Journal of Strategic Marketing

ISSN: 0965-254X (Print) 1466-4488 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20

A re-examination of the generalizability of the

Aaker brand personality measurement framework

Jon R. Austin , Judy A. Siguaw & Anna S. Mattila

To cite this article: Jon R. Austin , Judy A. Siguaw & Anna S. Mattila (2003) A re-examination of
the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 11:2, 77-92, DOI: 10.1080/0965254032000104469

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254032000104469

Published online: 17 May 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2038

View related articles

Citing articles: 132 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsm20
JOURNAL OFBRAND
THE AAKER STRATEGIC MARKETING
PERSONALITY 11 77–92 (JUNE
MEASUREMENT 2003)
FRAMEWORK 77

A re-examination of the generalizability of

the Aaker brand personality measurement
framework
JON R. AUSTIN
Cedarville University, 251 No. Main Street, Cedarville, OH 45314, USA

JUDY A. SIGUAW
Cornell University, 545 Statler Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-6902, USA

ANNA S. MATTILA
The Pennsylvania State University, School of Hotel, Restaurant & Recreation
Management, Mateer Building, University Park, PA 16802-1307, USA

Conceptual, logical, and empirical arguments suggest there are important boundary con-
ditions for the successful application of Aaker’s brand personality measurement frame-
work. Researchers are encouraged to utilize the framework in situations in which they
are likely to have success (aggregating data across diverse product categories) and to
proceed with extreme caution when using it in contexts in which they are likely to
encounter difficulties (measuring the personality of individual brands or when aggregating
data within a specific product category).
KEYWORDS: Brand personality; brand measurement; brand management; generalizability;
confirmatory factor analysis

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, marketing scholars have become increasingly interested in understanding and
measuring the symbolic meaning consumers attribute to brands (e.g., Aaker, 1997; Bettman, 1993;
Hogg, Cox, and Keeling, 2000). For example, choosing a brand with the ‘right’ personality charac-
teristics enables the consumer to develop a visible and a unique representation of him/herself
(Ligas, 2000; Fournier, 1991). This attention to the symbolic meaning of brands has been fueled in
part by post-modern scholars who have long criticized traditional experimental researchers for
conceptualizing products too narrowly as bundles of functional attributes and failing to consider
product symbolism (e.g., Belk, 1988; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Levy, 1959; McCracken,
1986, 1987, 1988; Solomon, 1983). While some scholars interested in brand management have
offered conceptualizations of brands that include symbolic components (e.g., Keller, 1993, 1998;
Ligas, 2000; Park, Jaworski and MacInnis, 1986; Park and Srinivasan, 1994), few valid measurement
Journal of Strategic Marketing ISSN 0965–254X print/ISSN 1466–4488 online © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0965254032000104469
78 AUSTIN ET AL.

instruments have been developed that capture symbolic brand meanings. Accordingly, Aaker’s (1997)
rigorous effort to develop a brand personality measurement framework represents an important step
toward enabling experimental researchers to measure symbolic meanings of brands.
Aaker’s (1997) stated objective was to ‘. . . develop a theoretical framework of brand personality
dimensions . . . and a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale that measures these dimensions’ (p. 347,
emphasis added). After completing her research, she concluded that all of these objectives regarding
her brand personality framework, including the demonstration of generalizability, had been attained.
Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear in Aaker’s article from what and to what the brand personality
framework is generalizable.
Although dire need has encouraged academicians and practitioners to readily embrace any scale
that purports to measure brand personality, it is crucial to marketing thought and practice that the
boundary conditions for the generalizability of Aaker’s research conclusions first be identified
(Greenwald et al., 1986). We begin by carefully re-examining the process by which the framework
was developed with the objective of identifying the types of measurement and analysis contexts to
which the scale is and is not likely to ‘generalize’. We then provide some conceptual and logical
arguments to explain why the Brand Personality Scale likely is not as universally generalizable as Aaker
had intended it to be. For example, Aaker specifically states that the scale should apply across various
types of sampled populations, including students. Next, we present the findings from a series of
confirmatory factor analyses, using a sample of students, that suggest the framework does not generalize
to individual brands in a broadly defined product category (restaurants) included in Aaker’s research,
nor does it generalize to the analysis of brands aggregated within this product category (nine quick
service, casual dining, and upscale dining restaurant brands combined). Finally, we offer conclusions
and suggestions for future research in the area of brand personality measurement, and present limitations
to the current study.

RE-EXAMINING THE FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING

PROCESS
Dimension identification
Substantive contributions to the marketing discipline can only be made if the produced work rests on
a strong theoretical foundation. Hence, any framework that is developed should be characterized
by sound conceptualization.
Aaker (1997) acknowledged the importance of these theoretical underpinnings in her introduc-
tion when she stated that it was her objective to overcome the limitations of previous research
‘by drawing on research on the “Big Five” human personality structure to develop a theoretical
framework of brand personality dimensions’ (p. 347). The Big Five factors of Extroversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Openness have been shown to
adequately describe human personality (for a review see Goldberg, 1990). Although three of
the brand personality dimensions (sincerity, excitement and competence) are congruent with
the ‘Big Five’ trait model, Aaker’s dimensions were not in any way predicted or proposed on the
basis of personality theory.
Following the psycholexical tradition in personality psychology, Aaker borrowed a list of adjectives
that describe the most important personality differences between people from previous measures
used in psychological and marketing research. These borrowed traits were supplemented with
many traits generated in an exploratory study focusing specifically on brand personality. An overall
list of 309 non-redundant traits was generated in this manner, and was later reduced to a ‘more
THE AAKER BRAND PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK 79

manageable’ list of 114 traits by having 25 subjects rate each trait in terms of how descriptive it is of
brands in general. A non-student sample of 631 subjects (representing a cross-section of the US
population) then rated how well each of the 114 traits described each of 37 brands (carefully
selected to represent a broad array of product/service categories). The framework of brand
personality dimensions was then generated by means of an exploratory factor analysis of the ratings
of the 37 brands on the 114 traits. In other words, rather than assessing whether theoretically
derived dimensions were supported by the data, the framework was derived entirely based on the
empirical results of an exploratory factor analysis. Accordingly, it is extremely important to carefully
scrutinize this empirical process to identify more precisely how the brand personality framework
was developed, what the personality dimensions represent, and how these results may limit the
generalizability of the brand personality framework.
Although Aaker (1997) called her approach to generating the brand personality dimensions a
‘state “O” analysis’1 (p. 350), the technique used is really a form of the more common R-factor
analysis. An ‘R’ factor analysis is one in which the variables analyzed are the characteristics of
multiple entities (e.g., ratings of personality traits taken on one occasion) and the cases are the
entities themselves (e.g., multiple brands) (Rummel, 1970). The latter is, in essence, the nature of
the factor analysis performed by Aaker. We turn now to some of the basic concepts of
generalizability theory that help to identify what the output of Aaker’s R-factor analysis represents.

