2022 Crypto Consumers Personality Traits

JOURNAL OF
CUSTOMER
BEHAVIOUR
Crypto consumers’ personality traits, and the impact

of brand personality on cryptocurrencies’ identity
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
Roy Dakroub, EPAM Systems/NEOMA Business School, France*

Bernadett Koles, IESEG School of Management, France
Helmi Issa, Burgundy School of Business, France
Delivered by Ingenta
Abstract The 2017 cryptocurrency parabolic craze drew significant attention,

pushing blockchain projects to differentiate themselves from competitors. Within
this scope, the present study employs the personality trait model to theoretically
and empirically explore brand personality within the context of digital currencies,
investigating its impact on its brand identity through the moderating effect
of consumers’ personality traits. The analysed data (n=237) were collected
from Consensus 2019, which is the world’s leading blockchain forum. Results
revealed that within the context of cryptocurrencies, brand personality positively
relates to brand identification, whereas the five personality traits (openness,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, and neuroticism) relate
differently as moderators. This study is the first to explore brand personality and
brand identification within the context of digital currencies. The findings indicate
that crypto users link brand personality with brand identification differently
depending on certain personality traits.
Keywords Brand Personality, Brand Identification, Bitcoin, Blockchain,

Cryptocurrency, Digital Currency, Personality Traits
INTRODUCTION
Cryptocurrencies have been receiving a lot of attention in recent years from media
outlets as well as from the financial industry, and despite the considerable risks, new
players have continued to enter the market (Lee, 2017). In 2008, cryptocurrencies
*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.
JOURNAL OF CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR, 2021, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 243-273

https://doi.org/10.1362/147539221X16356770010749
ISSN1475-3928 print /ISSN1477-6421 online © 2022 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
244 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour
came to light through Bitcoin, the decentralised peer-to-peer electronic currency

initially established by the person or people referred to by the pseudonym Satoshi
Nakamoto. Bitcoin and its type provide a medium of exchange, enabling people
to make payments online without the mediation of any financial institution
(Nakamoto, 2008). Cryptocurrencies became very popular during the summer of
2017, following the parabolic price surge that attracted people’s attention and was
widely covered in mainstream media. This was evident in the case of Coinbase, one
of the cryptocurrencies’ most popular exchanges that witnessed an increase of 148%
in registered users, going from 4.7 million to 11.7 million in the 12 months to the
end of October 2017 (Cheng, 2017). Cryptocurrencies have been characterised by
minimal costs, enhanced security, and anonymity (Böhme et al., 2015; Yelowitz &
Wilson, 2015).
These digital currencies are different from the more traditional fiat money that
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
governments and central banks issue, in that they circulate in a substantially cheaper
and faster fashion exclusively through the medium of the Internet (Iyidogan, 2018).
The main idea behind the creation of such decentralised currencies was due to the
lack of confidence in the financial system, especially following the earlier recession
(Náñez Alonso et al., 2020). Businesses are increasingly adopting cryptocurrencies,
which in turn encourages large financial institutions to maintain a close watch over
their development, particularly given their potential to revolutionise the current
financial infrastructure (Buckley et al., 2021). In the finance field, cryptocurrencies

are perceived as an innovative type of financial assets (cryptoassets) that deal with
peer-to-peer digital transfers without intermediaries (Giudici et al., 2020). A few
critics say that cryptocurrencies are simply a hype whose value is based on speculation,
and that they could possibly deflate (Nguyen et al., 2017). At the same time, with
the development of this technology, cryptocurrencies continue to evolve and attract
new investors (Buckley et al., 2021). Due to such rapid digitisation of the economy,
governments and central banks have also shown interest in cryptocurrencies (Náñez
Alonso, 2019), and a few of the largest central banks (in the US, Japan, England) are
in the process of issuing central bank-backed digital currencies (Náñez Alonso et al.,
2020).
Now that cryptocurrencies have reached critical mass, it is important to understand
the reasons why one cryptocurrency may be more successful than another. In particular,
it is interesting to explore how these branded digital currencies form their unique
personality and brand identification to be differentiated from the competition. Not
surprisingly, with the emergence of new cryptocurrencies, an organic differentiation
began to surface amongst them based on names, logos, and alternative use, namely
altcoins (Luther, 2016). Consequently, digital currencies with strong brandings, such
as Ripple and Dogecoin, managed to craft an explicit and unique identity that enabled
them to become a mainstream trend (Litsa, 2018). Other established brands with no
traditional relationship to cryptocurrencies began to employ these digital assets as
marketing tools to create new and exciting opportunities for their customers and
to further increase and leverage their brand awareness. Kodak, for instance, created
their own branded cryptocurrency Kodak Coin to pay photographers. Similarly, KFC
Canada launched the Bitcoin Bucket marketing campaign that allows people to order
KFC offerings for a limited time using exclusively Bitcoin (Litsa, 2018).
Despite the relevance of exploring cryptocurrencies from a marketing perspective,
no research to date has embarked on this mission. There continues to be a lack of
research exploring the moderating effects of personality traits on the relationship
between brand personality and identification, particularly within the context of
Dakroub, Koles and Issa Crypto consumers’ personality traits 245
innovation (i.e., blockchain technology and digital currencies). Addressing this gap in
the branding literature, the current paper investigates the relationship between brand
personality and brand identity within the specific context of digital currencies. As
such, this study will provide important theoretical and empirical contributions that
could offer significant new insights into the branding literature and to cryptocurrency-
related organisations through an exploration of the behavioural psychology associated
with the consumption of digital currencies.
In businesses, digital currencies have been labelled as the first true user-generated
brands (Feldman, 2021). From an academic perspective, the current study empirically
investigated and validated such a claim. The paper builds on the propositions of
Langstedt and Hunt (2017) by focusing on the potentially differential effects of
personality traits on branding, especially in technology and digital interactions.
Furthermore, the paper builds on the future directions of Boukis (2019) by focusing
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
on blockchain adoption within the branding literature (e.g., brand positioning, image,
consumer–brand relationships, consumers’ trust in the brand). To date, there is limited
research that investigates the extent to which brand personality may impact brand
identification, and how this relationship may manifest itself within the context of
cryptocurrencies. For this study, it makes sense to conceptualise brand identification
on the personal level, since the moderating effects of individual personality traits are
examined. In sum, the current paper investigates which type of brand personality of
cryptocurrencies relates to their brand identity and to what extent such a relationship
is moderated by individual personality factors.
The rest of this research is structured as follows. The next section expands on the
concepts of cryptocurrencies’ branding, brand Personality, and brand identification.
Then, arguments for the proposed research model are presented, followed by the
hypotheses development that proceeds to the section of research methodology.
The design, participants, and results are discussed and analysed. The findings are
then elaborated on and the paper concludes with a discussion, contributions, and
implications for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Branding cryptocurrencies
A cryptocurrency is a peer-to-peer digital payment method based on virtual coins
or tokens that are secured and transferred through the computation of different
cryptographic mathematical algorithms, without necessitating any authorisation
from a financial institution (Harwick, 2016). Solving these algorithmic formulas can
be a complex endeavour, yet their verification is designed to be relatively simple.
The most common proofing method relies on the network’s total computing power
to verify the uniqueness and trustworthiness of a given transaction (King & Nadal,
2012). The network also rewards those who are early to verify the first transaction
blocks with a certain number of coins, when the given transaction is successful. This
process is called mining, in which the supply of coins on the network is expanded,
and transactions are recorded and tracked by every computer on the network, often
referred to as the blockchain (Harwick, 2016).
Some authors position cryptocurrencies as a new form of currency that assists in
the creation of the finality of transactions (Dwyer, 2014). Others focus extensively on
the volatility and speculative nature behind these currencies (Bouoiyour et al., 2014),
while yet others emphasise their disadvantages (Sharma & Sharma, 2018). Most
existing research approaches cryptocurrencies from the perspective of monetary and
financial dimensions/decisions (e.g., Conlin et al., 2015; Tauni et al., 2017; Oehler
et al., 2018), rather than a marketing one, consequently neglecting an exploration of
brand personality and brand identity within the general context of digital branding.
Given that much of our everyday transactions are increasingly moving to digital
platforms, digital branding has surfaced as an important mechanism for direct
marketing and interaction with clients (Tyagi et al., 2016). With the explosive demand
for and hype about cryptocurrencies, continuous innovation in the digital world has
created fierce competition to attract more investors (Brown, 2017). Considering that
many of today’s digital products have similar functionalities, and thus being unique
and innovative are insufficient differentiators, some other factors such as design,
logo, or brand image could serve as efficient points of distinction (Achara et al.,
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
2015). As branding, in general, can contribute to the overall success of any firm,
there is increasing recognition of the need for the branding of blockchain projects. As
an example, the blockchain-based platform Delphy hired the services of Ogilvy, the
multinational advertising agency, to manage their rebranding initiative, stating that
such a step would give their platform identity and a human interface (Baker, 2018).
A branded digital product not only aids in the establishment of a stronger brand but
can also build a positive attitude towards it (Kim et al., 2013). Furthermore, as many
cryptocurrencies function as the transactional medium of decentralised applications

(Coindesk, 2018), a user’s emotional response is anticipated to be higher when
interacting with a branded application (Seitz & Aldebasi, 2016).
Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that from a marketing perspective,
cryptocurrencies are not acknowledged for their name, logo, or value but rather for
how they are branded (Ong, 2018). Branding for cryptocurrencies is decentralised
because it depends on the public’s perceptions rather than the organisations’ control
over the brand image (Ong, 2018). A study by Edelman (2019) showed that nearly
70% of users do not trust the brands they use. As such, the technology behind
cryptocurrencies emerged as a solution to this concern by delivering significant
benefits such as transparency, authentication, and security. Besides, there are several
other unique features (e.g., digital scarcity, immutability, pseudonymity, etc.) that are
unique to the branding of cryptocurrencies, which are supported by different agents
(networks, mining processes, etc.) (Ying-Ying, 2018). Furthermore, from a general
perspective, an organisation’s brand value is captured through initial public offerings.
Nevertheless, in a few cases, initial coin offerings may deliver more benefits, such as
brand tokenisation and monetisation (Kartik, 2017).
BRAND PERSONALITY AND BRAND IDENTIFICATION
Brand personality
This concept captures the inner characteristics of a brand, similar to those of human
characteristics (Allen & Olson, 1995), which is deemed important to establish the
foundations for the consumer–organisation relationship (Jafarnejad et al., 2012).
The concept of brand personality entails the use of human-like attributes to describe
brands, and similarly to human personality, tends to be relatively stable over time
(Maehle et al., 2011). Any direct or indirect interaction that consumers have with
a brand can influence brand personality, and in turn contribute to the relational
foundation between the brand and the consumer. In this sense, consumers’ behaviour
and relationship to a brand throughout the customer journey can be greatly impacted
by brand personality (Aaker et al., 2004; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2016). Nonetheless,
one should distinguish between human personality and brand personality, as the
latter is founded based on marketing communication and the consumers’ experience
with the brand (Sung & Kim, 2010).
For branding efforts to be successful, a brand’s characteristics and uniqueness
should be perceived as real and tangible in the eye of the consumer (Johnson & Sallee,
1994). According to Lovett et al. (2013), an attractive brand personality becomes
more accentuated and recognised as consumers are more likely to talk about brands
that satisfy them, and even increase their attachment (Swaminathan et al., 2009).
Moreover, humans tend to anthropomorphise non-human brands with strong brand
personalities (Stebbins & Hartman, 2013), which enables the brands to be worthy
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
of moral care considerations (Freling & Forbes, 2005). Brand personality serves as
symbolic self-expression of consumers with their human personality, and consumers
tend to have a greater preference towards brands with personalities that conjure and
are congruent with their own (Aaker & Fournier, 1995; Mulyanegara et al., 2009).
From an organisational perspective, brands with a solid personality are more likely
to be associated with higher consumer preference and enhanced brand performance
(Madden et al., 2006).
Some scholars distinguished five personality dimensions when describing brands

(Aaker, 1997): excitement (traits such as daring, spirited, and imaginative); sincerity
(wholesome, down-to-earth, and honest); competence (reliable, intelligent, and
successful); sophistication (glamorous, upper class, and charming); and ruggedness
(outdoorsy, masculine, and tough). Others proposed alternative factor-based models
for brand personality (Bosnjak et al., 2007), including drive (exciting, adventurous,
and boring); conscientiousness (competent, orderly, and reliable); emotion (loving,
cordial, and sentimental); and superficiality (selfish, arrogant, and hypocritical). In
yet another conceptualisation, Geuens et al. (2009) identified five factors: activity,
responsibility, aggressiveness, simplicity, and emotionality. In this sense, similarly to
human personality, brand personality can be viewed as a compilation of personality
traits that are used to characterise a brand (Louis & Lombart, 2010).
Understanding brand personality is essential for developing consumer-brand
relationships (Sundar & Noseworthy, 2016) and to clarify how such interactions are
likely to impact consumer behaviour (Sung & Kim, 2010) and performance measures.
Given the importance of perceived value, perceptions about brand personality rely
to a large extent on diverse forms of brand communication, such as design, logo,
and brand name, and other constructs that transmit a unique competitive advantage
to the market (Brown & Whysall, 2013; Zanthus Corp. 2011). In this study, brand
personality is considered as a holistic construct that captures the elements mentioned
earlier. In terms of measurement, although different conceptualisations exist, the
brand personality scale proposed by Aaker (1997) in his seminal work is employed,
given its relevance and wide coverage (Dikčius et al., 2018).
Brand identification
Brand personality serves as an instrumental driver of brand-consumer identity
(Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010) that allows corporations to leverage consumer preferences
and attitudes, and to trigger purchase intentions (Mengxia, 2007). Brand personality
can play an important role in enhancing the brand’s prestige and distinctiveness,
which in turn are antecedents to the establishment of identity (Carlson et al., 2008).
Many studies have been conducted concerning the perception of brand personality
with brand image, loyalty, and equity (e.g., Aaker, 1997; Ross, 2008). However,
substantially less attention has been devoted to brand identification.
The notion of identity has long been studied by psychologists and sociologists,
and became a field of interest in organisational behaviour and human resource
management (Gioia et al., 2000). From a general perspective, brand identification
delivers diversification in terms of relationships with other factors. Brand
identification triangulates with trust, commitment, and loyalty. Brand identification
has been shown to conceptually relate to brand trust (Nikhashemi et al., 2015).
Earlier studies showed that brand identification has a significant effect on brand trust
(He et al., 2012; Rather & Camilleri, 2019). Similarly, other academics showed that
brand identification is positively related to brand commitment (Albert et al., 2013;
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
Rather & Camilleri, 2019). Furthermore, brand identification has been shown to
positively affect brand loyalty (Chou, 2013). Besides, brand identification is based on
the theoretical foundation of social identity, and marketing researchers examined it
from the lens of consumers with brands (e.g., Lam et al., 2010; Stokburger-Sauer et
al., 2012; Tuškej et al., 2013) and brand communities (e.g., Algesheimer et al., 2005;
Stokburger-Sauer, 2010).
Henceforth, consumer-brand identification became one of the most sought-after
research topics in the fields of marketing and consumer behaviour (Lam, 2012).
Numerous studies have shown that high degrees of the identification result in many
positive outcomes such as marketing success and customer satisfaction (Ahearne et
al., 2005; Algesheimer et al., 2005; Tuškej et al., 2013), brand commitment (Tuškej
et al., 2013), customer loyalty (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Homburg et al., 2009;
Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Wolter et al., 2017), repurchase (Kuenzel & Halliday,
2008), and willingness to pay a price premium (Haumann et al., 2014). Moreover,
the consumer’s identification with a brand can also increase the occurrence of certain
behaviour such as positive word of mouth and brand advocacy (Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
2012). While customer satisfaction became insufficient to fulfil market differentiation
from competitors (Homburg et al., 2009), consumer-brand identification has become
the new catalyst in recent years as the crucial driver, especially for consumer positive
long-term behaviour (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). As a result, brand managers try
to build high levels of brand identification among their clients.
Consumer–brand identification carries a symbolic connotation that gives the
consumers the possibility to develop their social identity, construct their self-
representation and find their sense of self (Belk, 1998). It enables consumers to identify
themselves with a brand and to express their self-concept through the brand (Louis &
Lombart, 2010). The research definition of consumer–brand identification is narrowed
in the consumers’ psychological state of perceiving and valuing their belongingness
with a brand (Lam et al., 2013) through cognitive, affective, and evaluative anchors
(Tajfel & Turner, 1986). What makes consumer–brand identification organic is its
volitional and selective characteristics, in addition to its central and distinctive role
that motivates the consumer to develop it (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). Furthermore,
prior research shows that consumers are more likely to discover a brand that is
compatible with their own personal or social identities (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Earlier work differentiates consumer–brand relationships as a function of the extent
of congruence between the identity of the customer and that of the brand (Sampedro,
2017).
However, from a technological perspective, new advancements in innovation

have been argued to be the biggest influencers yet on branding (Oh, et al., 2020).
Blockchain (the technology behind cryptocurrencies), the Internet of Things,
artificial intelligence, and virtual reality are a few of the new technologies affecting
brands, which in return show how consumers interact with the brands. Nevertheless,
to date, it is still unclear how such new technologies will change the relationships that
customers have with their brands (Lee et al., 2020). Therefore, this study focuses on
the brand identification of cryptocurrencies, which is still missing in the literature.
In the academic domain, choosing to use a certain brand of any type of product
or service (cryptocurrency in the case of this study) may be closely related to user
ownership or adoption (Steinmetz et al., 2021). It has been reported that the current
global number of cryptocurrency users exceeds 100 million (Blandin et al., 2020).
Users’ adoption of cryptocurrencies is mainly due to users developing knowledge
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
and trust towards the brands (Steinmetz et al., 2021). Nevertheless, it is also crucial
to consider that digital currencies also involve high levels of risks (from the financial
perspective) in terms of fraud, tax evasions, money laundering, and illegal trading
(Dyntu & Dykyi, 2019; Náñez Alonso, 2019; Sanz Bas, 2020; Wronka, 2021).
THE CURRENT STUDY AND HYPOTHESES

The impact of brand personality on different consequences has been studied in the
brand management literature (e.g., Karjaluoto et al., 2016; Tatoglu et al., 2018).
Brand personality is one of the most significant elements of brand identity that has
attracted scholars in the marketing discipline (Jehangiri & Mirza, 2015). However,
addressing a gap in contemporary scholarship, the present paper aims to explore
the relationship between brand personality and brand identity within the context of
cryptocurrencies. In addition to exploring the relationship itself, we also investigate
the moderating role of individual personality attributes. This is important, as prior
research linked individual personality attributes with both consumer behavioural
outcomes (i.e., Bosnjak, et al., 2007; Mulyanegara, et al., 2009; Sarker, et al., 2013),
and with brand personality (i.e., Aaker, 1997; Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel 2004; Sung
& Kim, 2010), but not within the general scope of digital currencies.
As part of the consumer–brand relationship, individuals often associate themselves
with positive brand outcomes, by - for instance - transferring the success of their
favourite brand to themselves (Wallace et al., 2017), Customers may want to raise
their confidence by choosing distinctive brands and therefore, they should perceive a
stronger identification with more distinctive brands rather than with less distinctive
brands (Kapferer, 2004). This is in line with earlier findings. Brown et al. (2003)
suggest that brand identity captures both stakeholders and the environment in
which marketing management and consumer loyalty coincide, which in turn can be
associated with consumers’ identification and self-concept (da Silveira et al., 2013).
Although not entirely distinct from brand personality, brand identification
refers to a somewhat different form of a link, through distinguishing characteristics
associated with a brand. According to several scholars in the field of marketing (e.g.,
Aaker 1997; Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel 2004; de Chernatony, 2001; Kapferer, 2004;
MacInnis & Folkes, 2017), an important direct relationship is present between brand
identity and brand personality. Advocates of this posit that similarity in identification
between the brand and consumers helps the latter to create a relationship with the
brand’s personality, as it is likely to tap into their ideal selves. Moreover, Geuens et
al. (2009) added that brand personality is a very important component when it comes
to defining a brand’s identification, while de Chernatony (1999) stated that brand
identity reflects the brand’s vision that drives its desired positioning and personality.
Prior work has not studied these relationships within the context of cryptocurrencies.
More specifically, it is still unclear how the personality traits of cryptocurrency
consumers (i.e., investors, traders, or users) may influence the relationship between
the digital currency’s brand personality and its identification.
Hypothesis 1: The brand personality of a cryptocurrency positively affects its brand

identification.
Consumer behavioural influences triggered by the consumers’ personality have been

IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
studied by several authors (Bosnjak et al., 2007; Mulyanegara et al., 2009; Sarker
et al., 2013), and some found that there is a certain interaction between personality
and the product (Tsao & Chang, 2010). Moreover, other scholars found that there
is an interaction between consumers’ personality traits and brand personality when
it comes to attachment towards the brand (Dikčius et al., 2013; Louis & Lombart,
2010; Orth et al., 2010; Šeimienė, 2012). However, not much is known about the
interaction between personality traits and brand personality (Ahmad & Thyagaraj,
2015).
Human personality refers to a relatively stable set of individual dispositions and
mental programs (Hofstede, 2011) that regulates cohesion and incorporates different
beliefs, feelings, and actions (Gosling, et al., 2011). A widely employed theoretical
paradigm central to personality and behavioural research comes from the Five-Factor
model (McCrae & Costa, 1999), in which each personality dimension is expansively
signified along with five fundamental traits: openness to experience (curiosity,
flexibility, imaginativeness); neuroticism (upset, distressed, moodiness, anxiety,
and depression); agreeableness (friendly, helpful, empathetic); conscientiousness
(planning, persistence, responsibility, impulse control, and reliability); and
extraversion (sociability, assertiveness, spontaneity, tendency towards happiness)
(Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Graziano, et al., 2007). Nevertheless, despite the
wide use of the ‘Big Five’ personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg,
1990), research focusing on brand personality dimensions remains scarce (Aaker,
1997).
Studies show that consumers often choose certain brands which have specific
associations and fixed characteristics through which they feel identified. Hence, just
as individuals have compatibility traits with fellow members of society, consumers
often base their brand-related decisions on the perception of complementarities with
their characteristics (Langstedt & Hunt, 2017), and tend to associate themselves with
brands that share similar attributes to their own (McCracken, 1993). An increasing
body of work applies personality traits (i.e., the Big Five model) to a wide range of
contexts to understand human behaviour and preferences more fully. To relate the Big
Five personality characteristics to brand characteristics, scholars investigated direct
relationships between the five psychological traits and brands in different contexts,
such as fashion (e.g., Huang et al., 2012; Mulyanegara et al., 2009); corporate
brands (e.g., Keller & Richey, 2006); and social media (e.g., Vernuccio, 2014).
Chow et al. (2004) found a strong correlation between the brand personality and
consumers’ personality traits, where extraversion and openness to experience were
strongly related to the personality of the brand. Moreover, Mulyanegara et al. (2009)
found a positive relationship between personality traits and brand personality in the
fashion sector, while Kim et al. (2001) established similar results in the context of
smartphones. Henceforth, the alignment between the personality traits of consumers
and the brand personality can provide interesting insights into consumer preferences
regarding the brand (Lin, 2010).
Extraversion (EX) as a moderator

Extraversion in individuals is perceived as being sociable, gregarious, assertive,
active, and ambitious (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Feist, 1998). People who score high
along the Big Five extraversion trait tend to be social, active, and place a high value
on interpersonal relationships compared to introverts (Watson & Clark, 1997). On
the other hand, people who are low in extraversion are shown to have low emotional
stability and signs of distress about themselves (Kotov et al., 2010). Consequently,
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
individuals who are high in extraversion can be expected to perceive brands as

opportunities to improve their power and influence (Mooradian & Oliver, 1997).
In multiple literature, extroversion has been found to be a positive moderator for
multiple factors such as the relationship among emotional intelligence, conflict
management, and self-esteem (e.g., Ann & Yang, 2012). In other recent studies,
extraversion has shown to positively moderate the social value and brand community
engagement relationship (e.g., Wang et al., 2019). Furthermore, extroversion has
been shown to strongly impact online consumer behaviour (Kabadayi & Price,
2014). Extroverts demonstrate higher needs for activity and lower desires for
interpersonal relationships, in which both are relevant aspects in predicting high
levels of identification with brand communities (Chang et al., 2013).
Hypothesis 2: An Extrovert cryptocurrency consumer positively moderates the crypto

brand’s personality–identification relationship.
Openness to experience (OP) as a moderator

The openness to experience trait characterises those people who are curious and
eager to try new and different concepts. Prior studies have shown these people to
be imaginative, responsive, and explorative (McCrae & Costa, 1991), with high
degrees of scientific and creative thinking (Judge et al., 2002). Besides, a high level of
openness to experience has also been related to being more open to training (Barrick
et al., 2001) and job-related innovations (Devaraj et al., 2008). Linking this attribute
to brands, it is hypothesised that an individual scoring higher along this trait will be
more willing to try a new brand as well as to identify with a particular brand. Hence,
the researchers hypothesise the following:
Hypothesis 3: The cryptocurrency consumers’ openness to experience positively

moderates the crypto brand’s personality–identification relationship.
Neuroticism (NE) as a moderator

Neuroticism represents individual differences in adjustment and emotional stability
(Zhao & Seibert, 2006). The neuroticism trait includes uncertainty, anxiety, and
aggression. People high in neuroticism tend to have negative emotions. Previous
studies have identified neuroticism as one of the personality factors influencing
beliefs and behaviour. Empirical findings have found it to be negatively linked with
numerous constructive elements within the scope of work behaviour (Devaraj et al.,
2008). From the Big Five perspectives, people high in the neuroticism trait are likely
to view disruptions as more threatening, and form negative thoughts about brand use.
This negative assessment of brand identity will lead to greater restlessness, disbelief,
insecurity, and hostility (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Devaraj et al., 2008). Moreover, at
lower levels of neuroticism, brand personality will have a stronger relationship with
brand identification than at higher degrees of neuroticism. Hence, the researchers
hypothesise the following:
Hypothesis 4: A cryptocurrency consumer’s neuroticism negatively moderates the

crypto brand’s personality–identification relationship.
Agreeableness (AG) as a moderator

IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
The agreeableness trait characterises the tendency to attempt harmony and low degrees
of conflict in interpersonal relations (McCrae & Costa, 1991). People with high levels
of agreeableness personality traits are considerate, helpful, and cooperative. Because
they have a shared alignment (Zellars & Perrewé, 2001), these people will approve
the use of new brands and identify them based on their characteristics. Hence,
individuals high in agreeableness will most likely develop a positive perception of
the brand personality brand identification relationship. Therefore, because of their
inclination to help others, these entities may perceive brand personality and identity
as opportunities. Hereafter, the researchers hypothesise the following:
Hypothesis 5: A cryptocurrency consumer’s agreeableness positively moderates the

Conscientiousness (CO) as a moderator

Highly conscientious people strive for reliability and attention to detail (Barrick
et al., 2001) and they are labelled by self-control manifested in a high need for
accomplishment (Costa et al., 1991). Because they are intrinsically inspired to advance
their performance and are willing to accept new ideas and brands, these people are
likely to perceive brand personality as an opportunity to improve their self-identity
(de Chernatony, 2001), which in turn may increase their positive approach towards
brand identification. Furthermore, such individuals are fundamentally motivated
to pay attention to new environments and strive for success (Costa et al., 1991).
In summary, high levels of conscientiousness are expected to develop positive
perceptions of brand personality to excel with effectiveness. Also, in their mission for
superiority, their identification with the digital currency in this context is expected
to intensify.
Hypothesis 6: A cryptocurrency user’s conscientiousness will positively moderate the

Based on the proposed hypotheses, the researchers assess the following model as
depicted in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1. Proposed model
Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Brand Personality Brand Identification
Extroversion Openness to Neuroticism

Experience
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
METHODOLOGY
Data sample and measurements

The questionnaire was administered to participants in the world’s largest blockchain
forum, Consensus 2019. Such forums and conferences involve professionals, experts,
academics, exhibitors, and influencers in the crypto field, where their advice and
discussions are supported with practical evidence. Thus, reliable findings and insights
may be extracted for this study. The event took place in New York between May 14
to May 16 2019, where more than 250 speakers and 4000 attendees were present.
Participants were mostly blockchain enthusiasts, tech experts, traders, and investors,
representing large companies, financial institutions, and start-ups who already
invested money into cryptocurrencies. Researchers were granted permission to
gather data for academic purposes by the event’s organisers. The event was attended
by the researchers for 3 days to ensure that the data was collected from a diverse set
of individuals from different professional backgrounds and with different interests
in blockchain projects. A total of 380 copies of the questionnaire were delivered,
and 237 responses were maintained following data cleaning. Table 1 shows the
demographics and control variables of the study.
TABLE 1. Control variables
Measures Descriptions Frequency %

Age 18 - 23 18 7.50
24 - 29 76 32.00
30 - 35 105 44.30
36 - 41 32 13.50
> 41 6 2.50
Gender Male 176 74.20
Female 62 25.80
Origin USA 102 43.00
Asia 91 38.40
Europe 31 13.10
Middle East 09 3.80
Africa 04 1.70
Total 237 100
TABLE 2. Questionnaire items
Brand personality dimensions (adapted from Aaker, 1997; Keller, 2003; Aaker et al.,
2001)
BP 1 I rely on cryptocurrencies as a mean of transaction
BP 2 I find the technology behind Bitcoin very exciting
BP 3 Bitcoin is a competent cryptocurrency in the world of digital currencies
BP 4 Cryptocurrencies are somehow sophisticated
BP 5 Bitcoin has a solid brand personality
Brand identification dimensions (adapted from Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012)
BI 1 I am very attached to Bitcoin as my favourite cryptocurrency
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
BI 2 The concept of Bitcoin truly represents what I believe in

