With the advent of the experience economy, companies are focusing on product design and delivery to enhance the psychological experience of customers (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Consumers expect brands to satisfy their self-construction and expression needs, which is a manifestation of self–brand connection (C. Wang, 2013). Research has shown that self–brand connection, as a tool, plays a key role in improving consumer brand attitudes and brand loyalty; it can promote high-quality consumer–brand relationships (Bowden & Mirzaei, 2021) and provide protection mechanisms in the case of negative events involving the brand (J. Zhang & Kong, 2021). In practice, establishing a consumer’s self–brand connection often involves brand identification and communication of brand meaning. For instance, Nike’s slogan, “Just do it,” encourages individuals to proceed unhesitatingly, with confidence and determination. This slogan conveys Nike’s support for sports and adventure, inspiring both brand loyalty and consumers’ internal drive for self-improvement and achievement, thereby fostering a robust self–brand connection. However, we believe that this effect is difficult to control and may depend on the subjective choices of the consumer.

 

Ritual enhances the connection between consumers and products, and inspires brand commitment and lasting engagement (Shu et al., 2021; Sun, 2022). Many brands have begun using rituals for marketing (Raj, 2012). For example, Budweiser uses the slogan “Thank You, Cheers Twice”; Oreo cookies use “Twist, Lick, Dip”; and Guinness beer endorses a six-step pouring method. In the social media era, brand rituals are an effective way for consumers to establish emotional connections with brands (Xue, 2015). However, previous research on brand rituals has mostly focused on the effect of these rituals on brand loyalty, consumer trust, and consumer purchase intentions, with little research examining how brand rituals affect consumers’ self–brand connection (Liu et al., 2022; Prexl & Kenning, 2011; Song et al., 2022). To fill this gap in the literature, we explored the mechanism and boundary conditions of how complexity of brand rituals affects consumers’ self–brand connection.

Rook (1985) was the first to propose a definition of ritual in the field of consumer behavior, describing it as a symbolic activity that is repetitive, regular, and capable of expressing meaning and value. With the generalization of the concept of rituals, how to combine brand and rituals to serve marketing practices has become a topic of interest to researchers. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) suggested that rituals are an important component in brand communities, and Prexl and Kenning (2011) subsequently conducted empirical research to define brand ritual as rituals that exist in brand activities. Xue (2015) argued that a brand ritual entails daily ritualized interactive behaviors between consumers and the chosen brand, which can give consumers a special emotional experience. Ran et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive analysis of grounded theory and described brand ritual as a series of repeatable, formal, and patterned activities centered around the brand. Thus, this paper defined complexity of brand ritual as the amount of ritualized behavior occurring between consumers and brands.

 

Brand ritual is the essence of building brand power and brand loyalty (Song et al., 2022). It comprises five main characteristics: stepwise action, behavior routine, performance symbolism, unity of intention and action, and incremental impact (Xue, 2015). The number of steps involved has a significant impact on the complexity of the ritual. For example, Legare and Souza (2012) pointed out that the number of processes is a key antecedent of the degree of reutilization. Thus, we anticipated that consumer perceptions and behavioral aftereffects of brand ritual would vary depending on the level of complexity.

Self–brand connection theory originated from Sirgy’s (1982) self-image and product-image consistency theory, which states that consumers tend to associate their perceived product image with their self-image, and are more likely to have positive attitudes toward a product if the two images are a good match. Studies have found that the self-association of brands and consumers can promote the formation of high-quality brand relationships (Bowden & Mirzaei, 2021; Mostafa & Kasamani, 2020). As a relatively new concept in the marketing field, self–brand connection is of great significance to enterprises. Consumers who choose brands not only to meet functional needs but also to build their self-image or convey their self-concept to the outside world form a self–brand connection (Cai et al., 2022).

