Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage:

A brand preference and repurchase intention
model: the role of consumer experience

Reham Ebrahim, Ahmad Ghoneim, Zahir Irani & Ying Fan

To cite this article: Reham Ebrahim, Ahmad Ghoneim, Zahir Irani & Ying Fan (2016) A brand
preference and repurchase intention model: the role of consumer experience, Journal of Marketing
Management, 32:13-14, 1230-1259, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2016.1150322

To link to this article:

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis

Published online: 09 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1477

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [] Date: 21 February 2017, At: 16:23

VOL. 32, NOS. 13–14, 1230–1259

A brand preference and repurchase intention model: the role
of consumer experience
Reham Ebrahima,b, Ahmad Ghoneima, Zahir Irania and Ying Fanc
Brunel Business School, College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge,
UK; bFaculty of Commerce, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt; cSchool of Business & Management, Queen Mary
University of London, London, UK

Consumer brand preference is an essential step towards under- Received 2 March 2013
standing consumer choice behaviour, and has therefore always Accepted 15 December 2015
received great attention from marketers. However, the study of KEYWORDS
brand preference has been limited to traditional marketing Branding; brand preference;
focusing on functional attributes to maximise utility. But now brand experience; brand
the shift to experiential marketing broadens the role of the knowledge; mobile phones;
brand from a bundle of attributes to experiences. Technological mixed-method methodology
advancements have helped to increase the similarities between
brand attributes and product commoditisation. Consequently,
consumers cannot shape their preferences among brands using
rational attributes only. They seek out brands that create experi-
ences; that intrigue them in a sensorial, emotional and creative
way. This study seeks to develop a model that provides an
understanding of how brand knowledge and brand experience
determine brand preference and to investigate its impact on
brand repurchase intention. Accordingly, exploratory focus
group discussions are employed followed by a survey of mobile
phone users in Egypt. The findings provide insights into the
relative importance of consumer perceptions on different brand
knowledge factors in shaping brand preferences. It also demon-
strates the significance of consumers’ experiential responses
towards brands in developing their brand preferences that in
turn influence brand repurchase intention. The model therefore
offers managers a new perspective for building strong brands
able to gain consumer preferences.

Brand preferences have long been explained using traditional models, which largely
focus on consumers’ cognitive judgement of brand attributes on a rational basis.
However, the shift to experiential marketing, the cornerstone of branding, has
expanded the role of the brand from a bundle of attributes to experiences. It also
considers both the rational and irrational aspects of consumer behaviour (Schmitt,
1999, 2009). In addition, technological advances have increased the similarities
between brands and product commoditisation. Therefore, consumers find it difficult to

CONTACT Reham Ebrahim
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(, which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.


differentiate between brands on functional attributes alone (Petruzzellis, 2010; Temporal
& Lee, 2000). Instead, they seek the brand that creates an experience; that intrigues
them in a sensorial, emotional and creative way. Such experiential appeals are important
components of a brand, and are used in brand differentiation and enhancement of
consumer preference (Berry, Carbone, & Haeckel, 2002; Schmitt, 2009; Zarantonello &
Schmitt, 2010). Therefore, companies competing in such markets face difficulties, since
their survival requires building competitive advantage by delivering memorable
experiences (Gentile, Spiller, & Noci, 2007; Schmitt, 1999, 2009). Currently, such
experiences are fundamental to the creation of consumer brand preferences, and the
stimulation of future purchasing decisions (Gentile et al., 2007; Schmitt, 1999, 2009).
Even though some studies indicate the potential role of experience for the
development of consumers’ preferences towards brands, this impact has not been
explicitly addressed. Such experiences provide experiential values leading to the
preferential treatment of a brand similar to the value of utilitarian attributes (Brakus,
Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009). Therefore, it is postulated that the experiential view will
supplement the hegemony of traditional information processing theories to
understanding consumers’ preferences for brands. The possible interactions between
cognitive information processing and experience are considered essential in analysing
consumer preference dynamics.
Thus, this research seeks to provide a better understanding of brand preference
development by providing answers to three questions: first, what is the impact of
different brand knowledge factors on consumer brand preferences? Second, how do
brand experiences affect consumer brand preferences, and how do they interact with
brand knowledge factors in shaping consumer preferences? Finally, how do consumer
brand experiences and brand preferences motivate repurchase intention?
The article proceeds as follows. In the ‘Theoretical background and research
hypotheses’ section, we explain the conceptual background to our study and derive
hypotheses for investigation. In the ‘Research Methodology’ section, we introduce the
context of our study and illustrate the methods of data collection and analysis. In the
‘Results’ section, we present the data analysis results of the empirical study and offer a
summary of the research findings; we then highlight our theoretical contribution, draw
several implications for practitioners as well as noting the study’s limitations. Finally, in
the last section, we offer our conclusions including suggestions for further research.

Theoretical background and research hypotheses
Brand preference
Consumer attitude models, such as Fishbein’s model (1965), which are based on the
expectancy-value model, are commonly used to understand consumer preferences.
According to this model, the consumer’s preference for a brand is a function of his/
her cognitive beliefs about the brand’s weighted attributes (Bass & Talarzyk, 1972; Bass &
Wilkie, 1973). This model contributes to the study of preferences and is still widely used
(Allen, Machleit, Kleine, & Notani, 2005; Muthitcharoen, Palvia, & Grover, 2011). However,
it has been criticised over the years for the following: First, brand preference is measured
by a single value, the result of an algebraic equation (Bagozzi, 1982), and focuses on

1982) to overcome the limitations of traditional consumer behaviour theories. 1982. it ignores other sources. Besides. 1983). & Lutz. It is the link between information processing and the intention to actually purchase or choose (Bagozzi. Hirschman. which contribute to preference development (Bagozzi. 2010). this view expands and supplements the information processing perspective. Accordingly. 1982). & Moreau. Capon. 1972. 1975) emphasise both the central control unit and the mental abilities of consumers. Hansen. Thus. Dahl. Holbrook & Hirschman. 1995). Sheth & Talarzyk. It is suggested that experience should be combined with the brand meaning stored in consumers’ minds to develop preferences. Fourth. This theory and other information processing models (Bettman. Grimm. 2001. . Second. to judge between alternatives and make choices. imaginative and fantasy meanings of the product. Consumers prefer brands that provide a meaningful experience (Goode.. 2005). Moreover. 1972). Kohli. Zajonc & Markus. 1968). Allen et al. Therefore. This has sparked the need to consider other paths to brand preference formation other than the consumer’s salient beliefs of brand attributes. 2005). 1989. It investigates consumer responses to the symbolic. it follows that a consumer’s perception about brand attributes leads to preferences or attitudes. Howard and Sheth (1969) suggest that brand preference refers to consumers’ predisposition towards certain brands that summarise their cognitive information processing towards brand stimuli. EBRAHIM ET AL. 1982. 1971). utilitarian beliefs as the main driver of consumer evaluation responses. preference represents a transition state between the inputs and outputs of the consumer choice model. Tsai. Third. 1969. raising the role of multi-sensory experience aspects (Addis & Holbrook. such as emotional responses (Agarwal & Malhotra. 2008. the narrow view of this model limits its use to certain types of mainly utilitarian products (Park & Srinivasan. 1982). Brand experience The concept of consumer experience emerged at the beginning of the 1980s (Holbrook & Hirschman. Schwarz (2004) indicates that consumers rely on their experiences as trusted sources of information. 1994). the halo effect of this model can lead to wrong decisions related to brand design and positioning (Leuthesser. & Harich. 2005. the applicability of multi-attribute models to products with tangible attributes that contribute only in a minor way to consumer preferences has been questioned (Holbrook & Hirschman. 2005. the inclusion of weightings as a part of the algebraic equation presented in this model decreases its predictive power (Churchill. This research defines brand preference as a behavioural tendency that reflects a consumer’s attitude towards a brand. 2005. Sheth. This view highlights the importance of neglected variables such as considering consumers as emotional beings as well as thinkers (Addis & Holbrook. psychologists view preference as a learning construct and define experience and information processing as the two main sources of consumer preference learning (Amir & Levav. it is suggested that experience promotes better memory with vivid and concrete information (Paivio. 1982. 1982). However. As a direct source of consumer preferences. enriching it with the experiential perspective. Zajonc & Markus. 2001).1232 R. aesthetic. which affects his/her intentions and brand choices (Bagozzi. Howard & Sheth.

2005) and repurchase intention (Tsai. 2009). and goes beyond the bounded rationality assumption.. behavioural (Brakus et al. Pullman & Gross. From this perspective. emotional. value is not an added component to the brand but is created whilst consumers are experiencing the brand. 1982). Holbrook. while the brand is therefore perceived as a rich source of experience providing value to consumers (Schmitt. It is argued that brand experience plays a fundamental role in determining consumer preferences and future decisions (Brakus et al. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1233 Despite this trigger. 1999). Brand experience is defined as consumers’ internal subjective and behavioural responses induced at different levels of interaction. consumers will build their preferences and purchasing decisions (Carbone. 2003. continues during the purchase or live experience and lasts as a memorable experience (Carù & Cova. with brand-related stimuli (Brakus et al. 2004. the concept of consumer experience did not return to the fore until the end of the 1990s. Consumers engage emotionally with the brand and develop positive feelings towards it (Schmitt. 2004). & Clark. 2007).. Consumer experience is holistic and distinguishes between basic cognitive.. According to Gentile et al. experience is a continuous concept that reflects the irrational aspects of consumers interacting with the brand. 2007). Gentile et al. 2009). affective and sensorial systems (Gentile et al. The role of emotional responses in understanding consumer preferences (Grimm. 2007). and proposed strategic experiential modules (SEMs). The consequences of brand experience include enhancement of consumers’ behavioural intentions. Hair. It starts before the actual purchase. according to Tynan and McKechnie (2009). Melewar. Brand experience captures the sensorial. Brakus. The emotional component is an important aspect of consumer experience (Havlena & Holbrook. 1999). Lim. 2005) has been demonstrated. 2007). 2014). (2007). Zajonc (1980) suggests that sensorial responses from a consumer’s exposure to a brand precede affective responses. 2009. discussing the reasons behind the shift from traditional marketing to experiential marketing. intellectual. 2011. This implies a new role for the brand as an experience provider rather than as an identifier (Schmitt.. Schmitt (1999) then positioned the consumer’s holistic experience into brand marketing. Ismail. with Pine and Gilmore (1998) introducing experience as an upgrade or progression of economic value. 2002). 2013. it can be hypothesised that: . 2011).. Based on the aforementioned. Meyer & Schwager. 2007). pragmatic and lifestyle experiential aspects of the brand (Gentile et al.. Tynan & McKechnie. cognitive interpretations and behavioural expressions from the mutual overlapping interactions with inputs constitute consumer experience (Holbrook & Hirschman. The psychological responses. The results of these interactions are the experiential responses stored in the consumer’s memory (Pine & Gilmore. 2009. verified in an online context (Morgan-Thomas & Veloutsou. 2006. & Woodside. Through these interactive experiences. Rose. social (Chang & Chieng. 1998).. 1986). Schmitt. 2009. & Zarantonello. The experiential cues evoked during consumption can determine consumer preferences (Berry et al. both direct and indirect. and brand loyalty (Brakus et al.. 1999). Despite the existence of different types of responses that define consumers’ brand experiences there is no set of definite responses to describe consumer experiences with brands.

Brand experience will have a direct positive effect on brand preference (H1a) and repurchase intention (H1b). which affects brand preference (Chang & Liu. aesthetic value that affects consumers’ product evaluation (Creusen & Schoormans. Tolba & Hassan. In studying consumer preference.. 1993. 1997) have been demonstrated to build consumer preferences. In addition. 1982). A product’s appearance can have a symbolic. Such non-attributed associations have been proven to contribute towards shaping consumer brand preferences (e. It is a significant factor affecting consumer choice apart from intrinsic brand cues (Horsky. 2005. Brand knowledge is conceptualised based on the meanings that consumers learn about and associate with the brand in their minds. & Nelson. Appearance is considered by Keller (1993) to be a non-product attribute. Neuhaus. Keller. Park & Srinivasan. 2009. economic. Grimm. the cognitive information that constitutes consumer brand knowledge is composed of their perceptions on attributes. 2006). Price is an important extrinsic cue (Zeithaml. 1994). These factors reflect the functional.1234 R. sensory associations (Erdem et al. and should be included as an independent component in a utility model predicting consumer preferences (Hayakawa. appearance. Attribute perception Attribute perception refers to consumers’ salient beliefs about a brand’s intrinsic cues. Chitturi. 2005. Keller (1993) argues that brand-related attributes are elicited from intrinsic cues. & Mahajan. Cognitive beliefs are not limited to consumer perceptions about brand knowledge constituted at the conscious level (Holbrook & Hirschman. while non-related attributes of brands can be developed from information about price. appearance and symbolic associations such as brand personality and self-congruity. and measures brand loyalty (Simon & Sullivan. Keller. 1995. Sirgy et al. Misra. 2003). 2000). 1999). & Weber. Consumer perceptions . 2003. These meanings include utilitarian and functional. Plummer. economic and rational attributes/benefits associations. Firms are shifting from tangible and functional product attributes towards creating aesthetically appealing designs. economists consider price as a constraint in utility maximisation. 1999. 2009). Bender. Raghunathan. 2005). 2010). associations such as brand personality (Aaker. Ruble. EBRAHIM ET AL. and acts as a major differentiating attribute in consumer preference and choices (Reimann. 1997). 2007. aesthetic and symbolic/emotional brand meanings. Price is a dimension of brand equity. 1997) and self- congruity (Sirgy et al. utilitarian and economic associations... 1993). Brand knowledge The holistic perspective of brands was emphasised by the content of brand knowledge described by Keller (1993. unrelated to brand performance or functionality. H1. including product-related attributes and associated functional and experiential benefits (Czellar. Grimm. 2006. brand personality and self-congruity. Zaichkowsky. 1993. Petruzzellis (2010) identifies brand knowledge as symbolic/emotional. Therefore. Cobb-Walgren. High importance is given to price prior to purchasing decisions (McFadden. & Donthu. Okada. 2005. and symbolic or imaginative. Overby & Lee.g. 1976). price. 1988).

which contribute to his/her experience (Brakus et al. price remains an important positive or negative cue in consumer behaviour (Lichtenstein. Yet. Raghunathan. However. Pine and Gilmore (1998) presume that the product price contributes to the creation of consumer experience. Ridgway. 1993). 1999). 1993). Funches. 2010). it is hedonic (Chitturi. Schmitt. Consumers may be willing to pay a premium for the brand experience. Lee. Malhotra. Traditional views.. 2009). H3. (2009) consider price as an important stimulus of consumer experience in a retailing context. The role of price as an independent factor on consumer brand preferences has been demonstrated (Alamro & Rowley. 2011) or symbolic (Creusen & . & Mahajan. 2001). functional and utilitarian attributes contribute to brand experience (Gentile et al. it can be hypothesised that: H2. & Netemeyer. Myers. such as the Fishbein model (1965). Price perception will have a positive effect on brand experience (H3a) and brand preference (H3b). In experiential marketing. Verhoef et al. consider consumer preferences to be based entirely on consumers’ cognitive beliefs about the brand attributes (Allen et al. these beliefs define the cognitive structure and constitute consumer expertise (Alba & Hutchinson. Swait. or that the traditional mix of price and quality goes beyond money (Mathwick. 2012). 2009). JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1235 of brand (product-related) attributes positively affect their preferences (Cobb-Walgren et al. It is an important factor in brand purchase and consumer choice (Erdem.. 1988).. Petruzzellis. & Widdows. & Valenzuela. Kim. Park & Srinivasan. Rondeau. 1998. Ha. In the broad sense. 1999).. 2005. 2008. 1998. but not its cost (Pine & Gilmore. Consumer perceptions about a brand’s physical. 1995. Price Price as an extrinsic cue is encoded by the consumer to constitute an important component of monetary value perception (Zeithaml. 2009). 2011. The authors suggest that the consumer price experience can be considered as a progression of the economic value (Pine & Gilmore. 2005). Schoenfelder & Harris. irrational consumers seeking hedonic brand benefits also perceive brand price as an important factor in brand choice (Lee. 1987). Empirically. Moreover. Appearance Appearance is a nonproduct-related attribute (Keller. Verhoef et al. the verbal cues are important stimuli enhancing consumer brand experiences. Tynan & McKechnie. 1994). 2010. The economist’s assumption of rationality conceives price as an aspect of consumer rationality (McFadden. Although Petruzzellis (2010) verified that rational consumers who focus on tangible brand attributes assign greater importance to price than irrational consumers. & Foxx. Park. 2004). price is the cost of delivered experiences and the consumer’s perceptions of price fairness. & Rigdon.. the price of service positively affects the consumer experience in hospitality marketing (Ismail. 2009. 2006). 2007. Attribute perception will have a positive effect on brand experience (H2a) and brand preference (H2b). Therefore. 2003.

2004. Therefore. Bochmann. EBRAHIM ET AL. 2010) and emotional responses (Aaker. 2010. it affects the construct validity (Azoulay & Kapferer. Weijters. Petruzzellis. 2009). 2009). & Burton. Brand appearance is a source of pleasure (Decker & Trusov. brand preference (H5b) and repurchase intention (H5c). Schmitt.1236 R. Veryzer & Hutchinson. which presents a non-verbal cue that triggers consumer experiential responses (Brakus et al. Brand personality appeal acts as an emphasis to salient brand attributes. The brand aesthetic enhances consumer senses (Hulten. 1982). 1997. The personality characteristics of and sensory impressions about the brand stored by consumers affect their experiences (Sung & Kim. Practitioners perceive brand personality as an efficient differentiating tool that can enhance consumer preferences (Aaker. 1992. This definition has been perceived as a loose statement. 2010). therefore. 2009). brand preferences and create long-term behavioural responses such as loyalty (Folse et al. 2008). 2012). & Bjerre. .. 2010. and affects their experiential responses (Gentile et al. 2012). Veryzer. this research adopts the definition by Geuens et al. Brand personality will have a positive effect on brand experience (H5a). 2000).. H5. H4. 1998) and a significant differentiating attribute that enhances consumer preferences (Reimann et al.. Brand personality provides the consumer with better comprehension about the brand image because it is transformed into an experiential manifestation (Clatworthy. Geuens. and is used as a heuristic. 2010). 2005). and proportions. Schoenfelder & Harris. thus.. Holbrook & Hirschman. Phau & Lau. 1993). Appearance perceptions will have a positive effect on brand experience (H4a) and brand preference (H4b). 2012). Research findings support the notion that the consumer’s perception of the brand appearance or aesthetic is associated with his/her experiences (Sheng & Teo. 2007). 2011. Netemeyer. 2012). This reflects the beauty of the brand design and sensory attributes (Reimann et al. self-expressive cue by consumers (Wang & Yang.. Heding. Value is derived from consumer beliefs on the brand’s aesthetic appeal. 2010. & Hufschmidt. brand affect (Sung & Kim. 1993). 1997. 2003. (2009) that specifies the personality traits descriptive of a brand. 2007. Consumer senses are enhanced by the brand design qualities. 2011. 2011. shape. 1999). Brand personality Brand personality is a symbolic and emotional (non-product-related) attribute (Keller. In this respect. creating positive feelings (Hulten. 2008). 1999). Biel. Sheng & Teo. Schoormans. Pine and Gilmore (1998) suggest that the most powerful themes that create and deliver memorable experiences are those related to consumer senses. Therefore. Schmitt. 2012. 2009. Bosnjak. It is an important component in the brand identity prism (Kapferer. such as colour. it is too general and includes demographic and personality traits. defined by Aaker (1997) as a set of human characteristics assigned to a brand. The aesthetic aspects are considered among the brand stimuli that sustain consumers’ experience of the brand (Brakus et al.. brand personality can affect consumer attitudes (Folse. Knudtzen. Lee et al. & De Wulf..

Research findings demonstrate that self-congruity is an important driver of consumer brand preferences (Jamal & Al-Marri. Lee. Brand preference-repurchase intention model. consumer preference for a brand increases with higher congruence between his/her self-image and brand-user image (Sirgy et al. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1237 Self-congruity Self-congruity refers to the degree of congruence between the brand image and the consumer’s image (Sirgy. 1997). Sirgy et al. The five factors that define brand knowledge are attribute perception. 1988. Therefore. 2006). Preference-repurchase intention model Figure 1 presents a preference-repurchase intention model. Grimm. Johar. brand personality and self-congruity. 2008). It reflects a brand’s symbolic benefits that affect consumer preferences.. . 1997). 2001. H6. purchase intentions and loyalty (Belk. Accordingly. By referring to the self- congruity theory.. Kressmann et al. Kressmann et al. and repurch- ase intention (H6b). 1997). 1982. Sirgy et al. 2005. Jamal & Goode. The model outcome is Attribute Perception H2a Price H2b Perception H3a H3b Appearance H4b Perception Brand H4a Preference H1a H7 Brand Experience H1b Repurchase Intention H5a H5b H5c Brand Personality H6b H6a Self- Congruity Figure 1. the self-congruity reflects the degree of match (Sirgy. it proposes that consumer behaviour is affected by the degree to which he/she perceives that his/her self-concept matches the product-user image (Sirgy et al. price perception. 1997). Self-congruity will have a positive effect on brand preference (H6a).. brand preference drivers are defined by consumer brand knowledge and brand experience.. 2006.. appearance perception.. 2007. & Tidwell. In this model.

Brand preference will have a direct positive effect on brand repurchase intention. This panel judged the quality of the survey in terms of the wording.g. In addition. in order to explore consumers’ behaviours. . The questionnaire was then translated into the Arabic language using direct translation. describe your experiences with brands of mobile phones). This aided model refinement through the identification of major determinants and outcomes of consumer brand preferences. The repurchase intention reflects the consumer’s intention of repeating the behavioural action of buying the brand (Hellier. the focus groups helped with the identification of brand experience dimensions. an increase of 29. brand repurchase intention. The initial pool of items was generated from the literature review and focus groups. The data was collected from Egyptian mobile phone users after obtaining the ethical approval from the Brunel Business School Research Ethical Committee. consumer preference is a direct antecedent of his/her intentions (Bagozzi.1238 R. and the average session time ranged from 60 to 90 minutes. Research methodology Data collection This research investigates brands of mobile phones. H7. Lewis. the authors were able to identify key themes and items. At the end of 2011. A pre-test of the translated questionnaire was conducted using a convenience sample of 53 respondents. experiences and preferences towards brands. which is considered to be an easy and fast method (Usunier. 2012). Hellier et al. Through the focus groups. 2011). The items were evaluated using a panel of expert academics and non-experts to assess the content and face validity. content and presentation. the number of mobile subscribers was 76.6% over the previous year (CAPMAS. and become familiar with consumer vocabulary.4 million. Egypt is experiencing an increase in mobile phone subscribers. The reliability of the items was evaluated using inter-item correlation. each consisting of eight participants. Therefore. focus groups are an effective method at the stage of item generation (Churchill. and to gain familiarity with the respondents’ vocabulary (Saunders. Carr. Focus groups were used at the exploratory stage of this study. 1982). Mobile phones are now a global phenomenon and the number of subscribers increases daily. item-to-total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha. 1979). brand personality using the ‘Big Five’. The study followed the Churchill paradigm for developing measures (Churchill. Semi-structured questions were posed (e. There were four focus groups. & Thornhill. The questionnaire was developed following a multi-stage process. (2003) demonstrate that brand preferences reflect a learned disposition for perceived alternatives is strongly related to repurchase intention. exceeding those of fixed phones. structure. 2003). and the salient attributes/benefits consumers assigned to the studied product within the research context. both to identify key themes and items. EBRAHIM ET AL. 1979). Theoretically. an advanced technological product. 1998). & Rickard. Geursen.

with a sample mean of 30.7 years of age. constituting 68. 2010). Black. which is deemed to be clearer in appearance and easier to handle than the seven-point scale (Malhotra & Birks. & Anderson.3% of the sample respectively. a frequently used non-probability sampling method (Hair.. For example. & Livat. for all constructs except for the response anchors for the brand personality construct which were anchored with ‘not at all descriptive’ and ‘very descriptive’. 1997). The majority of the respondents had bachelor’s degrees and were married. Measures development Only reliable items were included in the final questionnaire used to collect data in the main survey. The study depended on convenience sampling. Primary data for the main survey was collected using self-administrated questionnaires. country of origin. Park et al. 2015) and is defined by four traits. are used to measure brand personality. This definition is too wide. A total number of 325 valid responses were obtained. or the value of alpha goes below the specified level of 0. Kressmann et al. Although Aaker (1997) . The target respondents were approached in shopping malls located in Cairo over a one-month period beginning on the 1st of September 2011. and ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The ratio of employed to unemployed respondents was 2. Gergaud. Interfaces (3G. Aaker (1997) defines five dimensions of brand personality.6% and 56. Petruzzellis (2010) and Zeithaml (1988). Babin. the inner values of the consumer and the physical traits of the typical user. These items represent the attributes of the products specified by the participants in the focus groups sessions (Grimm. Each of these dimensions is described by a group of personality traits. durability. These dimensions: sincerity. they are. 2003). p. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1239 Accordingly. multi-media features and fun features). Price perception was measured by three items adapted from Duarte and Raposo (2010). the study used three items from Lee et al. the item is subject to deletion if it does not meet the cut-off point of 0. which can be considered as human characteristics. and includes other facets in the brand identity prism other than brand personality. GPRS. competence. Wi Fi). 2003). The attribute perceptions construct was measured by the respondents’ evaluation of 11 items (physical characteristics. 2006). 1997. excitement. The sample included 215 males and 110 females of different ages. Brand personality is commonly measured by Aaker’s (1997) developed scale. 2010). This scale is based on Aaker’s definition of brand personality as ‘the set of human characteristics associated with a brand’ (Aaker. 2005. & Samouel. Babin. memory capacity. down-to- earth. wholesome and cheerful (Aaker. ease of use.7. language adaptability. or if its deletion will increase the value of alpha (Hair. functionality.3 for both the inter-item correlation and item-to-total correlation (Field. (2012). To measure the attribute perception respondents were asked to state to what extent they perceive that each attribute is associated with their current brand. memory capacity. honest.5:1. All of the variables were measured on the five-point Likert scale. 2005. Different response anchors were used. such as. To measure appearance perception. sophistication and ruggedness. Money. (2011) and Petruzzellis (2010). Pallant. the sincerity dimension reflects the meaning of honesty and modesty (Lunardo. 347).

p. The five dimensions of brand experience were measured by 25 items.. this brand of mobile phone is my first preference’ (Overby & Lee. conscientiousness. 122). Geuens et al. 2009). Therefore. Goldberg (1990) developed the big-five factors (agreeableness. Thereafter. & Guido. The extroversion factor is defined by eight traits (active. Therefore. Brand preference was measured by six items adapted from different sources. These dimensions are similar to those identified by Schmitt (1999). 2007. the factor structure of this model could not be generalised at the brand level (Austin. Bosnjak et al. a new scale is needed based on a rigorous definition excluding all non- personality items.. Participants in focus groups described their experiences with brands using five dimensions. Finally. and the items developed by Brakus et al. Sweeney & Brandon. Personality traits describe the internal characteristics of human beings from which their behaviour in different situations can be predicted and explained (Heding et al. Bosnjak et al. 1997). EBRAHIM ET AL. 2003) and could not be replicated cross-culturally (Azoulay & Kapferer. 2007). p. 2009. Applicability of the big-five traits to describe brand personality has been proven in several studies (e. For example.g. energetic. 2007...g. recent studies uncovering brand personality have relied on this definition since it is more rigorous and can be used cross-culturally without confusion (e. Geuens et al. Therefore. Consequently.1240 R. 2003). this loose definition causes problems with the construct validity of the concept. & Mattila. ‘I would use this brand more than any other brand of mobile phone’ (Jamal & Al-Marri. items generated from the qualitative sessions.. emotional stability and openness to experience) to describe human personality. competitive and dominant). Huang. (1997). 2009). that do not cover personality traits (Geuens et al. focussed on the personality traits associated with a brand. bold.. intellectual. 151). ‘This brand meets my requirements of mobile phone better than other brands’ and ‘I am interested in trying other mobile phones from other brands’ (Hellier et al. behavioural and social. (2009) and Chang and Chieng (2006) were used to measure brand experience. bold. namely. & Rosenaum-Elliott. Caprara. 2012. Self-congruity was assessed by the three items developed by Sirgy et al. . 2006). Sirgy et al. 2001. Mitchell. only six traits (active... 2007. 2010. 2009. Barbaranelli. (2003). proposed by Azoulay and Kapferer (2003. emotional. Lin. Through focus group discussions. Participants among the four focus groups agreed that only these human personality traits can be used to describe a brand of mobile phones. Milas & Mlačić. A group of human personality traits is used to define each factor. strong. strong. 2006). applicable and relevant personality traits for the brands were elicited. which describes brand personality as ‘the set of human personality traits that are both applicable and relevant for brands’. 2003. the evaluation of items used to define each factor resulted in 27 descriptive traits for brands. namely: sensorial. Geuens et al. 2009. extraversion. happy. happy and competitive) were approved to describe the extroversion factor.. ‘I like this brand more than any other brand of mobile phone’. and consequently its dimensions. repurchase intention was measured by three items developed by Hellier et al. This article adopted a stricter definition. ‘This brand is my preferred brand over any other brand of mobile phone’. Siguaw. energetic. ‘When it comes to making a purchase. resolute.

2010). & Singal. The results indicated that all of the standardised loadings were above 0. the results suggest acceptable discriminant validity. maximum likelihood estimation technique and AMOS (v. the first factor represents the general attributes of the brand. Brakus et al.88.g. The four dimensions of brand experience and brand personality loaded as one factor with a total variance of 67. brand experience and brand personality) in the proposed model. respectively. CFI = 0. the results indicated the possibility of obtaining higher fit indices through the purification process. 2005). Measurement model assessment The validity of the measurement model was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1241 Analysis and discussion of results Item reduction and uni-dimensionality Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used with principal component analysis (PCA) and VARIMAX orthogonal rotation for item reduction. These multi-dimensional constructs are presented in the model at the aggregate level.60 and 314 degrees of freedom. These factors represent brand preference. The composite reliability of constructs was above the threshold of 0.048). Benet-Martinez. The first factor was peacefulness. but the items measuring attributes perception were loaded onto two factors. Accordingly. 2010).1% and 70. These dimensions will be reflected as measuring items of each construct. In order to include the multi-dimensional constructs (i.4 were candidates for deletion (Field.. appearance perception.6.95.58. & Garolera. while the second factor refers to the brand’s functional benefits. 2011). By conducting EFA. the summated scale was measured by the average of the items loading together as one factor. Therefore..95. The results show the load of items on seven factors. intellectual and behavioural experiences as shown in Appendix 1. IFI = 0.e. 2001). emotional. Magnini.005.. the brand experiences items loaded onto four factors describing the sensorial. showing higher values of AVE than squared correlation. The test of uni-dimensionality refers to the loading of the measurement variables on a single factor (Hair et al.5%. RMSEA = 0. Kim. the items of brand personality loaded onto four factors describing different personality types of the brand. therefore.7 (Hair et al. The results are depicted in Table 2. The items with low commonality of less than 0. 2010). a summated scale was formed (e. at a significant level of p < 0. indicating a good reliability. a test of uni-dimensionality was required (Hair et al. price perception. 2009.045 and SRMR = 0.8% of the total variance. and similarly. as shown in Appendix 2..18) software. with the lowest value equalling 0. The first run of the measurement model had an acceptable fit.90. which account for 69. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the average value extracted with squared correlation estimate. The three other factors describe the conscientiousness. . The respecified measurement model had an acceptable fit with chi-square being 523. emotional stability and openness to experience personality types. Thus. 2000. The other fit indices were within the acceptable range (χ2/df = 1. GFI = 0. Aaker. self-congruity and repurchase intentions. as shown in Table 1.5.5 or loads on two or more factors with values exceeding 0. However. AGFI = 0. which combined the traits of agreeable and extrovert personality types (Aaker.

78 Emotional stability 0. & Podsakoff.86 Peacefulness 0.15 0.55 Appearance APP 0.76 Functionality 0.56 Brand personality BP 0.78 People similar to me own the same brand 0.51 Functional benefits ATT1 0.66 Ease-of-use 0. 2003.80 I like this brand more than any other brand of mobile phone 0.72 Behavioural experience 0.11 0.30 0.19 0. MacKenzie.81 Multi-media features (camera. MP3. Table 1.02 0. etc.37 0.81 Durability 0.82 Emotional experience 0.10 0.34 0.60 Self-congruity CON 0.00 0.67 Brand experience 0.67 This brand is my preferred brand over any other brand of mobile phone 0.64 Brand personality 0. Lee. Factor loadings for the items and CR.36 0.59 Assessment of common method variance The common method variance (CMV) is ‘attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent’ (Podsakoff.64 Brand preference PRF 0.75 Intellectual experience 0.70 This brand offers value for money 0.1242 R.46 0. EBRAHIM ET AL.00 0.33 0. p.04 0.37 0.40 0.59 General attributes ATT2 0.54 Price PR 0.70 Brand preference 0.00 0. GPRS.96 I will probably buy the same brand again 0.80 Interfaces (3G. Correlation matrix (discriminant validity).85 Self-congruity 0. video.03 0.21 0. It implies that ‘covariance among measured items is driven by the fact that .06 0.82 When it comes to making a purchase.74 Memory capacity 0.01 0.83 Sensorial experience 0.71 The visual appearance of this brand is attractive 0.80 Appearance perception 0.60 Table 2.84 This brand has an appealing design 0.05 0.77 I would be inclined to buy the same brand of mobile phone again 0.06 0. Wi Fi) 0.07 0.58 Repurchase intention RPI 0.03 0.25 0.77 This brand is aesthetically appealing 0.01 0.01 0. 879).01 0.20 0.75 This brand reflects who I am 0.04 0. this brand of mobile phone 0.) 0.00 0.81 The brand is reasonably priced 0.67 Price perception 0.80 is my first preference Repurchase intention 0.08 0.73 Functional benefits 0.82 Conscientiousness 0.50 0.00 0.80 This brand is consistent with how I see myself 0. Constructs Factor loading CR* General attributes 0.80 The price of this brand is a good indicator of its quality 0.65 Openness to experience 0.00 0. EXP BP CON APP PR ATT2 ATT1 RPI PRF Brand experience EXP 0.

significant at the level of p < 0.176 1.042 0. AGFI = 0.049). The idea that consumers learn from their experiential responses induced either directly or indirectly is also supported (Daugherty. Diagnosing the path estimates using critical t-value tested the hypotheses. using PCA and an unrotated factor solution all of the variables were loaded.066 0. In addition. Method biasedness is a crucial problem that represents an important source of measurement error. lacking ambiguity or double-barrelled and confusing questions. Accordingly.627 0.94. To assess the potential of such a problem among the measured variables used in the study. IFI = 0. Anderson.. On the other hand.296 2. and to answer honestly based on their opinions.192 2.045 and SRMR = 0. RMSEA = 0. positive impact of brand experience on brand preference but not on repurchase intention.4 and 319 degrees of freedom. The results provide evidence that brand experience generates evaluations and judgements towards a brand and that it is a source of preference as postulated by Brakus et al.039 H6b: CON → RPI 0. These responses gleaned during experiencing of the brand are stored in the consumer’s memory. Table 3.90. Summary of SEM results. CFI = 0. (2009) and Gentile et al. (2007). several procedures were used to reduce method biases.86.398 4.714 0.320 0.726 0.338 0.95. Li. Therefore. Black.182 0. Based on CMV analysis.808 0.110 2. Babin. 2003). 2006. GFI = 0. Hypotheses Standardised path estimate Critical value Significance H1a: EXP → PRF 0.062 0.395 H2a: ATT1 → EXP 0. Of the 13 hypotheses. Hypotheses testing For the hypotheses testing. & Biocca.280 0. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1243 some or all of the responses are collected with the same type of scale’ (Hair. confirming the significant. Table 3 summarises the results of the hypotheses testing. there was no concern.130 2. Harman’s single-factor test was used.208 2.041 H3b: PR → PRF 0. only 10 were supported while 3 were rejected.019 ATT2 → PRF 0. the variables used in this study are not constrained by CMV.009 H3a: PR → EXP −0.001 H1b: EXP → RPI 0.008 H4a: APP → EXP 0. The model yielded adequate fit with chi-square at 531.001 ATT2 → EXP 0. The results reveal partial support of H1.245 2.320 4.450 4.014 0. & Tatham. The basic assumption of this technique is that if a single factor accounts for more than 50% of the covariation.889 H5c: BP → RPI 0. then the results indicate the existence of a method bias problem (Podsakoff et al.022 H7: PRF → RPI 0. providing an informational base for evaluating the brand (Goode et al.035 H4b: APP → PRF 0. The other fit indices were within the acceptable range (χ2/ df = 1. the questions were designed in a simple way.128 2. such as assuring the respondents that there were no right or wrong answers.023 .006 0..020 H5a: BP → EXP 0. SEM approach was used using AMOS software.096 0. thus.071 H6a: CON → PRF 0. 833).850 0.855 H2b: ATT1 → PRF 0.005.001 H5b: BP → PRF 0.6.298 0. p.112 −2.147 2. 2010).104 0. 2008).638 0.013 0.

the symbolic aspects of a brand are denoted by brand personality and self- congruity. the results show partial support of H2. 2009). measured by self- expression. the findings revealed that the five factors of brand knowledge. The significant positive impact of brand personality on brand experience reveals that consumer experiences reflect symbolism consumption (Addis & Holbrook. positive impact of appearance perception on both brand experience and brand preference. Rather..g. the results did not confirm the brand personality relationship with either brand preference or repurchase intention. the brand’s symbolic meaning. However. In this study. According to the results. 1993). the indirect impact of consumer experiences on repurchase intention has been supported by Rose et al.1244 R. contributes to consumers’ experiential responses. The second hypothesis postulated the significant impact of attribute perceptions on brand experiences and brand preferences. and showed consistency with Alamro and Rowley’s (2011) study findings. However. appearance. demonstrating the significant impact of product attributes on consumer brand experiences. Light. showing consistency with the study by Lee et al. do not create positive experiences with the brand. However. Also.. including appearance or aesthetic design. & Batista-Foguet. Sirgy et al. In addition. attribute perceptions. and enhances consumer preference (Veryzer. the visual appeal of a brand generates a positive attitude towards the brand (Lee. In addition. 2011). thus. Jamal & Al-Marri. demonstrating that the hedonic attributes of a brand. but an insignificant impact either on brand preference (H5b) or on repurchase intention (H5c). has been proven by Lee et al. positive impact of self-congruity on brand preference and repurchase intention.. The results support the brand general attributes construct as being positively and significantly related to brand experience. The data supports H4. self-congruity and brand . The data does not support the positive influence of price perception on brand experience (H3a). the functional benefits were not related to consumer brand experiences. Chitturi et al. This means that consumer responses to price perception. (2011) to have a significant impact on emotional experiences. (2011). Lee et al. The results supported the significant. 1997. which is analogous with the majority of empirical studies (Ericksen. Ward. confirming the significant. 2001). 2011). price significantly and positively influenced consumer brand preferences. This finding is consistent with the majority of studies (e. 2008. and Goldstine (1999) suggest that consumers have misconceptions about the price of technological products. 1997). namely: brand general attributes and functional benefits. (2011) in an online context through satisfaction and loyalty (Iglesias. The results yield strong support for the impact of both the general attributes of a brand and the functional benefits on brand preferences. the fairness of the monetary value or as an indicator of quality. This finding is consistent with Sheng and Teo (2012). in support of H3b. which revealed that users’ perception of the utilitarian benefits of technological products is not related to consumer emotional responses. supporting H6. Singh. price. 2007. The insignificant impact of brand experience on repurchase intention suggests that consumers have to evaluate their experiences to achieve a behavioural consequence. consumers’ attribute perceptions were divided into two constructs. Brand personality had a significant impact on brand experiences (H5a). the results confirmed the significant impact of self- congruity on brand preferences and repurchase intention. Surprisingly. therefore. EBRAHIM ET AL. the repurchase intention refers to consumers’ decision about repeating the action of purchasing the brand.

Decomposition of effects analysis. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1245 Table 4. The test of mediation supported the assertion that the relationships between brand general attributes and appearance. These factors explain 62.036 0.889 BP → EXP →PRF 0. 2000) or the usage impact on changing consumers perception on the weight or importance of brand attributes or benefits (Hamilton & Thompson. The slight differences between the impact of attribute and non-attribute associations indicate that these factors are at the same level of importance in shaping consumer preferences. as shown in Table 4. Testing mediation The model identified both brand experience and brand preference as mediators.020 APP → EXP → PRF 0. there was a direct. significantly influence brand preference. positive relationship between brand preference and repurchase intention (H7).13 0. appearance (APP).033 0.21 BP → PRF 0.18 EXP → RPI 0.34 APP → PRF 0.012 0.06 0. the results provide evidence that brand experience reflecting consumer responses to various brand stimuli and the acquired knowledge can be a source of preference. The results also confirm full mediation of brand preference on the relationship between brand experience and repurchase intention. In addition. most prior studies focus on the impact of experience referring to the accumulated knowledge (e. As expected. mobile phones and the context. Discussion The results of the hypotheses testing provide various insights to consumer preferences for brand with regard to the product type. and an insignificant impact on brand preference. brand personality has a direct significant impact on brand experience. The role of the mediators was examined following Baron and Kenny (1986) and Hair et al. (2010). mobile phone users in Egypt. and brand preference are partially mediated by brand experience. where the study was conducted. First.15 0. Heilman. on both brand experience and brand preference. However. in the absence of brand experience. The significance of indirect paths via mediators was examined using Sobel’s (1982) test. the study demonstrated that consumer perceptions on different brand meanings build their brand preferences. In addition. The results of the Sobel test support the significance of indirect paths.19 0.044 0. However. The results reveal a direct significant impact of the brand general attributes (ATT1).1% of the variance in repurchase intention.19 0. Through these insights optimal answers to the research questions have been reached.5% of the variance in brand preference.g. Direct path Direct effect Significance Indirect path via mediator Indirect effect Significance Total effect ATT → PRF 0. brand experience fully mediates the relationship between brand personality and brand preference.13 experience. and generate . Bowman. & Wright. a significant relationship between brand personality and brand preference was confirmed. 2007). Brand preference explained 19. Second.006 EXP → PRF → RPI 0.14 0.019 ATT → EXP → PRF 0.042 0.18 0.

2012). it suggests that consumer decisions to repurchase the brand and repeat their experiences will not occur unless it results in favourable predispositions towards a certain brand among the alternatives. with the brand interpreting his/her desire to repeat the experiences and repurchase the brand.. 2005. Second. and the consumers’ willingness and volition on the other hand. the results show support for the significance of the link between the disposition of the consumer to favour certain brand and his/her willingness to buy that brand again. thus emphasising that consumer experience is the foundation of preferences. Study implications A number of theoretical and managerial insights can be drawn from the model which will be discussed in detail in the following sections. this model combines the objective and subjective meanings of brand and holistic consumer experience. the study findings of the mediating role of brand preference to the relationship between the brand experience and the repurchase intentions add new insights: first. brand preferences stand as an evaluation of consumer experiences. 2007. This result extends the role of preferences from motivating the consumer intentions to the repetition of the act.. Gupta & Vajic. based on the results. ensuring the delivery of the brand value to consumers (Gentile et al. the model implies the important role that brand experience plays in transferring the inherent values of brand attributes to brand preferences. Third. Theoretical implications The present research contributes to existing marketing and branding literature in five ways: First. the model expands the dominant role of experience and includes it as a direct source of brand preference. In addition.. the indication of preferences can be considered as a linkage between the informational processing and the psychological and experiential responses on the one hand. These experiences play a significant role in delivering perceptual values created from the brand attributes. The holistic nature of consumer experience emphasises other non-cognitive responses in building consumer preference such as emotional responses. Meyer & Schwager. Therefore. The model addresses consumer brand preferences using a balanced position between consumer rationality and irrationality. investigated in prior studies (Allen et al. evaluations or judgements towards a brand. 2009. Thus. Therefore. The insignificance of a direct relationship between brand experience and . The results were also consistent with Hoeffler and Ariely (1999). Unlike the traditional model. which link to future psychological responses. which focuses on brand utilitarian beliefs as the main drivers of brand preferences. Daugherty. Second. 2005). Grimm. 2008. Third.1246 R. Li. the positive impact of preferences on future acts might be an indication of consumer intentions for consistent preferences. 1999. 2007). EBRAHIM ET AL. These responses are induced regardless to the type or level of experiences (Brakus et al. the research fills the gap in the extant literature by building a model which provides an understanding of consumer brand preferences and future purchase intentions. Sheng & Teo. & Biocca. the research contributes to the theory by supporting the importance of integrating consumers’ experiential responses into cognitive information processing in developing their preferences.

where companies build their competitive advantage. The economic factor presented by price plays a significant role. In order to build strong brand and position it is important for mangers to recognise the strategic significance of both sensorial and emotional experiences. It indicates that functional. The first level represents the brand attribute cognition related to its functional attributes and benefits. price still reflects consumers’ monetary sacrifice to experience the brand. This indicates the importance of experiencing the brand in order to transfer the brand personality to symbolic meanings. Therefore. consumers. Practical implications One of the primary goals of practitioners is to build strong brands that are able to influence consumer preference and stimulate future purchasing decisions. Other symbolic and aesthetic associations are important in developing a biased predisposition by the consumer towards certain brands. it is suggested that managers need to develop pricing strategies that stimulate consumer irrationality by reflecting the experiential value in the price to reduce consumer consciousness about low prices. Fourth. A key finding concerns the role of brand personality. The study addresses consumer brand preferences in a different geographical area than the majority of the studies that focus on America or European countries. 1997). in addition to the use of the aggregate level to measure their impact on brand preference. The study suggests three levels for building high-tech brands. based on brand meanings and delivered experiences. the study differentiates between the impact of brand imagery associations addressed by brand personality and self-congruity. having the intention to repurchase the brand. At this level managerial attention should be drawn to the importance of brand experience subjective aspects. At the third level are the brand experiences. the impact that price can have on consumer preferences and experiences provides important insights about the pricing strategies of advanced technological products. the direct impact of brand imagery associations on brand preference is reflected by the self-congruity theory. except indirectly through brand experience. an important methodological implication is the utilisation of the ‘big five’ personality traits to measure brand personality. utilitarian attributes are not the focal interest of a consumer trade-off between multiple brand alternatives. However. reflect on their desire to repeat the experience. The study offers insights by . This study has implications for practitioners wishing to build consumer preference for brands of technological products. the findings enhance the understanding of consumer cognitive information processing in preference development. However. and thus to enhance consumer preference. Consumers differentiating between brands give weight to the price and prefer the alternative at a reasonable price offering good value for money. Therefore. Price is important in developing consumer preferences. Aaker. Finally.g. The second level is positioning the brand in consumers’ minds using its aesthetic attributes and symbolic associations. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1247 repurchase intention points to a phenomenon that brand preference can act as an evaluation of consumer experience. the findings did not support the direct impact of brand personality on brand preference. Third. Therefore. This provides an understanding of cultural conditioning on consumer brand preferences and behavioural responses. However. the extant literature supports the significant direct impact of brand personality on brand preference (e.

Consumers weigh the brand knowledge elements differently. These studies focus on the impact of experience level or type changing consumer’s preference level. internal and behavioural responses evoked by consumers interacting with the brand. EBRAHIM ET AL. brand experience is revealed to be a significant direct antecedent of brand preference in addition to its mediating role. uncovering consumers’ differential desirability to the different elements of brand knowledge. differences are clarified in the overlapping terms reflecting symbolic brand associations. In addition. The study suggests that it is the balance between the functional. Yet. Accordingly. Conclusions This study attempts to understand consumer brand preferences from the experiential viewpoint. It then focuses on the sub- conscious private experiences stored in the consumer’s memory. thus influencing the behavioural tendencies into actual repeating behaviour. the role of brand personality in shaping . Moreover. It suggests the importance of experiencing the brand in order to transfer the inherent value of brand attributes into brand preferences. can build consistent consumer predisposition towards the brand. reflecting the holistic responses to the brand stimuli as a source of developing brand preference. The research implies that the symbolic effect of the brand on preference is exerted through its power to reflect or express the favourable identity of the consumer. This biased position provides the link between brand experience and repeat purchasing behaviour. the value embedded in brand offerings is delivered by. This extension of experience meaning contributes to the research significance in several ways. Moreover. hedonic and symbolic attributes of mobile phones that enhance consumer preferences by shaping their brand experiences. through experienced managers. In the context of technological products. The article proposes that gaining consumer preferences require delivering an adequate balance of the brand meanings. The research goes beyond the notion of experience used in prior preference studies. The research considers experience reflected by consumer responses resulting from interactions with the brand.1248 R. examining its impact on the relationship between the attributes and preferences. The brand experiences include the subjective. Consumers perceive this impact either by matching or experiencing the brand. consumer experiences towards brands that build consumer predispositions. The differentiation between the discrete impact of symbolic associations explicated by brand personality and self- congruity reveal important insights on positioning brands. It is important to reflect on the brand personality appeal. This holistic nature of experience offers insight into the importance of responses other than only the emotional experiences investigated in prior studies. These insights are important for technological product design in the mobile phone domain. The study reveals the importance of functional attributes/benefits related to brand performance rather than unrelated attributes on building consumer preferences. the superiority of the personality type and the novelty of attributes of the brand via its personality or symbolic meaning and in addition. and linked to. not by describing the brand using human traits. brand experience is an important long-term strategic tool for mangers used to build long-standing preference. this does not imply that consumers neglect brand functional attributes and benefits.

companies will be able to engage the experiential marketing by building consumer experience and creating experiential values for the brand. therefore. Her research interests include branding manage- ment. position the brand. therefore a proposed direction for future research is to uncover the role of individual differences affecting their perceptions and experiential responses in developing brand preferences. Moreover. it draws an important insight into how consumers perceive the symbolic value of humanising the brand. social media marketing. hence. a non-probability sampling technique. The study did not investigate the impact of consumer demographics. to an extent. The study addresses one type of technological product namely the mobile phone. the study was reliant on convenience sampling. Therefore. build and conceive the brand in consumers’ minds. The findings of this study would enable managers to develop an experiential branding strategy. determine the appropriate pricing strategy. Limitations and proposed future research This study is not without limitations. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1249 consumers’ brand experience is emphasised. He got his PhD in Information Systems Evaluation with a focus on the indirect costs associated with devel- oping information technology infrastructures. This strategy will allow companies to build the brand meaning in consumers’ minds. such as corporate credibility. Other factors representing the relationship between consumers and a company. Dr Ahmad Ghoneim is the Director of Undergraduate Studies at Brunel Business School. the proposed and validated model of the current research depends on the consumer–brand relationship. Egypt. Subsequently. should be considered in the future. Therefore. She received her PhD from Brunel University London. and consumer behavior. it is recommended for future work to test the model in different developing countries using larger populations. The main constraint with this lies in its limited ability to assure the legitimacy of generalising the research results to the population. tablets and digital TVs to support the study findings. the focus is on brand signals. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. the study findings are limited to a single geographical area. aligning the brand experience. position. Other limitations are related to the research design. although the relatively large sample size and the demographic representativeness of the sample allow the assessment of external validity. Notes on contributors Dr Ebrahim is a lecturer in the Business Administration department at Tanta University. Dr Ghoneim delivered Micro-MBA workshops for the Cabinet office and the HM-Treasury on leveraging Social Media. He is a Certified BOSS and Markstrat Simulation Instructor. specify its image and target the marketing segment. Thus. future studies could address other types of technological products such as laptops. defined by consumer perceptions and experiences relative to the brand inputs shaping his/her preferences and future purchasing decisions. He is a certified Academic Programme Developer and championed .