BI 3 The concept of Bitcoin has a personal meaning to me
Agreeableness (McCrae, 1999; Saucier, 1994; Gosling et al., 2003; Lang et al., 2011)
AGI 1 I show sympathy and consideration towards others
AGI 2 My friends and family find me trustworthy
AGI 3 I am a cooperative person
Neuroticism
NE 1 I often experience stress and anxiety
NE 2 I often have mood swings
NE 3 I often get hostile with others
NE 4 I often feel vulnerable
NE 5 I often feel tense
NE 6 I often feel jealousy and envy
NE 7 Most of the time I am pessimistic
NE 8 I often have negative thoughts and attitude
Conscientiousness
CON 1 Competence is a good trait in me
CON 2 I am often efficient and productive
CON 3 I am a reliable and responsible person
Extroversion
EX 1 I am an active and talkative individual
EX 2 I am enthusiastic and energetic as a person
EX 3 I am an outgoing person
EX 4 I often try to surround myself with positivity
Openness to Experience
OP 1 I am a curious person
OP 2 I am attracted to things with complexity
OP 3 I am an imaginative and artistic person
OP 4 I am an intellectual person
BP= Brand personality (independent variable); BI= Brand identification (dependent variable); AGI=
Agreeableness (moderator); NE= Neuroticism (moderator); CON= Conscientiousness (moderator);
EX= Extroversion (moderator); OP= Openness to Experience (moderator)
The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first part included
demographic and psychographic questions such as age, nationality, and first exposure
to cryptocurrencies, while the second part incorporated questions concerning
perceived brand personality and brand identity of cryptocurrencies, along with the
respondents’ personality traits. All measures have been extracted from prior studies,
which have been pre-validated, and are shown along with the items measurements
and related references in Table 2. All surveys were based on the 5-point Likert scale.
When necessary, questions were adapted to reflect the context of cryptocurrencies,
including entries for brand identification. The questionnaire was cleared for GDPR
guidelines by the Rennes Business School’s CSR and Ethics Department.
RESULTS
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
Data analysis
Data were analysed (checking for validity, reliability, and model fit, and including
linear regression analysis, and moderation analysis) through a triangulation method
using three statistical approaches (SPSS 23.0, AMOS 23.0, and Smart PLS3).
Validity and reliability

The content was tested numerous times to ensure consistency (Haynes et al., 1995),
with the factor loading values exceeding 0.50 (Chin, 1998), which are considered to
serve as significant estimates (see Table 3 for further details). Similarly, Cronbach’s
alphas were above 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978) suggesting satisfactory reliability
measurements. Convergent validity was assessed by testing the composite reliability,
average variance extracted, and MSV (Hair et al., 1998) (see Table 4 for further
details). All values were significant. Furthermore, Table 5 displays the estimates
of MSV to be less than AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), which provides further
support for discriminant validity. Model fit was measured via the application of the
following indices: CMIN/df < 3, CFI > .90 (Hair et al., 2010); and RMEA < .08
(Steiger, 1990). The estimates overall demonstrated that the hypothesised model was
satisfactory (see Table 5). Finally, multi-co linearity has been tested by examining the
VIF [VIF = (1/1-R²i)]. The estimate yielded a good result with a value of 1.6, which
is less than the standard cut-off of 5 (Gruber et al., 2010).
Regression Analysis
The study’s empirical analysis provides some interesting insights, yielding the following
results: H1 (Brand personality-Brand identification) was supported (t = 5.185;  =
.351; p < 0.01); H2 (Brand personality-Extroversion-Brand identification) was not
supported (t = -.639;  = -.098; p > 0.05); H3 (Brand personality-Openness-Brand
identification) was supported (t = 2.884;  = .434; p < 0.01); H4 (Brand personality-
Neuroticism-Brand identification) was not supported (t = -.704;  = -.138; p >
0.05); H5 (Brand personality-Agreeableness-Brand identification) was supported (t
= 3.386;  = .443; p < 0.01); and H6 (Brand personality-Conscientiousness-Brand
identification) was not supported (t = .508;  = .069; p > 0.05).Table 5 provides
the specific details for the statistical regression analyses.
TABLE 3. Factor loadings
Brand Personality BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5

0.742 0.810 0.821 0.711 0.786
Neuroticism NE1 NE2 NE3 NE4 NE5 NE6 NE7 NE8
0.637 0.773 0.827 0.848 0.743 0.826 0.625 0.863
Agreeableness AG1 AG2 AG3
0.827 0.763 0.825
Conscientiousness CON1 CON2 CON3
0.738 0.835 0.812
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
Openness OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4

0.672 0.791 0.703 0.720
Extroversion EX1 EX2 EX3 EX4
0.668 0.740 0.774 0.632
Brand Identification BI1 BI2 BI3
0.757 0.877 0.749
TABLE 4. CR, AVE, MSV & discriminant validity
CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) EX BP NE AG CON OP BI

EX 0.788 0.512 0.402 0.796 0.713
BP 0.884 0.605 0.372 0.924 -0.051 0.778
NE 0.938 0.655 0.498 0.967 0.706 0.041 0.809
AG 0.828 0.616 0.372 0.972 -0.088 0.610 -0.029 0.785
CON 0.847 0.650 0.287 0.976 0.313 0.337 0.536 0.177 0.806
OP 0.801 0.502 0.342 0.978 0.465 0.262 0.585 0.190 0.263 0.708
BI 0.855 0.665 0.345 0.981 -0.018 0.587 0.039 0.517 0.220 0.354 0.815
In line with the results from the respective regression analyses, Figures 2 and
3 display the interactive effects between the constructs. Figure 2 presents the
interactive moderating effect of openness to experience on the brand personality
and brand identification relationship. With low levels of openness to experience,
the brand personality at low and high levels leads to the same/constant degree of
brand identification. However, with high levels of openness to experience, low levels
of brand personality tend to be associated with low levels of brand identification,
whereas high levels of brand personality tend to be associated with high levels
of brand identification. Figure 3 displays a similar pattern. More specifically, for
individuals with low levels of agreeableness, the brand personality at low and high
levels leads to the same/constant degree of brand identification. On the other hand,
for individuals with high levels of agreeableness, low levels of brand personality tend
to be associated with low levels of brand identification, whereas high levels of brand
personality tend to be associated with high levels of brand identification.
TABLE 5. Regression analysis
Model
Variables Brand Identification
t Stnd B Unst.
Brand Personality 5.185* .351* .298*
Neuroticism -1.847 -.159 -.170
Agreeableness 3.293* .214* .183*
Conscientiousness 1.149 .078 .068
Openness-to-Exp 3.505* .236* .258*
Extroversion .004 -- --
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
BP x NE -.704 -.138 -.026

BP x CON .508 .069 .012
BP x OP 2.884* .434* .084*
BP x EX -.639 -.098 -.084
BP x AG 3.386* .443* .074*
R .612
R Sq .375
Adj. R Sq .351
Model fit
CMIN/DF 1.793**
CFI .920**
RMSEA .061**
*Significant Estimate < 0.01; **Significant Estimate (CMIN/DF < 3; CFI > 0.900; RMEA < 0.08)
FIGURE 2. Openness to experience as a moderator for Brand Personality – Brand

Identification relationship
4.5
3.5
Low
3
High
2.5
1.5
BI 1
Low BP High BP
FIGURE 3. Agreeableness as a moderator for Brand Personality – Brand Identification

relationship
4.5
3.5
Low
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
3
High
2.5
2
1.5
BI 1
Low BP High BP
DISCUSSION
Digital currencies are perceived as the ecosystem that is likely to revolutionise the world
of payments and e-commerce (Makarova, 2018). Regardless of the current speculative
nature of the cryptocurrency market, the aggressive entry of new cryptocurrencies
is anticipated to further encourage companies to invest in their branding strategies
(Natason, 2019). Very recently, Mastercard rebranded themselves for the first time
after more than fifty years by removing their name from the logo, in an attempt to
communicate the concept of currency exchange through their brand image (CNBC,
2019). However, Mastercard was not the only payment system to rebrand itself this
year. Ripple, a blockchain digital interbank payment system adopted by 200 financial
institutions that are in direct competition with Mastercard and SWIFT has rebranded
itself to be positioned as the efficient solution for exchanging money globally at a
higher transaction speed and with lower costs (Masters, 2018). The purpose of the
current study was to explore the brand personality of cryptocurrencies, and how
this construct may influence the brand identification of users. Furthermore, the
researchers explored the importance of individual personality traits, as measured by
their moderating effect over the brand personality – brand identification relationship,
aiming to explore whether users with certain characteristics may be likely to favour
the relationship over others. Henry et al. (2017) suggested that understanding the
composition of types of users would be important for better understanding of the
future of cryptocurrencies, while Abraham et al. (2019) investigated the theoretical
models at the psychological macro and micro levels that are able to explain the
penetration and acceptance of cryptocurrencies. Other studies focused on several
factors that impact users’ psychology when it comes to Bitcoin, which includes the
emotions of fear and greed, trust, ethnographic engagement, and several different
cognitive biases (Folkinshteyn & Lennon, 2016; Maddox et al., 2016).
In this study, there are two main important findings based on the results. First,
the researchers observed that two of the five personality traits, namely agreeableness
and openness to experience, showed a significant moderating effect on the brand
personality/identity relationship. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that brand
personality and brand identification can be stronger with the moderating effects of
these two traits since they add constructive, optimistic, and confident contributions
when dealing with a new brand. The modern-day finance technology allowed users
to have a wide array of payment methods that became available and accessible to
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
almost anyone with access to the Internet or a mobile phone, including this less
regulated cryptocurrency technology. However, our results have shown how certain
personality traits can make some users mode adaptive than others in identifying
with cryptocurrencies. These currencies, if taken individually, have exclusive
natures, which in this research are reflected in their brand personalities. Similarly,
cryptocurrencies can be seen as an innovation that barely existed ten years ago, and
recently went through a rapid bubble-like surge. With the problem-solving solutions
they offer, such as higher transaction speed, lower transaction costs, and smart
contracts, people are starting to accept this creative scientific innovation and start
adapting to it (Jonker, 2019).
Looking at social media threads and online blogs, people are self-educating
themselves about cryptocurrencies, and are fairly investing into new projects, and so
are companies and businesses who seek opportunities into his Greenfield (Adhami
et al., 2018). Having said this, users’ willingness to experience a new technology
as such explains the positive impact of the openness to experience on the brand
personality–brand identification relationship, which was one of the findings of this
study. Financially conservation people, especially when there’s unfamiliarity if they
feel out of their comfort zone, have shown to score low in openness to experience
according to our study. While the ones who scored high have a higher tendency to
break through the barriers of entry to cryptocurrencies, and are more intuitive about
these new technologies.
Agreeableness also plays a collective role in building this positive branding
relationship for a cryptocurrency brand. Each cryptocurrency could attract certain
investors or users that share the same interests and attitudes, since communities are
quite important when it comes to adopting these crypto projects by the masses. A lot
of interaction between users is occurring, and this shows the power of communities
who have things in common and share common ground when it comes to new
cryptocurrency projects (Xu et al., 2019), thus agreeableness plays an important role
within these users’ personalities. Hence, along with its speculative nature, building a
united community around the project increases its brand awareness and significantly
enhances its reputation (Simone, 2018). The actors within the cryptocurrency
industry build interfaces between cryptocurrency systems, traditional finance, and
the global economy (Hileman & Rauchs, 2017), while the industry provides the
infrastructure and services to make cryptocurrencies more accessible to mainstream
users (Hileman & Rauchs, 2017). With people being helpful and cooperative in this
field, agreeableness becomes an impactful factor to further enhance the relationship
between a cryptocurrency’s brand personality and its identification.
Brand personality is extensively discussed in social scientific disciplines;

