Impact of brand authenticity on word-of-mouth for tourism souvenirs

Figures & data

Table 1. Empirical research on the relationship between brand authenticity and word-of-mouth

Study	Study context	Theoretical perspective	Authenticity aspects	Explanatory mechanism(s)		Outcome variable	Key findings related to our study
				Mediator(s)	Moderator(s)
Kowalczyk and Pounders (2016)	Survey of 196 US consumers regarding celebrities	Self-determination theory; Attribution theory; Attachment theory	Celebrity authenticity	Emotional attachment	N/T	WOM	• Direct effect of celebrity authenticity on WOM (+) is mediated by emotional attachment (+).
Morhart et al. (2015)	Survey of 932 consumers from North America, Russia, and Europe regarding global brands	Branding theory	Consumers’ perceived brand authenticity	N/T	N/T	WOM	• Direct effect of consumers’ perceived brand authenticity on WOM (+).
Chen et al. (2020)	Survey of 521 Chinese adult tourists regarding tourism destination	Self-congruence theory	Destination brand authenticity	Destination brand engagement	N/T	Recommendation intention	• Direct effect of destination brand authenticity on recommendation intention (+) is mediated by destination brand engagement (+).
Gupta and Sajnani (2020)	Survey of 263 foreign tourists visiting Delhi regarding tourism destination experience	N/A	Tourists’ perceived food authenticity	N/T	N/T	WOM	• Direct effect of tourists’ perceived food authenticity on WOM (ns) is mediated by tourists’ perceived overall experience (+).
Khan and Fatma (2021)	Survey of 438 consumers from multiple cities^a regarding online destination brand experience	Sensations-perceptions theory	Destination brand authenticity	N/T	N/T	WOM	• Direct effect of destination brand authenticity on WOM (+).
Kumar and Kaushal (2021)	Survey of 407 Indian consumers regarding automobile brands	Psychological ownership theory	Perceived brand authenticity	Psychological brand ownership	N/T	Positive word of mouth (PWOM)	• Direct effect of perceived brand authenticity on PWOM (N/T) is mediated by psychological brand ownership (+).
Safeer et al. (2021)	Survey of 409 Chinese consumers regarding global brands	Relationship theory	Perceived brand authenticity	N/T	N/T	WOM	• Direct effect of perceived brand authenticity on WOM (+).
Xu et al. (2021)	Survey of 292 online respondents regarding a green brand	Trust theory and self-determination theory	Green brand authenticity	Brand trust	Self-concept consistency	Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM)	• Direct effect of green brand authenticity on eWOM (+) is mediated by brand trust (+) and moderated by self-concept consistency (−).
Markovic et al. (2022)	Survey of 1101 Spanish consumers regarding health insurance brands	Theory of planned behavior	Brand authenticity	N/T	N/T	Customers’ positive word-of-mouth (CPWOM)	• Direct effect of brand authenticity on CPWOM (+).
Safeer et al. (2022)	Survey of 804 Chinese and 834 Pakistani consumers regarding local and global brands	Signaling theory	Brand authenticity	N/T	Uncertainty avoidance	WOM	• Direct effect of brand authenticity on WOM (+) is moderated by uncertainty avoidance (+) in Pakistan.
Girardin et al. (2023)	Survey of 470 consumers from France and Switzerland regarding higher education institutions	Entity-referent correspondence framework of authenticity	Perceived brand authenticity	N/T	N/T	Positive word-of-mouth (PWOM)	• Direct effect of perceived brand authenticity on PWOM (+).
Safeer and Liu (2023)	Survey of 734 Pakistani consumers regarding durable and non-durable global brands from the manufacturing and service industries	Attribution theory	Perceived brand authenticity	N/T	Brand image	Positive word-of-mouth (PWOM)	• Direct effect of perceived brand authenticity on PWOM (+) is moderated by brand image (ns).
Our study	Survey of 210 Japanese consumers regarding food souvenirs	Consumer inference theory	Brand authenticity	Company’s commitment to the brand’s roots	Craftsmen’s passion	Positive word-of-mouth (PWOM)	• Direct effect of brand authenticity on WOM (+) is mediated by company’s commitmentto the brand's roots (+).• The positive indirect effect of brand authenticity on WOM is moderated by craftsmen’s passion (+).

Note: This table provides an overview of the brand authenticity literature in terms of the empirical context and explicit focus of the examination to test the link between brand authenticity and WOM; ^aBangkok, Dubai, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, London, New York, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo, and Others; N/A = Not applicable; N/T = Not tested; ns = Non-significant relationship. We gathered the target articles by searching the Web of Science database. Our search criteria involved selecting articles that included the keywords “authenticity,” “word-of-mouth” or “recommendation,” and “brand” in their titles, abstracts, or keywords. This process resulted in the extraction of 72 articles. Among these, we identified 11 that specifically explored the relationship between brand authenticity and WOM. Furthermore, we included an additional paper obtained from EBSCO Host, which is distinct from the articles sourced from the Web of Science database.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Note: H1, H2, and H3 indicate the direct, indirect, and moderated mediation effects, respectively.

