The Impact of Brand Personality on Brand-Aroused Feelings Dr Karen Miller School of Management and Marketing, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Email: Miller@usq. edu. au Brand managers are increasingly using brand personality to differentiate and uniquely position their brand without really knowing its effects. This study begins to addresses this gap by examining the effects of brand personality on brand-aroused feelings across the product categories of sport shoes, mobile phones and surf wear.
Using SEM to analyse the data from 324 usable surveys, the findings indicate that consumers perceive brand personality and brand-aroused feelings as two separate constructs and that brand personality has a substantial effect on brand-aroused feelings.
On the basis of the findings, this study recommends that brand managers consider positioning their brand as original, imaginative, considerate and kind if they want to arouse positive brand feelings.
Keywords: brand management; consumer behaviour; positioning strategy; integrated marketing communications INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest in brand personality from academics and practitioners (e.
g. , Aaker 1997; Caprara, Barbaranelli & Gianluigi 2001; Freling & Forbes 2005a; Romaniuk 2008; Sweeney & Brandon, 2006), and the intensity of this interest demonstrates the need to advance its development and investigate its effects.
Managers perceive brand personality as a way to develop a sustainable uniqueness in a marketplace proliferated by brands where it is becoming increasingly difficult to come up with branded products that are truly different in the eyes of consumers (Aaker 2003; Sweeney & Brandon 2006). A lack of perceivable differentiation may be contributing to the reason why an estimated 75% to 85% of new brands will fail (Boyle 2003; Kohli & Thakor 1997) or why brands are being commoditized and losing money (Barron 2003).
Increasingly, brand personality is used by brand managers as a strategic tool to provide a unique, consistent, and enduring message to consumers (Matthiesen & Phau 2005) and/or as a positioning tool to differentiate brands (Sweeney & Brandon 2006; Rekom, Jacobs & Verlegh 2006) , or as a symbolic device to sustain a competitive advantage (Aaker 1997); however, the consequences of brand personality haven’t been empirically determined or tested so while much money is going into the development of brand personality its effects aren’t generally known (Freling & Forbes 2005a). |Page Along with brand personality being important to brand managers to endure competition and reduce competitor erosion, increasingly so is developing an emotional brand (Aggarwal 2004; Algesheimer, Dholakia and Herrman 2005; Lynch 2004; Thompson, Rindfleisch & Arsel 2006). Called emotional because consumers may form an intimate bond with a brand, a bond that is passionate, similar to the emotional bond a consumer experiences with a close circle of friends and/or family (Aggarwal 2004) and this emotional bond is believed to be based on positive-aroused feelings.
Gradually more being realized, the importance of brand personality and developing positive brand-aroused feelings as research in these areas enable brand managers to better develop positioning strategies, integrated marketing communications and build sustainable competitive advantages in the marketplace. Each in their own right, brand personality and brand-aroused feelings has had limited investigation, and the effect of one on the other hasn’t been examined. Based on evidence from the psychology literature (e. g. Meyer & Shack 1989; Yik, Russell & Suzuki 2003; Watson & Clark 1992), it is likely that brand personality may have an effect on brand-aroused feelings. Brand-aroused feelings refer to a range of specific conscious affective assessments a consumer experiences when encountering a brand, such as feelings of happiness or sadness (Frijda 1991; Scherer 1996). An alternate view, the Interpersonal Circumplex model, incorporates and examines personality and feelings as if they cannot be separated (Sweeney & Brandon 2006).
An issue with this viewpoint is that in the branding context, consumers may assess a brand as having a personality, but it is unlikely that consumers may assess whether a brand is happy or sad. Whilst there is general agreement that brands may be perceived to have personalities (Aaker 1997; Romaniuk 2008; Sweeney & Brandon 2006) and consumers experience feelings in response to brands (Escalas, Moore & Britton 2004), there is no evidence to suggest that consumers assess brands to have feelings. Rather, it is likely that brand personality and rand-aroused feelings are related, yet conceptually different constructs. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of brand personality on brand-aroused feelings, (1) to determine if they are unique constructs and (2) to determine if brand personality impacts on brand-aroused feelings. 2|Page To examine the impact of brand personality on brand-aroused feelings this paper will first address the constructs of brand personality and brand-aroused feelings, followed by the research design, which covers the method, measures and sample design before presenting the results.
