Japanese Psychological Research 2001, Volume 43, No.

4, 195206 Special Issue: Consumer behavior

Invited Paper

The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identication
CHUNG K. KIM1 School of Business Administration, Sungkyunkwan University, 3-53 Myungnyun-dong, Chongno-ku, Seoul, Korea DONGCHUL HAN School of Business Administration, Seoul Womens University, 126 Kongnung 2 dong, Nowon-ku, Seoul, Korea SEUNG-BAE PARK School of Business Administration, Sungkyunkwan University, 3-53 Myungnyun-dong, Chongno-ku, Seoul, Korea

Abstract: This study investigated the effect of brand personality on brand asset management by using the concept of consumers identication with a brand. The focus was on one important type of high-technology product, the cellular phone. The authors develop a conceptual framework to explain the effect of brand identication on brand loyalty. The important variables of this framework include the attractiveness of the brand personality, the distinctiveness of the brand personality, the self-expressive value of the brand personality, positive wordof-mouth reports of the brand, and brand loyalty. The empirical results indicated that there are positive relationships between attractiveness, distinctiveness, and self-expressive value of brand personality. These relationships had a statistically signicant effect on consumers identication with a brand. Furthermore, brand identication had a direct effect on word-ofmouth reports and an indirect effect on brand loyalty. The theoretical and managerial implications of the empirical results are presented, and suggestions are made regarding both the limitations of the present study and future directions for research. Key words: brand personality, word-of-mouth reports, brand loyalty, social identication, self-expression.

Research background and objectives

Many companies are trying to get target customers attention by creating a distinctive brand image for their products. In the United States, promotion of General Motors Chevrolet truck emphasized the image of Like a rock, and that of Canons EOS Rebel

X camera emphasized the image of independence, dynamism, and brilliance through the tennis player Andre Agassi. These kinds of human characteristics associated with a brand are called brand personality. The importance of brand personality to consumers brand loyalty and repurchasing behavior has not been widely acknowledged.

1 We would like to thank Dr. Heesung Sung, at Seoul Womens University, and Hong-Seong Kim, at the Global Marketing Research Center of Samsung Electronics, for their general support. We also would like to thank Professor Kojima, Professor Hayashi, and two anonymous reviewers. This study was funded by the Korea Research Foundation.

2001 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

196

C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Only a few researchers, such as Plummer (1985) and David Aaker (1996), have pointed out the importance of brand personality in building competitive advantage and brand loyalty. Recently, Jennifer Aaker (1997) presented the empirical results of her research on the measurement of brand personality. In short, the issues of why and how brand personalities affect consumers brand loyalty have not been addressed. The study reported here borrowed the methodology developed by Aaker (1997) to measure some dimensions of brand personality. This paper presents a theoretical framework for understanding any effects of brand personality on brand asset management. The paper also species consumers behaviors in respect of word-of-mouth reports about a brand, and brand loyalty. The specic research objectives of this study were as follows. First, it examined the existence of brand personality in the cellular phone market in Korea. Furthermore, the research showed that the self-expressive value and distinctiveness of the brand inuence the attractiveness of a brand personality. When there is a t between brand personality and a consumers self-expression, the consumer may consider a brand as a person, or even a companion. In the real world, we nd this kind of relationship between brand and human (Fournier, 1998). Sometimes, the human characteristics attached to a certain brand are used to express ones own image or personality. Second, this study investigated any possible linkage between brand and consumer through the social identication theory developed in social psychology. The concept of social identication relates to a persons sense of belonging to a certain group or organization (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Therefore, a consumers identication with a certain brand or a certain company makes that consumer differentiate the brand from others. Social identication theory is widely used in social psychology (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Third, this study examined the effect of brand identication on brand loyalty and positive word-of-mouth reports about the
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