nevertheless, the concept of equivalence between brand personality and individual
personality remains rather vague (Ahmad & Thyagaraj, 2015). A few studies indicate
that most individuals with specific personalities choose brands with similar brand
personalities, while some others claim the opposite. However, the similarity concept
is not sufficiently elaborated in detail in prior studies. For that reason, this study
challenges that view and identifies several interesting relationships, incorporating
the theoretical lens of the Big Five personality traits. It became clear that despite
a few studies suggesting that all personality dimensions are quite similar in their
characteristics (e.g., Davies et al., 2017), the authors of the current study have
shown the opposite. Brand personality is a crucial part of brand development and
management, and if it is positive, there is a possibility of a favourable effect. As an
example, the personalised rebranding of a multi-billion-dollar blockchain solutions
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
company like Ripple, which created its own perceived identification with its users,
shows how instrumental brand personality is in perceiving the currency as the
innovator of banking transfer. For instance, Bitcoin’s golden coin symbol that people
perceive as digital gold and the fact that it is the first-ever cryptocurrency created by an
unknown programmer may give a sense of mystery and uniqueness to its personality,
which contributes to users’ identification with “the king of cryptocurrencies” through
the sense of financial freedom.
The results of the present research provide support for the proposition that a
strong and positive brand personality also leads to more brand associations that are
favourable, unique, and strong, and thus in this context, and in turn, have the potential
to enhance the brand identity of cryptocurrencies. This effect happened regardless
of which personality dimension was influencing as a moderator, suggesting that any
brand personality, so long as it is perceived as being strong and favourable, is likely
to be associated with positive consequences (Freling & Forbes, 2005). Personality
attributes may vary, but they are often the attributes that determine opposing
alternatives (Lovelock, 1984). So, any branded cryptocurrency which is perceived as
being equally proficient, other personality dimensions may be more operational and
effective in terms of differentiation. Our empirical evidence is consistent with the
definition of brand personality consisting of a set of individual personality traits that
are applicable and relevant for brands (Valette-Florence & Valette-Florence, 2020).
Consequently, strong and differentiated brand names (e.g., Ripple, Ethereum, and
Bitcoin) enhance performance through appropriate brand choice (Davcik & Sharma,
2015).
However, strong brand identification and personality may become invaluable in
the case of a brand being easily replicated ( van Rekom & Verlegh, 2006), and that’s
why emerging cryptocurrencies constantly work on differentiating themselves from
similar projects. As previously noted, considering that individuals associate themselves
with those who have similar traits, it is reasonable to relate themselves to brands with
which they identify (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). To provide further support to
our findings, research conducted by Chow et al. (2004) showed that individuals with
different personality traits related differently to brand personality. Also, their work
revealed that the influence of brand personality affected their purchase decisions.
Hence, high levels of openness and extroversion are linked to brand personality.
Another study, by Govers & Schoormans (2005), revealed that consumer preference
plays a vital role in product personality and self-concept image.
On the other hand, although the findings are supportive of numerous earlier
studies, our empirical evidence has also been found to be partially supportive of the
work of Guo (2003). In his work, all five dimensions of the personality traits, used as
independent variables, were positively related to the outcome of brand personality.
It would be more theoretically possible to have the personality traits as moderators
since they are present in individuals both before and after any decision or purchase
is made. In other words, cryptocurrency users with different personality traits may
embrace diverse feelings towards any cryptocurrency brand, which is especially the
case with investors with diversified crypto portfolios.
Finally, one of the aims of the paper was to shed light on developing a better
understanding of the hidden concept of emotions, especially in products (digital
currencies) that are often consumed and speculated on in a highly emotional
environment, trading, and investment. Despite emotions being pervasive in the field
of marketing, understanding of their significant role remains rather vague (Chaney et
al., 2018). Emotions could be positive or negative feelings, the same characteristics
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
found in personality traits. Hence, they are likely to function independently from
consciousness or reason (Pawle & Cooper, 2006). Consumer responses are often
emotional rather than driven by reason and rationality (Lapidus, 2019), and
consequently, brands can induce diverse feelings in choosing a certain brand concept
or creating a brand identification. As such, our findings validate that a) emotions are
key aspects in creating successful brand identification with a cryptocurrency to which
users can emotionally relate, b) brand personality aids a cryptocurrency brand to
adopt human features, and c) brand personalities are shaped by a mixture of emotional
elements. Our final argument is that branding enables individuals accustomed to a
definite cryptocurrency to differentiate it from its rivals. Consequently, the success
of any cryptocurrency does not depend only on the logo or another communication
form but instead is co-created with other emotional attachments and connections.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
This study investigated how brand personality affects brand identity in the context
of digital currencies with the moderating effects of personality traits. First, this is
a noteworthy contribution due to there being a scarcity in research concerning the
influences of personality traits on investment intentions and decisions (Lai, 2019).
Second, this is a significant implication for all stakeholders (traders, investors,
trading platforms, companies, etc.) since crypto investments have been associated
with the interaction of multiple behavioural factors, among which personality has
been recorded to be the most significant for explaining substantial investments in
cryptocurrencies and affecting investment decisions (Kim et al., 2020; Oehler et al.,
2018; Singh & Malhotra, 2016).
Hence, this study offered an in-depth assessment and empirical validation for the
different moderating effects of personality traits in the context of cryptocurrencies,
and by doing so, from a financial perspective, the most significant and insignificant
personality traits to trading have been empirically identified. Such novel understandings
guide traders (and crypto brands) in achieving effective trading patterns (and attracting
potential customers/traders/users) since one of the main factors to developing
successful trading psychology is identifying the relevant personality traits (IG bank,
2019). Thus, from a psychological perspective, the theoretical model of this study
aids in avoiding mistakes in financial trading or brand marketing.
From a marketing perspective, the theoretical framework also offers valuable

insights for marketers in publicly traded businesses and organisations. A study
by Harrison et al. (2019) discussed how the personality traits of CEOs of large
corporations may affect stock prices, shares volatility, and firm value; for example,
how the personality of Elon Musk influences the price of Tesla’s shares in the financial
market and thus affects the perceptions of buyers towards the brand. Therefore,
experts in the marketing division may use this framework as a blueprint for strategic
marketing developments.
CONTRIBUTIONS
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
This study is the first of its kind to integrate the important role of personality traits
into the brand personality–brand identification model. Overall, the hypothesised
model extends the studies in recent marketing research that examine the roles
of brand personality and identification. Grounding the research in the Big Five
personality model, the paper theorises and empirically examines the moderating
effect of personality traits on the relationship between brand personality and brand
identification. This is important because the perception mechanisms associated with
each personality trait are different, hence leading to differences in the perception
of brand personality with brand identification. This paper also proposes a novel
understanding of how the different personality traits combine with brand personality
to establish positive or negative effects on brand identification. Thus, one of the main
contributions is emphasising the significance of personality traits in order to explain
the impact of brand personality on brand identification. Additionally, the study
urgently calls for deeper investigation concerning the role of personality dimensions
in marketing research, because integrating such dimensions has been shown to
significantly enhance other theoretical and pre-existing models in the consumer
behaviour discipline. The fact that brand personality can influence brand identity
differently at low and high levels based on different moderators calls for further
research. It would be interesting, for instance, to understand how such an interaction
evolves in different contextual situations.
As for the managerial contributions, our exploratory research may be considered
as a primary phase for understanding how individual personality dimensions may
influence the brand identification of cryptocurrencies. The finding that personality
dimensions may impact brand identification can help developers and marketers in
the blockchain sector to decipher how to shape their digital projects. Our findings
demonstrated the importance of branding in this new growing sector. The fierce
competition and continuous emergence of new projects with a similar function may
lead to the failure of several projects, and only the prominent ones shall survive.
Therefore, it is necessary to create a well-accustomed branding strategy that
accentuates the brand identification of the cryptocurrency.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
To support the validity and legitimacy of the current study, the findings complement
and extend the work of Kim et al. (2020) by showing that investing in cryptocurrencies
is attributed to personality patterns. Nevertheless, despite the significant findings
that have been observed in this study, several limitations can be identified. First, the
sample consisted of participants from a single specific event. Although it represents
the most visited blockchain event in the world, it didn’t include blockchain activists
who could not attend the event. Therefore, future studies should collect data through
an online survey that reaches a wider audience. Furthermore, although some extent
of generalisation can be assumed based on the results, surveying a sample consisting
of actual cryptocurrency users can further enhance the understanding of such a topic
in the business world.
Similarly, brand personality has been hypothesised and analysed based on one
holistic unit. Future studies may extend the model by integrating the different
dimensions that are derived under the construct of brand personality (i.e., excitement,
sincerity, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness). It would be interesting to see
if the same moderating variables can affect each factor differently. For that, a larger
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
sample size would be called for. In addition, the data was gathered through a survey.
Testing such relationships through an experimental approach or a qualitative study
by interviewing blockchain managers and users may be able to achieve richer and
more rigorous findings since the personality trait dimensions are best evaluated based
on real and tangible circumstances. Finally, the authors did not focus on a specific
type(s) of cryptocurrency. Future studies are encouraged to capture such attributes by
conducting a comparative analysis among the chosen types of digital currencies and
how they relate to different types of personality traits. Addressing such a research call
may contribute substantially to the literature.
CONCLUSION
Recent marketing research and literature have witnessed noteworthy developments

