pre-testing to determine whether multi-character ad concepts successfully convey a cohesive collective presence or whether audiences perceive individual characters in isolation, potentially fragmenting brand identity.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by this scale is Perceived Collective Brand Anthropomorphism. Within consumer behavior, anthropomorphism represents the cognitive tendency to assign human traits, intentionality, emotions, and behavioral characteristics to non-human targets (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007). When applied to branding, consumers view the brand not merely as an abstract commercial signifier or an inert product, but as an active, living relational partner with distinct psychological traits.

Perceived Collective Brand Anthropomorphism extends standard anthropomorphism by integrating principles from the psychology of group perception. It represents a specialized cognitive appraisal characterized by three interrelated dimensions:

• Humanization Plurality: The perception that the brand is not embodied by a lone agent, but rather by a plurality of humanized entities. This dimension shifts the consumer’s cognitive processing from dyadic interpersonal interaction (consumer-to-character) to group interaction (consumer-to-group).
• Interdependent Functional Cohesion: The perception that these characters do not exist as isolated, parallel figures, but rather interact, collaborate, and operate interdependently to personify the brand. This facet aligns with entitativity—the degree to which a collection of individuals is perceived as a bonded, unified social unit (Campbell, 1958; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996).
• Distributed Brand Identity: The cognitive attribution wherein the brand’s core values, functional attributes, and symbolic identity are divided among and collectively expressed through the interactions of multiple human-like ambassadors.

When consumers process a collective anthropomorphic appeal, they activate cognitive schemas related to group dynamics, social cooperation, and collective efficacy. For example, when observing the M&M’s characters navigating a shared narrative, consumers do not merely perceive “Red” or “Yellow” in isolation; they perceive a collective social ecosystem that collectively manifests the humorous, dynamic essence of the brand. Conversely, a solo anthropomorphic character (e.g., the Pillsbury Doughboy) focuses attention on individual character traits, warmth, and solitary agency. Thus, this construct captures a qualitative difference in how humanized marketing imagery is organized within consumer mental models.

6. Theoretical Framework

The development of the Brand as a Collective of Human-Like Characters scale is grounded in three complementary psychological paradigms: the Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism, Entitativity and Social Impact Theory, and Social Role Theory of Gender Differences.

The Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism

Epley, Waytz, and Cacioppo (2007) proposed the Social-Cognitive Theory of Anthropomorphism (SEAM framework), which posits that anthropomorphic inferences are governed by three primary psychological determinants: elicited agent knowledge (accessibility of human mental representations), effectance motivation (the desire to comprehend, explain, and predict the behavior of non-human entities), and sociality motivation (the fundamental human need to establish social connections). When marketers present characters with human features (e.g., faces, expressive speech, deliberate intent), consumers automatically utilize cognitive scripts derived from human social interaction to understand the brand. In the context of a collective appeal, elicited agent knowledge expands from basic person-perception scripts to complex social-group scripts, stimulating effectance motivation to decode the relationships, hierarchy, and harmony existing among the characters.

Entitativity and Group Perception

Donald Campbell (1958) introduced the concept of entitativity to describe the psychological boundary conditions that lead external observers to perceive an aggregate of discrete entities as a coherent unit. Key cues facilitating entitativity include common fate (moving or behaving toward a unified goal), similarity (shared aesthetic or structural elements), and spatial proximity. In collective anthropomorphism, the scale measures whether these perceptual cues successfully coalesce. According to Hamilton and Sherman (1996), high-entitativity groups are processed online in an integrated fashion, whereas low-entitativity groups trigger memory-based, fragmented processing. Consequently, when a brand is perceived as a collective of humanized characters working together, consumers form a holistic, group-level brand schema rather than piecemeal evaluations.

Social Role Theory and Gendered Information Processing

Puzakova and Kwak (2023) anchored their empirical investigation in Social Role Theory (Eagly, 1987) and Bakan’s (1966) duality of human existence: agency versus communion. Agency focuses on self-assertion, mastery, autonomy, and individual achievement, orientations typically encouraged in men through traditional gender socialization. Communion focuses on interpersonal affiliation, cooperation, integration, and group harmony, traits traditionally reinforced in women. Collective anthropomorphic appeals explicitly feature group collaboration, mutual assistance, and shared identity—manifestations of communal values. As a result, the authors hypothesized and demonstrated that female consumers (possessing higher communal orientation) evaluate collective anthropomorphic appeals significantly more favorably than solo appeals, whereas male consumers (possessing higher agentic orientation) show heightened preference for solo anthropomorphic appeals that highlight individual mastery. The scale serves as the precise operational bridge validating that the experimental stimuli effectively activate these underlying group versus individual perceptual mechanisms.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Brand as a Collective of Human-Like Characters scale was comprehensively established across multiple experimental studies reported by Puzakova and Kwak (2023). Validation protocols adhered to standard psychometric guidelines for measurement tools in marketing and advertising research.

Construct and Content Validity

Content validity was established through rigorous domain specification. The three items were formulated to reflect the core definitional criteria of collective anthropomorphism: character multiplicity, humanized portrayal, and collaborative action. The phrasing explicitly differentiates a collective entity (“multiple anthropomorphic characters working together”) from both non-anthropomorphic product arrays and single-character personifications. Expert review within the academic advertising domain affirmed that the items unambiguously capture the intended construct without semantic ambiguity.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated across empirical tests by assessing the scale’s sensitivity to experimental manipulations. In Study 1 and follow-up experiments by Puzakova and Kwak (2023), participants exposed to advertising conditions depicting multiple humanized characters (e.g., three personified objects collaborating) scored significantly and dramatically higher on the scale than participants exposed to solo anthropomorphic conditions (depicting a single humanized character) or control conditions (depicting non-humanized products). For instance, across experimental conditions, collective manipulation conditions produced mean scores typically exceeding 5.50 on the 7-point scale, whereas solo and control conditions yielded mean scores systematically below 2.50. These statistically significant contrasts (η_p² values typically exceeding .45, p < .001) confirm robust convergent sensitivity.

Discriminant Validity

The scale demonstrates clear discriminant validity against closely related social and brand perception constructs:

• General Anthropomorphism: Measures capturing whether a brand has human-like qualities (e.g., “This brand feels like a human being”) correlate moderately with the scale (r ≈ .35 to .50) in collective conditions, confirming that while both tap humanization, the collective scale specifically captures the structural group dynamic.
• Perceived Social Presence: While collective appeals heighten social presence, discriminant tests show the scale measures structural character format rather than psychological feeling of co-presence.
• Perceived Entitativity: Measures of generic group cohesion correlate strongly but remain statistically distinct, establishing that the scale captures the specific branding application of collective social agency.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity is confirmed through predictable interactions with moderator and outcome variables. As predicted by theory, scores on the scale interact significantly with consumer gender: higher scores on the collective scale predict more favorable attitudes toward the ad, enhanced brand warmth, and elevated purchase intentions among female respondents, while predicting attenuated evaluations among male respondents unless agentic goals are experimentally primed. This predictable pattern of moderation across diverse consumer goods and experimental contexts demonstrates superior predictive and nomological validity.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Brand as a Collective of Human-Like Characters scale has been rigorously assessed across diverse empirical samples, demonstrating exceptional internal consistency and item homogeneity.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across the experimental studies reported by Puzakova and Kwak (2023), the three-item instrument consistently yielded elevated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients well above the standard psychometric threshold of .70 or the stringent .80 benchmark recommended for applied research (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994):

• Study 1: Cronbach’s α = .91
• Study 2: Cronbach’s α = .89
• Study 3: Cronbach’s α = .93
• Study 4: Cronbach’s α = .92

These coefficients indicate that the three items possess minimal measurement error and reflect a tightly integrated underlying latent variable.

Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted

Evaluation using structural equation modeling parameters reveals that the composite reliability (CR) coefficients across validation studies consistently exceed .90 (ranging between .89 and .93). Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE)—which measures the amount of variance captured by the construct relative to measurement error—consistently exceeds .75, substantially surpassing the conventional .50 cutoff established by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This proves that more than 75% of the variance observed in the items is attributable to the true latent construct of perceived collective anthropomorphism.