 

Social exchange theory indicates that all social activities can be reduced to an exchange relationship (Emerson, 1976). Therefore, we argued that the connection between consumers and brand ritual is essentially a social exchange relationship, because consumers with a certain understanding of a brand pay attention to various brand attributes and then build a close connection with the brand through understanding and association (Lee et al., 2021). In addition, C. Wang (2013) argued from the self-consistency perspective that consumers are more likely to form brand associations with those brands that are similar to their self-concept. Moisescu et al. (2022) pointed out that in a brand community, consumers can have a promotive effect on positive word-of-mouth through brand connection, regardless of whether they integrate actively or passively. When brand ritual triggers a self-reference effect, consumers will subconsciously integrate the brand into their self-concept, which strengthens the connection between consumer and brand. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Brand ritual will have a positive effect on consumers’ self–brand connection.

 

Immersion has been commonly used as a psychological variable in research on virtual reality and electronic games (Ma & Sui, 2010; Tao, 2009). In the field of video games, immersion means the user pays full attention to the game’s story world (Hardee & McMahan, 2017). In the context of brands, immersion is understood as a state of mind in which a consumer is involved, focused, invested, or fully attentive to the process of interacting with a particular brand and receives positive feelings from this interaction. Research has found that brand ritual enables consumers to focus their attention on interacting with the brand (Hobson et al., 2018). In this process, consumers show a higher sense of concentration and immersion (Li et al., 2018), and even lose track of the passage of time and changes in the real world (Ran, 2017; Tonietto et al., 2021). Wei et al. (2018) suggested that the fixed steps of the brand ritual provide consumers with accomplishable and manipulable task cues, enhancing their immersion.

 

Previous studies have shown that the stronger the immersion, the higher the user’s sense of engagement, inclusion, and substitution (Daassi & Debbabi, 2021), which can lead to a self–brand connection. For example, Ahuvia et al. (2009) found that consumers who integrate brand awareness into their own identity feel more closely connected to brands. Additionally, positive emotions about brands are necessary to establish a self–brand connection (Batra et al., 2012). Xi and Hamari (2019) found that when consumers are immersed in interactions with a brand, they are more likely to hold a favorable attitude and emotions toward the brand. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Immersion will mediate the effect of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection.

Copeland (1923) classified products into three categories: convenience goods, shopping goods, and specialty goods. Nelson (1970) divided products into experience-oriented and search-oriented categories according to whether consumers can obtain product quality information before purchase. Zhu and He (2017) separated green products into development-intensive and marginal cost-intensive types. Jiang et al. (2024) divided products into incremental and real types. In this paper we classified products into utilitarian and hedonic categories based on consumers’ perception of the property of the product (see Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Utilitarian products emphasize the function, value, and usefulness of the item (C.-Y. Chen et al., 2017). In contrast, consumers primarily consume hedonic products for emotional and sensory pleasure (Y. Zhang et al., 2019). In practice, most products have both hedonic and utilitarian attributes, and their classification is a reflection of the relative highs and lows of these two dimensions (Okada, 2005).

 

Previous studies have shown that consumers prefer to spend more time and energy on researching hedonic, compared to utilitarian, products (Okada, 2005). When purchasing or using hedonic products, consumers tend to focus on the pleasurable experience provided (Whitley et al., 2018), so they may experience stronger immersion and self–brand connection when hedonic products have a strong sense of brand ritual. However, consumers purchasing or using utilitarian products tend to pay more attention to the function of the product itself, so they may have a stronger sense of immersion and self–brand connection when there is a weak sense of brand ritual. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Product type will moderate the effect of complexity of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection.

Hypothesis 3a: For hedonic products, high brand ritual will strengthen consumers’ self–brand connection.

Hypothesis 3b: For utilitarian products, low brand ritual will strengthen consumers’ self–brand connection.

Hypothesis 4: The mediating effect of immersion on the relationship between complexity of brand ritual and self–brand connection will be moderated by product type.

Hypothesis 4a: For hedonic products, high brand ritual will lead to stronger immersion, thereby enhancing the self–brand connection.

Hypothesis 4b: For utilitarian products, low brand ritual will lead to stronger immersion, thereby enhancing the self–brand connection.

 

Figure 1 shows the research model of this paper, in which we tested the above hypotheses through two experiments.

 

This study tested Hypotheses 1 and 2, in which we proposed that brand ritual would have a positive effect on consumers’ self–brand connection and that immersion would play a mediating role in this relationship.

We conducted an offline study and obtained 151 valid questionnaires from 88 (58.3%) women and 63 (41.7%) men. In terms of age, four (2.6%) respondents were aged under 18 years, 122 (80.8%) were aged 18–25 years, 16 (10.6%) were aged 26–30 years, and nine (6.0%) were aged over 30 years. During September and October 2022 we used online and offline methods of random sampling to recruit students from a university in Beijing, and asked them to participate in exchange for a small reward (USD 1.40). Participants provided their age, gender, educational background, and average monthly consumption (food, accommodation, utilities, communications, transportation, entertainment, and shopping).

 

A pen made by Excellence Stationery was selected as the experimental material because pens are usually associated with elegance and refinement, and their use is often accompanied by a series of ritual behaviors. We conducted a pretest to ensure effective manipulation of the complexity of brand ritual. Study 1 had a one-factor, three-condition (no brand ritual vs. low brand ritual vs. high brand ritual) between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups. First, they read an introductory paragraph about the Excellence brand. Next, they were given a pen. In the no-brand-ritual group, the respondents were told, “These are the instructions for using the pens provided by this brand; please take 3 minutes to try out this new product from Excellence Stationery.” In the low- and high-brand-ritual groups, the respondents were told, “Please take 3 minutes to try out the new product from Excellence Stationery by following the steps described below,” and they were then presented with the stimulus materials relevant to their group (see Figure 2).

After the 3 minutes were up, the participants completed measures of self–brand connection and immersion, underwent a manipulation check, and provided demographic information. The measure of self–brand connection included seven items (α = .93): “This brand suits me well,” “This brand reflects who I am,” “I can identify with this brand,” “I feel a personal connection to this brand,” “I use this brand to communicate who I am to other people,” “I think this brand helps me become the type of person I want to be,” and “This brand reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I want to present myself to others” (Edson Escalas & Bettman, 2005). The measure of immersion included four items (α = .90): “I felt that time seemed to fly by during the trial,” “I forgot everything else around me during the trial,” “I became immersed during the trial,” and “I felt enthusiastic during the trial” (Schaufeli et al., 2002). We combined Ran’s (2017) control test scale with the experimental scenario and designed six measurement items to assess the product trial process: “I think the introduced product trial process is very special,” “I think the introduced product trial process conforms to the brand style,” “I think the introduced product trial process is different,” “I think the introduced product trial process can highlight the brand significance,” “I think the introduced product trial process is ritualized,” and “I think the introduced product trial process can express brand connotation” (Cronbach’s α = .89). Previous research has shown that ritual movements directly enhance an individual’s sense of control (Yin et al., 2022). Personal control may explain the effect of brand ritual on the self–brand connection, highlighting the mediating effect of immersion. Therefore, we added personal control as a control variable in this analysis, assessing it with four items, including “Much of what happens in my life depends on my own efforts and actions” and “I have control over much of what happens in my life.” All variables were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

We conducted an independent samples t test to assess the effectiveness of the brand ritual manipulation, and found that the perceived complexity of brand ritual was significantly higher in the high-brand-ritual group than in the low- and no-brand-ritual groups. An independent samples t test revealed that participants in the high-brand-ritual group perceived a significantly higher complexity of brand ritual than did those in the low- and no-brand-ritual groups (M_{high brand ritual} = 4.58, SD_{high brand ritual} = 1.10 > M_{low brand ritual} = 3.34, SD_{low brand ritual} = 1.27 > M_{no brand ritual} = 1.49, SD_{no brand ritual} = 0.34); high vs. low, t(99) = 5.27, p < .001; high vs. no, t(99) = 19.17, p < .001. Further, the complexity of perceived brand ritual in the low-brand-ritual group was significantly higher than that in the no-brand-ritual group, t(98) = 9.95, p < .001. 

 

Table 1 shows that immersion had a significant positive correlation with self–brand connection, whereas personal control was not significantly correlated with either self–brand connection or immersion.

The results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with consumers’ self–brand connection as the dependent variable showed a significant main effect of complexity of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection, F(2, 148) = 21.62, p < .001. Specifically, compared to the no-brand-ritual group, consumers in both the low- and high-brand-ritual groups showed a stronger self–brand connection: low vs. no brand ritual, F(1, 98) = 16.14, p < .001; high vs. no brand ritual, F(1, 99) = 54.74, p < .001. Further, consumers in the high-brand-ritual group showed a stronger self–brand connection than did those in low-brand-ritual group, F(1, 99) = 4.22, p < .05. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

 

A one-way ANOVA with immersion as the dependent variable and brand ritual as the independent variable showed that brand ritual had a significant main effect on immersion (M_{no brand ritual} = 2.96, M_{low brand ritual} = 3.59, M_{high brand ritual} = 4.23); F(2, 148) = 8.95, p < .001. Specifically, immersion was higher in the high- and low-brand-ritual groups compared to the no-brand-ritual group: low vs. no brand ritual, F(1, 98) = 4.09, p < .05; high vs. no brand ritual, F(1, 99) = 21.39, p < .001. Further, immersion was significantly higher in the high-brand-ritual group than in the low-brand-ritual group, F(1, 99) = 4.14, p < .05.

 

Next, we used the PROCESS macro for SPSS 26.0 to conduct mediation analyses, recoding the independent variables because there were multiple categorical options. Referring to the validation method of To and Patrick (2021), we coded the no-brand-ritual group as 0, the low-brand-ritual group as 1, and the high-brand-ritual group as 2. The no-brand-ritual group was used as the baseline to create two new virtual independent variables: X1 (no vs. low brand ritual) and X2 (no vs. high brand ritual).

 

Next, we applied the bootstrapping method, using Model 4 of the PROCESS macro with 5,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to separately test the mediating effect of immersion. Taking X1 (no vs. low brand ritual) as the independent variable, immersion as the mediating variable, and consumers’ self–brand connection as the dependent variable, the results showed a significant mediating effect of immersion, indirect path effect = 0.32, SE = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.68]. Similar results were found taking X2 (no vs. high brand ritual) as the independent variable, which showed a significant mediating effect of immersion, indirect path effect = 0.64, SE = 0.17, 95% CI [0.33, 1.01]. Therefore, immersion played a mediating role in the effect of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection, and Hypothesis 2 was supported. The analysis results are shown in Table 2.

In light of the behavioral constraints of brand ritual causing consumers to have a restricted sense of control, we sought to exclude this as an intermediary explanation. Thus, we assessed perceived personal control to enhance the robustness of our analysis of immersion as a mediator. The results showed no significant differences in perceived personal control among the three groups, F(2, 148) < 1.00, p = .10.

The Study 1 results indicate that brand ritual had a positive impact on consumers’ self–brand association. Previous studies mostly focused on the single-dimensional influence path of brand ritual on behavior. This study further divided brand ritual according to the level of complexity (no vs. low vs. high), and explored the impact on consumers’ self–brand connection. Simultaneously, in contrast to previous studies (see, e.g., Daassi & Debbabi, 2021; Hamilton et al., 2016), we introduced immersion as a mediating variable and found that personal control had no mediating effect. We also found that ritual had a more positive effect than no ritual, and that high brand ritual had a more positive effect than did low brand ritual. To examine the moderating effect of product type as a boundary condition for how brand ritual influences consumers’ self–brand connection, we conducted Study 2.

Study 1 demonstrated that brand ritual had a positive effect on consumers’ self–brand connection. To explore the boundary conditions and wider applicability of the impact of brand ritual on self–brand association, we conducted Study 2 to test Hypotheses 3, 3a, and 3b—in which we proposed that product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) would moderate the effect of complexity of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection—and Hypotheses 4, 4a, and 4b—in which we proposed that product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) would moderate the effect of complexity of brand ritual on immersion.

We conducted an offline experiment and obtained 180 valid questionnaires from 87 (48.33%) women and 93 (51.67%) men. In terms of age, three (1.70%) respondents were aged under 18 years, 108 (60.00%) were aged 18–25 years, 56 (31.10%) were aged 26–30 years, and 13 (7.20%) were aged over 30 years. In March 2023 we used online and offline methods of random sampling to recruit students of a university in Beijing, and asked them to participate in exchange for a small reward (USD 1.40). Participants provided their age, gender, educational background, and average monthly consumption (food, accommodation, utilities, communications, transportation, entertainment, and shopping).

 

Youzi Chocolate was selected as the experimental material, and we conducted a pretest to ensure effective manipulation of the complexity of the brand ritual. Building on the previous study, in Study 2 we used a 2 (low vs. high brand ritual) × 2 (hedonic vs. utilitarian products) between-subjects design. Participants first read a passage of material that included a brand introduction and product-type manipulation content (see Figure 3). This paper followed the manipulation method of previous researchers (e.g., C.-Y. Chen et al., 2017; Y. Zhang et al., 2019), describing chocolate in a way that amplified its hedonic or utility attributes. The description of the hedonic product was “This chocolate has a sweet taste and a rich flavor. A bite of this chocolate will leave your teeth feeling as smooth and light as silk, and the sweet aftertaste will be unforgettable. Share it with your friends in your spare time and enjoy anytime, anywhere!” The description of the utilitarian product was “This chocolate is made from pure cocoa butter, which is high in dietary fiber and other beneficial substances that are good for heart health when consumed in moderation. Each piece of chocolate is individually wrapped, making it easy to carry, and it is the best choice for boosting satiety before meals and replenishing energy during sports and fitness.”

 

The respondents were then given a piece of chocolate and read the following instructions: “Youzi Chocolate has designed a ritual based on the product’s features, which lasts 3 minutes. Please try the new product strictly according to these steps.” Next, they were presented with stimulus materials for either the low- or high-complexity brand ritual. After the 3 minutes were up, participants completed measures of self–brand connection and immersion, underwent a manipulation check, and provided demographic information. We employed the same measures for self–brand connection and immersion that were used in Study 1. Personal control was not measured here, because it did not explain the model path as a control variable in Study 1.

First, we conducted a manipulation check of the product types. The data showed that participants’ perception of the hedonic attributes of the hedonic product (M = 5.46, SD = 0.90) was significantly higher than their perception of its utilitarian attributes (M = 3.95, SD = 1.30), t(176) = 8.89, p < .001. Further, their perception of the utilitarian attributes of the utilitarian product (M = 4.71, SD = 0.99) was significantly higher than their perception of its hedonic attributes (M = 3.47, SD = 1.50), t(176) = 6.60, p < .001. Thus, the product type manipulation was successful.

 

Second, we conducted a manipulation check of complexity of brand ritual, using the same procedure as in Study 1. The results showed that respondents in the high-brand-ritual group perceived a significantly higher complexity of brand ritual than did those in the low-brand-ritual group (M_{high brand ritual} = 4.93 > M_{low brand ritual} = 3.38), t(176) = 8.46, p < .001. Thus, the brand ritual complexity manipulation was successful.

 

Table 3 shows that immersion had a significant positive correlation with self–brand connection.

We used Model 8 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS for moderated mediation analysis, with complexity of brand ritual as the independent variable, product type as the moderating variable, consumers’ self–brand connection as the dependent variable, and immersion as the mediating variable. A bootstrapping analysis with 5,000 resamples was conducted to examine the proposed mediation effects. The effect size was 1.06, 95% CI [0.65, 1.52], indicating that the moderated mediation effect was significant. Specifically, as shown in Table 4, for hedonic products, the mediating effect of immersion was significant, indirect path effect = 0.74, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [0.46, 1.06], so that high brand ritual led to a stronger self–brand connection than did low brand ritual; similarly, for utilitarian products, the mediating effect of immersion remained significant, indirect path effect = −0.32, SE = 0.13, 95% CI [−0.58, −0.09], so that low brand ritual led to a stronger self–brand connection than did high brand ritual. We drew the chart in Figure 4 to intuitively reflect the moderating effect of product type among various variables. For hedonic products, high (vs. low) brand ritual led to a stronger self–brand connection, while for utilitarian products, low (vs. high) brand ritual led to a stronger self–brand connection.

Table 5 shows that after product type was added to the model, the product term of complexity of brand ritual and product type had a significant predictive effect on both self–brand connection, b = 1.52, t(176) = 4.51, p < .01, and immersion, b = 2.81, t(176) = 6.83, p < .01. This indicates that product type not only regulated the direct predictive effect of complexity of brand ritual on self–brand connection, but also regulated the predictive effect of complexity of brand ritual on immersion.

Study 2 tested Hypotheses 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 4a, and 4b. The results show that product type moderated the effect of complexity of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection and immersion. Specifically, for hedonic products, high brand ritual lead to greater immersion and self–brand connection, while for utilitarian products, low brand ritual lead to stronger immersion and self–brand connection. Study 2 extends previous studies by clarifying the application of brand ritual to different product types. Our findings will provide inspiration for enterprises to design reasonable and effective brand rituals.

This research examined the effect of complexity of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection, and revealed the internal mechanism and boundary conditions of this effect based on social exchange theory. The contribution of our research to theory is as follows: First, we have broadened the research perspective on the consumer–brand relationship and brand ritual. Previous studies mainly focused on the effect of brand ritual on emotions, cognition, and behavior from the perspective of the presence or absence of rituals (Liu et al., 2022; Prexl & Kenning, 2011; Raj, 2012; X. Wang et al., 2021; Xue, 2015). We examined brand ritual from a new perspective, according to the complexity of the ritual, and explored how this affects the self–brand connection, providing new ideas for subsequent research on brand ritual and the self–brand connection. When consumers have a positive interactive experience by participating in a brand ritual and feel the unique meaning and value of the brand, a connection relationship is established, forming material and emotional resource input to the brand.

 

Second, this research enriches the literature on immersion in the field of marketing. We found that immersion played a mediating role in the effect of complexity of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection. At the same time, we have provided a new way of enhancing the self–brand connection of consumers, enabling enterprises to insert new connotations and meaning into products or brands with the help of brand ritual, thus enhancing the self–brand connection and establishing a lasting and stable relationship with consumers. When consumers focus their attention on the product and the associated brand ritual, their perception, thinking, and emotions are all centered in the present moment (Xue, 2015). This kind of deep participation makes consumers’ cognition of the brand more comprehensive and in-depth, thus generating a stronger self–brand connection.

 

Third, this research found that product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) played a moderating role in the effect of complexity of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection. This has made a theoretical contribution to research on the boundary conditions of brand ritual. People have different motivations, cognitive processes, and needs when buying hedonic compared to utilitarian products (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). The goal of consumers buying and using hedonic products is to obtain hedonic experience value and pleasure, while their goal in using utilitarian products is to obtain instrumental and functional value (R. Chen et al., 2017). In other words, the effect of complexity of brand ritual on self–brand connection varies according to product type. When the product type is hedonic, consumers may have a stronger sense of immersion and stronger self–brand connection when performing a highly complex brand ritual. In contrast, low-complexity brand rituals are in line with consumers’ goal pursuit when using utilitarian products. Our findings help to clarify the application of brand ritual and how this varies by context. Therefore, consumers may have a stronger sense of immersion and self–brand connection when they perform low-complexity brand rituals.

First, enterprises should attach importance to brand-ritual construction. We found that brand ritual had a positive effect on consumers’ self–brand connection. Therefore, enterprises could combine brand products with ritualistic behaviors by designing brand rituals to cultivate and enhance consumers’ self–brand connection (e.g., the “Twist, Lick, Dip” slogan of Oreo cookies). Enterprises should also promote and disseminate the designed brand ceremony through as many online and offline channels as possible, so as to form an imprint in the consciousness of consumers, allowing them to maintain the stability and permanence of the brand ceremony.

 

Second, stimulating immersion is the key to enhancing consumers’ self–brand connection. By allowing consumers to immerse themselves rapidly, brand rituals can promote consumers’ self–brand connection (Bartholomew & Mason, 2020). Therefore, in the process of designing a brand ritual, enterprises should focus on how to improve the experience of consumers. Brands can also use new technological means (e.g., interactive advertising and short videos) to design steps or processes in the brand ceremony that are interesting and fun, thus increasing consumers’ attention and enhancing their immersion in the process of interacting with the brand.

 

Finally, enterprises should design appropriate brand rituals based on product type. This research found that product type moderated the effect of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection. For hedonic products, high brand ritual can lead to stronger self–brand connection, while for utilitarian products, low brand ritual can lead to stronger self–brand connection. Therefore, enterprises should design more complex brand rituals for hedonic products or enrich the content of the brand ritual. In contrast, a relatively simple brand ceremony could be designed for utilitarian products.

This research has limitations. First, the participants were mainly college students, which may have affected the generalizability of the research conclusions. Future research could examine different groups to test whether the research conclusions remain stable across samples. Second, in terms of research perspective, we divided the independent variable of brand ritual based on only one factor: complexity. Future research could categorize brand ritual from the perspectives of ritual style or number of ritual participants to further explore the impact on consumers’ self–brand connection. Third, we focused on revealing the effect of complexity of brand ritual on consumers’ self–brand connection, and incorporated only one moderating variable: product type. However, many other factors, such as brand personality, may influence the relationships examined in this research, and future research could explore the moderating effects of these factors.

Ahuvia, A. C., Batra, R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2009). Love, desire and identity: A conditional integration theory of the love of things. In D. J. MacInnis & C. Park (Eds.), The handbook of brand relationships (pp. 342–357). M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Bartholomew, D. E., & Mason, M. J. (2020). Facebook rituals: Identifying rituals of social networking sites using structural ritualization theory. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1799

 

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1–16.

 

Bowden, J., & Mirzaei, A. (2021). Consumer engagement within retail communication channels: An examination of online brand communities and digital content marketing initiatives. European Journal of Marketing, 55(5), 1411–1439. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-01-2018-0007

 

Cai, J., Li, Y., Li, Z., & Bao, Y. (2022). Study on the influence mechanism of regional cultural differences on sojourners’ self-brand connection [In Chinese]. Journal of Marketing Science, 2(2), 140–156.

 

Chen, C. Y., Lee, L., & Yap, A. J. (2017). Control deprivation motivates acquisition of utilitarian products. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw068

 

Chen, R., Chen, H., & Zheng, Y. (2017). The impact of nostalgia on consumers’ choice between hedonic and utilitarian products [In Chinese]. Nankai Business Review, 20(6), 140–149.

 

Copeland, M. T. (1923). Relation of consumer’s buying habits to marketing methods. Harvard Business Review, 1, 282–289.

 

Daassi, M., & Debbabi, S. (2021). Intention to reuse AR-based apps: The combined role of the sense of immersion, product presence and perceived realism. Information and Management, 58(4), 103–453.

 

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718

 

Edson Escalas, J., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1086/497549

 

Emerson, R. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.

 

Hamilton, M., Kaltcheva, V. D., & Rohm, A. J. (2016). Social media and value creation: The role of interaction satisfaction and interaction immersion. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 36, 121–133.

 

Hardee, G. M., & McMahan, R. P. (2017). FIJI: A framework for the immersion-journalism intersection. Frontiers in ICT, 4, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2017.00021

 

Hobson, N. M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 260–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734944

 

Jiang, H., Messinger, P. R., Liu, Y., Lu, Z., Yang, S. Y., & Li, G. (2024). Divergent versus relevant ads: How creative ads affect purchase intention for new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 61(2), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437231187630

 

Lee, S. Y., Yoo, C. Y., Kim, D. H., & Sung, Y. H. (2021). Distance matters: The effects of self-brand connections and construal levels on ad responses. International Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 403–430.

 

Legare, C. H., & Souza, A. L. (2012). Evaluating ritual efficacy: Evidence from the supernatural. Cognition, 124(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.004

 

Li, K., Li, Y., & Li, T. (2018). Consumer ritual behavior: A literature review and prospects [In Chinese]. Foreign Economics & Management, 40(5), 43–55.