brand. Social identication theory has mainly been applied to organizational identication, in which variables such as organizational prestige, expectation level, length of membership, and contact frequency have been studied (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Some of these concepts are applied to our study in order to examine the role of brand identication. Many people are likely to express themselves and/or enhance themselves by selecting particular brands. The degree to which the brand expresses and enhances their identity is determined by their level of brand identication. The major research subjects of our paper are as follows: 1. With what kinds of brand personalities do consumers in Korea associate their cellular phones? How does brand personality affect brand loyalty? The latter is broken down into three parts: Which aspects of brand personalities are connected to a brands attractiveness, selfexpressive value, and distinctiveness? 2. Does the attractiveness of brand personality positively affect the level of brand identication? 3. Does brand identication have a positive effect on the level of brand loyalty and word-of-mouth reports? This study will be of interest both to businesses and academically. In the business world, it is expected that the results of studies like the present one will be used to develop strategies for corporate advertising and store design. Furthermore, it will help our understanding of how brand personality may be used to enhance customers self-expression and product differentiation. Academically, studies about brand personality have progressed to identifying dimensions of brand personality. Beyond such identication, this study, within the framework of social identication, examines how brand personality affects brand loyalty. 1.

2.

The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty

197

In the next section, the literature on two important areas, brand personality and social identication, is selectively reviewed, and some hypotheses are introduced. The theoretical background to this paper is also explained. Then an interdisciplinary study of marketing and social psychology is described. The theoretical and managerial implications of the ndings and future research directions are also presented.

Literature review and hypotheses

Studies of brand personality How human personality affects various aspects of consumer behavior has been widely studied, but studies of brand personality began only recently, although in the eld of marketing several studies have already been completed and published. For example, Plummer (1985) studied how brand personality affects consumers choice of a soft drink with a distinctive brand image in the United States. Aaker (1996) summarized the role of brand personality in building up brand power, and pointed out the importance of and the need for empirical research. Aaker (1997), after realizing the need for further empirical research, developed a new measurement scale for measuring brand personality along ve dimensions, extracted from her research. These ve dimensions were sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. But these studies have not shown how brand personality affects important marketing variables such as brand loyalty. We need to study how brand personality affects brand loyalty, using a theoretical framework such as social identication. Studies of social identication In social psychology, social identication means that a person identies him/herself as a member of a society. An expression of identication with an organization is treated as a special type of social identication (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Lau, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). People tend to use various factors to classify themselves as belonging to a specic group.

This phenomenon, which is widely rooted in our social life, is often called social identication. In short, social identication implies the sense of belonging to certain groups or organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg, Hardie, & Reyrolds, 1995). Here, a group includes a reference group; it includes not only a group to which people belong but also a group to which they aspire to belong. Fournier (1998) has studied how consumers identify themselves with brands by using idiographic analysis. Studies of organizational identication may be divided in two. First, there is a group of studies on the antecedents of identication. Such studies have examined: the degree of competition with other organizations (Mael & Ashforth, 1992); organizational prestige (Bhattacharya et al., 1995); and tenure (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970). Second, there is a group of studies on the effect of group identication. For example, Mael and Ashforth (1992) found a positive relationship between identication and alumnis contribution to their Alma Mater. Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994) argued that there is a positive relationship between identication and group cooperation. Shamir (1990) proposed that identication has a positive effect on the willingness to contribute to collective work. However, all these studies investigated organizational identication, not brand identication. In the papers cited above, studies of the relationship between consumer and brand (i.e., consumers identication with a brand) were suggested as a likely next research topic. Recently, Aaker (1999) offered a concept of brand identication based on her study of brand role in self-expression.

Research hypotheses This study was designed to test the interrelationships between six constructs. The constructs have been categorized into two groups. The rst group (antecedent variables) comprises the self-expressive value and distinctiveness of brand personality. The second group (outcome variables) comprises attractiveness of brand personality, brand identication, positive word-of-mouth reports, and
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

198

C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Selfexpressive value Attractiveness of brand personality

Word-of-mouth reports

Distinctiveness of brand personality Brand identification Brand loyalty

Figure 1.

