IMPACT OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON

RELATIONAL CONSEQUENCES TOWARDS

PEPSI

Submitted by:
Ms. Zill-e-Arsh Saleem
(08-0054)

Supervised by:
Mr. Hasan Javid

Program
Bachelors of Business Administration (BBA)
Spring 2012
FAST-School of Business
National University of Computer & Emerging Science
FAST School of Management,
Karachi campus

FAST SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

Recommendation for External Examination

This final year project, hereto attached, titled, Impact of Brand Personality on relational
consequences towards Pepsi, prepared and submitted by Ms. Zill-e-Arsh Saleem, in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelors of Business Administration (BBA), is
hereby forwarded for appropriate action.

Mr. Hasan Javid

ii | P a g e

FAST SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

Certificate of Completion

This final year project, hereto attached, titled, Impact of Brand Personality on relational
consequences towards Pepsi, prepared and submitted by Ms. Zill-e-Arsh Saleem, in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelors of Business Administration (BBA),
is hereby forwarded for appropriate action.

Mr. Hasan Javid

Advisor

Dr. Manzoor Anwar Khalidi

Head of FAST School of Management

iii | P a g e

Abstract
The purpose of this research is to find impact of Pepsis perceived brand personality on three
major relational consequences: trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand. In addition to
the links between brand personality and its relational consequences, the interdependence links
amongst these consequences are also considered.
The data were collected from a convenience sample 227 university students questioned about
the brand Pepsi, which enjoys strong awareness with that target.
All the nine personality traits of Pepsi studied in this research impact directly on at least one
of the three relational consequences under study: trust, attachment, and commitment to the
brand. In addition they have an indirect influence on commitment via trust and attachment to
the brand.
The research demonstrates that brand personality affects the type and strength of the
relationship that consumers maintain with brands. It is a useful tool for managers to direct or
reinforce the lasting relationship they want to develop or maintain between their brands and
the consumers they target. Relational paths from brand personality to the variables trust,
attachment, and commitment are suggested in this research.

iv | P a g e

Acknowledgement
I would like to express my gratitude towards Mr. Dider Loius and Mr. Cindy Lombart for
allowing me to carry out research based on their proposed model (See Appendix VIII: E-mail
of Dider Loius)
I take immense pleasure in thanking my project advisor Mr. Hasan Javid for having permitted
me to carry out this research work and also for his encouragement, proficient guidance and
useful suggestions throughout the research, which helped me in completing the research work
in time. He has given his precious time to go through the research and make necessary
correction as and when needed.
My deep sense of gratitude is to Dr. Manzoor Anwar Khalidi (H.O.D) for continuous support
and effective guidance. His direction proved to be useful tool in making the report a quality
one.
I also wish to thank Mr. Amir Adam for helping me out during earlier phase of this research.
Without his direction and assistance I would not be able to build strong foundation of this
research project. I would also thank my Institution and my faculty members without whom
this final year project would have been a distant reality.
I would like to thank my class mates and friends (especially Asma Asghar, Sidra Irshad and
Roomana Murad) for their encouragement and support. Without their interests and
cooperation I could not have produced this study.
Finally I would like to thank my parents for their support and encouragement that motivated
me to work with great determination for successfully completing this research project.

v|Page

Table of Contents
TITLE PAGE.. i
RECOMMENDATION FOR EXTERNAL EXAMINATION . ii
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ... iii
ABSTRACT . iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... v
LIST OF TABLES ... ix
LIST OF FIGURES .... x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.0

Introduction................................................................................................................. 1

1.1

Background.................................................................................................................. 1

1.2

Problem ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.3

Research Objective ...................................................................................................... 2

1.4

Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 2

1.5

Analysis Model ............................................................................................................ 3

1.6

Variables ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.7

Hypothesis ................................................................................................................... 4

1.8

Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 6

1.9

Scope ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.10 Target Group ............................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 8

2.1

Consumer Loyalty ........................................................................................................ 8