Following the results will be the discussion, conclusion and implications section, which places the findings in the context of the theory and discusses the implications of the findings for both theory and practice. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Brand Personality Brand personality is a construct that has had considerable attention in the branding literature since Aaker’s seminal paper on brand personality (1997), which claimed that brands may be perceived as having human personalities (e. . , Chang & Chieng 2006; Freling & Forbes 2005b; Rekom et al. 2006). This notion of brands having a personality is based on symbolism and animism theory (Aaker 1997; Fournier 1998; Freling & Forbes 2005b), which suggests that like people, brands may be perceived as having consistent behaviour over time and from this behaviour a personality may be imbued (Aaker 1997; Fournier 1998; Freling and Forbes 2005a; Wee 2004).
Brand personality is in the eye of the beholder, and consumers may perceive a brand as a “living entity” with a personality; and this may be based on how a brand is perceived to treat its customers, deliver its marketing communications, package its products, and is committed to being socially responsible (Aaker 1997; Batra, Lehmann & Singh 1993; Venable, Rose, Bush & Gilbert 2005). Brand personality may be inferred from the behaviour of the CEO, employees or customers of a brand, and advertising and other marketplace behaviour (Aaker 1997; Batra & Homer 2004; Biel, 1993; Diamantopoloulos, Smith & Grime 2005; Plummer 1984).
Up till now most of the literature has concentrated on exploring the construct of brand personality (e. g. Aaker 1997; Batra et al. 1993; Caprara et al. 2001; Sweeney & Brandon 2006; Romaniuk 2008), or associating brand personality with the symbolic benefits of a brand (e. g. Aaker 1997; Chang & Chieng 2006; Freling & Forbes 2005b; Plummer 1984; Rekom et al. 2006) or with brand social responsibility (Venable et al, 2005) or determining the difference between fit and personality 3|Page (Helgeson & Supphellen 2004; Lau & Phau 2007). Other studies have investigated the antecedents of brand personality (Diamantopoloulos et al. 005; Johar, Sengupta, & Aaker 2005) or the impact that advertising plays on the development of the symbolic aspects of the brand, including brand personality (Rajagopal 2006) or the impact of facial image and cosmetic usage on brand personality in the cosmetic market (Gutherie 2008). So far the only study that investigates, in part, the emotional impacts of some brand personality traits is Matzler, Bidmon and Graber-Krauter (2006), which found that the brand personality traits of extraversion and openness have an effect on happiness and pleasure that consumers feel toward the brand.
This study suggested that future research should concentrate on investigating the impact of all five broad brand personality traits (i. e. openness, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism/unstableness). As mentioned previously feelings aroused by a brand may be positive or negative so it would be of value to investigate the impact that brand personality has on both positive and negative feelings. Brand Aroused Feelings Along with brand personality, brand aroused feelings have been receiving growing attention in the domain of marketing (Batra & Homer 2004; Escalas et al. 004; Gobe 2001; Pham, Cohen, Pracejus, Hughes, Mick & Baumgartner 2001; O’Cass & Frost 2002). Crucially, to highlight the importance of brand-aroused feelings, Travis (2000) argues that products are different from brands, because, unlike products, a brand arouses feelings. Travis (2000) argues that how a brand makes a consumer feel is a crucial question, one that brand managers need to understand. Reviewing the literature on brandaroused feelings much of the research has come from the work of Escalas et al. 2004) and O’Cass and colleagues (e. g. O’Cass & Lim 2001; O’Cass & Frost 2002; O’Cass & Grace 2003), and there seems to be some agreement that the feelings aroused may be characterized as positive, warm or negative (Escalas et al. 2004; O’Cass & Lim 2001). Findings indicate that in response to a brand encounter, a consumer may experience specifically aroused feelings such as delight, happiness, or inspiration, which are generally associated with positive aroused feelings.
Alternatively, in response to a brand, warm feelings may be experienced, such as feeling moved, sentimental or warm-hearted. In other cases, a consumer may have negative feelings aroused, such as being offended, disgusted or 4|Page sad. For example, in response to an encounter with a brand (e. g. Coca-Cola), the mention of a brand name (e. g. Coca-Cola) or seeing its brand identifiers, such as its symbol, or listening to its jingle, Batra and Homer (2004) found that a consumer might experience positive affective assessments such as happiness and/or pleasure.
Like personality, the notion of aroused feelings has its origins in the psychology literature and a number of academics, for instance, Allik and Realo (1997), Eysenck (1967), Meyer and Shack (1989), Yik et al. (2003) and Watson and Clark (1992) have clearly delineated personality and feelings as distinct constructs, finding that one of the consequences of personality is its effect on aroused feelings. Overall, this body of work indicates that around 40% (or more) of the variance in feelings is accounted for by an individual’s personality.
