Brand Defense Scale

1. Abstract

The Brand Defense Scale (BDS), developed by Roy, Singh, Japutra, and Javed (2023), is a psychometrically validated self-report instrument designed to quantify the multidimensional phenomenon of consumer brand defense. Conceptualized at the intersection of consumer psychology, relationship marketing, and crisis communication, brand defense reflects a consumer’s active psychological and behavioral commitment to safeguarding, supporting, and excusing a preferred brand when it faces external criticism, reputational crises, or competitive disparagement. Rooted theoretically in Fairness Theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998) and the social capital perspective of Equity Theory (Adams, 1965; Adler & Kwon, 2002), the instrument captures nuances of consumer loyalty that transcend conventional repurchasing or passive satisfaction.

The scale development protocol executed by Roy and colleagues spanned three rigorous empirical phases involving qualitative item generation through systematic literature synthesis and focus group interviews analyzed via Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), followed by iterative empirical testing across multiple samples of adult consumers and university students in the United Kingdom. Psychometric evaluation established a parsimonious, ten-item measurement model comprised of three distinct yet intercorrelated first-order dimensions: Defending (four items assessing active counter-arguing and personal protective behaviors against negative evaluations), Advocating (three items capturing proactive peer recommendation and promotional evangelism), and Forgiving (three items measuring the emotional absolution of brand transgressions and the conscious reduction of retaliatory negative sentiment). Items are administered via a standardized seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”).

The BDS demonstrates robust psychometric properties. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) demonstrated that the three-factor structure accounts for 73.1% of the total cumulative variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) cross-validated this structural topology, yielding superior fit indices (χ² = 131.72, df = 71; Goodness-of-Fit Index [GFI] = 0.95; Normed Fit Index [NFI] = 0.94; Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.97; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.97; and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.05). Across validation cohorts, internal consistency reliability is high, with dimension-specific Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.86. Convergent validity was evidenced by Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values consistently exceeding 0.50, and discriminant validity met the rigorous Fornell-Larcker criteria. Structural equation modeling established robust nomological and predictive validity: brand love (β = 0.35, t = 5.78, p < 0.001) and brand trust (β = 0.62, t = 7.62, p < 0.001) operate as potent psychological antecedents of brand defense, which subsequently acts as a powerful driver of holistic brand loyalty (β = 0.74, t = 9.44, p < 0.001). The BDS serves as an invaluable diagnostic and empirical tool for academic researchers and marketing practitioners investigating consumer resilience, brand community dynamics, and brand crisis mitigation.

2. Keywords

Brand Defense, Brand Defense Scale, Consumer-Brand Relationships, Defending, Advocating, Forgiving, Fairness Theory, Equity Theory, Social Capital, Brand Loyalty, Brand Love, Psychometrics.

3. Authors

The Brand Defense Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by an international research team specializing in marketing strategy, consumer psychology, and psychometric measurement:

• Sanjit K. Roy, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: University of Western Australia (UWA Business School, Department of Marketing, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; formerly affiliated with Science, Mathematics and Technology Cluster, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore).
  ORCID: 0000-0003-4932-2222
  Contact Email / Correspondence: [email protected]
• Gaganpreet Singh, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: OP Jindal Global University (Jindal Global Business School, Department of Marketing, Sonipat, Haryana, India).
• Arnold Japutra, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: University of Western Australia (UWA Business School, Department of Marketing, Perth, Western Australia, Australia).
  ORCID: 0000-0002-0513-8792
• Mansoor Javed, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: Creative Cores Media Group (United Kingdom).

4. Purpose

In contemporary omni-channel consumption environments, brand equity is continuously exposed to reputational vulnerabilities amplified by social media dissemination, viral negative word-of-mouth (nWOM), and aggressive competitive rivalries. Traditional consumer-brand relationship paradigms have predominantly focused on passive behavioral outcomes, such as repeat purchase intentions, affective brand attachment, or basic positive word-of-mouth (pWOM). While these metrics illuminate why consumers favor a brand in neutral or celebratory contexts, they fail to operationalize the active, confrontational, and protective behaviors manifested when a brand is under direct attack or embroiled in a public transgression. The primary purpose of the Brand Defense Scale (BDS) is to address this theoretical and empirical void by providing a psychometrically sound, multi-dimensional instrument that quantifies the intensity and structural configuration of consumer brand defense.