2.1.1

Behavioural Loyalty .............................................................................................. 8

2.1.2

Attitudinal Loyalty ................................................................................................ 8

2.1.3

Mixed Approach of Loyalty .................................................................................. 9

2.2

Relational Marketing ................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1

Brand Identity .................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2

Brand Image ....................................................................................................... 10

2.2.3
2.3

Brand Equity ....................................................................................................... 11

Brand Personality ...................................................................................................... 11

2.3.1

Human Personality Traits ................................................................................... 12

2.3.2

Origin of Brand personality from Human personality ....................................... 13

2.3.3

Concept of Brand Personality ............................................................................ 14

2.3.4

The creation of Brand Personality ..................................................................... 14

2.3.5

Theory of Animism ............................................................................................. 15

2.3.6

Importance of Brand personality ....................................................................... 15

2.3.6

Brand Personality Scales .................................................................................... 17

2.4

Brand Personality and its consequences .................................................................. 18

2.4.1

Influence of Brand personality on three relational consequence ..................... 20

2.4.2

Trust in the brand .............................................................................................. 20

2.4.3

Attachment with the brand ............................................................................... 23

2.4.4

Commitment with the brand ............................................................................. 24

2.4.5

Link between consumer trust, attachment and commitment with the Brand . 26

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 27

3.1

Research Design ........................................................................................................ 27

3.2

Population ................................................................................................................. 27

3.3

Sample Size................................................................................................................ 27

3.4

Sampling Method ...................................................................................................... 27

3.5

Research Instrument ................................................................................................. 27

3.6

Questionnaire Preparation........................................................................................ 27

3.7

Plan of Analysis.......................................................................................................... 30

3.8

Software Employed ................................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 31

4.1

Demographics............................................................................................................ 31

4.2

Brand Personality of Pepsi ........................................................................................ 35

4.3

Trust, Attachment and Commitment ........................................................................ 40

4.4 Linkage between Brand Personality of Pepsi and Consumers Trust, Attachment and
Commitment with this brand ............................................................................................... 45
4.4

Hypothesis Testing .................................................................................................... 59

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION........................................................................................ 62
5.1

Discussion .................................................................................................................. 62

5.2

Limitations of the study ............................................................................................ 65

5.3

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 66

5.4

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 67

5.5

Future Line of Research............................................................................................. 68

References
Appendices
Appendix I:

Reliability Test

Appendix II:

Paired Sample t-test

Appendix III:

Symmetric Measures (Cross Tabulation)

Appendix IV:

Linear Regression

Appendix V:

Questionnaire

Appendix VI:

Code Book

Appendix VII:

Code Sheet

Appendix VIII:

E-mail of Dider Louis

List of Tables
Table 1: Brand Personality Scale of various studies ............................................................................. 18
Table 2: Brand Personality Scale Proposed By (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004) ............................... 28
Table 3: Age Frequency ........................................................................................................................ 31
Table 4: Gender Frequency ................................................................................................................... 32
Table 5: Personal Income Frequency .................................................................................................... 33
Table 6: Consumers & Non-Consumer Frequency ............................................................................... 33
Table 7: Number of Soft Drink Glasses per Week ............................................................................... 34
Table 8: Mean Score of Brand Personality of Pepsi ............................................................................. 36
Table 9: Ranks of Brand Personality Traits of Pepsi ............................................................................ 36
Table 10: Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Gender .............................................................. 37
Table 11: Ranks of Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Gender ............................................... 38
Table 12: Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Consumers & Non-Consumers ......................... 38
Table 13: Ranks of Brand Personality Traits of Pepsi with respect to Cola consumers & NonConsumers ............................................................................................................................................ 39
Table 14: Mean Scores of trust, attachment & commitment of Pepsi................................................... 40
Table 15: Mean Score of Trust in Pepsi (Credibility, integrity & benevolence), Attachment with Pepsi
and Commitment (continuance, affective) with Pepsi .......................................................................... 42
Table 16: Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi with respect to Gender........ 43
Table 17: Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi on the basis of Soft Drink
consumers and Non-consumers ............................................................................................................ 44
Table 18: Gamma Parameters () and t-value for relation between Brand Personality and Trust in
Pepsi ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 19: Gamma Parameters () and t-value for relation between Brand Personality Attachment with
Pepsi ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 20: Gamma Parameters () and t-value for relation between Brand Personality Commitment
with Pepsi .............................................................................................................................................. 48
Table 21: Beta Parameters and t-value for relation between Trust, Attachment and Commitment with
Pepsi ...................................................................................................................................................... 49
Table 22: Gamma Parameter () & t-values of relation between Brand Personality and Trust in Pepsi
(Gender) ................................................................................................................................................ 50
Table 23: Gamma Parameter () & t-values of relation between Brand Personality and Attachment
with Pepsi (Gender) .............................................................................................................................. 52
Table 24: Gamma Parameter () & t-values of relation between Brand Personality and Attachment
with Pepsi (Gender) .............................................................................................................................. 53
Table 25: Beta Parameters and t-value for relation between Trust and Attachment with Pepsi (Gender)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 54
Table 26: Beta Parameters and t-value for relation between Trust, Attachment and Affective
Commitment with Pepsi (Gender) ........................................................................................................ 54
Table 27: Beta Parameters and t-value for relation between Trust, Attachment and Continuance
Commitment with Pepsi (Gender) ........................................................................................................ 55
Table 28: Gamma Parameter () & t-values for Trust in Pepsi (Soft Drink consumers) ...................... 56
Table 29: Gamma Parameter () & t-values for Attachment with Pepsi (Soft Drink Consumers) ....... 57
Table 30: Gamma Parameter () & t-values for Commitment with Pepsi (Soft Drink Consumers)...... 58

ix | P a g e

Table 31: Beta parameter and t-value for Trust, Attachment and Commitment with Pepsi (Soft Drink
Consumers) ........................................................................................................................................... 59

List of Figures
Figure 1: Analysis Model of Research .................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Big Five Personality Model ................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3: Brand Personality Scale proposed by Aaker ......................................................................... 13
Figure 4: Dimensions of Trust in a Brand............................................................................................. 21
Figure 5: Components of Commitment with a Brand ........................................................................... 25
Figure 6: (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004) Brand Personality Scale ................................................... 28
Figure 7: Age Frequency ...................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 8: Gender Frequency ................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 9: Personal Income .................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 10: Consumers & Non-Consumer Frequency............................................................................ 33
Figure 11: Number of Soft Drink Glasses per Week ............................................................................ 34
Figure 12: Brand Personality of Pepsi .................................................................................................. 35
Figure 13: Brand Personality of Pepsi for entire sample ...................................................................... 36
Figure 14: Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Gender ............................................................. 37
Figure 15: Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Consumers & Non-Consumers ........................ 39
Figure 16: Mean Scores of trust, attachment & commitment of Pepsi ................................................. 40
Figure 17: Trust, Attachment and Commitment with Pepsi ................................................................. 41
Figure 18: Mean Score of Trust in Pepsi (Credibility, integrity & benevolence), Attachment with
Pepsi and Commitment (continuance, affective) with Pepsi ................................................................ 42
Figure 19: Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi with respect to Gender ...... 43
Figure 20: Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi on the basis of Soft Drink
consumers and Non-consumers ............................................................................................................ 44