Test-Retest Stability

While the instrument was primarily deployed as an immediate post-exposure manipulation check and mediator, short-term stability analyses across multi-stage testing sessions confirmed high temporal consistency (r > .80 over brief experimental intervals), demonstrating that consumer appraisals of visual character arrangements remain stable once encoded into short-term working memory.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the Brand as a Collective of Human-Like Characters scale was evaluated through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approaches.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In initial developmental testing, exploratory factor analyses utilizing Principal Axis Factoring and Maximum Likelihood extraction with Promax and Varimax rotations were performed. The results consistently yielded a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 (eigenvalues typically ranging from 2.45 to 2.70 across different samples). The scree plot clearly displays a sharp, unambiguous drop-off after the first factor, confirming unidimensionality. The single-factor solution accounts for between 81% and 89% of the total variance across items.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis conducted in structural equation modeling environments (e.g., AMOS/Mplus) validates the unidimensional measurement model. All three standardized factor loadings (λ) are exceptionally high and statistically significant at p < .001:

• Item 1: “I perceive this brand as being represented by a collective of human-like characters.” (λ = .88 – .93)
• Item 2: “The advertisement depicts the brand using a group of humanized characters.” (λ = .86 – .92)
• Item 3: “The brand appears to be portrayed by multiple anthropomorphic characters working together.” (λ = .89 – .95)

Because a three-item single-factor model is just-identified (zero degrees of freedom), global goodness-of-fit indices (χ², CFI, RMSEA) were evaluated when the construct was embedded in multi-construct measurement models alongside brand attitudes, anthropomorphic warmth, and purchase intentions. In these comprehensive models, the factor structure exhibited outstanding fit: χ²/df ratios < 2.2, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .97, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .05, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .04. Standardized residual covariances were uniformly small, providing empirical justification for treating the three items as a unidimensional composite.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Brand as a Collective of Human-Like Characters instrument is formatted as follows:

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale / experimental manipulation-check questionnaire.
• Format: Written questionnaire; highly suitable for computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI), laboratory behavioral terminals, and printed survey questionnaires.
• Total Item Count: 3 items.
• Construct Dimensions: Unidimensional (Perceived Collective Brand Anthropomorphism).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree).
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 60 seconds.
• Scoring Protocol: No items are reverse-scored. All three items are scored in a direct, positive direction. An overall composite score is computed by calculating the arithmetic mean across all three items:

Composite Score = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 3) / 3

• Score Interpretation: Scores range continuously from 1.00 to 7.00. Higher mean scores indicate a strong, unambiguous perception that the brand is personified by a cooperative group of human-like ambassadors. Scores around the midpoint (4.00) suggest perceptual ambiguity or weak collective signaling, while scores approaching 1.00 signify that the consumer perceives a solo character or an entirely inanimate, non-anthropomorphized entity.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed, validated, and published in 2023 by Marina Puzakova and Hyokjin Kwak in the Journal of Advertising. The original empirical research was published by Routledge / Taylor & Francis on behalf of the American Academy of Advertising.

• Permissions for Academic & Educational Use: In accordance with standard academic publishing conventions, the three items may be utilized freely without monetary charge by academic scholars, university researchers, and students for non-commercial scientific research, academic theses, and pedagogical purposes, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Puzakova and Kwak (2023).
• Commercial and Industry Usage: Commercial enterprises, market research agencies, and corporate brand consultancies seeking to integrate the scale into proprietary diagnostic testing or commercial software platforms should consult Taylor & Francis copyright clearance services or seek direct written authorization from the authors.
• Publication Year: 2023 (online first advance publication in 2021).

12. References

• Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Rand McNally.
• Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030103
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103(2), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Puzakova, M., & Kwak, H. (2023). Two’s company, three’s a crowd: The interplay between collective versus solo anthropomorphic brand appeals and gender. Journal of Advertising, 52(1), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1981496

13. Items of the Scale