From an applied perspective, the BDS was engineered to fulfill several essential clinical, behavioral, and organizational research imperatives:

• Quantifying Active Consumer Intervention: Rather than viewing consumers as passive recipients of corporate marketing communications, the BDS measures consumers in their capacity as proactive co-defenders, psychological custodians, and brand evangelists who actively resist hostile narratives.
• Deconstructing Transgression Resilience: During product recalls, corporate social responsibility failures, service breakdowns, or ethical scandals, firms need to assess whether their consumer base possesses the psychological buffering capacity required to forgive corporate errors and counter online misinformation. The BDS permits organizations to segment their user base based on forgiveness resilience and counter-argumentation propensities.
• Empirical Research in Consumer Psychology: The scale enables researchers to systematically investigate the nomological network connecting deep affective constructs—such as brand passion, brand identification, and brand love—to high-effort defensive behaviors that involve interpersonal friction, cognitive expenditure, and personal risk-taking on behalf of a commercial entity.
• Crisis Communication Optimization: Marketing directors and public relations practitioners can deploy the BDS to identify brand ambassadors and brand community champions. Insights gained from BDS diagnostic testing allow companies to design targeted crisis containment strategies, mobilizing defending consumers as credible third-party endorsers who carry significantly greater authenticity in peer-to-peer discussions than corporate public relations statements.

By rigorously establishing behavioral thresholds for defending, advocating, and forgiving, the BDS transforms abstract notions of “loyal fans” or “brand evangelists” into quantifiable, empirically testable psychological parameters.

5. Psychological Construct

The Brand Defense construct is operationalized by Roy et al. (2023) as an overarching behavioral and psychological orientation wherein consumers proactively exert effort to protect, validate, and rehabilitate a focal brand against perceived threats, derogatory communications, and operational failures. The construct is tripartite, encompassing three interrelated yet distinct sub-dimensions:

1. Defending

The Defending dimension represents the reactive, combative, and protective facet of brand defense. It reflects the consumer’s willingness to engage in direct behavioral and cognitive resistance when their chosen brand is criticized, disparaged, or challenged by third parties (e.g., acquaintances, online review communities, or competing marketing campaigns). Psychologically, defending operates through the mechanism of self-brand identity fusion: when an individual’s personal identity is profoundly integrated with a brand’s symbolic capital, an external attack on the brand is perceived as an ontological threat to the self. Consequently, consumers do not merely observe criticism indifferently; they interpret the negative information as personally threatening and actively counter-argue to neutralize the attacker’s assertions. Behaviors include engaging in argumentative discourse, refuting false claims, debunking negative reviews on social networks, and publicly asserting their protective alliance with the brand. For example, when an electronics brand is criticized for hardware bugs, a defending consumer will assertively dispute the criticism in online forums, arguing that the detractors are misusing the product or that the critique is fundamentally ungrounded.

2. Advocating

The Advocating dimension encompasses the proactive, promotional, and proselytizing component of brand defense. While defending is primarily a responsive action provoked by external negative stimuli, advocating is forward-leaning and generative. It encapsulates the deliberate exertion of social capital to elevate the brand’s reputation, expand its market footprint, and persuade non-users to adopt it. Rooted in consumer evangelism and altruistic consumption sharing, advocating entails sharing personal experiences, enthusiastically recommending the brand across interpersonal networks, and urging skeptics or uninitiated consumers to test the brand personally. Within the BDS framework, advocating serves as a buffer: by establishing a robust public repository of positive endorsements and social proof, advocating consumers construct a proactive shield that insulates the brand against future criticisms and competitive positioning.

3. Forgiving

The Forgiving dimension reflects the intrapsychic, affective, and cognitive mechanism through which consumers process brand transgressions, service failures, or verified corporate shortcomings. Drawing from psychological theories of interpersonal forgiveness, brand forgiveness involves a conscious motivational shift whereby an injured consumer relinquishes feelings of resentment, vengeance, and hostility toward a transgressive brand, choosing instead to maintain a benevolent and cooperative relationship. In the context of brand defense, forgiving implies that even when negative information is verified and personally distressing, the consumer deliberately suppresses ill-will, de-escalates anger, and restores cognitive equilibrium. Rather than contributing to viral boycott movements or venting through retaliatory negative word-of-mouth, forgiving consumers grant the brand psychological leniency, contextualizing the error as an isolated anomaly rather than a fundamental breach of integrity.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Brand Defense Scale is grounded in two primary frameworks: Fairness Theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998) and the Social Capital Perspective of Equity Theory (Adams, 1965; Adler & Kwon, 2002), augmented by principles of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957).