Generalizability theory
Generalizability theory has been proposed as an approach for improving the development of reliable
measures of marketing constructs (Finn and Kayandé, 1997; Rentz, 1987, 1988). In discussing the
foundational concepts of the theory, Rentz (1987) writes:
Generalizability, then, refers to the extent to which one can generalize from the observations in hand to
a universe of generalization. The universe of generalization may differ among studies according to the purposes
of the studies. Therefore the investigator must define the universe unambiguously by specifying precisely the
conditions of measurement over which he or she intends to generalize a particular study (p. 20, emphasis
added).
The conditions over which a researcher desires to generalize are referred to as the ‘facets of
generalization’ (Finn and Kayandé, 1997; Rentz, 1987, 1988).
Generalizability theory distinguishes between facets of generalization and facets of differentiation
(Rentz 1987, 1988; or ‘objects of measurement’, Finn and Kayandé, 1997). The latter are the
objects that will be compared in a study (e.g., brands). Rentz (1987) emphasizes the importance of
clearly distinguishing between facets of differentiation and facets of generalization:
The purpose of a study is to distinguish between these facets (differentiation versus generalization) and
therefore the measurement instrument should maximize variability arising from facets of differentiation.

For a particular scale, the facets of differentiation and generalization might differ depending on the use that will
be made of the scores. Consider a scale designed to rate product concepts. The scale might be used to
differentiate persons for segmentation purposes on the basis of the ratings of the products. Alternatively,
the scale (and the same respondent scores) might be averaged for each product with the intent of
differentiating product concepts. The facet of differentiation would be persons in the first case but

1
An ‘O’ factor analysis is one in which the variables analyzed are occasions (e.g., different dates on which ratings
of a single brand were obtained from the same respondents) and the cases are the characteristics of a single entity
(e.g., ratings of personality traits for one brand)(Cattel 1952; Rummel 1970; Vegelius and Edvardsson 1979).
80 AUSTIN ET AL.

would be product concepts in the second. The generalizability of the scale might be high in one case but low
in the other (p. 20, emphasis added).
Unfortunately, Aaker’s efforts to establish the generalizability of her brand personality scale were
hampered by a lack of clarity in distinguishing between facets of differentiation and generalization.
In accordance with Rentz (1987), when Aaker (1997) writes, ‘ . . . the objective of this stage was
to identify the brand personality dimensions as perceived in consumers’ minds, rather than the
individual differences in how different people respond to single brands’ (p. 350), she appears to be
suggesting that brands are, in effect, a facet of differentiation and consumers (people) represent a facet of
generalization in her study. However, elsewhere she writes, ‘Perhaps most important, this framework
and scale are generalizable across product categories’ (p. 348). Here she appears to be suggesting that
brands, which in her study were selected to represent different product categories, are in effect a
facet of generalization. Moreover, she defines brand personality as ‘the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand’ (p. 347, emphasis added). Because associations reside in the minds of consum-
ers, not in brands themselves, it appears as though the construct is defined in a way that renders
consumers a facet of differentiation. As a result, the difficulty in assessing the generalizability of the
brand personality framework originates because the purpose(s) for which the measurement instru-
ment was intended to be used was never precisely defined, and, therefore, the conditions over
which the instrument was intended to generalize were not made clear. Nevertheless, the theory
provides a useful framework with which to give careful consideration to (a) the conditions that
produced Aaker’s results and (b) the conditions in which the results are unlikely to be replicated as
advocated by Greenwald et al. (1986).
While Aaker (1997) did not clearly define facets of differentiation versus generalization, she did
employ procedures and analyses that are consistent with brands being considered a facet of differ-
entiation. She carefully selected brands to represent diverse product categories, and in so doing
maximized variability arising from this facet. Moreover, she began her analysis by averaging
the scores of each brand on each personality trait across subjects. By averaging in this way,
she reduced each brand to a single data point (37 observations in total) for each of the 114 person-
ality traits. As a result, all within-brand variance was removed, and the factor analysis results were
based exclusively on between-brand variance. Consequently, the factor structure that emerged
represents key dimensions on which brands differ (or vary) across a broad spectrum of product
categories.
In a follow-up study to confirm the five-factor personality structure, the data from a new data
set were aggregated across all 20 brands and the structure was tested via confirmatory factor analysis.
Aaker stated, ‘the fit statistics suggested a good fit’ (p. 353). Later, to provide ‘convergent support’
of the structure, the confirmation data were submitted to an exploratory factor analysis in the same
manner as the development data. Accordingly, the confirmation process assessed the personality
dimensions at an aggregated level of analysis and in a way that focused on differences across a
broad range of product categories. No attempt was made to assess the structure for individual
brands, despite the fact that Aaker defined the construct at the individual brand level and
suggested some uses for the scale that would involve measuring brand personality for individual
brands.
When discussing the rationale for employing brands spanning a large number of product
categories, Aaker (1997) wrote, ‘Choosing a large number of brands has the advantage of increasing
the generalizability and robustness of the measurement scale’ (p. 349). Generalizability theory
suggests this is so if the purpose is to identify areas in which brands differ across a range of product
categories (i.e., brand categories represent a facet of differentiation). However, as highlighted by
Rentz (1987), the generalizability of a scale developed for this purpose will likely be low when the
THE AAKER BRAND PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK 81

facet of differentiation is persons (consumers) as is often be the case when measuring the personality
of individual brands within a product category. In other words, the process followed by Aaker
may have had the unintended consequence of producing a framework of dimensions that is not
very descriptive of individual brands within specific product categories, even within categories
represented in her study.
The preceding discussion provides theoretical and logical arguments for why the brand personality
framework may not generalize to individual brands. The following section describes the methods
used in an empirical study that examined the measurement properties of the brand personality
framework for individual brands as well as brands aggregated within a product category.

