This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Received (in revised form): 28th March, 2007
RIZA CASIDY MULYANEGARA
is currently a PhD researcher in the Department of Marketing at Monash University. He is actively involved in research and teaching activities at the university. His current research topic is in the area of non-proﬁt services marketing. He is investigating the barriers to and antecedents of consumer participation in non-proﬁt organisations with churches as the research context.
graduated from the Kiev International University of Civil Aviation in Ukraine with a Bachelor (Hons) in Economics. After completing a PhD in Economics, she worked as a lecturer and later as an associate professor in the areas of Marketing and International Economics at the Kiev International University of Civil Aviation. She joined Monash University in 2000. She conducts research in the areas of consumer psychology and services marketing, and has published in leading international marketing journals, including The Journal of Marketing Management and The Journal of Services Marketing.
is a sessional academic in the Department of Marketing at Monash University. In addition to teaching, he is also actively involved in the research activities of the department. He has a particular interest in the area of research methodology and management.
personality; brand personality; the Big Five; fashion
The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between consumer personality and brand personality as measured by constructs reﬂecting The Big Five dimensions in the context of fashion products. The ﬁndings of the study show that some dimensions of The Big Five constructs are signiﬁcantly related to preferences on particular dimensions of brand personality. It was found that consumers who exhibit a Conscientious personality demonstrate preferences towards ‘Trusted’ brands. In contrast, those who are Extrovert in nature are motivated by ‘Sociable’ brands. Findings related to gender reveal that male and female consumers differ in how they express their personality when it comes to brand personality. Male respondents who are dominant on the Neuroticism dimension prefer ‘Trusted’ brand, whereas ‘Trusted’ brand is preferred by females who are dominant on the Conscientiousness dimension. The results of this study will inform brand managers about how to tailor speciﬁc marketing strategies such that brand personalities communicated to consumers are congruent with their personalities.
Yelena Tsarenko Department of Marketing, Monash University, S 7.18, Chisholm Tower, 26 Sir John Monash Drive, P.O. Box 197, Caulﬁeld East VIC 3145, Australia Tel: + 61 3 9903 2354 Fax: + 61 3 9903 1558 E-mail: yelena.tsarenko@buseco. monash.edu.au
Journal of Brand Management (2009) 16, 234–247. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550093; published online 8 June 2007
© 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 16, NO. 4, 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009
has generated mixed results in other studies.The research question is therefore.8 who suggested that consumers prefer to buy products and brands that best reﬂect their personality. whereas other researchers11–13 found little empirical evidence to conﬁrm the relationship between personality and behaviour.A perusal of any basic text in psychology shows that personality research has been a cornerstone of psychology since the early 20th century.The model’s capacity in helping to explain human behaviour has attracted the interest of researchers from other disciplines.15 Although some scholars16.5 The results of studies have. marketing researchers have been criticised for their tendency to develop their own constructs rather than using established psychological constructs when measuring consumer personality variables. preferences and behaviour.1 One of the most widely used approaches to the study of personality traits is The Big Five model.3 Researchers in marketing have explored the impact of consumer personality on perception. 4. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . Moreover. there is a dearth of empirical research that addresses the speciﬁc question of whether there is a signiﬁcant relationship between consumer personality and brand personality. which lacked empirical support.THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY INTRODUCTION Personality research as it relates to marketing is both an enigma and a thorny area of research for marketing scholars. NO.2. including sociology. Understanding that brands possess unique characteristics that can be related to The Big Five is an aid to positioning and advertising strategies. empirical support for the relationship between personality and product choice in general is required. innovative buying behaviour and responsiveness to advertising rather than brand personality per se.6 other methods founded on personal values and demographics have been more efﬁcacious. however.7 In recent decades. Although the validity of self-congruity theory has been extensively researched. Although attempts to demonstrate the link between consumer personality and behaviour have not yielded many meaningful results.4. Some researchers9.17 have strongly supported the validity of self-congruity theory. decision process. 16. brand loyalty. management and marketing. His theory. Research in marketing can uncover new facets of consumer behaviour such that managers can align their brand strategies with the needs of their target market. Management scholars have attempted to link employee personality to job satisfaction and leadership. from a methodological perspective.10 support the theory.The connection between personality and purchase behaviour was ﬁrst introduced by Dolich. The aim of this study was to contribute to the knowledge through an investigation of the relationship between the personality of consumers and their preference for brands to which they can relate because of their disposition. Advancing knowledge in this area is of value to marketing academics and practitioners. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Consumer personality: ‘The Big Five’ Personality can be deﬁned as ‘the intrinsic organisation of an individual’s mental world that is stable over time and 235 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. Do consumers exhibit a preference for brands that are congruent with their personality? Shank and Langmeyer14 stated that most personality research in marketing focuses on the impact of personality on product usage. personality research in marketing has focused on the validity of self-congruity theory in relation to different types of purchase behaviour and product contexts. been mixed.