The research model.

brand loyalty. The main focus in this study was on brand identication. First, self-concept, self-consistency, and selfcontinuity are interrelated. The brand will be perceived as attractive when it helps a person to express him/herself, and when the person identies with the brand (Belk, 1988). Aaker (1999) argued that a brand is used for selfexpression and to reect self-concept. When expressed properly, brand personality positively affects a consumers attitude to the brand. Based on the literature review, it is expected that the greater are the self-expressive value and the distinctiveness of the brand personality, the more the brand personality will appeal. Therefore, we have the following hypotheses: 1. The greater the self-expressive value and the distinctiveness of brand personality are, the greater will be the attractiveness of the brand personality. The greater the attractiveness of the brand personality is, the more consumers will identify with that brand.

organization, the more they agree with its norms and cooperate with it. As indicated above, previous studies have empirically shown that group identication has a positive effect on alumnis contributions, group cooperation, and willingness to contribute to a collective work (Dutton et al., 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Shamir, 1990). This means that a consumers identication with a social object (whether it is a group, an organization, or a brand) leads the person to behave positively toward the group. Therefore, we conclude that brand identication will positively affect brand loyalty and word-of-mouth reports.2 Therefore, we have the following additional hypothesis. 3. The more consumers identify with a brand, the more will be the consumers word-ofmouth reports and brand loyalty.

2.

The three hypotheses are linked in the research model shown in Figure 1.

Second, we expect that the more consumers identify with the brand, the more will be their word-of-mouth reports and brand loyalty. Some research results regarding the outcome variables of identication show that the more an organizations members identify with the
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

2 Bhattacharya et al. (1995) examined the difference between brand identification and brand loyalty. They stated that brand loyalty is a reflection of the functional utility of products and services, whereas brand identification is necessarily related to the goals of the organization and the reasons why it exists. Therefore, brand identification can affect brand loyalty, but brand loyalty does not guarantee identification with the brand or the company.

The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty

199

Method
Sample and data collection Since this research dealt with the effect of brand identication on consumer behavior, any product could be the object of study as long as consumers carried a sense of brand identication in relation to it. The cellular phone was chosen as the target product for this empirical study. When the data were collected in late 1999, ve companies were competing for the market of cellular phones in Korea. First, a questionnaire was devised and a short pretest conducted; the questionnaire was then revised based on the results of the pretest. Second, 180 of the revised questionnaires were distributed to university students in Seoul, Korea. Of the 150 that were returned (a response rate of approximately 83%), 130 were entered in the nal data analysis (20 incomplete questionnaires were omitted). Measures Most of the major variables in this study were measured using multi-item ve-point or sevenpoint scales developed and validated by previous research. The specic items are presented in Table 2. Seven instruments were used to gather the data to test the three research hypotheses. Some appropriate modications were made to the items.
1 Forty-two dimensions of brand personality were measured with the Brand Personality Scale (BPS), developed by Aaker (1997). The BPS employs a ve-point Likert scale (1 being strongly agree, 5 strongly disagree). 2. Brand identication was measured on a six-item, seven-point Likert scale (1 being strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree), originally developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). 3. Brand loyalty was measured on a four-item scale developed by Aaker (1996) and Ratchford (1987) and modied by Kim (1998). This scale comprised a seven-point Likert scale (1 being strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree).

4.

Word-of-mouth report behavior was measured on a three-item, seven-point Likert scale, based on that used in the study by File, Judd, and Prince (1992). 5. The scale for the self-expressive value of brand personality was based on previous studies by the authors. It comprised three items rated on a seven-point scale: The brand helps me to express myself, The brand reects my personality, and The brand enhances myself. 6. The scale for attractiveness of brand personality was also based on the authors previous studies and comprised three items rated on a seven-point scale: It is attractive, It is favorable, and It is distinctive. 7. The distinctiveness of the brand personality was measured by another group of three items which compared different products on a seven-point scale: closely related vs. not related; completely similar vs. different; and many common features vs. few common features.