METHOD
As was highlighted earlier, Aaker (1997) defined the brand personality construct at the individual
brand level and proposed some uses for the framework that would involve measuring the per-
sonalities of individual brands. Accordingly, it logically follows that the framework would be
appropriately operationalized at the individual brand level. Indeed, marketers measure nearly every
brand construct at this level. It is important to emphasize the points made in the preceding para-
graph because nowhere in the development and testing process did Aaker (1997) assess how
well the framework performed at the individual brand level, despite the clear intention to
provide a way to measure the personality of individual brands. All of the analyses involving the
brand personality framework were aggregated across a wide variety of product categories. This is
not to suggest that the procedures followed to develop the framework were inappropriate, but
rather to make clear the need to submit the framework to additional testing before concluding it
is ‘generalizable’ for measuring the personality of individual brands. Accordingly, the following
sections describe the current study’s method and findings of tests of Aaker’s framework performed
at both the individual brand level and at various levels of aggregation across restaurant
subcategories (i.e., quick service, casual dining, and upscale restaurants). In this study, brands are
the facet of differentiation in the first analysis, restaurant subcategories are the facet of differentiation
in the second analysis.

Data collection
Measurements of the brand personality of nine restaurants were collected from 247 students affiliated
with a large university located in the northeast sector of the United States. Students enrolled in
eight different marketing courses were offered the opportunity to volunteer as study participants
in exchange for extra-credit points. Ages of respondents ranged from 18 to 42 years, with the vast
majority (79.2%) falling in the 19 to 22 age bracket. Sixty percent of the participants were female,
and 73% were United States citizens (representing most of the fifty states).
Student volunteers had the option of signing up for one of 10 sessions during which time the
questionnaires were administered. At the commencement of each session, a faculty member/
facilitator read a script explaining the purpose of the study and providing instructions for the
participants. Participants also agreed not to leave the room before 30 minutes had passed; this
requirement was rigidly enforced to prevent students from responding to the questionnaire without
giving the questions sufficient consideration. Respondents were asked to evaluate selected restau-
rant brands on each of the 42 personality traits identified in Aaker’s (1997) research. Restaurant
brands and the personality traits were rotated to provide counterbalance across respondents as a
means of avoiding order effects.
82 AUSTIN ET AL.

Measures
Restaurant brands
Six well-known brand names of restaurant chains were employed in this study – McDonald’s,
Burger King, Wendy’s, Chili’s, T.G.I. Friday, and Applebee’s – as well as three brand names of
local upscale restaurants. McDonald’s is an internationally known restaurant in the quick service
subcategory and the only restaurant chain used in Aaker’s (1997) research. Selection of the six
restaurant chains was based on the leading national presence of each brand in the quick service
restaurant (QSR) and casual dining restaurant categories, as denoted by the 1997 CREST (Consumer
Report on Eating Share Trends) Operator’s List. The upscale restaurants – John Thomas Steakhouse,
Dano’s on Cayuga, and Renee’s American Bistro – were selected based on several informal discus-
sions with students and university faculty regarding their perceptions of which local restaurants
were most representative of the upscale subcategory.

Brand personality
Respondents used Aaker’s (1997) Brand Personality Scale to assess the brand personality of each of
the nine brands with which they were familiar (respondents were instructed not to rate any brand
with which they were unfamiliar). Using a five-point scale, where 1 = ‘Not at all descriptive’ and
5 = ‘Extremely descriptive’, participants rated the degree to which they perceived each of the 42
personality traits accurately described each restaurant brand. The 42 items comprised the five dimen-
sions of brand personality proposed by Aaker – sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication,
and ruggedness.
Consistent with Aaker (1997), Cronbach’s alphas were calculated for each of the five dimensions
utilizing their corresponding items; however, unlike Aaker’s study, the alphas were calculated
separately for each brand (see Table 1) rather than for data aggregated across brands. Although not
as high as the reliability coefficients reported by Aaker, who noted Cronbach’s alphas at or above
.90 for all five dimensions, the reliability of each dimension for each brand (with the possible
exception of Ruggedness for Dano’s on Cayuga) appears adequate for research purposes
(Nunnally, 1978).

TABLE 1. Coefficient alpha for each brand personality dimension by brand rated

Brand Brand Personality Dimensions

Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness

McDonald’s .84 .87 .77 .76 .72

Wendy’s .89 .89 .81 .80 .74
Burger King .84 .87 .80 .77 .77
TGIF .82 .90 .84 .81 .82
Applebee’s .87 .90 .85 .80 .80
Chili’s .82 .90 .85 .84 .84
John Thomas .86 .89 .84 .79 .83
Dano’s .81 .91 .83 .78 .69
Renee’s .86 .89 .82 .87 .74
Aaker’s α .93 .95 .93 .91 .90
THE AAKER BRAND PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK 83

ANALYSES AND FINDINGS

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), utilizing maximum likelihood via LISREL 8 software (Jöreskog
and Sörbom, 1993), was used to verify the five-dimension model specified by Aaker (1997). The
covariation matrix, generated by PRELIS, for the 42 items comprising the five brand personality
dimensions of sincerity, excitement, competency, sophistication, and ruggedness was used as input
for the analyses, and the variances of the latent constructs were set at one. The model specification
was the same as the five-factor model tested by Aaker. Each factor represented a distinct dimension
of brand personality, and the model attempted to account for the covariation among all 42 measure-
ment items. However, rather than one model aggregated across all brands as was done by Aaker, a
separate CFA model initially was estimated for each of the nine restaurant brands.
The summary fit statistics and standardized coefficients for the brand-level models are presented
in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. As indicated, the model does not provide a satisfactory fit for any of
the nine brands, although the parameters are in the expected direction, and all t-values are signifi-
cant, although two are significant only at the .10 level. The χ2 values for all nine data sets are quite
large with high statistical significance levels (p = 0.0), which indicates that there are likely significant
differences between the predicted and actual matrices. The GFI, AGFI, NFI, NNFI, and CFI values
for all the data sets fall well below the acceptable level of .90 (Bentler and Bonett, 1980;
Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000; Hair et al., 1998). The RMSEA values are all above the recom-
mended limit of .05 established by Browne and Cudeck (1993). Indeed, all of the RMSEA values
for the data sets, with the exception of McDonald’s and Burger King, fall into the .08-.10 range,
which is indicative of a mediocre fit (MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara, 1996). Furthermore, a
disproportionately large percentage of the standardized residuals (11.8% for the McDonald’s data,
12.6% for the Burger King data, 16.8% for the Wendy’s data, 24.3% for the Applebee’s data, 17.1%
for the Chili’s data, 18.3% for the TGIF data, 30.4% for the Dano’s data, 20.5% for the John Thomas
data, and 27.6% for the Renee’s data) exceed 2.58 in absolute value, a comparison value recommended
by Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993). The vast majority of the aforementioned standardized residuals are
large positive residuals, indicating the model should be appropriately modified through the freeing
of parameters (addition of paths) in order to better account for the covariance between the variables.
Hence, these standardized residuals, as well as the modification indices, indicate that a number of
the 42 items are not unidimensional indicators of the specified component as they need to cross-load

TABLE 2. Summary fit statistics for confirmatory factor analysis models: individual
brands

Fit Brand
Statistic
McDonald’s Wendy’s Burger TGIF Chili’s Applebee’s John Dano’s Renee’s
King Thomas

χ2 1828.87 1957.24 1732.42 2047.27 2305.79 2483.97 2425.70 3680.96 4176.43

DF 809 809 809 809 809 809 809 809 809
RMSEA 0.073 0.081 0.071 0.090 0.093 0.095 0.091 0.110 0.120
NFI 0.62 0.68 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.52 0.51
NNFI 0.72 0.76 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.70 0.69 0.56 0.54
CFI 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.58 0.56
GFI 0.74 0.71 0.74 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.68 0.61 0.58
84 AUSTIN ET AL.

TABLE 3. Standardized loadings for confirmatory factor analysis models: individual

brands

Items Brand

McDonald’s Wendy’s Burger King TGIF Chili’s Applebee’s

Load/t-val Load/t-val Load/t-val Load/t-val Load/t-val Load/t-val

Success .20/6.07 .54/9.70 .57/10.25 .47/9.91 .45/9.10 .57/10.44

Leader .40/9.07 .72/10.71 .68/9.86 .71/11.04 .58/10.11 .73/11.24
Confidence .55/9.44 .81/12.94 .74/12.36 .70/11.04 .63/10.96 .73/11.81
Upper class .48/8.44 .68/14.08 .51/10.88 .60/10.15 .65/12.59 .72/11.72
Glamorous .45/10.82 .46/14.34 .47/12.95 .66/11.85 .61/12.59 .64/13.90
Good looking .82/13.84 .82/15.45 .67/13.06 .91/13.57 .95/15.75 .84/12.94
Charming .75/13.16 .64/9.59 .64/12.52 .86/11.92 .87/12.82/ .82/11.54
Feminine .31/5.78 .43/5.60 .29/6.67 .43/6.71 .49/9.18 .47/6.82
Smooth .55/7.27 .58/10.46 .29/4.97 .64/9.45 .60/8.92 .60/8.72
Outdoors .69/9.52 .44/8.72 .37/6.47 .51/8.03 .61/8.82 .62/10.12
Masculine .50/6.07 .47/6.71 .59/7.59 .58/8.06 .71/9.47 .55/8.67
Western .73/8.13 .62/7.58 .71/8.01 .78/9.75 .84/9.77 .68/8.73
Tough .77/13.52 .70/16.98 1.00/17.93 1.00/18.71 1.17/19.67 .73/17.09
Rugged .70/12.77 .70/17.26 .89/16.56 .89/16.61 1.18/18.06 .79/17.40
Down-to-earth .61/7.54 .64/9.23 .52/7.12 .50/6.19 .52/7.26 .58/7.79
Family-orient .34/5.58 .50/7.46 .41/6.35 .38/5.47 .20/3.38 .36/7.24
Small-town .54/6.03 .58/7.46 .40/5.07 .36/4.97 .30/4.25 .52/6.95
Honest .96.15.85 .89/16.42 .91/16.15 .88/17.14 .76/15.63 .89/17.78
Sincere .98/16.73 .98/16.15 .92/15.94 .94/16.95 .80/15.44 .95/17.81
Real .93/13.42 .96/15.52 .88/14.36 .78/13.05 .83/14.52 .92/15.37
wholesome .80.10.51 .90/12.58 .75/10.85 .77/11.75 .79/11.71 .86/14.16
Original .43/4.76 .74/9.01 .39/5.44 .47/5.97 .45/6.43 .52/7.77
Cheerful .64/8.83 .78/11.61 .70/10.63 .28/4.77 .42/7.31 .46/7.89
Sentimental .54/7.20 .56/8.21 .37/6.49 .49/6.64 .49/7.18 .55/8.04
Friendly .59/9.07 .62/10.57 .59/9.10 .33/6.36 .50/9.89 .44/8.98
Daring .71/9.30 .84/12.61 .60/9.83 .81/12.48 65/9.73 .54/8.83
Trendy .82/9.83 .77/10.83 .74/10.75 .84/11.60 .80/10.61 .89/12/46
Exciting .77/12.37 .70/13.20 .71/13.20 .93/13.47 .95/14.05 .89/13.40
Spirited .89/11.20 .87/12.64 .85/12.92 .62/10.17 75/12.15 .89/13.09
Cool .85/11.74 .90/14.38 .82/12.53 .74/11.42 .87/13.69 .99/15.04
Young .58/7.04 .67/8.41 .60/7.40 .61/9.87 .63/10.30 .84/12.76
Imaginative .88/11.85 .96/14.35 .75/11.57 .89/14.62 .87/14.32 .78/12.87
Unique .81/9.88 .91/11.76 .54/8.87 .87/12.41 .79/11.84 .59/9.70
Up-to-date .75/10.39 .79/11.43 .68/9.81 .82/14.53 .72/12.43 .78/12.91
Independent .69/7.35 .59/7.29 .51/6.73 .65/9.04 .70/9.35 .44/6.10
Contemporary .77/10.08 .66/9.79 .68/9.87 .66/9.59 .61/8.77 .64/9.66
Reliability .62/8.96 .63/9.87 .56/8.40 .63/12.12 .66/12.46 .73/13.46
Hard working .66/10.23 .67/11.04 .61/9.03 .66/11.63 .77/13.56 .81/13.91
Secure .78/10.61 .71/11.32 .82/12.03 .78/13.93 .77/13.19 .79/12.90
Intelligent .81/9.64 .78/11.46 .67/9.68 .72/12.06 .78/13.97 .73/11.81
Technical .70/7.69 .40/5.82 .48/6.13 .55/8.04 .60/9.11 .56/8.70
Corporate .46/4.37 .29/3.02 .43/4.42 .46/5.05 .52/5.77 .35/3.85
THE AAKER BRAND PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK 85