Business School of the Year. He is a member of the Information Systems Evaluation and Integration Group (ISEing) which is a research centre of excellence that supports a number of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded networks and projects. (1997). Enhancing Graduate Attributes and Continuous Professional Development. Ghoneim publishes his work in well acclaimed journals such as the European Journal of Operational Research as well as in international conferences. Dimensions of brand personality. His research interests include ICT adoption and evaluation in public and private sectors. University Business. Zahir’s research interests are multidisciplinary in nature and grounded in scientific principles. He has also been the Head of the Department of Information Systems and Computing (now. He also manages to find time to write press and thought leadership pieces on higher education and graduate employability that have appeared in The Guardian. Thomson Reuters. Qatar Foundation. He is on the editorial team of a number of journals and co-edited a special issue for the European Journal of Information Systems and International Journal of Cases in E-commerce. at all levels in the subjects of marketing and strategy. References Aaker. Author of over 90 publica- tions. J. He has supervised over 280 master students and 11 doctoral students. including from the UK Research Councils (EPSRC. including the Head of the Brunel Business School which he joined in 2006 and where in 2013 it was awarded Business School of Year under his leadership. Arts and Social Sciences (CBASS) at Brunel University London. Department of Computer Science) at Brunel University London. He has held numerous senior roles at Brunel. Prior to setting up CBASS. HEA and QinetiQ. Dr. Australian Research Council. Dr Ying Fan is an associate lecturer at Queen Mary University of London. He has a PhD in the area of investment evaluation and undertook his leadership development at the Harvard Business School. and Knowledge management. Dr Fan has taught at 10 institutions in the UK and abroad.0. Financial Times (FT). EBRAHIM ET AL. He also publishes in leading scholarly journals and has a H-index of 60 that places Zahir Irani amongst the most cited scholars. CRM. Research Foresight and Times Higher Education (THE). Brunel Business School received the 2013/14 Times Higher Award . He has worked on a number of research grants for the UK Higher Education Academy on Enhancing the alignment of programme level accreditation. and the Qatar QNRF on Life Long Learning. doi:10. Zahir Irani is a Professor of Sustainable Business Operations in the Brunel Business School and the Founding Dean of the College for Business. ESRC). He is the Chair of the well acclaimed grade (B) European Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS) as well as the Programme Chair of the eGov/ tGov workshops. plus a strong track record in transnational education and international partnerships. The Independent. Web 2. Digital Marketing. expert reviewer and external examiner. where he was a Senior Policy Advisor at the Cabinet Office. He is also serving as a Director and member of the board of Trustees of Right Start Foundation International (RSFI) a multi-million pounds UK-based Charity. and evaluates undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. L. he was seconded to work in Whitehall. Dr Fan is internationally recognised for his work on nation branding and Chinese cultural values. He has received significant levels of funding from across the world as Principal Investigator. 34(3). Journal of Marketing Research. Dr Fan also has extensive experience as guest speaker. Dr Fan has a wide range of experience in curriculum and programme development. European Commission. 347–356.1250 R. and devel- oped from early work on the area of evaluating investments in manufacturing information systems onto make normative contributions in the area of Transformational Government before more recent work in Food Security. With more than 30 years in academia. The Wall Street Journal. Under his leadership. He completed a BEng (Hons) at Salford University before then accepting a research position in industry where he completed a Masters.2307/3151897 .

128 Baron. 494–499. doi:10. H. Journal of Strategic Marketing.. (2001).bm. L.-N.1173 Bass. 51(6). W.1086/ 209567 Aaker. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1251 Aaker. & Zarantonello.2007.3.1002/cb. J. 50– 66. V.1016/S0148- 2963(03)00138-3 Alamro. A.. J. M.. doi:10. R. Social Behaviour and Personality. doi:10. S. (2007).. A place for emotion in attitude models. S.. (1983).. 73(3). An integrated model of attitude affect: Theoretical foundation and an empirical investigation. 77–92.. W. (1988). & Kenny. Journal of Product & Brand Management. A. Operations Research. J. C. doi:10.52 . (2005). An attitude model for the study of brand preference. (2003).3. 303–316. March). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing. Capon. 19(4). L. November). (1972). (2011). doi:10. A. & Holbrook. 13(4). M. A.1086/208602 Biel. 262–269. L. (1982). Machleit. W. B. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual. Retrieved from https://www. L. K. R.73.. A.1086/209154 Berry. (2001).. Journal of Consumer Research. How brand images drives brand equity. doi:10.. 10(3). R. J. L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.81. doi:10. R. & Mattila. R. Bochmann. (2000. 26(4). F. & Haeckel. doi:10.1509/ jmkr.1016/S0148-2963(03)00139-5 Amir. 145–158. J. Journal of Advertising Research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 411–454. 1–15. J. A. Managing the total customer experience. & Hufschmidt. 11(2). 6–12.. L. (1987. Brand_Equity Bosnjak.31. 58. T..1287/opre. Journal of Marketing Research.303 Brakus. S. affect. P. S.492 Addis. (1992). B.. (1975). MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://search. N. 35(3). R. doi:10.. S. (2008). & Malhotra. Journal of Marketing Research. Journal of Business Research. Choice construction versus preference construction: The instability of preferences learned in context.. K. M.2307/3149618 Bass.. A.2540162 Bagozzi. A holistic methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation. N. doi:10. Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. & Levav. & Garolera. 562–683. J.51. F. (1973).researchgate. (1986). Siguaw.35. & Hutchinson. 15(2). 43(3)... W. & Notani. W. Multi-attribute measurement models and multi- attribute attitude theory: A test of construct validity.2. J. (2003. & Kapferer.1509/jmkg. Accessibility or diagnosticity? Disentangling the influence of culture on persuasion processes and attitudes.1108/ 10610421111166621 Alba.1086/209080 Allen. M. P. J.53 Agarwal. & Wilkie. doi:10.. 1(1). 9(1). 93–96. Journal of Marketing Research.6. doi:10. Journal of Consumer Research. 52–68.. W. J. Journal of Consumer Research. 128–176.. Journal of Business Research. doi:10. 483–493. M. strategic. & Rowley. A comparative analysis of attitudinal predictions of brand preference. Dimensions of brand personality attributions: A person-centric approach in the German cultural context. 45(2). 1(4). and behavior. J. 20(6).. doi:10. intentions.45.2307/3151727 Bagozzi. T.1037/0022-3514.145 Austin. 31(1). Journal of Marketing Research. doi:10. doi:10. Schmitt. P. 85–89. 11(2). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research. J. March). J. and statistical considerations. doi:10. 81(3). 475– f34ee7f6bf3fd502eb7170f63d812199/1?pq-origsite=gscholar Bettman. A field investigation of causal relations among cognitions.2224/sbp. D. 492–508. doi:10. & Lutz.3. Possessions and the extended self.. (2009). A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework.1. (2002). V.proquest. J. Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Journal of Brand Management. O. A. Benet-Martinez. R. & Talarzyk. H.1080/0965254032000104469 Azoulay. 143–155. On the conceptual link between mass customisation and experiential consumption: An explosion of subjectivity.1057/palgrave. L. 139–168.. J. M. (2005). 1173–1182. Carbone. 58. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 32(6).2307/3149693 Belk. Antecedents of brand preference of mobile telecommunications services.1037/0022-3514. 340–357. L. doi:10.

Marketing Letters. (2008).eg/default.. F. The impact of brand equity on brand preference and purchase intentions in the service industries. Fishbein (Eds. Espoito Vinzi. A. ijresmar. Swait. R. G. & Trusov. Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: An integrative model and research propositions.0737- 6782. R. 927–959.2005. doi:10.. L. EBRAHIM ET AL. A consideration of beliefs. A.2006. C. doi:10. doi:10. J.1002/mar. 97–115. from http:// www. A. NJ: Pearson Education.1509/jmkg. B. G. 16(1). & M. 10(3).1016/j. Raghunathan.. A PLS model to study brand preference: An application to the mobile phone Li. & Chieng... 63–81. 1687–1706. 2011. (2006). In J. (2004). & Biocca. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. The Service Industries Journal. doi:10. 72. Swait. doi:10. 377–395. International Journal of Research in Marketing... (2007). consumer learning. J. Y.70. L.1177/14705931030032004 Chang. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Zettelmeyer. 267–286. M. doi:10. (2008). Journal of Marketing. et al.1108/09604521211218936 Cobb-Walgren. doi:10. T. 24(3). S. doi:10. M. (2001). 3(2). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase intention: A European perspective. Consumer learning and the effects of virtual experience relative to indirect and direct product experience. Retrieved July 1. In V.1509/jmkg.00103. Brand equity. (2010). Bridging the gap between brand strategy and customer experience. Brand equity.2307/3149308 Churchill.1080/02642060902793557 Chang.. (1997). P. Central Agency for Public Mobilisation and Statistics. 22. T. doi:10. V. (2006).72.. 70(1). Kapferer. Fishbein. H. (2005). doi:10. J.2010. 6(1).).702 Chitturi. Chakravarti. A. C.1995. doi:10. 301–318. Form versus function: How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences..20225 Decker. & Schoormans. Brands as signals: A cross-country validation study. Journal of Marketing Research. T. doi:10. N.1252 R.1023/ A:1008135224357 Erdem. Reinhart and Winston. Journal of Marketing...1509/jmkr. 48–63. and their relationships. London: SAGE. Ruble. (2009). Clued in: How to keep customers coming back again and again.1. Raghunathan. (1999). A. A. Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.. Current studies in social psychology. M. Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble but complete view of the concept. F. Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology. Broniarczyk. D. Upper Saddle River.2307/3150876 Clatworthy. Psychology & Marketing.48 Churchill.. V. 41–56.1016/S0167-4870(01)00039-3 Carbone. 29(12). doi:10. & Donthu. & Cova. Building consumer–brand relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits.1300/J037v06n01_04 Field. & Valenzuela. M. Heidelberg: Springer. (2003). 23(11).44.). Berlin. . A. 702–714. P. doi:10. doi:10.. 27(4). Handbooks of Computational Statistics. doi:10. K. New York: Holt. Journal of Advertising. 108–127.4. & Mahajan. (2010). International Journal of Research in Marketing. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal. Estimating aggregate consumer preferences from online product reviews.34 Ericksen. FT Press.x Czellar. G. brand preference. 34–49.3. Linear attitude models: A study of predictive ability. J.1080/00913367. .20140 Chitturi.. 44(4). V.aspx?lang=2 Caprara.. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 22. . Marketing Theory.. and purchase intent. 64–73. 25–40. (2003). B..1016/S0167-8116 (02)00124-6 Daugherty. Psychology and Marketing. H.001 Duarte. Journal of Marketing Research. (1979). R. CAPMAS. (2012). C. 25(7). R. P. Barbaranelli. Carù.1007/978-3-540- 32827-8_21 Erdem. 9(4).). & Mahajan. M. (1972). Handbook of partial least squares. S. 20.. Keane. S. & Guido. 293–307.. attitudes. and choice. P. R. & Liu. doi:10. M. Journal of Marketing Research. Journal of Euro-Marketing. 22(2).. H. O. (2005).09. (1965). J.10673481 Creusen. 568–586. L. G. Seteiner. .1111/j. M.. (Eds.. & Raposo.capmas. H. doi:10. M. (1995).1002/mar. 423–426. E.