Results
In order to test the hypotheses, the structural modeling method called LISREL was used. We found several interesting and important results in relation to the hypotheses. Before we present the main results, however, we show an initial analysis procedure and some ndings regarding the dimensions of brand personality. We also present the reliability and validity of the measures used in the main analysis.

Analyzing the dimensions of brand personality An exploratory factor analysis was done on the 42 items of brand personality with a varimax rotation. During the factor analysis, six variables that were not related to any factor (i.e., down-to-earth, family-oriented, real, independent, cool, cheerful) were excluded, and a total of ve factors were extracted from remaining 36 items. The factors were named Sincerity, Excitement, Competence,
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

200

C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Sophistication, and Ruggedness, in accordance with their respective factor loadings (Table 1).

Reliability and validity of the measures First, the Cronbachs alphas were determined in order to test the reliability of the variables. The results (Table 2) indicated that the measures of the key variables were generally reliable. Second, in order to test the validity of the measures, the data were analyzed using LISREL VIII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). A conrmatory factor analysis was performed according to the method of Bagozzi (1980). As shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, the validity of outcome variables and antecedent variables was tested in order. The result of the conrmatory factor analysis for 13 outcome variables is shown in Table 3. The overall match for the measurement model regarding the attractiveness of brand personality, brand identication, word-of-mouth reports, and brand loyalty was within acceptable levels (2 = 102.59, p = .05). The following indices were found to be appropriate: root mean square residual (RMSR) (.05), goodness-of-t index (GFI) (.91), adjusted goodness-of-t index (AGFI) (.86), normed t index (NFI) (.89), and comparative t index (CFI) (.97). The result of the conrmatory factor analysis for ve measures of the two antecedent constructs is shown in Table 4. The overall t for the measurement model according to the self-expressive value of brand personality and the distinctiveness of brand personality was also within acceptable levels (2 = 28.02, p = .05). The indices were found to be appropriate: RMSR (.06), GFI (.95), AGFI (.89), NFI (.95), and CFI (.98). Thus the measures used for the main analysis were valid. Results of hypothesis testing and implications The test result of the measurement model for this study was positive. The correlation analysis was done on the data in order to identify the directions of relationships among the variables
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

measured. For this empirical testing, mean scores on the measures were utilized. The results are shown in Table 5. Before hypothesis testing, a separate test was done to identify whether the selfexpressive value of brand personality and the distinctiveness of brand personality were related to the level of brand identication without the attractiveness of brand personality (alternative model). Indices for the overall t for this alternative model were GFI (.83), AGFI (.77), RMSR (.08), NFI (.81), CFI (.89); 2 = 262.38, df = 125, p = .00. The various indices for the overall t of the research model (shown in Figure 1) were GFI (.82), AGFI (.76), RMSR (.89), NFI (.80), CFI (.88); 2 = 275.04, df = 127, p = .00. The difference between the research model and the alternative model was not signicant (2 = 12.66, df = 2). The relationships between variables and path coefcients of the structural model are presented in Table 6. The self-expressive value of the brand personality had a signicant effect on the attractiveness of the brand personality (11 = .84, t = 6.17). The distinctiveness of the brand personality had a signicant effect on the attractiveness of the brand personality (21 = .21, t = 2.31), but the effect was weaker than that of self-expressive value. Therefore, these results support hypothesis 1 (the higher the self-expressive value of the brand personality and the higher the distinctiveness of the brand personality are, the more attractive will be the brand personality). Furthermore, the attractiveness of the brand personality had a signicant effect on the level of brand identication (21 = .56, t = 4.61). Therefore, hypothesis 2 (the more attractive the brand personality is, the higher the level of brand identication will be) is also supported. The degree of brand identication positively affected word-of-mouth reports (32 = .38, t = 3.00), but it did not signicantly affect the level of brand loyalty (42 = .11. t = 0.88). Therefore, hypothesis 3 (the higher the consumers identication with brand is, the higher the consumers word-of-mouth reports and brand loyalty will be) is only partly supported.