Identiﬁes individuals prone to psychological distress. feelings and actions. rude. insecure. inadequate and hypochondriacal Assesses quantity and intensity of interpersonal interaction. active. and found that only ﬁve factors were proven to be replicable across different contexts. ruthless. unreliable. original. punctual. lazy. 4. ambitious and persevering 236 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. need for stimulation and capacity for joy. activity level. Extroversion (E) Reserved. neat. gullible and straightforward Conscientiousness (C) Aimless. Soft-hearted. unrealistic ideas. The quest for a systematic approach began in 1884. narrow interests. persistence and motivation in goal-directed behaviour. Organised. reliable. down to earth. Curious.20 Other researchers. task-oriented. unemotional. negligent. trusting.18 The history of psychology shows that researchers have attempted to develop a universal and systematic personality framework to explain individual differences. The Big Five model of McCrae and Costa22 (see Table 1) is regarded as one of Table 1 The Big Five model Global domain scales Traits (high score) Traits (low score) Neuroticism (N) Calm. unartistic and unanalytical Assesses proactive seeking and appreciation of experience for its own sake. self-disciplined. irritable and manipulative Assesses the quality of one’s interpersonal orientation along a continuum from compassion to antagonism in thoughts. suspicious. sober. person-oriented. who conducted a factor analysis of 60 personality terms and came up with ﬁve common factors. hard-working. emotional. fun-loving and affectionate Openness (O) Conventional. excessive cravings or urges and maladaptive coping responses. vengeful. NO. scrupulous. nervous. Assesses adjustment versus secure and self-satisﬁed emotional instability. lax. imaginative and untraditional Agreeableness (A) Cynical. when Galton attempted to categorise personality-related words based on a standard English dictionary. forgiving. hardy. 16. retiring and quiet Worrying. he derived a more complex set of personality variables. Galton’s work was then followed by Thurstone. helpful. optimistic.19 Although Cattell embraced Thurstone’s method.MULYANEGARA. weak-willed and hedonistic Assesses the individual’s degree of organisation. Sociable. careless. good-natured. aloof. TSARENKO AND ANDERSON consistent over situations’. These ﬁndings were embryonic in terms of the evolution of The Big Five Model. Subsequent research has conﬁrmed the reliability and generalisability of these ﬁve factors in different cultural and research settings. talkative. uncooperative. relaxed.21 conducted follow-up studies by analysing Cattell’s 16 Factors. toleration for and exploration of the unfamiliar. broad interests. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . now known as the 16 Cattell Personality Factors . including Fiske and Digman. fastidious people with those who are lackadaisical and sloppy. Contrasts dependable. creative. Today.
Based on this premise. and may contribute to brand loyalty so long as instrumental needs are met. Although individuals can exhibit all ﬁve dimensions. Blackwell29 deﬁnes preferences as ‘attitudes toward one object in relation to another’. Thus. the work of McCrae and Costa27 was used in the development of the instrument for this study. in a purchase decision. Factors such as price and in-store promotion can moderate a purchase decision despite a consumer’s preference for a particular brand. As shown in Table 1. An expectation of the research was that each consumer personality dimension would be aligned with at least one brand personality construct. etc). It was found that some elements such as ‘worried’ and ‘anxious’ could not be directly related to brand. Each dimension consists of a set of correlated traits that are represented as bipolar traits (eg worrying-calm. be noted that consumer preferences alone are not the only factor implicated Aaker and Fournier32 argued that a brand can function as a character. only those descriptors that were transferable were embedded in the scale.25 and the stability of brand preference across different categories. Despite the utility of this concept.’ Brand personality Brand personality is a set of characteristics that describe a brand. however.30 The premise of the research reported here is that if stability is a characteristic of personality.28 Brand managers are interested in promoting a brand personality that attracts consumers’ attention such that they may form a preference for a brand. 16. partner and person. Thus.23 In the literature on branding. it should. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . The brand personality scale was constructed by identifying descriptors of traits from The Big Five model that could be attributed to brand. A preference may be transformed into a motivation that ultimately ﬁnds expression in a speciﬁc behaviour.31 who stated that ‘the greater the congruity between the human characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individual’s actual or ideal self and those that describe a brand. personality is described by emotional.26 Therefore. Consumer preferences are a pivotal concept in marketing. cognitive and behavioural elements that are idiosyncratic. they may score quite highly on one or several dimensions and lower on others. To address this gap. a gap in the literature was found concerning how consumers in respect of The Big Five personality dimensions exhibit preferences towards brands that reﬂect their personality. discussions about the application of brand preference constructs across different product categories24 have been limited to the relationship between consumers and brands. brand personality scales used in this study have been constructed that are reﬂective of The Big Five Model. which was to explore the relationship between consumer personality and brand personality. as they underpin customer choice among alternatives. This is essentially the argument stated by Aaker. This is consistent with the research aim. the greater the preference for the brand. 4. then likewise the presentation of a consistent brand image with which consumers are comfortable will promote brand preference. Aaker33 conducted a study to measure the generalisation of 237 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. NO. the premise of the research is to examine the extent to which consumers use brand personality as a vehicle to express their personality.THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY the primary benchmarks in the trait theory of personality.