In fact, Meyer and Shack (1989) and Watson and Clark, (1992) argue that the construct of personality should encompass all of the five factors (openness, contentiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism), which contribute to personality, to ensure that the effect of personality on feelings is accurately accounted for – as encompassing some of the five factors is likely to attenuate the results and impact on error.
The idea of personality having an effect on feelings has been carried over into the marketing literature, where researchers such as Mooradian (1996) have investigated the effects of an individual’s personality on the feelings aroused by advertisements. Mooradian (1996) found that personality explained 37% of the variance in positive feelings, 36% of the variance in warm feelings and 44% of the variance in uneasy/negative feelings. Interestingly, Mooradian’s (1996) results are similar to those reported in the psychology literature on the relationship between personality and feelings.
In the context of brands, Smothers (1993), Biel (1993), Aaker (1997) and Wee (2004) suggest that brand personality should arouse feelings. However, there has been no known empirical support for this relationship. The only evidence about the effect of brand personality on brand-aroused feelings has come from marketplace observations. For instance, Smothers (1993) found from his observations that the personality of the brand, Nike, seemed to evoke strong positive and negative feelings.
He 5|Page argued Nike’s brand personality aroused intense positive feelings of love and devotion; and there were feelings of pride when consumers were able to save their money to buy a pair of Nike Air Jordans. He suggested that the personality trait of achievement was associated with Nike through the connection with Michael Jordan. Smothers (1993) argued that the personality of the brand, Nike, aroused strong negative feelings when consumers were not able to afford Nike products.
Consumers are likely to find some brand personalities more appealing than others; if consumers find the personality of a brand appealing, then it is likely that they will experience positively aroused feelings as a response. Alternatively, if they find a brand personality unappealing, they may experience negatively aroused feelings in response. As brand-aroused feelings will vary in intensity, as well as in direction, it is also possible that in response to a brand’s personality a consumer will experience warm aroused brand feelings.
Given the findings in the psychology and marketing literature, and suppositions in the branding literature, the argument proposed here is that, in response to a brand’s personality, a consumer will experience brand-aroused feelings. Therefore it is hypothesized that: H1: H2: H2a: that brand personality and brand-aroused feelings are unique constructs brand personality will have a significant effect on brand-aroused feelings positive brand personality traits such as openness, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness will have a ignificant positive effect on positive brand aroused feelings H2b: negative brand personality trait of unstableness will have a negative effect on negative brand aroused feelings H3: the impact of brand personality on brand aroused feelings will be similar across various product categories RESEARCH DESIGN To investigate the impact of brand personality on brand-aroused feelings, the method chosen was a survey because the data can be collected quickly, inexpensively, and there is a reasonable degree of sample control (Maholtra & Peterson 2005).
To systematically develop the survey measures the Netemeyer, Bearden and Sharma (2003) four-step scaling procedures process was used. The first step 6|Page is construct definition and brand personality was defined as a consumer’s unique characterization of a brand in terms of the extent to which he or she assesses that it displays inner-psychological human traits, this definition along with the definitions of each of the five factors that form brand personality are displayed in Table 1. Table 1: Five Broad Factors that Form Brand Personality
Brand personality Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Unstableness Definition a consumer’s unique characterization of a brand in terms of the extent to which he or she assesses that it displays inner-psychological human traits The degree to which a brand is assessed as displaying novel solutions, expressing original ideas, and using imagination in the marketplace. The degree to which a brand is assessed as displaying organization, orderliness, and efficiency in carrying out its business in the marketplace.
The degree to which a brand is assessed as displaying outgoingness, gregariousness and sociableness in the marketplace. The degree to which a brand is assessed as displaying consideration, kindness and empathy in the marketplace. The degree to which a brand is assessed as displaying inconsistency, unreliability or undependability in the marketplace. The second step searches the literature for appropriate scales and according to Netemeyer et al. (2003) it is important that the items reflect/form the construct definition.
While there has been some use of the scale developed by Aaker (1997) these measures were discounted because they measure of a broader array of human characteristics associated with a brand, and are not solely a measure of brand personality. Saucier’s (1994) scale from the psychology literature was used as it measures personality and was a trimmed version of Goldberg’s (1993) scale considered to be one of the most robust measures of personality (given the consistency of findings across a broad array of contexts; Hofstee, Kiers, De Raad, Goldberg & Ostendorf 1997; Hofstee, de Raad et al 1992; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993; Saucier 1992).