The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty

201

Table 1. Factor analysis results brand personality

Factor item Intelligent Successful Leader Upper class Secure Technical Corporate Reliable Hardworking Condent Trendy Young Contemporary Unique Up-to-date Spirited Western Outdoorsy Charming Sentimental Smooth Feminine Good-looking Glamorous Imaginative Daring Exciting Wholesome Honest Small-town Sincere Friendly Original Tough Masculine Rugged Explained by factors Eigenvalue Cronbachs
a

Factor 1: sincerity .79a .72a .66a .66a .66a .65a .65a .63a .63a .60a .04 .01 .41 .21 .35 .04 .30 .15 .30 .20 .20 .06 .17 .35 .13 .33 .25 .13 .29 .06 .19 .13 .32 .16 .29 .44 5.9736 12.2277 .9110

Factor 2: excitement .12 .26 .07 .11 .15 .34 .01 .01 .17 .30 .79a .70a .71a .68a .65a .64a .58a .50a .27 .10 .06 .28 .25 .20 .32 .22 .39 .05 .01 .08 .03 .39 .16 .12 .13 .15 4.7723 3.6994 .8702

Factor 3: competence .17 .17 .05 .36 .24 .14 .36 .37 .34 .14 .18 .15 .05 .28 .21 .24 .11 .18 .70a .69a .67a .66a .65a .64a .54a .54a .53a .11 .02 .16 .25 .24 .17 .13 .15 .16 4.4836 2.5413 .8825

Factor 4: sophistication .10 .07 .06 .13 .24 .14 .36 .37 .34 .14 .12 .14 .02 .06 .20 .29 .01 .12 .26 .24 .38 .09 .27 .25 .12 .13 .14 .74a .69a .63a .62a .50a .50a .24 .28 .21 3.6345 1.6902 .7768

Factor 5: ruggedness .02 .24 .40 .27 .10 .27 .09 .12 .03 .19 .11 .05 .08 .17 .09 .03 .41 .45 .14 .03 .16 .12 .19 .10 .08 .32 .10 .02 .19 .11 .25 .06 .09 .80a .75a .60a 2.7770 1.4824 .8373

Communality .6737 .6754 .6088 .6717 .5811 .6512 .5677 .6256 .5587 .5218 .6924 .6412 .6758 .6125 .6348 .5556 .6069 .5263

.7488 .5829 .6603 .5399 .6285 .6432 .4420 .5624 .5778 .5962 .4420 .5462 .4783 .4134 .7623 .7626 .6449

Factor loading .5.

Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

202

C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Table 2. Reliability of items

Construct Attractiveness of brand personality Self-expressive value of brand personality Distinctiveness of brand personality Item 1. Attractive 2. Favorable 3. Distinctive 1. The brand helps me to express myself 2. The brand reects my personality 3. The brand enhances myself 1. The brand was not related to other brands (vs. closely related) 2. The brand is completely different from other brandsa (vs. completely similar) 3. The brand has few features in common with other brands (vs. many features) 1. This brands successes are my successes 2. I am interested in what others think about this brand 3. When someone praises this brand, it feels like a personal complimenta 4. When I talk about this brand, I usually say we rather than they 5. If a story in the media criticized the brand, I would feel embarrassed 6. When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like a personal insult 1. Recommend to other people that the brand should be theirs as soon as possiblea 2. Recommend the brand to other people 3. Talk directly about your experience with them 1. I will continue to use this brand because I am satised and acquainted with the brand 2. I will use this brand in spite of competitors deals 3. I would buy additional products and service in this branda 4. I prefer the brand to others Original number Final number Cronbachs of items of items 3 3 .89

.92

.50

Brand identication

.82

Word-of-mouth reports

.78

Brand loyalty

.81

Those items which were not reliable and loading low on the corresponding constructs were excluded from further analysis.