Table 2. Profile of the sample (n = 210)

Gender	Age
	20s (n = 29)	30s (n = 37)	40s (n = 50)	50s (n = 39)	60s ( = 55)
Male (n = 89)	13	16	24	15	21
Female (n = 121)	16	21	26	24	34

Table 3. Constructs and measurement results

Constructs and scale items	Factor loading^a	CR	AVE
Brand authenticity		0.86	0.67
The brand feels authentic.	0.86
The brand is truly genuine.	0.83
It is a venerable brand.	0.76
Company’s commitment to the brand’s roots		0.87	0.63
To strictly comply with the startup motivation of the founder, the brand chooses not to change anything.	0.84
The brand intentionally manufactures without considering efficiency.	0.79
To retain its roots, the brand chooses not to change anything.	0.78
The brand could do business in other fields, but the brand sticks to the current field.	0.75
Craftsmen’s passion		0.90	0.75
I feel the craftsman’s passion.	0.88
I feel the craftsman’s pride.	0.88
I feel the craftsman’s professionalism.	0.84
Positive WOM		0.94	0.83
I would recommend sharing the benefits of this brand with others.	0.93
If given the chance, I would like to introduce this brand to as many people as possible.	0.91
I would like to recommend this brand to my friends and acquaintances and encourage them to use it.	0.89

Note: ^aStandardized factor loading; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

Constructs	Mean	SD	X1	X2	X3	X4
X1 Brand authenticity	3.90	0.70	0.82
X2 Company’s commitment to the brand’s roots	3.40	0.76	0.44*	0.79
X3 Craftsmen’s passion	3.78	0.71	0.79*	0.52*	0.86
X4 Positive WOM	3.43	0.81	0.62*	0.58*	0.61*	0.91

Note: SD = Standard deviation; Italic numbers in the diagonal row are the square roots of the AVE values; *p < 0.05.

Table 5. Results of the model fit indices

Model	χ2	df	RMSEA	GFI	CFI	χ^2 difference (p-value)
One-factor model	662.13	65	0.21	0.60	0.71	–
Four-factor model	104.08	59	0.06	0.93	0.98	△χ^2(6) = 558.05 (p < 0.001)

Table 6. Results of hypotheses testing

Hypothesized directions	Model 1 (without demographics)			Model 2 (with demographics)
	B	95% CI		B	95% CI
		Lower	Upper		Lower	Upper
Direct effect
H1: Brand Authenticity → Positive WOM	0.54	0.41	0.67	0.57	0.44	0.69
Control variables
Gender dummy (men = 1, women = 0) → Positive WOM				−0.12	−0.29	0.04
Age dummy 1 (30s = 1, others = 0) → Positive WOM				0.16	−0.13	0.45
Age dummy 2 (40s = 1, others = 0) → Positive WOM				0.07	−0.20	0.35
Age dummy 3 (50s = 1, others = 0) → Positive WOM				−0.26	−0.54	0.03
Age dummy 4 (60s = 1, others = 0) → Positive WOM				−0.17	−0.44	0.10
Indirect effect
H2: Brand authenticity → Company’s commitment to the brand’s roots → Positive WOM	0.20	0.12	0.31	0.19	0.11	0.30
Conditional indirect association at different values of craftsmen’s passion
− 1 SD below the mean	0.09	−0.00	0.22	0.09	−0.00	0.22
Mean	0.15	0.07	0.25	0.14	0.07	0.25
+1 SD above the mean	0.21	0.12	0.31	0.20	0.11	0.30
H3: Index of moderated mediation	0.08	0.01	0.14	0.07	0.01	0.13

Note: B = Unstandardized coefficients; 95% CI = Lower/upper limit of the 95% percentile bootstrap confidence interval with a dataset of 5,000.

Figure 2. Results of the interaction effect.

Note: CCBR = Company’s commitment to the brand’s roots; CP = Craftsmen’s passion.

Kowalczyk, C. M., & Pounders, K. R. (2016). Transforming celebrities through social media: The role of authenticity and emotional attachment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2015-0969

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, R., Zhou, Z., Zhan, G., & Zhou, N. (2020). The impact of destination brand authenticity and destination brand self-congruence on tourist loyalty: The mediating role of destination brand engagement. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 15(March), 100402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100402

 Google Scholar

Gupta, V., & Sajnani, M. (2020). A study on the influence of street food authenticity and degree of their variations on the tourists’ overall destination experiences. British Food Journal, 122(3), 779–797. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2019-0598

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khan, I., & Fatma, M. (2021). Online destination brand experience and authenticity: Does individualism-collectivism orientation matter? Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 20, 100597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100597

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kumar, V., & Kaushal, V. (2021). Perceived brand authenticity and social exclusion as drivers of psychological brand ownership. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102579

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safeer, A. A., Yuanqiong, H., Abrar, M., Shabbir, R., & Rasheed, H. M. W. (2021). Role of brand experience in predicting consumer loyalty. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 39(8), 1042–1057. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-11-2020-0471

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xu, Y., Du, J., Shahzad, F., & Li, X. (2021). Untying the influence of green brand authenticity on electronic word-of-mouth intention: A moderation–mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(September), 724452. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724452

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Markovic, S., Iglesias, O., Qiu, Y., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2022). The CSR imperative: How CSR influences word-of-mouth considering the roles of authenticity and alternative attractiveness. Business & Society, 61(7), 1773–1803. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211053021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safeer, A. A., Abrar, M., Liu, H., & Yuanqiong, H. (2022). Effects of perceived brand localness and perceived brand globalness on consumer behavioral intentions in emerging markets. Management Decision, 60(9), 2482–2502. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2021-1296

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Girardin, F., Blal, I., & Lunardo, R. (2023). The role of brand authenticity for higher education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2023.2172642

 Google Scholar

Safeer, A. A., & Liu, H. (2023). Role of corporate social responsibility authenticity in developing perceived brand loyalty: A consumer perceptions paradigm. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 32(2), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2022-3807

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar