Affect‐based nonconscious signaling: When do consumers prefer negative branding?

When do consumers prefer negative branding, and why? One pilot study and four experiments, including an Implicit Association Test measuring nonconscious associations between negative words and dominance, converge on the conclusion that male consumers induced into same‐sex competition send energy‐efficient dominance signals to elicit fear and avoidance from competitors and maintain access over territory or resources. As a result of this competitive state, male consumers show a preference for negatively valenced words that can signal threat to rivals and elicit behavioral avoidance (“negative branding”). The preference for negative branding disappears under four conditions: (a) When dominance signaling is not needed because rivals are not physically dominant (smaller and weaker), (b) When visual associations show that the negative brand is no longer a dominance signal, (c) When male consumers are induced to think about masculinity but not dominance, or (d) When the male consumer has a low individual difference desire for intrasexual competition. Together, our findings contribute to the marketing literature by introducing a novel type of signaling (“dominance signaling”) that is distinct from prestige signaling and the conspicuous consumption of luxury goods. Dominance signaling and its influence on consumer product branding (“dominance goods”), as well as implications for evaluative conditioning, are discussed.