Finally, the attractiveness of the brand personality signicantly affected positive wordof-mouth reports, but it did not signicantly affect brand loyalty (31 = .33, t = 2.64, 41 = .14, t = 1.16).
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

Discussion and conclusion

Summary of results Most of the hypotheses were supported by the test results. The conrmation of the rst

The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty

203

Table 3. Factor loadings (t values) from the conrmatory factor analysis of outcome variables
Factor itemsa Attractiveness Brand identication Word-of-mouth reports Brand loyalty

Attractiveness of brand personality Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Brand identication Item 1 Item 2 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Word-of-mouth reports Item 2 Item 3 Brand loyalty Item 1 Item 2 Item 3

.86 (7.52) .86 (7.54) .84 (7.40) .75 (8.78) .54 (5.95) .76 (8.98) .80 (8.76) .55 (6.08) .84 (8.76) .77 (8.45) .73 (6.60) .74 (6.66) .79 (6.91)

GFI = .91, AGFI = .86, RMSR = .05, NFI = .89, CFI = .97; 2 = 102.59, df = 80, p = .05. a See Table 2 for the numbered items.

hypothesis (the higher the self-expressive value of the brand personality and the higher the distinctiveness of brand personality, the higher consumers will evaluate the attractiveness of the brand personality) shows that there is a positive relationship between customer and brand. Second, it turns out that the brand identication has a positive effect on word-of-mouth reports, but it does not have a signicant direct effect on brand loyalty. But, since word-ofmouth reports signicantly affect brand loyalty and since brand identication signicantly affects word-of-mouth reports, it can be said that brand identication has an indirect effect on brand loyalty through positive word-ofmouth reports. Similarly, the attractiveness of the brand personality directly affects positive word-ofmouth reports and indirectly affects brand loyalty. Unlike previous studies which argued that the strength of ve dimensions of brand personalities affect brand asset, the instrument

Table 4. Factor loadings (t values) from the conrmatory factor analysis of antecedent variables
Factorsa Self-expressive value 1 2 3 Distinctiveness 1 3 Self-expressive value Distinctiveness

.91 (13.10) .91 (13.06) .81 (10.84) .71 (3.53) .53 (3.29)

GFI = .95, AGFI = .89, RMSR = .06, NFI = .95, CFI = .98; 2 = 28.02, df = 17, p = .05. a See Table 2 for the numbered items.

measuring attractiveness in this study had three dimensions attractiveness, distinctiveness, and favorableness and these were shown to affect brand loyalty and word-ofmouth reports.
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

204

C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Table 5. Correlation matrix of research constructs

Mean 1. Self-expressive value 2. Distinctiveness 3. Attractiveness 4. Brand identication 5. Word-of-mouth reports 6. Brand loyalty 3.58 4.41 3.96 3.20 3.42 3.87

SD
1.49 1.12 1.28 1.30 1.53 1.50

1 1.000 .156* .760* .378* .445* .323*

1.000 .021 .151* .109 .047

1.000 .326* .386* .424*

1.000 .411* .299*

1.000 .588*

1.000

This table shows the correlation matrix used for the LISREL analysis. Those who would like to replicate our analysis could use the correlation matrix rather than the full data set. *p .1.

Table 6. Results of model and hypotheses

Hypothesis 11 21 21 31 41 32 42 43 Self-expressive value Attractiveness Distinctiveness Attractiveness Attractiveness Identication Attractiveness Word-of-mouth reports Attractiveness Brand loyalty Identication Word-of-mouth reports Identication Brand loyalty Word-of-mouth reports Brand loyalty Coefcient value .84 .21 .56 .33 .14 .38 .11 .74

t value
6.17** 2.31** 4.61** 2.64** 1.16 3.00** 0.88 4.08**

GFI = .82, AGFI = .76, RMSR = .89, NFI = .80, CFI=.88; 2 = 275.04, df = 127, p = .00. **p .05.