TABLE 3. Standardized loadings for confirmatory factor analysis models: individual

brands (continued)

Items Brand

John Thomas Dano’s Renee’s

std. Ioading./t-value std. Ioading./t-value std. Ioading./t-value

Success .41/10.11 .47/9.48 .67/13.61

Leader .65/11.26 .78/13.18 .81/12.79
Confidence .70/13.34 .64/10.80 .72/12.25
Upper class .49/12.01 .68/14.41 .73/14.06
Glamorous .87/15.20 .89/16.00 .94/16.54
Good looking .90/15.21 .78/13.90 .95/15.10
Charming .59/9.30 .57/9.86 .90/13.69
Feminine .36/5.75 .26/3.32 .64/8.62
Smooth .66/8.19 .49/6.07 .72/9.23
Outdoors .61/7.76 .32/7.54 .25/7.21
Masculine .67/9.08 .35/5.29 .25/5.05
Western .82/9.55 .18/3.24 .69/11.83
Tough 1.21/18.76 .41/17.16 46/22.16
Rugged 1.22/18.46 .43/16.78 .37/17.76
Down-to-earth .53/7.81 .31/4.63 .57/8.38
Family-orient .35/4.79 .14/2.49 .34/5.08
Small-town .53/6.62 .46/5.31 .47/5.67
Honest .89/17.31 .80/17.31 .77/13.79
Sincere .95/17.35 .87/19.29 .93/16.91
Real .87/15.46 .91/17.20 1.01/17.58
wholesome .77/11.04 .71/10.58 .76/11.97
Original .48/7.01 .38/5.90 .53/8.22
Cheerful .60/9.80 .31/5.27 .64/11.19
Sentimental .37/4.48 .17/2.18 .35/4.59
Friendly .57/10.73 .50/9.87 .72/13.11
Daring .67/10.44 .95/13.66 .69/10.77
Trendy .88/12.83 .94/14.01 .81/11.58
Exciting .92/13.44 1.00/16.04 .86/12.80
Spirited .80/11.02 .86/11.94 .78/11.65
Cool .91/12.27 .95/13.67 .85/11.75
Young .62/10.09 .85/12.81 .55/8.01
Imaginative .79/12.27 .94/14.35 .86/14.48
Unique .72/10.08 .72/12.84 .74/12.57
Up-to-date .70/11.09 .68/12.51 .70/11.62
Independent .45/6.94 .28/5.01 .44/8.28
Contemporary .71/10.48 .67/10.85 .63/10.61
Reliability .62/12.32 .57/10.30 .56/11.32
Hard working .68/11.61 .64/10.86 .53/8.19
Secure .71/11.71 .68/12.39 .79/13.02
Intelligent .81/13.48 .83/14.76 .77/12.78
Technical .46/6.70 .34/4.61 .32/4.35
Corporate .36/4.54 .35/5.06 .25/3.16
86 AUSTIN ET AL.

on other components. Reviewing the modification indices for McDonald’s indicated that no less
that 10 items ‘wanted’ to cross-load. For example, wholesome loads on three factors – excitement,
sophistication and ruggedness, while outdoors loads on sincerity, excitement and sophistication.
Further, the modification indices reveal that the error terms of 21 of the items ‘want’ to correlate
with one another. These severe structural problems are reflected in the fact that several of the
standardized loadings exceed 1.
The poor fit of Aaker’s (1997) model found in the current research is further validated by the
reliability analyses performed on the data sets. In her study, Aaker reports: ‘all traits within each of
the five dimensions had high item-to-total correlations (averaging .85, all exceeding .55)’ (p. 352).
Our data, however, yielded much lower item-to-total correlations. Overall, the five dimensions
for the McDonald’s data, for example, averaged correlation coefficients of .53 (.47 for Competence,
.52 for Sincerity, .62 for Excitement, .51 for Ruggedness, and .51 for Sophistication) and only 20 of
the 42 items exceeded .55. The inter-item correlations for the McDonald’s data ranged from .10 to
.57 for the Competence traits; from .08 to .79 for the Sincerity traits; from .12 to .60 for the Excitement
traits; from .18 to .72 for the Ruggedness traits, and from .13 to .67 for the Sophistication traits.
These figures are comparable for those obtained for the remaining eight data sets. Overall, these
analyses do not provide support for the internal reliability of Aaker’s dimensions.
One possible explanation for the poor fit of the CFA models might be that the analyses were
performed at the individual brand level rather than at an aggregated level such as was done in the
Aaker (1997) study. To test for this possibility, confirmatory factor analysis models were run with
the data aggregated at three different levels: (1) quick service restaurants aggregated, (2) quick service
and casual dining restaurants aggregated, and (3) quick service, casual dining, and upscale dining
restaurants aggregated. These levels of aggregation were selected because each level represents
aggregation across a more disparate set of brands. If the lack of fit in the original (individual brand)
models is due to having performed the analysis at a disaggregate level, one would logically expect
the fit to improve as the level of aggregation in the analysis increases.
The summary fit statistics and standardized loadings for the aggregated models are presented in
Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Using the same criteria as used to assess the fit for the individual brand
data sets, the model does not provide a satisfactory fit for any of the aggregated data sets. Indeed, in
some respects the fit appears to be worse than that for the individual brand models. These findings