Given the independence of these five factors in forming personality (see Barrick, Parks & Mount 2005; Digman 1990; Goldberg 2006; Saucier 2002), when assessing brand personality, the weighted score from one of the five factors should not affect the weighted score of another factor. This means that a low weighted contribution from openness does not necessarily indicate a highly weighted contribution from conscientiousness and vice-versa. All of this implies that a brand’s personality will have varying degrees of contribution from each of the five factors. The 7|Page niqueness of these weighted contributions is what forms a consumer’s unique characterization of a brand in terms of the degree to which it is seen as displaying inner psychological human traits. Regarding brand-aroused feelings, they were defined as a conscious affective assessment a consumer experiences when encountering a brand. After an extensive search and analysis of the feeling scales in the literature, the scale that appeared to be the most suitable was that developed by Edell and Burke (1987), which includes the factors of positive aroused feelings, negative aroused feelings and warm aroused feelings.
The measurable items (i. e. adjectives such as happy, pleasure, warm-hearted, disgusted or sad) reflect the first-order factors (positive, warm and negative). To operationalise the construct of brand-aroused feelings according to Escalas et al. (2004), the adjectives should be scaled to reflect the varying degrees of intensity experienced, from weakly aroused to strongly aroused feelings. Thus, a high score on positively aroused feelings would indicate that it was strongly felt, compared with a low score, which would indicate the positive feeling was felt by the consumer to a lesser degree or not at all.
The third step in measurement and scale development is refining and trimming the measures, this was done via a panel of expert judges, focus groups and a pilot test of the survey retaining a total of 40 items. For brand personality 27 items were retained and included five measures for conscientiousness and extraversion, example items include orderly and outgoing, four items were retained for unstableness and an example item would be erratic.
For openness six items were retained and an example item is innovative and for agreeableness seven items were retained and an example item is considerate. For brand-aroused feelings 13 items were retained, which included five measures for positive aroused feelings an example item is happy, four items were retained for negative and warm feelings and example items include: sad, and warm-hearted. The final step is finalizing the measures and determining the scale.
In this study a seven-point lexical scale (Oliver, Angleitner & Ostendorf, 1988) was selected because the reported reliabilities of the existing scales were good; and according to Viswanathan et al. (2004) seven-point scales sufficiently 8|Page capture similarities and differences that are meaningful to participants. Lexical scales use alphabetically arranged adjectives and are advantageous, because the degrees to which the scale items load on their factors have been substantiated in prior research, even though in the survey they are placed in alphabetical order (Oliver et al. 988; Saucier & Goldberg 1996). Generation Y (18-25 year old) consumers were selected as the sample to survey because there is limited understanding regarding this cohort (Vahie & Paswan 2006), they are different to other generations because they have been exposed to brands from birth onwards as they were born between 1980 and 1994 (Martin & Turley 2004), they are the second largest cohort and account for 28% of the population (McCrindle 2007) and have significant economic and social influence in the marketplace (Wolburg and Pokrwwcznski 2001).
Focus groups conducted with Generation Y consumers found that mobile phones (Nokia), sport shoes (Nike) and surf wear (Billabong) were important products and brands and that everyone had some degree of experience with them. Thus, for the purposes of generalisability (Raykov & Marcoulides 2006; Volckner & Sattler 2007) these three product categories were chosen to examine the impact of brand personality on brand-aroused feelings.
Following the sampling procedures of Wolburg and Pokrywczynsk (2001), which studied generation Y university students, one class from five Australian universities across three states (NSW, QLD and ACT) were asked to participate. The size of the sample was dependent on the number of students present on the day, and on a pre-arranged day and time the surveys were administered voluntarily to self-identified generation Y consumers in the first ten minutes of class, consumers were given one of three surveys, and the surveys were identical except for the name of the brand.
RESULTS Returned were 324 usable surveys, 107 for Nokia, 106 for Nike and 111 for Billabong. As the survey instrument used lexical scales (placing the brand personality and brand aroused feeling items in alphabetical order), to assess if brand personality and brand-aroused feelings were separate constructs a Harman’s one factor test was used. Often associated with common method variance, because a single source of data collection (ie a survey) may contaminate the effects of the exogenous construct 9|Page n the endogenous, the Harman’s one factor test assesses whether one or more factors are produced (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The results of the Harman’s one factor test showed no evidence of common method variance, and provided evidence of eight factors, five for brand personality and three for brand-aroused feelings with the initial items loading on their respective factors and together explaining 65% of the variance. To examine the impact of brand personality on brand-aroused feelings the tructural equation modeling technique of PLS (Partial Least Squares) was used as it considers all the path coefficients simultaneously, and enables the researcher to avoid biased and inconsistent parameter estimates for equations (Chin 1998; Fornell & Bookstein 1982; White, Varadarajan & Dacin 2003). To assess the measurement model, according to Johnson, Herrmann and Huber (2006), the factor loadings should exceed . 707, the construct reliability should exceed . 70 and the average variance extracted should exceed . 50.