Implications for marketing strategies Some strategic implications of this empirical study are as follows. First, it is necessary for rms to develop efcient communication methods in order to launch a distinctive and attractive brand personality. Communication plays a vital role in creating and maintaining brand personality. Unlike foreign examples, there are few Korean cases in which brand personality is consistently created. This requires not only communication strategies but also other activities such as the rms community service and consumer support activities. However, many companies fail because they emphasize and focus only on short-term goals by responding ad hoc or emulating other companies strategies. Therefore, the effective use of brand personality (uniquely and in such a way that the brand helps people enhance their self-expression) can increase brand
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

loyalty and word-of-mouth reports. Usually, brand personality is created by various activities such as marketing communication, sales promotion, social contribution, and public relations. Therefore, brand personality is not easily created, but once created it tends to have a long life. The results of this study have an important theoretical implication, concerning the relationship between brand and consumer. Recently, with the increasing number of Internet users, more businesses have been focusing on customer relationship management (CRM). The development of brand identication affects the building of a relationship between brand and consumer. In other words, when brand personality seems attractive, brand identication is created. If brand identication increases, then online consumers will not so readily click away from the brands website. Brand personality would also

The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty

205

help a website powerfully differentiate itself from competing sites, although they are necessarily similar to each other, physically and functionally. In short, developing and maintaining brand identication through brand personality helps consumers consider the brand as their long-term companion. This kind of long-term relationship with customers is the main objective of CRM. Academically, this study has the following theoretical implications. Unlike previous research, this study tested possible relationships between the self-expressive value of brand personality, distinctiveness of brand personality, and attractiveness of brand personality. Most of these relationships are supported by the current data. In short, careful management of brand personality helps consumers to develop a favorable image of the company.

References
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press. Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347356. Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: the role of selfexpression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 4557. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 2039. Bagozzi, R. (1980). Causal models in marketing. Boston: John Wiley & Sons. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139168. Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identication: an investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 4657. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239263. File, K., Judd, B., & Prince, R. (1992). Interactive marketing: the inuence of participation on positive word-of-mouth and referrals. Journal of Service Marketing, 6(4), 514. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343373. Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176190. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge. Hogg, M. A., Hardie, E. A., & Reyrolds, K. J. (1995). Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: a perspective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 159177. Karl, G. J., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Science Software International. Kim, C. (1998). Brand personality and advertising strategy: an empirical study of mobile-phone services. Korean Journal of Advertising, 9, 3752. Lau, R. (1989). Individual and contextual inuences on group identication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 220231.
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

Limitations and future research directions This study makes an important theoretical contribution to connect the concept of brand personality with the theory of social identication. Nevertheless, it has some limitations. First, this study focuses only on cellular phones, and many other products categories could have been tested for the same purpose. One of the interesting future areas is to examine the issue of brand identication in relation to sports marketing, brand extension, Internet marketing, and so on. For example, a consumers identication with the brand of a company (or simply brand identication) would be signicantly affected by the consumers identication with the sports team or a star player sponsored by the company. Second, this study tested the relationship between brand identication and brand loyalty/ word-of-mouth reports, but additional theoretical relationships could be tested within the same framework. For example, repurchasing behavior or intention ofine (or revisit behavior or intention online) could be included in a future study.3

3 We would like to thank one of the reviewers who suggested this idea to us.

206

C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4), 3438. Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: the sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313332. (Received Jan. 17, 2001; accepted May 13, 2001)

Mael, F. B., & Ashforth, E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103123. Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(6), 2731.

Japanese Psychological Association 2001.