x|Page

Executive Summary
At the present time a fierce competition exists between organizations to achieve and retain
maximum market share. Building and managing brands to increase consumer loyalty can help
to outclass competitors in this battle. Marketers use positioning schemes at developing and
sustaining a long term relation with customers. Developing brand image that fosters
consumer loyalty is important in this regard. Brand personality pays an important role in
establishing a favourable image of brand. The influence of brand personality on consumer
loyalty increases its importance towards brand performance and brand management. This
research takes into account impact of brand personality on relational consequences towards
Pepsi. Relational consequences for a brand are Trust in brand, Attachment with a brand and
commitment with a brand. The research thoroughly investigates impact of perceived brand
personality of Pepsi on commitment with this brand via attachment and trust in Pepsi.
Pepsi is currently the market leader in consumer soft drink industry. Pakistani soft drink
market has a strong liking towards Pepsi over other cola drinks. So the research explores
brand personality of Pepsi on the basis of its popularity with Pakistani consumers. The
research investigates brand personality of Pepsi and finds its impact on consumers trust,
attachment and commitment with this Brand. Research also examines relation between
consumer trust in Pepsi, his attachment with Pepsi and his commitment with this Pepsi.
To get deep insights research particularly examines brand personality of Pepsi for consumers
and non-consumers of soft drinks and also for males and females. Further the research finds
relation of brand personality perceived by these groups on consumers trust, attachment and
commitment with Pepsi. Also relation between trust, attachment and commitment for Pepsi
for these groups is analyzed.
Variables of the research are Brand Personality of Pepsi, Trust in Pepsi, Attachment with
Pepsi and Commitment with Pepsi. Population of the study is university students of Karachi.
Sample size is 227. Quantitative analysis technique is used for this research. Self
administered questionnaires are used to gather information form respondents.
SPSS is employed to perform analysis of the research. Mean, frequency, paired sample t-test,
cross tabulation and linear regression are the various statistical tests performed to get results
of the research.
xi | P a g e

Results of the research confirmed that Brand Personality of Pepsi impacts trust in Pepsi,
Attachment with Pepsi and Commitment with Pepsi. Negative traits (misleading, introvert,
conscientious) negatively impacts trust, attachment and commitment with Pepsi. Positive
traits (Original, Friendly, Charming, Elegant) positively affects trust, attachment and
commitment with Pepsi. Trust in Pepsi leads to attachment with Pepsi, attachment with Pepsi
leads to commitment with Pepsi. Trust in Pepsi also results in consumers commitment with
Pepsi. The linkage between attachment and commitment with Pepsi is strongest.
Brand Personality of Pepsi impacts relational consequences towards this brand. Brand
Managers of Pepsi should manage brand personality of Pepsi in a way that it is associated
with friendly and original traits. They should also try to minimise Pepsis association with
introvert, misleading and conscientious trait. Brand strategies of Pepsi should also focus on
building consumers strong commitment with the brand.

xii | P a g e

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
The research is based upon the affects of perceived brand personality towards relational
consequences of Pepsi. Relational consequences towards a brand are Trust in the Brand,
Attachment with the Brand and Commitment with the Brand. The research examines
perceived brand personality of Pepsi and analyzes how it affects consumers relation towards
the brand. The brand personality perceived by consumers is crucial in forming a relation with
the brand. Perceived brand personality results in establishing liking or disliking towards a
brand which ultimately affects relational developments towards the brand. Marketers should
have the knowledge about brand personality perceived by consumers so they can tactfully
shape the image of the brand to make it more appealing to the consumers.

1.1 Background
How to boost consumers loyalty? This investigation is actually a foremost dispute for
professionals and constitutes an endless study topic for researchers. Brand pertains to the
everyday life of persons who might be passionate towards some of them. The concept of
brand relationship forces Marketers to use positioning schemes at developing and sustaining a
long term relation with customer and brand. For a consumer to be considered truly loyal to a
brand he or she should not only buy that brand in a repeated manner, but should also develop
positive attitudes towards it. One of the most interesting filed of investigation is certainly the
evaluation and better understanding of the impact of brand personality on key concepts like
attitude towards the brand, brand commitment, brand preference, brand choice or brand
loyalty. The influence of brand personality on consumer loyalty increases its importance
towards brand performance and brand management. Trust, attachment and commitment are
three relational consequences that serve as building blocks in developing strong brand
commitment. The research will try to investigate that how brand personality will affect these
three relational consequences in achieving strong relationship with the brand.
The brand studied in this research is Pepsi. The reason for the selection of this particular
brand is its popularity in Pakistan. The brand directly competes with Coca-Cola in Pakistan.
Although Coca-Cola is preferred worldwide the situation is quite opposite in Pakistan where
consumer liking is more towards Pepsi. In Pakistan Pepsis market share is 65% while that of
Coca-Cola is only 35%. The study of brand personality of Pepsi according to perceptions of
1|Page