MULYANEGARA. Extroversion and Conscientiousness). and resolved ﬁve different dimensions. found to correlate directly with the personality dimensions (Agreeableness. which are Sincerity. Excitement and Competence) were. and clothing in particular. 4. some elements of Aaker’s brand personality dimensions (Friendly. Reliable and Persevering Sociable brand Friendly.’34 Table 2 Hypothesised brand personality constructs Characteristics Corresponding Big Five dimension Neuroticism Conscientiousness Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Brand personality Emotive brand Emotional and Idealistic Trusted brand Trustful. Creative and Outgoing Exciting brand Active. Because of their age this segment of the population was expected to be motivated to express their personality through fashion products. clothing can be viewed as an essential social tool in the lives of teenagers. Cool. It was expected that those who had a high score on Neuroticism would prefer brands that may reduce their level of anxiety. Only three of the brand personality dimensions (Sincerity. H1d: There is a signiﬁcant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Agreeableness and Sincere Brand. Thus. Adventurous and Cool Sincere brand Simple. Table 2 shows those descriptors that were used to construct the brand personality scale. In the research reported here. making the wearer more conﬁdent and capable. Overall. the following hypotheses are proposed: H1a: There is a significant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Extroversion and\ (i) Exciting Brand (ii) Sociable Brand. None of them correlated directly with Neuroticism and Openness to Experience. and are used both as a means of self-expression and as a way of judging the people and situations they face. Caring and Helpful Weale and Kerr35 emphasise the importance of fashion for teenagers and young adults despite their socio-economic 238 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. It was expected that respondents who were dominant on a particular dimension of The Big Five would prefer a brand personality that reﬂects that dimension or is close to it. Evidence was also found that clothing has a function in role fulﬁlment. and hence. 16. H1e: There is a signiﬁcant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Neuroticism and Trusted Brand. ‘The clothes choices made by young people are closely bound to their selfconcept. H1c: There is a signiﬁcant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Openness to Experience and (i) Sociable Brand (ii) Exciting Brand (iii) Emotive Brand. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . TSARENKO AND ANDERSON The Big Five model across brand. Reliable) were also used in the construction of the scales used to measure brand personality. however. The youth market The research context for the study was the youth market. H1b: There is a signiﬁcant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Conscientiousness and Trusted Brand. Sophistication and Ruggedness. Competence. Excitement. NO.
16. however. It seems also that there are differences between males and females such that women tend to show higher scores on Agreeableness and Neuroticism. whereas female consumers use fashion brand to relate to others.000 per annum. an anonymous self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. Neuroticism and Openness generally decrease as a person ages. there was a high response rate. Gender differences In relation to personality theory. and more than 70 per cent of them had been studying in Australia for at least 24 months. anonymity was viewed as an important element in the methodology. Two hundred and sixty questionnaires were administered. Piacentini and Mailer38 conclude that there are signiﬁcant differences between genders in their use of fashion brands.41 Thus. and that these observed differences are evident in different cultural contexts.39 These sex differences. The questionnaires were distributed to participants in two different lecture sessions. NO. since brand managers should understand the difference between male and female consumers in expressing their personality when it comes to brand personality. and 251 were completed in full. Most of the participants were aged between 18 and 20 (67 per cent) and 21 and 23 (23 per cent) years old. Male consumers tend to express their personality in their fashion choice. do not of themselves demonstrate that the sexes are innately different in personality. whereas Extroversion. Sixty-two per cent of the respondents were engaged in part-time paid work with an average income of AUD $8. a second hypothesis is proposed as follows: H2: There are signiﬁcant differences between males and females in respect of the personality–brand personality relationship.THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY circumstances. This argument is relevant to our study objective. Because of this and the natural curiosity of this age group. It is argued that young consumers form their fashion brand preferences between the ages of seven and ten. University students were purposefully chosen as the study participants in order to be consistent with the research context (youth market). Although participation in the survey was purely voluntary and no incentives were given. METHODOLOGY The sample The respondents in the study were 251 undergraduate students (150 females and 101 males) enrolled within the Business School of one of the leading universities in Australia. it was reasonable to assume that international students were familiar with the Australian setting and with fashion brands in the marketplace. 4.37 This ﬁnding supported the rationale for recruiting respondents from the same age group for the study.40 Given these arguments. Part A included The Big Five personality scale adapted from McCrae and Costa’s ‘Big Five Trait Factors and 239 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. There were 168 local and 83 international students. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 .36 It has been found that a person’s ratings on The Big Five factors can change over time such that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness increase. The questionnaire comprised three parts. The questionnaire Since the research required respondents to disclose information about aspects of self.
the discriminant validity of the brand personality construct was supported. exceeding the threshold ( 2 = 14. four dimensions of brand personality were identiﬁed. p < 0. The reﬁned model seemed to suggest two latent factors. the dimensions of The Big Five were used as the independent variables. Only items with factor loadings above 0. Table 3 Brand personality dimensions reﬁned Brand personality Characteristics Corresponding Big Five dimension Trusted brand Sociable brand Exciting brand Sincere brand Trustful. NO.= 39. d. p < 0. and each brand personality dimension was used as a dependent variable in separate equations to test hypotheses H1a to H1e inclusive. The four dimensions of brand personality that were resolved are shown in Table 4. The Emotive dimension was eliminated. A reliability analysis was conducted.f. 4.8. square root of average variance extracted. Part C of the questionnaire asked respondents to provide demographic data including age. A 2-difference test was performed 240 2 to assess whether ( d. exploratory factor analysis was performed on the scales that had been constructed to resolve independent dimensions. The covariance was constrained to 1 (unit) and the model had a 2 = 128. Reliable Conscientiousness and Persevering Creative.84. Adventurous Extroversion and Cool Simple and Caring Agreeableness RESULTS Brand personality construct assessment Initially. The unconstrained model had a 2 = 113. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . This table shows the means. gender and country of origin.f.f.5–0.5. income.05 and thus. Subsequently.f. Sociable and Exciting Brand had very high covariance (0.001).MULYANEGARA. that is. standard deviations and inter-correlations of the constructs operationalised in this study. The results are shown in Table 5. © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. Reliability analysis was performed on each personality dimension yielding Cronbach’s alpha scores greater than 0. This exceeds the threshold of 2>3.= 1.6 and d.= 1.Table 3 indicates the elements of our reﬁned brand personality scale.f. The strength of relationship A regression analysis was conducted to test the relationships between consumer personality and brand personality. Consistent with a priori expectations. In order to test the ﬁrst hypothesis.5 and d.1 and d. and it was found that the reﬁned scales had Cronbach’s alpha scores in the range 0.81). the resulting factors were strongly reﬂective of the elements of The Big Five. 16.5 were retained. along with the corresponding Big Five dimension.= 38. This required a need to check for the discriminant validity of these two constructs. Outgoing Openness and Agreeableness Active. The respondents were asked to rank themselves on a seven-point semantic-differential scale containing the adjectives that related to each of The Big Five dimensions. The differences were statistically signiﬁcant. Friendly and Neuroticism. Part B comprised brand preference scales (see Appendix) that were distilled from the elements of The Big Five model shown in Table 2. These dimensions were subjected to a Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis. TSARENKO AND ANDERSON Illustrative Scales’42 and shown in Table 1.) was signiﬁcant for unconstrained and constrained models.
the data ﬁle was split according to gender. NO. hypothesis H1d is not supported.11 1.64 0.55 1.328* 4. Consistent with the previous results. Thus. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0. The results presented above are.THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY Table 4 Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations Trusted brand Sociable brand Exciting brand Sincere brand Trusted brand Sociable brand Exciting brand Sincere brand M SD 0.19 Figures in the diagonal (in italics) are square root of AVE. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . Regression analysis was then conducted on each type of brand personality again with The Big Five dimensions as the independent variables.96 0. strongly supportive of the proposition that consumers are drawn to brands the personality of which are consistent with their own. it can be seen that Extroversion and Openness to Experience inﬂuence preferences toward Sociable Brand. the gender-based analysis generated broader results.252* 4. From Table 5. The relationship between personality and brand personality was found to be signiﬁcant across all brand personality scales.05) and Conscientiousness (p < 0.67 0. the adjusted R2 values demonstrate the weak predictive capability of the ﬁtted equations. There are.10 0.01. That is. support was found for H1b and H1e.01 level. respondents who scored high on Openness to Experience are very open minded and creative and also prefer a Sociable Brand. It is worth noting that ‘friendly’ and ‘creative’ are distinctive elements of the Sociable Brand (Table 4). it can be seen that the personality dimensions of Neuroticism (p < 0. *p < 0.55 0.20 1. This suggests that respondents who scored high on Extroversion are very sociable and prefer Sociable Brand to express their friendly personality. 16. In contrast. however. From the results in Table 5.01) drive preferences for a Trusted Brand.398* 0. differences in terms of the corresponding Big Five dimension in this gender-split analysis.172* 4. respondents who scored high on Neuroticism and thus may be prone to anxiety and worry show a preference for brands with a Trusted personality.51 0. 4. Tables 6a and b summarise the results of the analysis. The results in Table 5 show that no signiﬁcant relationship was found between The Big Five and the Sincere and Exciting brand personality dimensions. however. lending support to hypotheses H1a and H1c.71 4. consumers prefer brands which are relevant to their own personality. Whereas previous analysis indicated that a signiﬁcant relationship existed only among personality.333* 0. each brand 241 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. Sociable Brand and Trusted Brand.The relationship between a Conscientious personality and Trusted Brand personality supports the validity of self-congruity theory in the context of brand preference. Consistent with our expectation. Thus.390* 0. Gender differences To test the second hypothesis.18 0. As can be seen in Tables 6a and b.
051 F R2 (adj) F sig T Dependent variables Trusted brand 21.208 0.479 0.036 0.MULYANEGARA.046 3.049 0.203 0.339 0.106 0.005 0.349 0.571 0.033 4.088 0.002** 0. © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. On the other hand. 242 The ﬁndings above support Piacentini and Mailer’s43 argument that males and females are different in the way in which they express their personality through fashion brand personality.890 1.015 − 0.065 − 0.003** Sociable brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Exciting brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness 0.241 − 0.117 0.086 − 0.106 − 0.116 0.235 36.010 1.548 Sincere brand 0.060 0. Table 6b summarises the results of regression analysis for female respondents.531 0. females do not adequately express their personality in their brand preferences.920 2.042 3.000 0.924 0.015* 0.989 0. Relationship is signiﬁcant at the 0.049* 0. Relationship is signiﬁcant at the 0.01. whereas previous analysis showed that signiﬁcant relationship only exists in respect of Sociable and Trusted Brand preferences.785 0.578 3.968 1.005 0.000 0. **p < 0.607 0.413 0. This table shows that there are differences in terms of the corresponding Big Five dimensions between male and female respondents.628 2.709 3.628 0.825 0.939 0.063 4.576 0.631 0.207 2.438 0.180 0. NO.232 0.480 0.01 level.333 0. since Openness to Experience and Extroversion personality traits do not match the personality elements of Sincere and Sociable Brands.063 − 0.467 *p < 0. The results suggest that male consumers express Extroversion through Sociable and Exciting brands. TSARENKO AND ANDERSON Table 5 Regression analysis on brand personality and personality dimensions Independent variables Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness 2.083 0.321 9.361 24. 16.153 0. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 .05.205 25.035 0.128 − 0.131 − 0.000 0. 4.These differences are summarised in Table 7.188 0.090 0.740 3.691 0. personality dimension has signiﬁcant relationship to at least one Big Five dimension.266 9.930 5.05 level.144 1.077 0.000 0.003 1.942 0.157 0.