The measurement results were found to surpass the minimum requirement as Table 2 shows that the factor loadings ranged between . 72 and . 87, the composite reliabilities (CR) ranged between . 83 and . 93, and the average variance extracted (AVE), which measures the shared variance captured by the construct (Dillon & Goldstein, 1984) ranged between . 61 and . 74 indicating that the variance captured was reliably measuring the construct purported. Assessing convergent and discriminant validity, Fornell and Larker (1981) argue that the AVE is a useful estimate in assessing convergent validity, as the AVE was found to be above . 0, convergent validity was supported. Also supported was discriminant validity because the squared multiple correlation between the two constructs was less than either of their individual AVE; indicating that the constructs have more internal (extracted) variance than variance shared between constructs (Fornell & Larker, 1981), a result that further supports H1, the independence of brand personality and brand-aroused feeling constructs. 10 | P a g e Table 2: Results for the Measurement Items and their Respective Factors Construct and Factor measurement items loading Openness CR=. 1; AVE =. 63 Creative . 81 Imaginative . 83 Innovative . 83 Original . 75 Unique . 79 Visionary . 77 Extraversion CR=. 89; AVE=. 61 Energetic . 77 Expressive . 77 Extraverted . 79 Outgoing . 85 Sociable . 72 t-values 37. 42 39. 55 37. 12 22. 36 29. 53 26. 18 Construct and Factor measurement items loading t-values Agreeableness CR=. 93; AVE=. 66 Caring . 86 48. 35 Compassionate . 84 43. 23 Considerate . 87 53. 59 Empathetic . 74 20. 16 Kind . 81 28. 75 Supportive . 76 27. 05 Sympathetic . 79 27. 00 Unstableness CR=. 83; AVE=. 62 Erratic . 82 Irrational . 8 Unpredictable . 73 Prepared . 81 23. 82 26. 98 30. 21 51. 67 19. 48 32. 89 30. 54 20. 45 34. 02 Conscientiousness CR=. 90; AVE=. 63 Capable . 73 22. 93 Orderly . 75 21. 61 Organized . 82 37. 62 Prepared . 81 34. 02 Proficient . 80 35. 15 Warm Feelings CR=. 90; AVE=. 70 Hopeful . 82 Moved . 80 Sentimental . 80 Warm hearted . 85 CR= Construct Reliability Positive Feelings CR=. 93; AVE=. 74 Delighted . 84 41. 95 Happy . 88 48. 15 Inspired . 83 39. 84 Joyous . 89 51. 06 Proud . 85 44. 55 Negative Feelings CR=. 87; AVE=. 63 Depressed . 76 11. 54 lonely . 7 41. 14 Offended . 70 08. 43 Sad . 82 18. 28 AVE = Average Variance Extracted 33. 60 30. 84 25. 93 38. 78 The structural model results provide evidence supporting H2, the impact that brand personality has on brand-aroused feelings (? =. 61; r2=. 37; t-value=14. 62), indicating that the personality of the brand may explain 37% of the feelings aroused by the brand. When considering the impact of the individual personality factors on positive, warm and negative brand-aroused feelings (H2a and H2b), it was found that openness (t=3. 13), extraversion (t=2. 1) and agreeableness (t=5. 14) significantly impacted on positively aroused feelings. Regarding warm feelings only agreeableness (t=6. 69) was found to significantly impact, where as extraversion (t=2. 45) and unstableness (t=5. 17) significantly impacted on negatively aroused brand feelings. The results find that the personality trait of extraversion, which is the degree to which a brand is, assessed as displaying outgoingness, gregariousness and sociableness in the marketplace, has both a negative and a positive impact on brand-aroused feelings. 1 | P a g e Alternatively, conscientiousness, which refers to the degree to which a brand is assessed as displaying organisation, orderliness and efficiency in the marketplace, has no impact on brand-aroused feelings. The third hypothesis refers to the similarity of the results across the product categories of mobile phones, sport shoes and surf wear. The results were found to be similar for Nike (? =. 66; r2=. 43; tvalue=9. 67) and Nokia (? =. 63; r2=. 40; t-value=9. 83), However, the results for Billabong (? =. 49; r2=. 24; t-value=7. 8) appear to be weaker, indicating that brand personality only explains 24% of the feelings aroused by the brand, where as for Nike and Nokia, brand personality explained 43% (Nike) and 40% (Nokia). DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS Putting an end to the supposition regarding the effects of brand personality on brand-aroused feelings, this paper provides evidence that brand personality and brand-aroused feelings are perceived by consumers as separate constructs and that brand personality has a substantial effect on brand-aroused feelings (37%).