E. R. M. 37(11/12). 9(2). doi:10.08. Journal of Consumer Psychology. Multivariate data analysis (7th ed. J. A new measure of brand personality. theory and practice. The effect of experiential analogies on consumer perceptions and attitudes. feelings. R. A.. v16/NA-16 Hoeffler.. Essentials of business research methods. 1216–1229..1216 Goode. Journal of Macro Marketing. Taylor & Francis Group... doi:10. R. & Tatham.1207/s15327663jcp0802_01 Holbrook. K. W. Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.. S.. CA: Sage. Consumer behaviour theories as heroic quest. The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies. Black. Journal of Consumer Research.. (2007). (1999). Carr. D.ijresmar. Dahl. J.1016/j. 1762–1800. Customer repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. (1976). The varieties of consumption experience: Comparing two typologies of emotion in consumer behavior. doi:10. (1990). (2010).). (2007). (1999). 132–140.18728 Hellier.acrwebsite. Journal of Advertising. 25 (5). Hamilton. Consumer theory when prices and real income affect preferences.. (1986).1177/0276146707305478 Holbrook. A. An alternative description of personality: The big five structure. Babin.. L. W. J. 33–51). Money. W.). M. 139–155. 59(6). J.. C.274 Grimm. Brand management.2753/JOA0091-3367410102 Gentile. G. C..33 Havlena. London: Routledge.1108/03090560310495456 Hirschman. M. C. Retrieved from http://www.. Hair. (2012). D. 43(1). (2010). J. Upper Saddle River. Ab components’ impact on brand preference. How to sustain customer experience: An overview of experience components that create value with the customer. Netemeyer. P. G. P....1016/j. D. B. Spiller.2. P. In J. something borrowed. doi:10. W. International Journal of Research in Marketing. M. 639–646.. & Noci. S.emj.005 Geuens. E. T.1037/0022-3514. & Rickard. C. Upper Saddle River. research. B. NJ: Pearson Education. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2007). 840–845. J. doi:10. M. 97–107. doi:10. & Wright. G. A.139. 26.002 Goldberg.. R. Book reviews: The consumption experience – something new. & Samouel. Fitzsimmons (Eds. doi:10. 303–329...1086/208906 . N. NJ: Pearson Education.2307/1056345 Heding.1086/209078 Hayakawa. F. R. H. V. 4(6). 17–32. (2006). B. Knudtzen. Journal of Consumer Behaviour.. 394–404. W. 58 (4). P. doi:10.1002/cb.. doi:10.. something sold: Part 4. (1989). & Vajic. G. Black. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1253 Folse. Hoboken. & Holbrook. The evolution of brand preferences and choice behaviors of consumers new to a market. J. & De Wulf. E. Journal of Marketing Research. 41(1). excitement. Babin. Journal of Consumer Research. R. (2003). & Ariely. G. NJ: John Wiley & Sons. S.. 16. H.2008. J. R. New service development: Creating memorable experiences (pp.59. Hair. P. doi:10. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00141-3 Gupta. Babin.. Thousand Oaks. E. 27(3). D. & Burton. & Bjerre. & Thompson.37.47. Perspectives on consumer decision making: An integrated approach. and fun. 508–517.1509/ jmkr. B.. B. 274–286. European Management Journal. (1982). Southern Economic Journal. Heilman. B. something old. 8(2). Spokescharacters: How the personality traits of sincerity.. 47(2). & Hirschman. Bowman. L.2007. K. doi:10. A. T.n2 Hair. F. Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers’ preferences after direct and indirect product experiences.1086/520073 Hansen.6. 420–437. and competence help to build equity. E. (2003). 34(4). (2009). M. doi:10. & Moreau. (2009).1509/jmkr. 395–410. 546–555. C. Advances in Consumer Research. 37(2). & Anderson.. European Journal of Marketing.. (2005).2. C. F.12. Weijters. R. 13(3).4135/9781452205564. Journal of Business Research. Journal of Marketing Research. M. C. Geursen. M.. (2005). F. Fitzsimmons & M. B. Journal of Consumer Research. 113–139. J. doi:10. Constructing stable preferences: A look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. The contextual and dialectical nature of experiences. Anderson. (2000). M.). C. doi:10. doi:10.

1468-2370.. measuring. R. doi:10. and managing customer-based brand equity.1254 R..1086/346254 Kim. Marketing Science.0192 Howard. 18(8). (2011). doi:10.1008548 Malhotra. Philadelphia. B. Journal of Marketing. (2009). J. A.. M. F. Customer experiences with brands: Literature review and research directions. Conceptualizing. .. London: Brunel University...022 Leuthesser. N. 64. Huber.1362/026725707X2266 Jamal. The Marketing Review. A.1111/j. brand personality and brand loyalty: An empirical study of toys and video games buyers. & Woodside.20525 Hulten. Social capital and business and management: Setting a research agenda. R. Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Mitchell. Journal of Consumer Research. (2003).. & Batista-Foguet.00244. S.x Lee. Journal of Marketing Management.ijhm. doi:10. R. 57(1).008 Kressmann. 19(7). J. Journal of Marketing Management. 29(4).2015.. Journal of Brand Management. (1993). New York.1016/j. 11(3). doi:10. S.. doi:10. (2011). N.1287/mksc. (2006). R. C. 29(5). A. S. Consumer responses to high-technology products: Product attributes. (1995). 4–17. L.1108/09555341111130245 Iglesias. The role of brand experience and affective commitment in determining brand loyalty.. (2007). 595–600. 30(2). doi:10. & Harich. The relationship of consumer personality trait. L. doi:10.58 Ismail. Lim. (2011).. Melewar. M. A. Sensory marketing: The multi-sensory brand-experience concept. J. (2003). PA: Kogan Page. 19 (1).2307/ 3172830 Lin. 23(7–8). doi:10. & Al-Marri.. D. 448–458. V. doi:10. R. R. (2011). (2008). doi:10. Marketing Intelligence and Planning. Journal of Marketing Research. L. Misra. 59(9). 234–245. 322–335.1108/02634500110408286 Kapferer.06. Are consumer and brand personalities the same? Psychology & Marketing. Ha.2006.-J. Sirgy. 1195–1200. K.1002/mar. doi:10. A. NY: John Wiley & Sons. K. (2012). Brand equity: The halo effect measure. L. doi:10. P. & Goode. 613–629.06. & Lee. International Journal of Management Reviews. doi:10. EBRAHIM ET AL. N. doi:10. jbusres. 31(5–6). Marketing research: An applied approach (2nd European ed.001 Lee. (1993). 482–492. Consumers and brands: A study of the impact of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. (2010). M. J. N. F... Horsky. (2011). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study.09. P. S. Journal of Business Research. T. 23(3). O. & Singal. & Widdows. doi:10. & Netemeyer. F. H... Exploring the effect of self-image congruence and brand preference on satisfaction: The role of expertise. K. D. 30(2)... Celebrities as human brands: An investigation of the effects of personality and time on celebrities’ appeal. 955–964. 25(4). Huang. J. The effects of customers’ perceptions of brand personality in casual theme restaurants. 247–273. S. M. 685–712. A.1057/bm.. 256–273.2307/1252054 Keller. R. M.. Investigating British customers’ experience to maximise brand loyalty within context of tourism in Egypt: Netnography & structural modelling approach (Published thesis). European Journal of Marketing. Observed and unobserved preference heterogeneity in brand-choice models. NY: Prentice Hall. European Business Review. Huber.jbusres. Singh. Ridgway. (2010).2010.2008.. L. Journal of Business Research. & Nelson. cognition and emotions. F. Ismail.).1362/ 146934711X589435 Jamal. International Journal of Hospitality Management... 334–349.1108/03090569510086657 Lichtenstein. doi:10. (2006). O. Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty.1016/j. 570–582.. J.. V. D. J. & Sheth.1108/10610421011018347 Lunardo. A. H. Herrmann. K. H. C.1016/j. & Birks.2010. The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand equity long term. G. Keller.. 29(4). Magnini.. D. R. Journal of Product & Brand Management. (1969). 1–22.. doi:10.2011. & Rosenaum-Elliott. (2015). M. D. The theory of buyer behaviour.1050. 205–225. (2001). 57–66. New York. R. 11(3). Kohli.1080/0267257X. & Livat. Gergaud.