in understanding the relationships and outcomes of brand personality or brand
identification separately from numerous perceptions, theories, contexts, and
concepts. Moreover, the impact of brand personality on different consequences has
also been studied in the brand management literature. Yet, the role of individual
personality differences in affecting the perception of brand personality on brand
identification has been largely absent, particularly in the context of digital currencies.
In the current study, the researchers theorised and empirically investigated
the moderating effects of personality dimensions on the cryptocurrencies’ brand
personality – brand identification relationship. By integrating the role of personality
dimensions into the perceived relationship, the researchers have proposed a novel
conceptualisation and model . This paper will support the current marketing
literature and adds value to the discipline by incorporating concepts from consumer
and behavioural psychology along with branding to further advance research in this
area of cryptocurrencies.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L. (1997, August). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.
com/abstract=945432 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.945432
Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martínez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of
culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.492
Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three
perspectives on the question of brand personality. In F. R. Kardes & M. Sujan (Eds.),
NA - Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 22, pp. 391–395). Association for Consumer
Research.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, A. (2004). When Good Brands Do Bad. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1086/383419
Abraham, J., Sutiksno, D. U., Kurniasih, N., & Warokka, A. (2019). Acceptance and Penetration
of Bitcoin: The Role of Psychological Distance and National Culture. SAGE Open, 9(3),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019865813
Acharya, A., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Place branding research: A thematic review and future
research agenda. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 13(3), 289-317.
https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12208-015-0150-7
Adhami, S., Giudici, G., & Martinazzi, S. (2018). Why Do Businesses Go Crypto? An Empirical
Analysis of Initial Coin Offerings. Journal of Economics and Business, 100, 64–75. https://
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2018.04.001
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales
force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on
customer satisfaction and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945–955.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945
Ahmad, A., & Thyagaraj, K. (2015). Understanding the influence of brand personality
on consumer behavior. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 38-43. https://doi.
org/10.12720/joams.3.1.38-43.
Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2013). Brand passion: Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 904–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2011.12.009
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69, 19–34. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363
Allen, D. E., & Olson, J. (1995). Conceptualizing and creating brand personality: A narrative
theory approach. In: J. Aaker & S. Fournier, (Eds)., A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a
Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality, 392-393; In: F. R. Kardes
& M. Sujan, Eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research
22, (391-395), Provo, UT.
Ann B-Y, & Yang C-C. . (2012). The moderating of personality traits on emotional intelligence
and conflict management styles. Psychological Reports, 110(3), 1021–1025. https://doi.
org/10.2466/21.01.09.20.PR0.110.3.1021-1025
Baker, J. J., Storbacka, K., & Brodie, R. J. (2019). Markets changing, changing markets:
Institutional work as market shaping. Marketing Theory, 19(3), 301–328. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1470593118809799
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and
Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160
Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76–88.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Bhattacharya, S. K., Kumar, A., & Ghosal, S. (1995). Effects of glycowithanolides from
Withania somnifera on animal model of Alzheimer’s disease and perturbed central
cholinergic markers of cognition in rats. Phytotherapy Research, 9, 110–113. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ptr.2650090206
Blandin, A., Pieters, G. C., Wu, Y., Dek, A., Eisermann, T., Njoki, D., & Taylor, S. (2020,
September 24). 3rd global cryptoasset benchmarking study. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3700822
Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and
governance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29, 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1257/
jep.29.2.213
Bosnjak, M., Bochmann, V., & Hufschmidt, T. (2007). Dimensions of brand personality
attributions: A person-centric approach in the German cultural context. Social Behavior
and Personality, 35, 303–316. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.3.303
Boukis, A. (2019). Exploring the implications of blockchain technology for brand-consumer
relationships: A future research agenda. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 29,
307–320. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1780
Bouoiyour, J., Selmi, R., & Tiwari, A. (2014). Is BitCoin business income or a speculative
bubble? Unconditional vs. conditional frequency domain analysis. MPRA Paper No. 59595.
Germany: University Library of Munich.
Brown, D. M., & Whysall, P. (2013). Viewing the Strategy-Performance Relationship through
a Reputational Lens: A Longitudinal Study of Leading Retailers. Strategic Change, 22(3-4),
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
129–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.1928
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry, J. F., Jr. (2003). Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro
Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19–33. https://
doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.3.19.18657
Buckley, R. P., Arner, D. W., Zetzsche, D. A., Didenko, A. N., & Van Romburg, L. J. (2021).
Sovereign digital currencies: Reshaping the design of money and payments systems. Journal
of Payments Strategy & Systems, 15(1), 7–22.
Carlson, B. D., Suter, T. A., & Brown, T. J. (2008). Social versus psychological brand
community: The role of psychological sense of brand community. Journal of Business
Research, 61(4), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.022
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352
Chaney, D., Lunardo, R., & Mencarelli, R. (2018). Consumption experience: Past, present
and future. Qualitative Market Research, 21(4), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-
04-2018-0042
Chang, A., Hsieh, S. H., & Lin, F. (2013). Personality traits that lead members of online brand
communities to participate in information sending and receiving. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 17(3), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415170302
Cheng, E. (2017, November 27). Bitcoin exchange Coinbase has more users than stock
brokerage Schwab. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/27/bitcoin-exchange-coinbase-
has-more-users-than-stock-brokerage-schwab.html
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G.
A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Methodology for business and management. Modern methods for
business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Chou, C. M. (2013). Factors affecting brand identification and loyalty in online community.
American Journal Of Industrial And Business Management, 03(08), 674–680. https://doi.
org/10.4236/ajibm.2013.38076
Chow, S. Y., Chen, C. W., & Chang, W. S. (2004). A study of relationship between human
personality and brand personality: Sports shoes as an example. Chung Hua Journal of
Management, 5(3), 1–16.
CNBC. (2019, 7 January). No words: Mastercard to drop its name from logo. Retrieved from:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/no-words-mastercard-to-drop-its-name-from-logo.html
Coindesk (2018, April 19, Updated 2021, September 13). $6.3 Billion: 2018 ICO Funding Has
Passed 2017’s Total. Retrieved from https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/04/19/63-
billion-2018-ico-funding-has-passed-2017s-total/
Conlin, A., Kyrolainen, P., Kaakinen, M., Jarvelin, M. R., Perttunen, J., & Svento, R. (2015).
Personality traits and stock market participation. Journal of Empirical Finance, 33, 34–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2015.06.001
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its
relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343–359. https://
doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and
conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D
da Silveira, C., Lages, C., & Simões, C. (2013). Re-conceptualizing brand identity in a dynamic
environment. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2011.07.020
Davcik, N., & Sharma, P. (2015). Impact of Product Differentiation, Marketing Investments
and Brand Equity on Pricing Strategies: A Brand Level Investigation. European Journal of
Marketing, 49, 760–781. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2014-0150
Davies, G., Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Whelan, S., Mete, M., & Loo, T. (2018). Brand personality:
Theory and dimensionality. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 27(2), 115–127.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2017-1499
Davies, G., Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Whelan, S., Mete, M., & Loo, T. (2018). Brand personality:
Theory and dimensionality. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 27(2), 115–127.
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2017-1499
de Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap Between Brand
Identity and Brand Reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1-3), 157–179.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870432
de Chernatony, L., Cottam, S., & Segal-Horn, S. (2006). Communicating Services Brands’
Values Internally and Externally. Service Industries Journal, 26(8), 819–836. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02642060601011616
Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). How does personality matter? Relating the
five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 19,
93–105. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0153
Dikčius, V., Pikturnienė, I., Šeimienė, E., Pakalniškienė, V., Kavaliauskė, M. & Reardon, J.
(2019). Who Convinces Whom? Parent and Child Perceptions of Children›s Engagement in
Parental Purchase Decisions, Journal of Promotion Management, 25(2), 252-269, https://
doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2018.1443306
Dikčius, V., Šeimienė, E., & Zaliene, E. (2013). Congruence between brand and consumer
personalities. Economics and Management, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.
em.18.3.5071
Dwyer, G. P. (2014). The Economics of Bitcoin and Similar Private Digital Currencies. SSRN.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2434628
Dyntu, V., & Oleh, D. (2019). Cryptocurrency in the system of money laundering. Baltic.
Journal of Economic Studies (Glasgow, Scotland), 4, 75–81.
Edelman (2019, June 18). Trust barometer special report: In brands we trust? https://www.
edelman.com/research/trust-barometer-special-report-in-brands-we-trust
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
Feldman, R. (2021, July 3). Cryptocurrency and the rise of the user-generated brand.
Cointelegraph. https://cointelegraph.com/news/cryptocurrency-and-the-rise-of-the-user-
generated-brand
Folkinshteyn, D., & Lennon, M. (2016). Braving bitcoin: A Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) analysis. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 18,
220–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2016.1275242
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–353. https://doi.
org/10.1086/209515
Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality
effect. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404–413. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10610420510633350
Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality
effect. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404–413. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10610420510633350
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A New Measure of Brand Personality.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijresmar.2008.12.002
Gioia, D., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive
instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63–81. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2000.2791603
Giudici, G., Milne, A., & Vinogradov, D. (2020). Cryptocurrencies: Market analysis and
perspectives. Economia e Politica Industriale, 47, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-
019-00138-6
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2011). Manifestations
of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and
observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9),
483–488. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0087
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A Very Brief Measure of the
Big Five Personality Domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Govers, P. C. M., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). Product personality and its influence on
consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 189–197. https://doi.
org/10.1108/07363760510605308
Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion
regulation in children’s early academic success. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 3–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.002
Gruber, M., Heinemann, F., Brettel, M., & Hungeling, S. (2010). Configurations of Resources
and Capabilities and Their Performance Implications: An Exploratory Study on Technology
Ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12), 1337–1356. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.865
Guo, L. J. (2003). The effects of personality trait and brand personality on brand preference.
Graduate Institute of Management Science, National Chiao Tung University.
Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice Hall.
Harrison, J. S., Thurgood, G. R., Boivie, S., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2019). How a CEO’s personality
affects their company’s stock price. Harvard Business Review.
Harwick, C. (2016). Cryptocurrency and the problem of intermediation. The Independent
Review, 20(4), 569–588. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44000162
Haumann, T., Quaiser, B., Wieseke, J., & Rese, M. (2014). Footprints in the sands of time: A
comparative analysis of the effectiveness of customer satisfaction and customer–company
identification over time. Journal of Marketing, 78, 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jm.13.0509
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological
assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment,
7(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
He, H., Li, Y., & Harris, L. (2012). Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. Journal of
Business Research, 65(5), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.007
Henry, C. S., Huynh, K. P., & Nicholls, G. (2017). Bitcoin awareness and usage in Canada.
Bank of Canada. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/swp2017-56.
pdf
Hileman, G., & Rauchs, M. (2017). Global cryptocurrency benchmarking study. Retrieved from:
https://cdn.crowdfundinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Global-Cryptocurrency-
Benchmarking-Study.pdf
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Bornemann, T. (2009). Implementing the marketing concept
at the employee–customer interface: The role of customer need knowledge. Journal of
Marketing, 73, 64–81. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.4.64
Huang, H., Mitchell, V., & Rosenaum-Elliott, R. (2012). Are consumer and brand personalities
the same? Psychology and Marketing, 29, 334–349. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mar.20525
IG bank. (2019). The importance of psychology in trading. https://www.ig.com/en-ch/trading-
strategies/the-importance-of-psychology-in-trading-190315
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
Iyidogan, E. (2018). An equilibrium model of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. SSRN

Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3152803
Jafarnejad, A., Shahroudi, K., & Mousagholizadeh, F. (2012). Analysis of the effect of
brand personality on customer loyalty to the Mellat Bank brand in the Tehran Province.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9), 791–800.
Jehangiri, R., & Mirza, H. A. (2015). Measuring the impact of personality attributes of
consumer on internet buying behavior. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research, 6(6), 517-526.

Johnson, J., & Sallee, D. (1994). Marketing your college as an intangible product. Journal of
College Admission, 144, 16–20.
Jonker, N. (2019). What drives the adoption of crypto-payments by online retailers?
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 35, 100848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elerap.2019.100848
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
Kabadayi, S., & Price, K. (2014). Consumer–brand engagement on Facebook: Liking and
commenting behaviours. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8(3), 203–223.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2013-0081
Kapferer, J. (2004). The New Strategic Brand Management (3rd edition). Kogan Page.
Karjaluoto, H., Munnukka, J., & Salmi, M. (2016). How do brand personality, identification,
and relationship length drive loyalty in sports? Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(1),
50–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-09-2014-0206
Kartik, H. (2017). Brand tokenization and monetization through cryptocurrencies. MPRA
Paper No. 82833. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/82833/
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand
equity. Prentice Hall.
Keller, K., & Richey, K. (2006). The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a
successful 21st century business. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 74–81. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550055
Kim, E., Lin, J.-S., & Sung, Y. (2013). To app or not to app: Engaging consumers via branded
mobile apps. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/152
52019.2013.782780
Kim, H. J., Hong, J. S., Hwang, H. C., Kim, S. M., & Han, D. H. (2020). Comparison of
psychological status and investment style between bitcoin investors and share investors.
Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.502295
King, S., & Nadal, S. (2012). PPCoin: Peer-to-Peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake.
Academic Press.
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to
anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
136(5), 768–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327
Kuenzel, S., & Halliday, S. V. (2010). The chain of effects from reputation and brand
personality congruence to brand loyalty: The role of brand identification. Journal of
Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 18, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/
jt.2010.15
Kuenzel, S., & Vaux Halliday, S. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand
identification. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17(5), 293–304. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10610420810896059
Lai, C. P. (2019). Personality traits and stock investment of individuals. Sustainability (Basel),
11, 5474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195474
Lam, S. K. (2012). Identity-motivated marketing relationships: Research synthesis,
controversies, and research agenda. AMS Review, 2(2-4), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13162-012-0028-3
Lam, S., Ahearne, M., Hu, Ye., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand switching when a
radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing,
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
74, 128–146. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.6.128

Lam, S., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Exploring the
dynamics of antecedents to consumer-brand identification with a new brand. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 234–252. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11747-012-0301-x
Lang, F., John, D., Lüdtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (2011). Short assessment of the
Big Five: Robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research
Methods, 43, 548–567. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z

Langstedt, E., & Hunt, D. S. (2017). An exploration into the brand personality traits of social
media sites. Social Media + Society, 6, 315–342.
Lapidus, A. (2019). David Hume and Rationality in Decision-Making: A Case Study on the
Economic Reading of a Philosopher. In R. Ege & H. Igersheim (eds), The Individual and
the Other in Economic Thought. (hal-01831901).
Lee, B. C., Moorman, C., Moreau, C. P., Stephen, A. T., & Lehmann, D. R. (2020). The past,
present, and future of innovation research. Marketing Letters. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11002-020-09528-6
Lin, L. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand
loyalty: An empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 19(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421011018347
Litsa, T. (2018, February 9). Brand activism: Why more campaigns focus on social good. Click
Z https://www.clickz.com/brand-activism-campaigns-focus-social-good/207888/
Mukta M. S. H., Ali, M. E., & Mahmud, J. (2016). User generated vs. supported contents:
Which one can better predict basic human values? Presented in Inter-national Conference on
Social Informatics (pp. 454-470). Springer.
Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational
consequences “Trust, attachment and commitment to the brand”. Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 19(2), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421011033467
Lovelock, C. (1984). Services Marketing. Prentice-Hall.
Lovett, M., Peres, R., & Shachar, R. (2013). On brands and word of mouth. JMR, Journal of
Marketing Research, 50, 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0458
Luther, W. J. (2016). Bitcoin and the Future of Digital Payments. Independent Review, 20(3),
397–404. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1115606
72&site=ehost-live
MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me,
part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27, 355–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003
Madden, T., Fehle, F., & Fournier, S. (2006). Brands matter: An empirical demonstration of
the creation of shareholder value through brands. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34, 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305283356
Maddox, A., Singh, S., Horst, H., & Adamson, G. (2016). An ethnography of bitcoin: Towards a
future research agenda. Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy,
4, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v4n1.49
Maehle, N., Otnes, C., & Supphellen, M. (2011). Consumers’ Perceptions of the Dimensions of
Brand Personality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cb.355
Makarova, M. (2018). The influence of bitcoin ecosystem on digital economy. Economics
Ecology Socium, 2(3), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.31520/2616-7107/2018.2.3-4
Masters, C. (2018). Ripple’s XRP: 5 Reasons the Asset’s Value is Shaky After Rebranding.
Retrieved from: https://cryptovest.com/news/xrp-xrp-5-reasons-the-assets-value-is-shaky-
after-rebranding/
McCracken, G. (1993). The value of the brand: An anthropological perspective. In D. A. Aaker
& A. L. Biel (Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O.
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality (pp. 139–153). Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five factor model
and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227–232. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014616729101700217
Mengxia, Z. (2007). Impact of brand personality on PALI: A comparative research between
two different brands. International Management Review, 3(3), 36–46.
Mooradian, T., & Olver, J. (1997). I can’t get no satisfaction: The impact of personality and
emotion on postpurchase processes. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 379–393. https://doi.
org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199707)14:4<379::AID-MAR5>3.0.CO;2-6
Mulyanegara, R., Tsarenko, Y. & Anderson, A. (2009). The Big Five and brand personality:
Investigating the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards particular brand
personality. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.
bm.2550093
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized Business
Review, 21260.
Náñez Alonso, S. L. (2019). Activities and operations with cryptocurrencies and their taxation
implications: The Spanish case. Laws, 8, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws8030016
Náñez, A. S. L., Echarte Fernández, M. A., Sanz Bas, D. & Kaczmarek, J . (2020). Reasons
Fostering or Discouraging the Implementation of Central Bank-Backed Digital Currency. A
Review. Economies, 8(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies8020041
Natason, E. (2019, January 2), Facebook, Cryptocurrency, And The Future Of Mobile
Commerce. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eladnatanson/2019/01/02/facebook-
cryptocurrency-and-the-future-of-mobile-commerce/
Nguyen, C., Ishaq Bhatti, M., & Henry, D. (2017). Are Vietnam and Chinese stock markets
out of the US contagion effect in extreme events? Physica A, 480, 10–21. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.02.045
Nikhashemi, S. R., Paim, L., Osman, S., & Sidin, S. (2015). The significant role of customer brand
identification towards brand loyalty development: An empirical study among Malaysian
hypermarkets customer. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences. Procedia: Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 207, 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.086
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
Oehler, A., Wendt, S., Wedlich, F., & Horn, M. (2018). Investors’ personality influences
investment decisions: Experimental evidence on extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of
Behavioral Finance, 19, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2017.1366495
Oh, T. T., Keller, K. L., Neslin, S. A., Reibstein, D. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2020). The
past, present, and future of brand research. Marketing Letters, 31, 151–162. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11002-020-09524-w
Ong, J. (2018, March 1). The branding of cryptocurrency. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/
sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2018/03/01/the-branding-of-cryptocurrency
Orth, J., Thiele, I., & Palsson, B. (2010). What is ux balance analysis? Nature Biotechnology,
28, 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1614
Pawle, J., & Cooper, P. (2006). Measuring emotion e lovemarks, the future beyond brands.
Journal of Advertising Research, 46(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849906060053
Rather, B. R. A., & Camilleri, M. A. (2019). The customers’ brand identification with luxury
hotels: A social identity perspective. Academy Of Marketing Science Congress, 1–25.
Ross, S. D., Russell, K. C., & Bang, H. (2008). An empirical assessment of spectator-based
brand equity. Journal of Sport Management, 22(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1123/
jsm.22.3.322
Sampedro, A. (2017). Brand hate and brand forgiveness - A dynamic analysis. Thesis, Rollins
College.
Sanz Bas, D. (2020). Hayek and the cryptocurrency revolution. Iberian Journal of the History
of Economic Thought, 7, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.5209/ijhe.69403
Sarker, S., Xiao, X., & Beaulieu, T. (2013). Qualitative studies in Information Systems: A
critical review and some guiding principles. MIS Quarterly: Management Information
Systems, 37, iii–xviii.
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five

markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa6303_8
Šeimienė, E. (2012). Emotional connection of consumer personality traits with brand
personality trait: Theoretical considerations. Economics and Management, 17. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.em.17.4.3016
Seitz, V. A., & Aldebasi, N. M. (2016). The effectiveness of branded mobile apps on user’s brand
attitudes and purchase intentions. Review of Economic and Business Studies, Alexandru
Ioan Cuza University. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, 17, 141–154.
Sharma, A., & Sharma, R. (2018). Using crypto currency and associated advantages and
disadvantages. International Journal of Economics & Finance Research & Applications,
2(2).
Simone (2018, December 17). Paytomat Wallet: Why is a good wallet? Retrieved from https://
www.loop.markets/paytomat-wallet-why-is-a-good-wallet
Singh, A., & Malhotra, M. (2016). The role of personality traits on intention to adopt online
trading in stock market. International Journal of Research in Business Management, 4(11),
31–36.
Stebbins, E., & Hartman, R. L. (2013). Charity brand personality: Can smaller charitable
organizations leverage their brand’s personality to influence giving. International Journal
of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/
nvsm.1468
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation
approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327906mbr2502_4
Steinmetz, F., von Meduna, M., Ante, L., & Fiedler, I. (2021). Ownership, uses and perceptions
of cryptocurrency: Results from a population survey. Blockchain Research Lab, Working
Paper Series, 19.
Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010). Brand community: Drivers and outcomes. Psychology and
Marketing, 27, 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20335
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer-brand
identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 406–418. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.001
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2016). Too exciting to fail, too sincere to succeed: The effects
of brand personality on sensory disconfirmation. The Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1),
44–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw003
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of Brand Personality on Brand Trust and Brand Affect.
Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20349
Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). The Role of Brand Personality and
Consumer Attachment Style in Strengthening Brand Relationships. In Ann L. McGill &
Sharon Shavitt (Ed’s), NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 36 (pp.703-704).
Association for Consumer Research.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24).
Nelson Hall.
Tatoglu, E., Sahadev, S., & Demirbag, M. (2018). Brand management practices in emerging
country firms –exploring the patterns of variation and its impact on firm performance. Journal
for East European Management Studies, 23(3), 447–473. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-
6181-2018-3-447
Tauni, Z. M., Fang, H. X., & Iqbal, A. (2017). The role of financial advice and word-of-
mouth communication on the association between investor personality and stock trading
behavior: Evidence from the Chinese stock market. Personality and Individual Differences,
108, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.048
Tsao, W., & Chang, H.-R. (2010). Exploring the impact of personality traits on online shopping
behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 4, 1800–1812.
Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer–brand identification in
IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53–59. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.022
Tyagi, P. K., Mishra, M., Khan, N., Tyagi, S., & Sirohi, S. (2016). Toxicological study of silver
nanoparticles on gut microbial community probiotic. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monitoring &
Management, 5, 36–43.
Valette-Florence, R., & Valette-Florence, P. (2020). Effects of emotions and brand personality
on consumer commitment, via the mediating effects of brand trust and attachment.
[English Edition]. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 35(1), 84–110. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2051570720905703
van Rekom, J., Jacobs, G., & Verlegh, P. (2006). Measuring and managing the essence of a
brand personality. Marketing Letters, 17, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-
5362-5
Vernuccio, M. (2014). Communicating corporate brands through social media: An exploratory
study. International Journal of Business Communication, 51, 211–233. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2329488414525400
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2017). Consumers’ self-congruence with a “Liked”
brand: Cognitive network influence and brand outcomes. European Journal of Marketing,
51(2), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0442
Wang, J., Liao, J., Zheng, S., & Li, B. (2019). Examining drivers of brand community
engagement: The moderation of product, brand and consumer characteristics. Sustainability
(Basel), 11, 4672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174672
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan,
J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 767–793).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50030-5
Wolter, J. S., Bock, D., Smith, J. S., & Cronin, J. J., Jr. (2017). Creating ultimate customer
loyalty through loyalty conviction and customer-company identification. Journal of
Retailing, 93(4), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2017.08.004
Wong, W. S., Saerbeck, D., & Delgado Silva, D. (2018, January 29). Cryptocurrency: A new
investment opportunity? An investigation of the hedging capability of cryptocurrencies
and their influence on stock, bond and gold portfolios. Available at SSRN: https://doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.3125737
Wronka, C. (2021). Money laundering through Cryptocurrencies—Analysis of the phenomenon
and appropriate prevention measures. Journal of Money Laundering Control. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JMLC-02-2021-0017
Xu, M., Chen, X. & Kou, G. . (2019). A Systematic Review of Blockchain. Financial Innovation,
5, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-019-0147-z
Yelowitz, A., & Wilson, M. (2015). Characteristics of Bitcoin users: An analysis of Google
search data. Applied Economics Letters, 22, 1030–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048
51.2014.995359
Ying-Ying, H. (2018). The Rise of decentralized autonomous organizations: Coordination

and growth within cryptocurrencies. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 5393.
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/5393
Zellars, K. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the content of emotional
social support: Coping in organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 459–467.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.459
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial
status: A meta-analytical review. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259
ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

IP: 5.2.196.153 On: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:15
Dr. Roy Dakroub is a UX Research Manager at EPAM Systems, and also working as an
adjunct professor at NEOMA School of Business in the Department of Marketing,
and previously at Rennes School of Business, teaching several courses in research
methodology and consumer behaviour. Roy completed his PhD at Rennes School
of Business, specialising in digital consumer behaviour, and represented the School
in athletic competitions as a high level athlete in the sport of Brazilian Jiujitsu. His
fields of interests are consumer behaviour in the digital world, branding, social media
marketing, user experience, consumer psychology and sports’ marketing since the
last was his main passion. In his research, Roy applies different methods but focusing
mainly on qualitative research, including innovative methods such as eye tracking,
usability testing and heat maps.
Corresponding Author: Dr. Roy Dakroub, EPAM Systems/NEOMA Business
School, 1 Rue Cognacq-Jay, Paris 75007, France.
E Roy.dk@live.com
Dr. Bernadett Koles is an associate professor in marketing at IESEG School of

Management in Paris, and the Academic Director of the Bachelor in International
Business program. She previously served as the Associate Dean of Teaching and
Learning at Rennes School of Business. Bernadett holds a EdD in Psychology from
Harvard University, and a PhD in marketing from Durham University Business
School. Her research interests focus on consumer experience (e.g. consumer identity,
brand love, compensatory consumption and compromise) and the impact of digital
platforms on marketing and consumer psychology (VR, digital object attachment and
digital partnerships). Being a passionate teacher, she is also engaged in projects that
incorporate innovative pedagogy to enhance student learning. Bernadett has over 15
years of teaching experience across all levels in diverse cultural settings.
Dr. Helmi Issa is an assistant professor in the Digital Management department at

Burgundy School of Business, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté. He completed
his PhD at Rennes School of Business, and taught in several business schools as an
adjunct professor. Helmi’s fields of interests are information systems, consumer
behaviour, organisational behaviour and human-computer interaction. His
main research methodology focuses on quantitative methods. Dr. Helmi Issa is a
cryptocurrency trader and a member of the Lebanese cryptocurreny association. He
gives seminars in the application of cryptocurrencies, participates in talk shows, and
lectures in several crypto, tech and innovation events in both France and Lebanon.

2022 Crypto Consumers Personality Traits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 Crypto Consumers Personality Traits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF

Crypto consumers’ personality traits, and the impact

Roy Dakroub, EPAM Systems/NEOMA Business School, France*

Abstract The 2017 cryptocurrency parabolic craze drew significant attention,

Keywords Brand Personality, Brand Identification, Bitcoin, Blockchain,

JOURNAL OF CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR, 2021, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 243-273

came to light through Bitcoin, the decentralised peer-to-peer electronic currency

financial infrastructure (Buckley et al., 2021). In the finance field, cryptocurrencies

cryptocurrencies function as the transactional medium of decentralised applications

BRAND PERSONALITY AND BRAND IDENTIFICATION

Some scholars distinguished five personality dimensions when describing brands

However, from a technological perspective, new advancements in innovation

THE CURRENT STUDY AND HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 1: The brand personality of a cryptocurrency positively affects its brand

Consumer behavioural influences triggered by the consumers’ personality have been

Extraversion (EX) as a moderator

individuals who are high in extraversion can be expected to perceive brands as

Hypothesis 2: An Extrovert cryptocurrency consumer positively moderates the crypto

Openness to experience (OP) as a moderator

Hypothesis 3: The cryptocurrency consumers’ openness to experience positively

Neuroticism (NE) as a moderator

Hypothesis 4: A cryptocurrency consumer’s neuroticism negatively moderates the

Agreeableness (AG) as a moderator

Hypothesis 5: A cryptocurrency consumer’s agreeableness positively moderates the

Conscientiousness (CO) as a moderator

Hypothesis 6: A cryptocurrency user’s conscientiousness will positively moderate the

FIGURE 1. Proposed model

Brand Personality Brand Identification

Extroversion Openness to Neuroticism

Data sample and measurements

TABLE 1. Control variables

Measures Descriptions Frequency %

TABLE 2. Questionnaire items

BI 2 The concept of Bitcoin truly represents what I believe in

Validity and reliability

TABLE 3. Factor loadings

Brand Personality BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5

Openness OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4

0.757 0.877 0.749

TABLE 4. CR, AVE, MSV & discriminant validity

CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) EX BP NE AG CON OP BI

TABLE 5. Regression analysis

BP x NE -.704 -.138 -.026

FIGURE 2. Openness to experience as a moderator for Brand Personality – Brand

FIGURE 3. Agreeableness as a moderator for Brand Personality – Brand Identification

Brand personality is extensively discussed in social scientific disciplines;

From a marketing perspective, the theoretical framework also offers valuable

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Recent marketing research and literature have witnessed noteworthy developments

Iyidogan, E. (2018). An equilibrium model of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. SSRN

Research, 6(6), 517-526.

74, 128–146. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.6.128

Methods, 43, 548–567. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z

P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality (pp. 139–153). Guilford.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five

building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53–59. https://doi.

Ying-Ying, H. (2018). The Rise of decentralized autonomous organizations: Coordination

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

Dr. Bernadett Koles is an associate professor in marketing at IESEG School of

Dr. Helmi Issa is an assistant professor in the Digital Management department at

You might also like