300 0.029 1. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 243 .169 7.999 0. 4.121 − 0.761 0.751 0.211 0.088 0.031 − 0.059 3.501 6.773 0.235 0.675 − 0.046 − 0.445 5.460 11.017* 0.247 − 0.135 0.318 0.935 0.878 0.224 0.376 0.009 4.192 0.093 0.018 0.080 0.746 0.01.754 0.270 0.021* 0.658 0.503 0.954 1.867 0.065 0.007 1.225 0.217 0.114 0.450 1.034 0.000 0.428 0.065 3.067 0.177 0.017 1.006** 0.145 0.01 9.038 2.185 0.142 0.369 0.000 0.975 0.263 0.044 − 0.117 0 0.915 0.457 0.101 7.013 − 0.071 2.465 0.466 0.277 0.082 0.118 4.246 0.524 0.801 0.377 0. NO.003 0.634 0.082 1.128 − 0.197 1.049 0.223 0. Relationship is signiﬁcant at the 0.034 − 0.000 0.009 0.523 0.329 0.014* 0.037* 0.133 2.024 0.063 − 0.013 0.252 0.112 − 0.232 11.001 0.028 0.266 0.668 0.010 18.01 level.123 4.12 − 0.007 4.629 26.08 − 0.036 0.507 0.502 *p < 0. 16.252 15. Relationship is signiﬁcant at the 0.084 2.230 0. © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.011 0.924 0.05 level.303 0.161 2.162 3.377 1.264 0.911 1.244 3.005 1.628 1. **p < 0.154 0.689 0.001 0.146 7.377 − 0.048 2.023 6.139 0.000 0.634 0.503 0.032 1.839 0.099 0.135 0.101 0.438 0.228 5.006** 0.099 1.814 1.032 1.695 0.182 0.922 0.733 0.237 0.003 0.029 0.499 0.05.116 0.008** 0.THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY Table 6 Regression analysis on consumer personality and brand personality dimensions across gender Independent variables F R2 (adj) F sig T Dependent variables (a) Male respondents Trusted brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Sociable brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Exciting brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Sincere brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness (b) Female respondents Trusted brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Sociable brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Exciting brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Sincere brand Big Five (Constant) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness 2.056 2.
Thirdly. but there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the proposition. It was found that those who are Conscientious prefer Trusted Brands to reﬂect their reliable characteristics. the study found that males and females are different in terms of their personality–brand personality relationship. and Extroverts prefer Sociable Brand to reﬂect their outgoing nature. whether consumers who are dominant on particular dimensions of The Big Five have preferences for brands that are congruent with their own personality. NO. it was found that those who score high on Neuroticism have preferences towards Trusted Brands. which supports Shank and Langmeyer’s44 argument. It is suggested that such people use Trusted Brands to reduce their anxiety. First. This study contributes to this research gap by assessing whether a signiﬁcant relationship exists between consumer personality and brand personality dimensions. Table 7 Gender differences in brand personality Corresponding Big Five personality Male Trusted brand Sociable brand Exciting brand Sincere brand Neuroticism Extroversion Extroversion Openness to Experience Female Conscientiousness Openness to Experience None Extroversion Although the results indicate the weak predictive power of consumer personality on brand preferences. The results suggest that male consumers are more self-expressive in their brand preferences compared to female consumers. consistent with Piacentini and Mailer’s46 argument. whereas male consumers who are scored high on Neuroticism prefer Trusted Brand to reduce their anxiety. this study found some signiﬁcant relationships between some of The Big Five dimensions and brand preference type. although there are differences in the extent of relationship between dimensions of The Big Five for each brand personality dimension. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . little effort has been devoted to examining the signiﬁcance of personality in affecting preferences for particular brand personalities. however. Secondly. The ﬁndings here support the second hypothesis. The ﬁndings indicate that personality variables are not strong enough to be reliable predictors of brand preferences. 16. DISCUSSION Although past research has addressed the way in which personality affects preferences in different product categories. however. These ﬁndings provide useful insights for brand managers in promoting brand personalities that are relevant to their target audience. That is. it is worth noting that female consumers express their Conscientiousness characteristics. RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS Theoretical and managerial implications This study has extended the scope of personality research in marketing by using psychological theory to understand the relationship between consumer personality and brand personality. Signiﬁcant ﬁndings on the relationship between speciﬁc personality traits and brand preference. This result indicates that both males and females prefer brands that reﬂect some aspects of their personality. the results are consistent with Belk’s45 ﬁndings that consumers use brands to express their actual personality. Many researchers have argued that consumers use brands as a conduit to express their personality. Person- Brand personality 244 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. TSARENKO AND ANDERSON However when it comes to Trusted Brand.MULYANEGARA. 4. offer useful insights for managers.