Hair. doi:10.. (2007).1111/j.. 551–578. Journal of Marketing Research. & Foxx. MacKenzie. (2012). (2000).pdf Plummer. Rationality for economists. doi:10.011 Morgan-Thomas..jbusres. M.x Myers. 205–237.. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.03.1108/10610420310463126 Okada. J. 271–288. & Srinivasan. jbusres. 39–51. Pallant.07. Journal of Targeting. Kim.2011. Retrieved from http://rushkolnik.1111/j. Beyond technology acceptance: Brand relationships and online brand experience.043 Pullman. C. 65(11). Milas. (2010). V. doi:10. T. Y. Zaichkowsky. Park. SPSS manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed. I. 21–27... C.x Reimann. J. A. Harvard Business Review.2501/JAR-40-6-79-83 Podsakoff. Lee.1. Online customer experience: A review of the business to consumer online purchase context. M. (1971). C. 42(1).. A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility.2011. B. 40(6).00306.1468-2370.88. Palvia. 88(5). J. Harvard Business Review. Journal of Product & Brand Management. (2011). G. A. & Gross. Bender. E.06. Aesthetic package design: A behavioral. Mobile phone choice: Technology versus marketing. A. 73–105. 85 (2).1070867 Rose. 42(1). J. 31(2). Journal of Business Research.43. doi:10. (July- August). doi:10. V. doi:10. doi:10. P. S. Journal of Business Research.1145/1070838.1016/j.2307/3152199 Park.. D. N.. Brand personality and human personality: Findings from ratings of familiar Croatian brands.1016/S0022-4359(00)00045-2 McFadden. For mobile applications.jbusres. Decision Sciences.2010. jt. (2003). Journal of Retailing. 12(1). 879–903. doi:10. Journal of Marketing Research. B. S. 1583–1589. (2011). & Schwager. 35(3). E.2010.1023/A:1007863007855 Meyer. & Mlačić. Measurement and Analysis for Marketing. How personality makes a difference.5. H. S. E. N. and e-impulse buying on shopping websites. Journal of Applied Psychology.1540- 5915. P.1016/j. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1255 Mathwick. (1998). 13(1)..02. 61–66. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. J. B. Malhotra. doi:10. E. Rinehart & Winston. T. doi:10. Journal of Advertising Research. (2006). 620–626.1111/j. C.1509/jmkr. (2013). M.. (2001). J. W. Understanding customer experience. doi:10. 97–105. 77(1). 20(4). branding is experience. 60(6). 9(1). measurement and application in the catalog and internet shopping environment. Communications of the ACM. A...1037/0021-9010. P. N. neural. 1160–1166. Apparel product attributes. E.008 Paivio. (1994). M.2010. doi:10. New York: Holt.5740005 Pine.56889 Overby. Journal of Consumer Psychology. M. K. doi:10. Welcome to the experience economy. Decision Sciences.1016/j. M..1108/03090561011032298 Phau...1016/j. (2000). V. (2010). 43–53. & Lee. doi:10.1057/palgrave.02611.. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The brand effect in the Italian market. B.x . & Rigdon. Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. C. A. 431–441.2004.jcps. Imagery and verbal processes. International Journal of Management Reviews. C. B.. C.. and psychological investigation. December). 66(1). doi:10. The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions..42. 610–634. & Weber. & Clark..). doi:10. Managing brand equity: A look at the impact of attributes. J. 19(1/ 3). doi:10. 39–56.2006. (1999. 24–39. doi:10. E. 59(10–11). Journal of Business Research.1016/j. & Lau.. Conceptualising brand personality: A review and research propositions. & Podsakoff.. L. (2004). Neuhaus. European Journal of Marketing. W. & Grover. Building a model of technology preference: The case of channel choices. (2010). C. Journal of Business Research. 48(7).0011-7315. & Gilmore. & Veloutsou. Funches.009 Rondeau. 44(5). (2005).019 Muthitcharoen. (2003).2006. D. Ability of experience design elements to elicit emotions and loyalty behaviors. 116. web browsing..00280. M. (2007). 79–83.06. Experiential value: Conceptualization. (2005). A. jbusres. 52–69.

1002/ mar.1016/j. . B. W. Lemon. K. Hi-tech hi-touch branding: Creating brand power in the age of technology. & Hassan.2014..1108/ 13522750410530002 Schwarz. Utility. J. & Teo. Psychology and Marketing. L.001 Veryzer. 356– 366.1016/j. (2004).2307/3149597 Simon. doi:10. NY: John Wiley & Sons.ijinfomgt.. J.). D... S. (2009). & Harris. Experiential marketing. The concept of brand experience. Retrieved from http://www. S. & Kim.. 332–348. D. dynamics and management strategies.12.. 229–241. (2009). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. New York. (1997). Journal of Consumer Research. doi:10. CA: Jossey- Bass. (2000). C. H. Experience marketing: A review and reassessment. Journal of Consumer Psychology. L.. Tsiros.1057/bm. doi:10.022 Sobel. 31–41. 61(10). N.1016/j. (1999). doi:10. Sung. C. London: Prentice Hall.1057/bm. L. The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. 27(7). cultural symbolism and emotion: A comprehensive model of brand purchase value. (2008). J. 6–9. 639–663.34 Schoenfelder. 8(3).1086/208924 Sirgy. J. 22(3). . Roggeveen. Journal of Brand Management. & Thornhill. P. A. & Lee. M. Johar. Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Perceived instrumentality and value importance as determinants of attitudes. W.11. W. & Sullivan.. (1993). S. 277–291. J. 25–36. N. 20.2008. International Journal of Information Management. C. J. 18(5). A. N. & Talarzyk.1362/026725709X461821 Usunier. . (2012). Journal of Brand Management.. M. Saunders.1002/mar. S. 16.. (2014).1256 R. P. N.. A. 85(1).. A. B. .. International Journal of Research in Marketing. ijresmar. EBRAHIM ET AL. 501–517. Product attributes and brand equity in the mobile domain: The mediating role of customer experience.. Journal of Retailing.09.. Journal of Advertising Research. 224–228. (1993).acrweb site.. 417–419. A. T. 21(9). & Schlesinger. 53–67.5 Schmitt. Psychology and Marketing. S. C. Schmitt. Berkman. P. T. Parasuraman. C. Sheth. Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Leinhart (Ed.. Tolba. doi:10. J. Journal of Marketing Management.1016/j. 727–733. Mangleburg. (1968). San Francisco.20122 Temporal.. (2009). K. J. doi:10. P. Chon. Journal of Product & Brand Management. jbusres.. doi:10. 12(1). & Tidwell. 7(2). M. Lewis. doi:10. (2004). 9(3).28 Sirgy. J.. M. K.1362/026725799784870496 Schmitt.2007.1. Customer experience creation: Determinants. (2010). F. doi:10. B. & McKechnie. Marketing Science.. 290–312). & Zarantonello.11. 9(1). The current state and future of brand experience. H. & Brandon. In S... International and cross-cultural management research.1108/10610420910981837 Tsai. Lee. Grewal. 287–300. How adults learn brand preferences. J. doi:10. 1091–1097. 25(5–6).. High-tech corporate branding: Lessons for market research in the next decade. 25(3).1287/mksc. Claiborne. Journal of Business Research. S. Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product preferences. Journal of Marketing Management. J.jretai. R. Park.. 639–661. Advances in Consumer Research. (2005). M. M. (2006). doi:10. J. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. London: SAGE. Y. (1982)..2009. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. Brand personality: Exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models.-C. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 139–146. J. 28–52. (1982). C.11. doi:10. 15(1–3). C.017 Sheth. doi:10.2011.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2 Sheng. doi:10.20349 Sweeney. Research methods for business students (6th ed. E. Sociological methodology (pp. Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty. Brakus..).2004. B. (2009). (1972).1177/0092070397253004 Sirgy. doi:10. Verhoef. 32(2). (2012). H.002 Tynan. (1998). 14(4). 91–99. Journal of Marketing Research. Linking customer-based brand equity with brand market performance: A managerial approach. J. 23(8). doi:10. doi:10.

151–175. 17(7).. & Yang.1057/bm. and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. 24(4). R. doi:10.2307/1251446 ..151 Zajonc.1037/0003-066X. International Marketing Review.. doi:10. Journal of Consumer Research. 52(3). doi:10. X. R. 85–95. W. quality. B. & Schmitt.1086/ 209516 Wang. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences? American Psychologist. Retrieved from https://hbr. R.. 77(4). & Markus. doi:10. J. 35(2). (1980). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research. Z. H.. Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. (1999). doi:10. A. Light. Journal of Brand Management. 25(4).4 Zeithaml. 123–131. 9(2). V.2010. L. July). Harvard Business Review. H. (1998). & Goldstine. Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality and purchase intention in emerging economies? Evidence from China’s auto high-tech-managers-need-to-know-about-brands Zajonc. (2008). 374–394.. (1982). S. W. doi:10.2. 532–540. & Hutchinson. (1988. B. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1257 Veryzer.1108/02651330810887495 Ward. L. 458–474. Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers and predict consumer behaviour. B. (2010). What high-tech managers need to know what about brands. Journal of Marketing. J. 2–22. Consumer perceptions of price.35.1086/208905 Zarantonello.

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalisation.1258 R.805 This brand is an emotional brand EXE05 . Appendices Appendix 1.675 I am always up-to-date with this brand EXB04 . . EFA of brand experience Component 1 2 3 4 EXT01 .711 This brand is more than a mobile phone EXT04 .546 This brand fits my way of life EXE06 .830 This brand tries to put me in a certain mood EXE01 .732 This brand tries to remind me of activities I can do EXB06 .781 This brand makes a strong impression on my visual sense EXS03 .763 I am thinking what the new model of this brand will look like EXT03 .700 I am pleased with this brand EXE02 .748 This brand is interesting in a sensory way Extraction method: Principal component analysis.594 There is an emotional bond between me and this brand EXS02 .808 I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this brand EXT02 .836 This brand excite my senses EXS01 .883 This brand gets me to think about my behaviour EXB05 .853 This brand is part of my daily life EXB03 .751 This brand provides solution to communication problems EXT05 . EBRAHIM ET AL.

.571 BP_CS03 Efficient .677 BP_AG06 Faithful .811 BP_EM04 Stable .655 BP_AG07 Pleasant .756 BP_EM01 Patient .781 BP_EM03 Level-head .733 BP_OP04 Modern .742 BP_AG04 Generous .727 BP_EX05 Happy .666 BP_OP03 Innovative .719 BP_EM02 Calm .777 BP_CS01 Reliable .707 BP_OP05 Up-to-date .774 BP_OP02 Intelligent .765 BP_CS02 Precise .576 BP_EX01 Active . Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalisation.702 Extraction method: Principal component analysis. EFA of brand personality Component 1 2 3 4 BP_AG05 Friendly .749 BP_AG02 Altruistic . JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1259 Appendix 2.753 BP_CS04 Practical .