The results in this study are similar to those conducted on individuals in the domains of psychology and marketing, where personality and feelings aroused were found to be two separate constructs and the impact of personality accounted for between 36% and 44% of the variance in aroused feelings (see Allik & Realo 1997; Meyer & Shack 1989; Mooradian 1996; Watson & Clark 1992; Yik et al. , 2003).
Given that that the five factors that contribute to brand personality are mostly positive, this suggests that the more positive the personality perceived by consumers, the more likely positive feelings will be aroused. This implies that when consumers encounter a brand and make assessments of a brand’s personality that it is more likely that a consumer will experience positive or warm feelings in response. This is an important finding because, positively aroused feelings are likely to enable consumers to process information faster and also likely to be predictive of consumer behaviour (Pham et al. 001). A consumer experiencing a negative feeling may not notice that a brand is a better performer, whereas a consumer with positive feelings toward a brand is more likely to have their positive (or warm) 12 | P a g e feelings reinforced by information that a product performs better (Pham et al. 2001; Gobe 2001). Also, previous findings suggest that if a consumer experiences a positive feeling toward an object, be it an advertisement or a brand, then the positive feelings toward that object will have a spill-over or halo effect, and generate subsequent positive assessments (Schwarz & Clore 1996).
Given that brand personality is receiving substantial attention in practice and in academia (Sweeney & Brandon 2006) the results have implications to both of these domains. Firstly, for academia the results presented here provide more clarity to the branding literature as they help us to understand the role that brand personality plays in the nomological network of consumer-based brand assessments, as an influence on the subsequent assessment of feelings.
Further, the results add clarity to the literature on brand personality; because the results clearly differentiate brand personality from the construct of brand-aroused feelings. By separating the two constructs, brand personality and brand-aroused feelings it is expected that future research can examine the impact of brand personality and brand aroused feelings on other brands and on other constructs such as brand value, brand loyalty or purchase intentions to gain a fuller picture of the role that brand personality plays in consumer-basedbrand-equity models.
Along with the theoretical implications, this research has practical implications for brand managers in brand development and brand positioning as brand managers grapple with trying to uniquely differentiate their brand from a plethora of brands in the market place. This research provides evidence of the effects of brand personality and may imbue confidence in brand managers as they develop brand personality communications likely to have feelings aroused.
While much money is going into the development of brand personality when previously its effects weren’t known (Freling & Forbes 2005a), this research provides evidence that if brand managers focus their attention on the personality traits of openness and agreeableness that they are more likely to arouse positive feelings in response. The results also demonstrate and recommend cautiousness in developing a positioning strategy using extraversion personality traits (e. g. energetic, expressive, or outgoing) as extraversion impacts on both positively aroused and negatively aroused brand feelings.
Of value to brand managers 13 | P a g e interested in developing a sustainable competitive advantage, are the results of this research which recommend positioning a brand as displaying novel solutions, original ideas, imagination, consideration, and kindness as these personality traits are likely to be received positively and likely to contribute to long-term success. 14 | P a g e REFERENCE LIST Aaker, D. (2003), The power of the branded differentiator, MIT Sloan Management Review 45(1): 83 Aaker, J. L. (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, American Marketing Association 34: 347.
Aggarwal, P. (2004), The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 31: 87-101. Algesheimer, R. , U. M. Dholakia, et al. (2005), The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs, Journal of Marketing 69(3): 19-34. Allik, J. and A. Realo (1997), Emotional Experience and its Relation to the Five-Factor Model in Estonian, Journal of Personality 65(3): 625-647. Barron, J. (2003) How strong brands get “on intent” – and stay there. Journal of Business Strategy, 24, 36-41. Barrick, M. R. , L. Parks, et al. 2005), Self-monitoring as a Moderator of the Relationships between Personality Traits and Performance, Personnel Psychology 58(3): 745-767. Batra, R. and P. M. Homer (2004), The Situational Impact of Brand Image Beliefs. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 14: 318-330. Batra, R. , D. R. Lehmann, et al. (1993), The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences. Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s role in Building Strong Brands. D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 83-96. Biel, A. L. (1993), Converting Image into Equity.
Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands. D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 67-82. Boyle, E. (2003) A study of entrepreneurial brand building in the manufacturing sector in the UK. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12, 79-93. Caprara, G. V. , C. Barbaranelli, et al. (2001), Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology 22(3): 377-395. Chang, P. -L. and M. -H. Chieng (2006, Building consumer brand relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view, Psychology & Marketing 23(11): 927-959. Chin, W.
W. (1998), The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research. G. A. Marcoulides. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 295-336. Diamantopoulos, A. , G. Smith, et al. (2005), The impact of brand extensions on brand personality: experimental evidence, European Journal of Marketing 39(1/2): 129. Digman, J. M. (1990), Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model, Annual Review of Psychology 41(1): 417. Dillon, W. R. and M. Goldstein (1984), Multivariate Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York, Wiley. 15 | P a g e Edell, J. A. and M.
C. Burke (1987), The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. 14: 421. Escalas, J. E. , M. C. Moore, et al. (2004), Fishing For Feelings? Hooking Viewers Helps! Journal of Consumer Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 14: 105-114. Eysenck, H. J. (1967), The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, Il, Charles C. Thomas. Fornell, C. and F. L. Bookstein (1982), Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory, Journal of Marketing Research 19(4): 440-452. Fornell, C. and D. F.
Larcker (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39. Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their Brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research 24(March): 343-373. Freling, T. H. and L. P. Forbes (2005), An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. ” Journal of Product & Brand Management 14(7): 404-413. Freling, T. H. and L. P. Forbes (2005), An examination of brand personality through methodological triangulation, Journal of Brand Management 13(2): 148-162. Frijda, N. 1991), Emotions. Amsterdam, Ne, University of Amsterdam. Gobe, M. (2001), Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm for Connecting Brands to People, Journal of Product and Brand Management 10(7): 466-469. Goldberg, L. R. (1993), the Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits. American Psychologist January, 48, 26-34. Goldberg, L. R. (2006), Doing it all Bass-Ackwards: The development of hierarchical factor structures from the top down, Journal of Research in Personality 40(4): 347-358. Gutherie, M. , Kim, H. -S. & Jung, J. (2008), the Effects of facial image and cosmetic usage on perceptions of brand personality.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 12, 164-181. Helgeson, J. G. and M. Supphellen (2004), A conceptual and measurement comparison of selfcongruity and brand personality: The impact of socially desirable responding, International Journal of Market Research 46: 205. Hofstee, W. K. B. , H. A. L. Kiers, et al. (1997), A Comparison of Big-Five structures of personality traits in Dutch, English, and German, European Journal of Personality 11(1): 15-31. Johar, G. V. , J. Sengupta, et al. (2005), Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions: Trait versus Evaluative Inferencing, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 42(4): 458-469.
Johnson, M. D. , A. Herrmann, et al. (2006), The Evolution of Loyalty Intentions, Journal of Marketing 70(April): 122-132. Kohli, C. and M. Thakor (1997), Branding consumer goods: insights from theory and practice, Journal of Consumer Marketing 14(2/3): 206-219. 16 | P a g e Lau, K. C. & Phau, I. (2007), Extending Symbolic Brands Using their Personality: examining antecedents and implications towards brand image fit and brand dilution. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 421-444. Lynch, J. (2004), The power of emotion: Brand communication in business-to-business markets.
Journal of Brand Management, Henry Stewart Publications. 11: 403-419. Malhotra, N. K. and M. Peterson (2005), Basic Marketing Research: A Decision-Making Approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall. Martin, C. A. and L. W. Turley (2004), Malls and consumption motivation: an exploratory examination of older Generation Y consumers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Emerald. 32: 464-475. Matthiesen, I. and I. Phau (2005). “The ‘HUGO BOSS’ connection: Achieving global brand consistency across countries. Journal of Brand Management 12(5): 325-338. Matzler, K. , Bidmon, S. & Grabner-Krauter, S. (2006), Individual determinants of brand effect: the role of personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15, 427-434. McCrindle, M. (2007) ,Understanding Generation Y. North Parramatta, Australia, The Australian Leadership Foundation. Meyer, G. J. and J. R. Shack (1989), Structural Convergence of Mood and Personality: Evidence for Old and New Directions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 691-706. Mooradian, T. A. 1996), Personality and Ad-Evoked Feelings: The Case for Extraversion and Neuroticism, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 24: 99. Netemeyer, R. G. , W. O. Bearden, et al. (2003), Scaling Procedures Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, Ca, Sage Publications. O’Cass, A. and H. Frost (2002), Status brands: Examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption, The Journal of Product and Brand Management 11(2/3): 67. O’Cass, A. and D. Grace (2003), An exploratory perspective of service brand associations, Journal of Services Marketing 17(5): 452-475. O’Cass, A. and K.