Although the discussion in the results section has documented the validity of the scale. since respondents tend to report positively about themselves. respondents may have scored themselves high on all dimensions conventionally perceived as ‘desirable characteristics’. as we wanted to examine the strength of the relationship between the two constructs. This type of advertising will enable target consumers to see the congruence between their own personality and that of the brand that is in line with their personality traits. Those on higher incomes might have different perceptions and place more importance on evaluating their brand preferences. brand managers can emphasise how their brand can assist consumers to minimise risks and reduce tension. reliable and persevering) may attract people with Neurotic tendencies. 16. 4. Pervin and John48 argue that self-report instruments in personality measurement have weaknesses. the use of undergraduate students as the study sample is another limitation of this research. Future research could employ triangulation by asking signiﬁcant others to report on individuals in concert with self-reports by respondents. This is an avenue for future research. future research should replicate this study using a heterogeneous 245 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. particularly in respect to Trusted Brands. We intentionally developed our own brand personality scale rather than adopting the existing one in order to ensure consistency between the brand personality and consumer personality constructs. This may be effective. Gender differences. Limitations of the study and future research direction The ﬁndings presented in this paper are constrained by a number of limitations.Thus. Those positioning their brand as a Sociable Brand. positioning a brand as a Sociable Brand (emotional. Finally. NO. thus targeting Extrovert consumers. One limitation is the use of a self-report instrument to measure a respondent’s personality. also have signiﬁcant implications for brand managers. Female consumers prefer a Trusted Brand to express their Conscientious (reliable) personality. The group was relatively homogeneous and their incomes were low. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . Although the survey was anonymous. Older consumers might have stronger brand loyalty or consider other factors when it comes to brand preferences due to their previous experience. positioning a company’s brand as a Trusted Brand (trustful. Consequently. since individuals who are dominant on Extroversion are people-oriented and highly sociable. The issue of consistency is fundamental to this study. for male consumers who prefer a Trusted Brand to reduce their anxiety. On the other hand.47 Brand managers should also implement advertising strategies that emphasise the personality of their brands. this newly derived brand personality scale needs further validation and application in other product contexts. On the other hand. creative and friendly) may attract people who are Extrovert in nature. brand managers targeting female consumers should position their brand as a Trusted Brand to enable consumers to reﬂect their reliable characteristics through the use or consumption of the products that belong to that brand. could use an outgoing sales person or customer service assistant to offer new products or services. which was originally created to understand the human personality. For example.THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY ality-based segmentation can be implemented by devising and promoting different types of brand personalities to target different customers. The second limitation of this study is the development of brand personality scale based on The Big Five scale.
ref. 815. Fort Worth. 6. T. Future research could investigate whether socio-economic factors moderate the relationship between personality and brand personality. 16.. C. J. Vol. No. Advances in Consumer Research.. (2004) ‘A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity and brand personality’. 246 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. (1999) ‘Beneath the Mask: An Introduction to Theories of Personality. (2002) ‘Toward a personology of the consumer’. 3. D. W. p. buyer motives and cultural inﬂuences should also be considered in measuring the relationship between the two constructs. (1995) ‘Personality Research. (1998) ‘Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research’. P. (1988) ‘The selling of lifestyles’. (29) Blackwell. (2001) ‘Consumer Behavior 9th edn. Chicago. K. No. U. Miniard. 59. 28 above. Aldine. P. Journal of Marketing Research. No. 8. No. L. (23) McCrae and Costa. 58. ref. 11. and Mattila. (1971) ‘Personality and innovation proneness’. D. M. New Jersey. and Theory: A Festschrift Honoring Donald W. 251. Vol. H. 465. 6. (1969) ‘Congruence relationships between self-images and product brands’. (1968) ‘A study of the inﬂuence of image congruence on consumer choice’. No. F. and Supphellen. Vol. J. pp. (34) Piacentini. S. No. 1216. 