TABLE 4. Summary fit statistics for confirmatory factor analysis models: aggregated
brands

Fit Brands Aggregated

Statistic
All Quick Service All Quick Service All Quick Service, Casual
(3 restaurants) and Casual Dining Dining, and Fine Dining
(6 restaurants) (9 restaurants)

P2 4282.75 8719.51 16194.88

DF 809 809 809
RMSEA 0.084 0.091 0.110
NFI 0.71 0.73 0.70
NNFI 0.74 0.74 0.70
CFI 0.75 0.75 0.71
GFI 0.76 0.74 0.67
THE AAKER BRAND PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK 87

TABLE 5. Standardized loadings for confirmatory factor analysis models: aggregated

brands

Items Brands Aggregated

All Quick Service All Quick Service and All Quick Service, Casual
(3 restaurants) Casual Dining Dining, and Fine Dining
std. loading./t-value (6 restaurants) (9 restaurants)
std. loading./t-value std. loading./t-value

Success .61/20.13 .57/26.42 .56/32.22

Leader .90/22.15 .81/28.79 .80/35.39
Confidence .88/24.35 .80/31.53 .80/38.83
Upper class .56/19.05 .68/30.30 1.28/52.99
Glamorous .46/21.42 .61/33.38 1.20/55.75
Good looking .77/23.77 .95/37.20 1.13/48.30
Charming .69/20.05 .87/32.06 1.03/42.44
Feminine .37/10.27 .45/17.59 .51/22.95
Smooth .50/13.24 .58/21.49 .69/29.05
Outdoors .42/13.28 .53/21.60 .58/28.07
Masculine .54/12.26 .62/20.26 .71/27.67
Western .69/13.99 .81/23.38 .83/29.88
Tough .87/29.45 .95/44.69 1.00/56.54
Rugged .75/27.52 .90/42.20 .94/53.52
Down-to-earth .61/14.01 .59/19.15 .51/19.57
Family-orient .40/10.31 .37/13.92 .26/9.75
Small-town .55/11.68 .47/14.48 .49/18.06
Honest .93/27.97 .88/39.37 .88/48.95
Sincere .98/28.27 .95/40.63 .96/51.15
Real .92/24.84 .89/35.47 .90/44.77
Wholesome .84/19.71 .86/29.53 .84/35.56
Original .56/11.47 .53/16.16 .54/20.17
Cheerful .73/17.95 .62/21.31 .56/23.92
Sentimental .51/13.00 .53/18.58 .52/20.09
Friendly .62/16.79 .57/22.40 .55/26.73
Daring .73/19.47 .73/27.30 .76/34.56
Trendy .79/18.44 .91/29.71 .93/37.43
Exciting .73/22.28 .99/35.69 1.00/43.35
Spirited .89/21.42 .99/32.84 .92/37.16
Cool .86/22.16 .99/34.76 .95/40.30
Young .63/13.36 .73/23.79 .62/22.96
Imaginative .91/22.46 .90/33.01 .90/40.25
Unique .78/17.81 .80/26.86 .85/34.48
Up-to-date .77/18.82 .76/28.27 .75/34.59
Independent .61/12.66 .55/16.92 .63/21.97
Contemporary .72/17.39 .70/24.32 .74/31.38
Reliability .56/14.63 .62/24.84 .64/32.30
Hard working .57/15.20 .66/26.02 .68/32.97
Secure .81/20.16 .81/30.24 .82/38.12
Intelligent .71/16.42 .73/25.96 .80/33.56
Technical .54/11.71 .56/18.28 .49/19.88
Corporate .51/8.84 .49/12.40 .33/9.86
88 AUSTIN ET AL.

do not lend support to the conclusion that the earlier findings are attributable specifically to the
fact that the analyses were performed at the individual brand level. However, the findings reported
here may very well be due to having performed the analyses within one product category (restaurants)
instead of across a wide range of product categories as was done in the Aaker (1997) study. This
possible explanation will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study is to constructively contribute to the marketing literature by presenting
empirical, conceptual, and logical arguments concerning potential boundary conditions for
Aaker’s (1997) conclusion concerning the generalizability of her framework. While the approach
followed by Aaker to develop her brand personality framework was not in and of itself inappro-
priate, when assessing the procedures used by Aaker and the framework they produced, one must
ask ‘for what are they appropriate?’. Accordingly, the goal is to highlight research purposes for
which the brand personality framework is likely to be successfully employed and other research
purposes for which the framework might have significant limitations. An understanding of these
boundary conditions is extremely important if future research is to provide clear evidence of the
role brand personality plays in various types of consumer thought and behavior.
A key difficulty in evaluating the generalizability of the brand personality framework is that the
intended areas of application were never clearly defined. In particular, using the terminology of
generalizability theory, the intended facet(s) of generalization or the facet(s) of differentiation
were not unambiguously specified. Instead, the procedures employed were presumed likely to
produce a framework that would be universally generalizable to most any research context in
which brand personality would be measured.
The methods Aaker (1997) employed to develop the framework were such that they identified
dimensions that differentiate brands across a broad range of product categories (i.e., product
category implicitly was treated as though it were a facet of differentiation). Moreover, Aaker’s
efforts to confirm the factor structure involved analyses in which data were aggregated across all
product categories. No sub-aggregate analyses were performed. Aaker’s procedures and findings
appear to suggest the framework will likely generalize to research settings involving aggregated
levels of analyses, particularly when the aggregation is across a wide variety of product categories.
Accordingly, seeking to ‘understand the symbolic use of brands in general’ and to ‘explore
hypotheses regarding antecedents and consequences of brand personality’ with the use of ‘cross-
category stimuli, explore possible moderating effects of product type, or examine the psychological
mechanism that drives the symbolic use of brands across product categories, individuals, and cultures’
(Aaker, 1997, p. 348) appear to represent research purposes for which the brand personality framework
is likely to be very successfully employed.
However, the brand personality framework has important limitations for research purposes such
as ‘to understand . . . the symbolic use of brands within a particular product category’, comparing
‘personalities of brands across categories . . . to identify benchmark personality brands’, or replacing
‘ad hoc scales currently used’ by practitioners (Aaker, 1997, pp. 348, 354). In the study at hand,
analyses were conducted at the individual brand level. The coefficient alphas for the dimensions
were found to be adequate for each of the brands. However, confirmatory factor analysis models
fit the data poorly for each of the brands, due largely to many cross-loading items. These findings,
combined with the assessment of Aaker’s methods, suggest there are important boundaries to the
generalizability of the framework. Specifically, the framework does not generalize to research
situations in which personality is measured at the individual brand level and/or situations in which
THE AAKER BRAND PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK 89