Fairness Theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998)

Fairness Theory posits that when individuals encounter an unfavorable event or perceived injustice, they engage in counterfactual cognition structured around three specific mental simulations: Would counterfactuals (evaluating the degree of harm; “Would the outcome have been better if an alternative scenario occurred?”), Could counterfactuals (assessing feasibility and discretionary capacity; “Could the perpetrator have acted differently?”), and Should counterfactuals (judging ethical and moral standards; “Should the perpetrator have adhered to a higher ethical or behavioral norm?”).

In consumer-brand interactions, when an external party attacks a favored brand, or when the brand experiences an operational failure, the consumer’s subjective appraisal determines their behavioral reaction. In the context of third-party criticism, highly committed consumers evaluate the external criticism through a protective lens: they determine that the brand should not be unfairly penalized and that external detractors could and should have demonstrated greater balance. Conversely, when the brand itself commits an error, consumers exhibiting high brand defense process their cognitive counterfactuals favorably toward the firm. They conclude that the brand’s overall relational equity mitigates the transgression, framing the failure as an unintentional event rather than a deliberate moral infraction, thereby activating psychological forgiveness rather than punitive retaliation.

Social Capital Perspective of Equity Theory

Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) asserts that human relationships are governed by a perceived balance between inputs (investments, effort, emotional loyalty) and outputs (benefits, quality, psychological satisfaction). When applied to relational marketing through the lens of Social Capital Theory (Adler, 2001; Adler & Kwon, 2002), long-standing consumer-brand interactions generate significant stocks of relational and structural social capital. Relational capital manifests as mutual trust, goodwill, shared obligations, and an emotional reservoir of psychological credit.

Within this framework, brand defense is an outcome of accumulated social capital. When consumers perceive that a brand has consistently delivered superior experiential value, functional utility, and identity reinforcement over time, their subjective equity ledger is heavily skewed in the brand’s favor. Therefore, when the brand faces external adversity or temporary failures, defending, advocating, and forgiving are behavioral investments deployed by the consumer to re-equilibrate the relational ledger. Consumers expend personal effort (counter-arguing, recommending, granting forgiveness) as an equitable exchange for the sustained psychological and functional utility previously derived from the relationship.

Complementary Cognitive and Identity Mechanisms

Social Identity Theory further explains why criticism of a brand elicits defensive hostility: because consumers integrate specific brands into their extended self-concept (Belk, 1988), derogation of the brand constitutes an in-group threat. Defending the brand acts as a self-protective mechanism designed to preserve in-group status and individual self-esteem. Concurrently, Cognitive Dissonance Theory highlights that exposure to negative brand data generates psychological discomfort in loyal consumers. To eliminate this dissonance, individuals employ motivated reasoning to discredit negative information (defending), re-affirm positive brand virtues to their peers (advocating), and psychologically contextualize and neutralize internal feelings of anger (forgiving).

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Brand Defense Scale was established across multiple studies involving diverse consumer cohorts in the United Kingdom by Roy et al. (2023):

Content and Face Validity

Initial content validity was achieved through a multi-stage inductive-deductive design. Following an exhaustive literature review of brand attachment, brand advocacy, and forgiveness frameworks, qualitative focus group interviews were conducted. Transcripts were evaluated using Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) by independent panels of marketing and psychometric academics to extract semantic domains directly corresponding to consumer defensive reactions. An initial item pool was refined to eliminate ambiguous, double-barreled, and redundant statements, ensuring that each operational indicator aligned cleanly with the conceptual definitions of Defending, Advocating, and Forgiving.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across two distinct empirical consumer samples. As documented in the original validation research:

• All standardized factor loadings (λ) for the final ten items exceeded the conventional 0.70 benchmark (p < 0.001), indicating substantial shared variance between observed indicators and their latent constructs.
• The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each latent dimension surpassed the 0.50 cutoff recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This demonstrates that the latent constructs capture more variance from their indicators than is attributable to measurement error.
• Composite Reliability (CR) values for all dimensions exceeded 0.80, confirming strong internal shared variance.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established through multiple rigorous psychometric criteria:

• In accordance with the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the square root of the AVE for each latent factor was systematically greater than the highest bivariate inter-construct correlation with any other construct in the measurement model.
• Cross-loading inspections confirmed that individual items loaded strongly on their targeted dimensions without elevated cross-loadings onto alternative dimensions.
• The three sub-dimensions exhibited moderate-to-strong, statistically significant inter-correlations, demonstrating that while they collectively map onto an overarching brand defense domain, each factor retains distinct empirical and conceptual properties.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological and predictive validity was tested via full Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), assessing the BDS within an extended theoretical framework comprising established antecedents and consequences:

• Antecedent Linkages: Brand Love demonstrated a direct, positive, and statistically significant predictive impact on Brand Defense (β = 0.35, t = 5.78, p < 0.001). Brand Trust exerted an even stronger positive predictive effect on Brand Defense (β = 0.62, t = 7.62, p < 0.001). These results validate the theoretical premise that consumers who harbor deep affective love and foundational trust toward a brand are the most likely to expend psychological and social capital in its defense.
• Consequent Linkages: Brand Defense proved to be an exceptionally powerful driver of overall Brand Loyalty (β = 0.74, t = 9.44, p < 0.001). This confirms that brand defense goes beyond short-term protective posturing, acting as a direct determinant of enduring, long-term consumer brand commitment.

8. Reliability

The Brand Defense Scale demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability across repeated empirical evaluations. In psychometric scale development, reliability refers to the consistency, precision, and stability of measurement scores across items within a specified latent domain (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across two validation cohorts in the United Kingdom (encompassing adult consumer panels and university populations), the internal consistency of the BDS was thoroughly established:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): The scale dimensions exhibited alpha coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.86 across studies. Specifically, the Defending dimension demonstrated alpha values between 0.82 and 0.86; the Advocating dimension exhibited alphas between 0.80 and 0.85; and the Forgiving dimension recorded alphas between 0.78 and 0.83. All values exceed the widely accepted threshold of 0.70 for research instruments and meet the 0.80 standard for reliable psychological inventories.
• Composite Reliability (CR): To account for the limitations of Cronbach’s alpha (which assumes tau-equivalence), Composite Reliability coefficients were computed via SEM parameter estimates. CR values across all three dimensions ranged between 0.81 and 0.87, confirming that the measurement error of individual indicators is low and that the underlying items measure the latent construct with high precision.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations for each of the ten items remained consistently above 0.55, indicating that each indicator contributes meaningfully to the true variance of its parent dimension.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural topology of the Brand Defense Scale was verified through a sequential exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approach across separate, independent samples to prevent data-driven capitalization on chance.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the scale purification phase, the initial item pool was subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis using Principal Axis Factoring with Promax (oblique) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that dimensions of brand defense are conceptually distinct yet positively correlated. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance (p < 0.001), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy exceeded 0.88, demonstrating data factorability.

The EFA yielded an unmistakable three-factor solution based on Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion and the inspection of Cattell’s scree plot. The resulting three factors cleanly represented: (1) Defending, (2) Advocating, and (3) Forgiving. Crucially, this three-factor solution accounted for 73.1% of the total cumulative variance in the item matrix, substantially exceeding the conventional 60% baseline standard for social science research. All selected items exhibited factor loadings well above 0.65 on their primary factor, with minimal cross-loadings (all < 0.25).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The three-factor measurement model was subsequently cross-validated on an independent consumer sample using Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) implemented in AMOS. The measurement model demonstrated exceptional goodness-of-fit to the empirical data, fulfilling the stringent cut-off criteria delineated by Hu and Bentler (1999):

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom: χ² = 131.72, df = 71 (χ²/df = 1.85, comfortably below the conservative upper threshold of 2.0 to 3.0).
• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): 0.95 (exceeding the 0.90 benchmark).
• Normed Fit Index (NFI): 0.94 (exceeding the 0.90 benchmark).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.97 (exceeding the stringent 0.95 benchmark for superior fit).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.97 (exceeding the stringent 0.95 benchmark for superior fit).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.05 (well below the 0.06 threshold, with a 90% confidence interval denoting high structural precision).