41. Journal of Strategic Marketing. J. Other factors such as marketing variables. D. 508. J. (2001) ‘Brand personality and consumer self-expression: Single or dual carriageway?’ Brand Management. No. A. No. Fort Worth. 46. No. J. Fort Worth. p. (26) Tsu Wee. Journal of Marketing Research.MULYANEGARA. p. R. (30) Grimm. (1994) ‘Does personality inﬂuence brand image?’ Journal of Psychology. I. P. (1995) ‘A brand as a character. Journal of Marketing. D. Plenum Press. Brand Management. R. (2004) ‘Effects of supervisor Big Five personality on subordinate attitudes’. G. No. No. 2. Journal of Marketing Research. S. W. Harcourt. No. ref. 11. No. L. (32) Aaker and Fournier. J. 3. P. 5. No. 391. NO. B. (1990) ‘Personality in Adulthood’. p. Vol. 18. Journal of Business Research. J. 23. Vol. 16 above. Vol. Psychology Today. New York. D. 50. P. S. Vol. and Mailer. Vol. p. Harcourt. p. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. (33) Aaker. 4. 34. (6) Jacoby. (1998) ‘The Revised Neo Personality Inventory: Clinical and Research Applications’. (10) Birdwell. A. 29. 4. 80. J. (31) Aaker. Vol. and Cunningham. 2. (12) Brody. ref. M. 1. M. 1. and Costa. 195–206. 2. Journal of Organizational Behavior. J. ref. R. No. p. T. (17) Phau. 22. Vol. 3. 9th edn. R. D. Erlbaum Associates. 8. and Lau. T. Vol. (14) Shank and Langemeyer. p. TSARENKO AND ANDERSON sample. (1971) ‘Measuring the Concepts of Personality’. (3) Smith. G. 26. 24. (1997) ‘Dimensions of brand personality’. International Journal of Market Research. 4. Vol. M. P. p. T. F.. p. R. 343. Vol. p. p. M. (20) Goldberg. (2005) ‘Components impact on brand preferences’. (18) Piedmont. Journal of Consumer Research. (5) Sirgy. (2003) ‘A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework’. (8) Dolich. and Canger. No. 4. L. Vol. 3. and Watson. References (1) Monte. p. R. (7) Blackwell. F. (1985) ‘Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation’. March. 11 above. (28) Aaker. (19) Shrout. 7. Journal of Business. (1968) ‘Personality variables and the consumer decision process’. 347. No. Judge. (25) Fournier. 428. 286. 128. 6th edn. 1. (24) Austin. (2004) ‘Symbolic consumption in teenagers’ clothing choices’. 157. p. Guildford Press. Vol. R. (15) Baumgartner.Vol. 2. (21) Fiske. p. (2) Heller. 13. E. S. (1962) ‘Psychological factors in predicting product choice’. 28 above. 77. emotional appeal. Journal of Consumer Research. E. L. A. 1. New York. 22 above. Vol. Vol. Vol. A. L. (13) Rice. (2002) ‘The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction’.. 46. No. No. Fiske’. 22 above. (2001) ‘Consumer Behavior. Miniard. Harcourt. 317. I. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 . (2004) ‘Extending human personality to brands: The stability factor’. P. 244. a partner and a person: Three perspectives on the question of brand’. J. S. Siguaw. p. 6. C. p. Journal of Business and Psychology. No. Journal of Marketing Research. p. 2. Methods. M. (27) McCrae and Costa. J. ref. and Engel. A. M. and Fiske. and Fournier. pp. A. (4) Westfall. M. 76. R. (11) Shank. 205–233. R. and Langmeyer. E. Journal of Business Research. (22) McCrae. 34. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. W. (16) Aaker. and Engel. p. (9) Helgeson. T. 2. (1990) ‘An alternative ‘Description of Personality’: The big-ﬁve factor structure [Personality Processes and Individual Differences]’. 4.
(44) Shank and Langemeyer.70 0. ref. =0. (48) Pervin. 16. (37) McCrae and Costa. 45. (1998) ‘Fashion brand preferences among young consumers’. 4. 34 above. NO. P.70) Reliable brand Trustful brand Persevering brand Sociable brand (n=3. S. A. M. R.58 0. W. (39) McCrae and Costa. (1997) ‘Personality: Theory and Research’.63 0. R. (45) Belk. Vol. D. ref. (1969) ‘Brand choices of teen-age ‘In-Group’ versus ‘Out-Group’’.THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY (35) Weale. O. APPENDIX Reﬁned Brand Preference Scale Measures Trusted brand (n=3. ref. 22 above. New York. McGraw-Hill.87 0. (1988) ‘Possessions and the extended self ’..58 0. L. 22 above. 8. 22 above. 31 above. 34 above. =0.77 © 2009 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1350-23IX BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 above. 22 above. ref. (38) Piacentini and Mailer. September. 234–247 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2009 247 .50 0. p. p. (2006) ‘Marketing Research’. (46) Piacentini and Mailer.65) Simple brand Caring brand Factor loadings 0.58) Adventurous brand Cool brand Active brand Sincere brand (n=2. (43) Piacentini and Mailer. and Schindler. ref. 26. Bruce. 22 above. Journal of Retailing. ref. =0. (40) McCrae and Costa. 2.69 0. W. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. No. (47) McCrae and Costa.62 0. P. R. Vol. Boston. No. (42) McCrae and Costa. A. 4. p. 30. B. M. =0. (36) Hogg. and Kerr.51) Creative brand Friendly brand Outgoing brand Exciting brand (n=3. ref. J. ref. ref. 139.87 0. and Hill. (41) Cooper. and John. 293. K. J. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.78 0. Wiley and Sons.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.