consumers, rather than product categories, represent a facet of differentiation. This finding is
supported by recent work which indicates that the latent dimensions of the Big 5 Model of
human personality structure could not be replicated for brand descriptions (Caprara, Barbaranelli,
and Guido, 2001). The authors of this work concluded that ‘Descriptors of human personality
convey different meanings when attributed to brands’ and ‘the factors used to describe human
personalities appear to be inappropriate for describing brands’ (pp. 377–78).
The findings of the current investigation suggest that despite the fact that Aaker (1997)
proposed applications that would require measuring and analyzing personality at the individual
brand level, the personality measurement framework does not generalize to individual brands
within one product category (restaurants) to which it was intended to generalize. Aaker included
McDonald’s restaurants as a brand in her original study in which the brand personality dimensions
were identified, yet the confirmatory factor analyses in the current study revealed the model did
not fit the data for McDonald’s nor for any of the other eight restaurant brands examined,
individually or in the aggregate.
Comments made by subjects during debriefing revealed a potential reason why the brand
personality framework may not generalize to individual brands or to particular product categories.
These comments suggested there might be an interaction between brands and subjects’ interpre-
tations of the traits. For example, several subjects indicated they had interpreted the trait ‘Western’
to refer to ‘American’ or ‘Non-Asian’ when rating brands that offer either Asian or Continental
cuisine. However, they were prompted to think of the ‘Old West’ or ‘Western states’ when rating
brands that serve cuisine consistent with such an image (e.g., John Thomas Steakhouse or Chili’s).
Some subjects indicated the trait ‘outdoorsy’ made them think of a ‘pleasant outdoor dining expe-
rience’ for some brands (e.g., TGI Friday) but an ‘outdoor-style of food preparation’ for other
brands (e.g., Burger King and its flame-broiled burgers). For some brands the trait ‘family-oriented’
evoked thoughts of a ‘restaurant that specializes in serving families’ (e.g., Applebee’s) and for other
brands the trait elicited thoughts of a ‘family-run’ or ‘Mama/Papa’ restaurant (e.g., Dano’s on
Cayuga). Similarly, for some brands the trait ‘cool’ prompted thoughts such as ‘hip’ or ‘in’ (e.g.,
TGI Friday) while the trait generated thoughts such as ‘cold’ or ‘unfriendly’ for other brands (e.g.,
some quick service brands).
To the extent different brands prompt consumers to interpret traits differently in this manner,
the factor structures for individual brands are likely to be relatively unique. Accordingly, this
variable nature of the meaning of some traits likely accounts for some of the cross-loading items
that produced poor fits in the confirmatory factor analysis models for individual brands examined
in the current study. Similarly, such differences in the interpretation of traits also could have
adversely affected the fit of the models that aggregated data across brands and product categories.
This variation in the meaning of an adjective is not rare. Many researchers have reported a
concept-scale interaction which describes the phenomenon of the meaning of an adjective vary-
ing in relation to the context to which it refers (Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Guido, 2001; Caprara,
Barbaranelli, and Zimbardo, 1997; Heise, 1969; Mann, Phillips, and Thompson, 1979; Osgood,
Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957). Indeed, Caprara and colleagues (2001) state, ‘the environment
evoked by concepts may instigate semantic shifts in adjectives…which leads to differences in
the relations among the same adjectives and hence in factor structures. In turn, different sets of
factors (differing in number and/or nature) may result ’ (p. 392). They term this occurrence brand-
adjective interaction, implying that adjectives have different meanings when applied to different
brands.
Certainly, research using analyses such as structural equation modeling, which incorporate a
measurement model, can encounter problems when using data for individual brands (or data
90 AUSTIN ET AL.

aggregated within a single product category). One might be inclined to conclude that the sufficiently
high coefficient alphas suggest the framework may be successfully used at the individual brand
level if the analyses do not require modeling the factor structure. However, the cross-loading items
may very well produce problems for any analytic techniques that are sensitive to multicollinearity
if the brand personality dimensions are treated as individual variables. These potential limitations
are very important in light of the fact that Aaker (1997) defined brand personality in terms of asso-
ciations at the individual brand level. This definition of the construct, and several of the possible uses
of the framework suggested by Aaker, intimate that brand personality is expected to be measured (and
presumably analyzed) at the individual brand level in certain research contexts, and that differences
across consumers in terms of associations formed are important.
In the current study, analyses were also performed at various levels of aggregation within the
restaurant product category. The confirmatory factor models again fit the data poorly. This
suggests problems similar to those discussed above are likely to be encountered for research studies
in which data are aggregated within a single product category (and perhaps when aggregated across
a narrow range of product categories).