Structural Model Fit in Nomological Network

When the three brand defense dimensions were embedded within an expanded structural equation model alongside latent measures of Brand Love, Brand Trust, and Brand Loyalty, the model fit remained robust and psychometrically acceptable:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom: χ² = 282.41, df = 71.
• GFI: 0.91
• NFI: 0.91
• TLI: 0.93
• CFI: 0.95
• RMSEA: 0.07

Alternative nested models—such as a single-factor unidimensional model and a two-factor model combining defending and advocating—yielded significantly degraded fit indices (Δχ², p < 0.001), establishing the empirical superiority of the proposed three-factor multidimensional structure.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Brand Defense Scale is structured as an objective, self-administered survey questionnaire designed for both academic laboratory experiments and commercial field research. Below are the operational specifications of the measurement tool:

• Test Type: Original psychometric inventory / self-report questionnaire.
• Format: Structured multi-item psychological assessment. Items are rated on a standard 7-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). An optional 5-point variant may be utilized in resource-constrained or mobile surveys, provided appropriate scale respecification is documented.
• Number of Items: 10 standardized items distributed across three operational subscales:
  • Defending Subscale: 4 items (measuring active counter-arguing, personal resistance, and protective interventions).
  • Advocating Subscale: 3 items (measuring experiential sharing, positive recommendations, and trial encouragement).
  • Forgiving Subscale: 3 items (measuring emotional absolution, de-escalation of anger, and suppression of retaliatory ill-will).
• Contextual Adaptability: While originally tested within the Consumer Electronics sector, the phrasing of the scale allows seamless adaptation to any product category, service provider, corporate entity, or luxury brand by replacing category-specific markers (e.g., “Consumer Electronics brand”) with the target brand name or focal category.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes for full completion, minimizing respondent fatigue.
• Target Population: Human adults (≥ 18 years), including young adults (18–29), thirty-somethings (30–39), and middle-aged/mature consumers (40–64+).
• Language: English (original validated source version).
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or sum of the items comprising each distinct dimension (Defending = Items 1–4; Advocating = Items 5–7; Forgiving = Items 8–10). Note: Item 9 (“I feel angry toward this brand”) captures negative affective tension and should be examined for reverse-scoring if computed into a composite positive valence index, or maintained as a reverse-keyed indicator reflecting the dissipation of anger within the forgiveness construct.
  • Global Brand Defense Score: A composite second-order metric can be derived by averaging the three dimensional mean scores, providing an index of overall brand defense propensity ranging from 1.0 to 7.0.
  • Score Interpretation: Means between 1.0 and 2.9 reflect weak/passive defense (consumer indifference or vulnerability to switching); 3.0 to 4.9 indicate moderate defense (normative loyalty without active protective expenditure); and 5.0 to 7.0 indicate high brand defense (fervent brand evangelism, active public defense, and high crisis forgiveness).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Brand Defense Scale was officially published in 2023 in the Journal of Strategic Marketing. The key legal and access conditions are detailed below:

• Year of Publication: 2023 (online first access 2021).
• Commercial Status: Non-commercial research instrument.
• Administration Fee: None. The scale is freely accessible for non-commercial, academic, educational, and scientific research endeavors without royalty fees.
• Permissions and Copyright Guidelines: The copyright for the original peer-reviewed publication is held by the publisher, Taylor & Francis Informa UK Limited. Researchers and academic scholars wishing to replicate, translate, or adapt the scale for non-commercial scholarly investigations may do so under standard fair academic use protocols, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is formally cited (Roy et al., 2023). Commercial organizations intending to embed the BDS into proprietary diagnostic software platforms or for-profit market research tools should seek formal permission from the journal publisher and the corresponding author ([email protected]).

12. References

The following references document the theoretical foundations, validation procedures, and psychometric standards associated with the Brand Defense Scale:

• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/0065-2601(65)90005-8
• Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117
• Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134440
• Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500108
• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
• Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. SAGE Publications. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-07204-000
• 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
• Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Roy, S. K., Singh, G., Japutra, A., & Javed, M. (2023). Circle the wagons: Measuring the strength of consumers’ brand defense. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 31(4), 817–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2021.1999305
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

13. Items of the Scale