Lim (2001), The Influence of Brand Associations on Brand Preference and Purchase Intention: An Asian Perspective on Brand Associations. ” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 14(2/3): 41-70. Oliver, J. P. , A. Angleitner, et al. (1988), The lexical approach to personality: a historical review of trait taxonomic research, European Journal of Personality 2(3): 171-203. Pham, M. T. , J. B. Cohen, et al. (2001), Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment, Journal of Consumer Research 28(2): 167-188. Plummer, J. T. (1984), How personality makes a difference, Journal of Advertising Research 24(6): 27. Podsakoff, P.
M. and D. W. Organ (1986), Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects, Journal of Management 12(4): 531. 17 | P a g e Rajagopal (2006), Brand Excellence: measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on buying decisions, Measuring Business Excellence 10(3): 56-65. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006) Estimation of Generalizability Coefficients via a Structural Equation Modelling Approach to Scale Reliability Evaluation. International Journal of Testing, 6, 8195. Rekom, J. , G. Jacobs, et al. (2006), Measuring and managing the essence of a brand personality, Marketing Letters 17(3): 181-192.
Romaniuk, J. (2008), Comparing methods of measuring brand personality traits Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16, 153-161. Saucier, G. (1992), Benchmarks: Integrating Affective and Interpersonal Circles with the Big-Five Personality Factors. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. American Psychological Association. Saucier, G. (1994), Mini-Markers: A Brief Version of Goldberg’s Unipolar Big-Five Markers, Journal of Personality Assessment, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 63: 506. Saucier, G. (2002), Orthogonal Markers for Orthogonal Factors: The Case of the Big Five, Journal of Research in Personality. 6: 1. Saucier, G. and L. R. Goldberg (1996), Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English personality adjectives, European Journal of Personality, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1996. 10: 61-77. Scherer, K. R. (1996), Emotion. Introduction to Social Psychology: A European Perspective. M. Hewstone, W. Stroebe and G. M. Stephenson. Oxford, Blackwell. Schwartz, N. and G. L. Clore (1996), Feelings and Phenomenal Experiences. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski. New York, Guildford: 433-465. Smothers, N. (1993), Can Products and Brands have Charisma?
Brand Equity and Advertising. D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sweeney, J. C. and C. Brandon (2006), Brand personality: Exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models, Psychology & Marketing 23(8): 639-663. Thompson, C. J. , A. Rindfleisch, et al. (2006), Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of the Doppelganger Brand Image, Journal of Marketing 70(1): 50-64. Travis, D. (2000), Emotional Branding: How Successful Brands Gain the Irrational Edge. Roseville, California, Prima Venture. Vahie, A. and A.
Paswan (2006), Private label brand image: its relationship with store image and national brand, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 34(1): 67-84. Venable, B. T. , G. M. Rose, et al. (2005), The Role of Brand Personality in Charitable Giving: An Assessment and Validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33(3): 295-312. Viswanathan, M. , S. Sudman, et al. (2004), Maximum versus meaningful discrimination in scale response: Implications for validity of measurement of consumer perceptions about products, Journal of Business Research 57(2): 108-124. 8 | P a g e Volckner, F. & Sattler, H. (2007) Empirical generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 149-162. Watson, D. and L. A. Clark (1992), On Traits and Temperament: General and Specific Factors of Emotional Experience and Their Relation to the Five-Factor Model, Journal of Personality 60(2): 441476. Wee, T. T. T. (2004), Extending human personality to brands: The stability factor. Journal of Brand Management 11(4): 317-330. White, J. C. , P. R. Varadarajan, et al. 2003), Market Situation Interpretation and Response: The Role of Cognitive Style, Organizational Culture, and Information Use, Journal of Marketing 67(3): 63-79. Wolburg, J. M. and J. Pokrywczynski (2001), A Psychographic Analysis of Generation Y College Students, Journal of Advertising Research, Cambridge University Press / UK. 41: 33. Yik, M. S. M. , J. A. Russell, et al. (2003), Relating momentary affect to the five factor model of personality: A Japanese case, Japanese Psychological Research 45(2): 80-93. 19 | P a g e