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The preceding discussion suggests it is highly improbable that a framework can be developed that
will be universally generalizable to any context in which brand personality (or any other brand-
related construct) is to be measured. More realistically, additional research likely is necessary to
produce multiple-brand personality frameworks that capture meaningful dimensions and/or
distinctions between brands when the analysis focuses on narrower sets of brands than those
examined by Aaker (1997). Certainly, Aaker’s work would provide very valuable contributions to
such efforts. In particular, her original list of 305 non-redundant traits would be an appropriate
starting point for such endeavors.
In this study, we reported that some respondents indicated during debriefing that they had
interpreted the meaning of individual traits differently for individual brands due to differences in
the characteristics or features of those brands. This suggests greater care must be taken in future
research to clearly define the meaning of traits to respondents. One way to accomplish this might
be to embed the traits in descriptive phrases, such as is commonly done with Likert-type scales,
rather than employing one- or two-word traits as was done in the Aaker (1997) studies and in the
current investigation. This alternative approach may help to frame the meaning of each trait by
giving it a specific context.
Once again, Aaker’s (1997) brand personality measurement framework represents an important
tool with which researchers can begin to measure symbolic meanings of brands. Researchers must
be careful, however, when attempting to use the framework in research contexts other than those
involving analyses aggregated over broad sets of product categories. Additional research is needed
to identify when, if at all, the framework is appropriate for disaggregate levels of analyses. More-
over, while Aaker’s framework has identified dimensions that differentiate brands across highly
divergent product categories, additional research likely is needed to generate personality frame-
works that capture the key personality dimensions useful for differentiating competitive brands
within product categories and examining brands across narrow ranges of product categories.
The current investigation highlights the important role generalizability theory (Finn and Kayandé,
1997; Rentz, 1987, 1988) might play in all future research seeking to develop measurement frameworks
for marketing constructs. At a minimum, researchers should clearly identify the intended uses of
frameworks, and clearly specify all facets of generalization and facets of differentiation before
THE AAKER BRAND PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK 91

development studies are conducted. By doing this, researchers will have stated a clear set of objectives.
The theory provides a set of methods that can help researchers accomplish their stated objectives
and thereby produce measurement instruments exhibiting greater reliability and generalizability.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

One might logically argue that the poor fit observed in the confirmatory factor analysis models for
individual brands is the result of the current study (a) utilizing different brands than did Aaker
(1997) (except for McDonald’s) and/or (b) employing a student sample rather than a nationally
representative sample. For this reason, the authors requested the Aaker data set so that it could be
analyzed at the individual brand level to determine whether similar problems of generalizability
emerged. Unfortunately, these possible explanations for the findings could not be tested empiri-
cally because the Aaker data are no longer in existence as the result of a massive computer failure at
Stanford University. Nevertheless, if the results of the current study are due to having employed a
different set of brands (within a product category represented in her study) then Aaker’s conclu-
sion that her framework is ‘generalizable’ was clearly premature. Similarly, if the current findings are
the result of generating a sample from a different population, then Aaker’s sub-sample analyses did
not demonstrate, as was intended, the ‘generality of the five brand personality dimensions’ and the
ability to use the scale ‘in future research with particular groups of subjects (e.g., students)’ (p. 351).
Accordingly, while attributing the findings of the current study to limitations in its selection of
brands or its sampling method may represent sound logic, it does not provide a strong argument in
support of the nearly universal generalizability Aaker claimed for her framework.

REFERENCES
Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34, 347–56.
Belk, R.W. (1988) Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 139–68.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin 88, 588–606.
Bettman, J.R. (1993) ACR fellow’s award speech: the decision maker who came in from the cold. In
L. McAlister and M.L. Rothschild (Eds.) Advances in Consumer Research 20, 7–11, Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen and J.S.
Long (Eds.) Testing Structural Equation Models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C. and Guido, G. (2001) Brand personality: how to make the metaphor fit?
Journal of Economic Psychology 22(3), 377–95.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C. and Zimbardo, P. (1997) Politicians uniquely restricted personalities,
Nature 335, 493.
Cattell, R.B. (1952) The three basic factor-analytic research designs – their interrelations and derivatives.
Psychological Bulletin 49, 499–520.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000) Introducing LISREL: a guide for the uninitiated, London: Sage
Publications.
Finn, A. and Kayandé, U. (1997) Reliability assessment and optimization of marketing measurement.
Journal of Marketing Research 34, 262–75.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990) An alternative ‘description of personality’: the Big Five factor structure, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 59, 1216–29.
Fournier, S. (1991) A meaning-based framework for the study of consumer – object relations. In R. Holman
and M. Soloman (Eds.) Advances in Consumer Research 18, 736–42, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
92 AUSTIN ET AL.

Greenwald, A.G., Leippe, M.R., Pratkanis, A.R. and Baumgardner, M.H. (1986) Under what conditions
does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review 93(2), 216–29.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn.,
London: Prentice Hall International.
Heise, D. (1969) Some methodological issues in semantic differential research. Psychological Bulletin 71,
406–22.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982) Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions. Journal of Marketing 46, 92–101.
Hogg, M.K., Cox, A.J. and Keeling, K. (2000) The impact of self-monitoring on image congruence and
product/brand evaluation. European Journal of Marketing 34(5/6), 641–66.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command
Language, Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Keller, K. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing 57, 1–22.
Keller, K. (1998) Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Levy, S.J. (1959) Symbols for sale, Harvard Business Review 37, 117–24.
Ligas, M. (2000) People, products and pursuits: exploring the relationship between consumer goals and
product meanings, Psychology and Marketing 17, 983–1003.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M. (1996) Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods 1, 130–49.
Mann, I., Phillips, J. and Thompson, E. (1979) An examination of methodological issues relevant to the
use and interpretation of the semantic differential. Applied Psychological Measurement 3, 213–29.
McCracken, G. (1986) Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement of
the cultural meanings of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research 13(June), 71–84.
McCracken, G. (1987) Advertising: meaning or information? In M. Wallendorf and P. Anderson (Eds.)
Advances in Consumer Research 14, 121–24, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
McCracken, G. (1988) Culture and Consumption, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Nunally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Osgood, C., Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, P. (1957) The Measurement of Meaning, Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994) A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand
equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research 31, 271–88.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D. J. (1986) Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal
of Marketing 50, 135–45.
Rentz, J.O. (1987) Generalizability theory: a comprehensive method for assessing and improving the
dependability of marketing measures. Journal of Marketing Research 24, 19–28.
Rentz, J.O. (1988) An exploratory study of the generalizability of selected marketing measures. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 16, 141–50.
Rummel, R J. (1970) Applied Factor Analysis, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Solomon, M.R. (1983) The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism perspective. Journal
of Consumer Research 10, 319–29.
Vegelius, J. and Edvardsson, B. (1979) On the use of the G index in O-, P-, Q-, R-, S-, and T- analyses.
Educational and Psychological Measurement 39, 707–11.