 

Liu, M. W., Zhu, Q., & Wang, X. (2022). Building consumer connection with new brands through rituals: The role of mindfulness. Marketing Letters, 33(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09583-7

 

Ma, Y., & Sui, Z. (2010). Research on immersive design strategies for educational games based on flow theory: Dynamic control of activity difficulty in educational games [In Chinese]. Research on Audio-Visual Education, 3, 54–57 + 62.

 

Moisescu, O.-I., Gică, O.-A., & Herle, F.-A. (2022). Boosting eWOM through social media brand page engagement: The mediating role of self-brand connection. Behavioral Sciences, 12(11), Article 411.

 

Mostafa, R. B., & Kasamani, T. (2020). Brand experience and brand loyalty: Is it a matter of emotions? Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33(4), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-11-2019-0669

 

Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1086/319618

 

Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.

 

Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.43.56889

 

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97–105.

 

Prexl, K.-M., & Kenning, P. (2011). An empirical analysis of the antecedents and consequences of brand-rituals. European Advances in Consumer Research, 9, 1–2.

 

Raj, Z. (2012). Brand rituals: How successful brands bond with customers for life. Spyglass Publishing Group Inc.

 

Ran, Y. (2017). Brand rituals: Formation mechanism and its effects on willingness to pay (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) [In Chinese]. Jinan University.

 

Ran, Y., & Wei, H. (2017). Transferring ritual meaning from brand meaning: A qualitative study on how brand rituals form [In Chinese]. Business and Management Journal, 39(12), 108–121.

 

Rook, D. W. (1985). The ritual dimension of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1086/208514

 

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

 

Shu, L., Wei, H., & Mao, L. (2021). Rituals make life better: A study on the mechanism of service rituals on brand well-being [In Chinese]. Nankai Business Review, 24(6), 94–107.

 

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1086/208924

 

Song, W., Zhao, T., Huang, E., & Liu, W. (2022). How positive and negative emotions promote ritualistic consumption through different mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 901572. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901572

 

Sun, N. (2022). Research on the influence mechanism of consumption rituals on brand attitude from the perspective of association and identity – The moderating effect of interpretation level [In Chinese]. Journal of Commercial Economics, 19, 62–66.

 

Tao, K. (2009). Virtual interaction and learning inquiry from the perspective of immersion theory: On the expansion of “learning memory” for adult learners [In Chinese]. Distance Education in China, 1, 20–25 + 78.

 

To, R. N., & Patrick, V. M. (2021). How the eyes connect to the heart: The influence of eye gaze direction on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(1), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa063

 

Tonietto, G. N., & Barasch, A. (2021). Generating content increases enjoyment by immersing consumers and accelerating perceived time. Journal of Marketing, 85(6), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920944388

 

Wang, C. (2013). The connotation, mechanism and effects of self–brand connections [In Chinese]. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(5), 922–933. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00922

 

Wang, X., Sun, Y., & Kramer, T. (2021). Ritualistic consumption decreases loneliness by increasing meaning. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(2), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243721993426

 

Wei, H., Wang, Y., Ran, Y., Zhang, Y., & Shu, L. (2018). Effects of service ritual on brand well-being: Based on the interaction ritual chain theory [In Chinese]. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(7), 1141–1151. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01141

 

Whitley, S. C., Trudel, R., & Kurt, D. (2018). The influence of purchase motivation on perceived preference uniqueness and assortment size choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 710–724.

 

Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2019). Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the relationship between gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.002

 

Xue, H. (2015). Brand ritual: A powerful tool for creating fan loyalty [In Chinese]. Tsinghua Business Review, 28(Z1), 56–62.

 

Yin, K., Lan, M., Li, H., & Zhao, Z. (2022). Ritual movements, symbolism, and positive emotions enhance the sense of control: A two-path mechanism [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(1), 54–65.

 

Zhang, J., & Kong, W. (2021). The impact of negative online word-of-mouth on consumers’ impulsive purchase intention: The mediating role of negative emotions [In Chinese]. Management Review, 33(6), 144–156.

 

Zhang, Y., Ding, X., & Du, J. (2019). The effect of product type on the evaluation of gift promotions [In Chinese]. Soft Science, 33(12), 133–138.

 

Zhu, W., & He, Y. (2017). Green product design in supply chains under competition. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(1), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.053