Pakistani consumer will provide us insights on the most favourable brand personality traits
perceived by the local consumers and how these approving brand personality traits helps in
establishing strong relation with Pepsi which helps Pepsi to dominate soft drink market in
Pakistan.

1.2 Problem
In the present competitive scenario Marketers major concern is retaining customers. The key
focus is on building strong relationship with the customers. Customer loyalty is the only way
an organization can save itself from heavy losses due to customer attrition. Building and
communicating brand personality is important in Brand management. The research will
investigate interrelationship of brand personality and customer loyalty in terms of trust
attachment and commitment towards the brand. The findings of the research will give
important insights that will help in achieving customer loyalty through establishing and
managing favourable brand personality.

1.3 Research Objective

To find the impact of perceived brand personality on consumers trust, attachment and
commitment with Pepsi.

To find the relationship between trust in Pepsi, attachment with Pepsi and commitment
with Pepsi.

To find the dominant brand personality traits resulting in high trust, attachment and
commitment with Pepsi.

1.4 Research Questions

The research will answer the following question
1. Is there a relation between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer trust,
attachment and commitment with this brand?
2. Is there relation between consumers trust in Pepsi, his attachment with Pepsi and
his commitment with Pepsi?

2|Page

1.5

Analysis Model
Trust in the
Brand

Brand
Personality

Attachment with
the Brand

Commitment
to the Brand

Figure 1:
1.1:Analysis
AnalysisModel
ModelofofResearch
Research

1.6 Variables
Linkage between Brand Personality and relational consequences of Brand:
In this context linkage between brand personality and trust, attachment, commitment with
Pepsi is tested.
Brand Personality (independent variable)
Trust in Pepsi (dependent variable)
Attachment with Pepsi (dependent variable)
Commitment with Pepsi (dependent variable)
Linkage between consumers trust, attachment and commitment with the brand:
In this context linkage between trust, attachment and commitment with Pepsi is tested.
Trust in Pepsi (independent variable)
Attachment with Pepsi (dependent variable & independent variable)
Commitment with Pepsi (dependent variable)

3|Page

NOTE:

Attachment with Pepsi is used as dependent and independent variable for

investigating linkage between consumers trust, attachment and commitment with
Pepsi because first impact of Trust in Pepsi on Attachment with Pepsi is
investigated for which attachment with Pepsi is used as dependent variable.
Secondly impact of Attachment with Pepsi on Commitment is found for which
Attachment with Pepsi is used as an independent variable. See Hypothesis No. 4
and Hypothesis No. 5 for this.

1.7 Hypothesis
After the identification of the important variable and the relationship among them through
logical reasoning in the theoretical framework, the research has following several testable
statements or hypothesis.
The influence of brand personality on consumer trust in the brand
Hypothesis No. 1

Ho

There is no causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer trust in this
brand.

Ha

There is a causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer trust in this
brand.

In Hypothesis No. 1, Brand Personality of Pepsi is used as independent variable whereas trust
in Pepsi is used as a dependent variable.
The influence of brand personality on consumer attachment to the Brand
Hypothesis No. 2

Ho

There is no causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer attachment
with this brand.

Ha

There is a causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer attachment
with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 2, Brand Personality of Pepsi is used as independent variable whereas

attachment with Pepsi is used as a dependent variable.

4|Page

The influence of brand personality on consumer commitment to the Brand

Hypothesis No. 3

Ho

There is no causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer commitment
with this brand.

Ha

There is a causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer commitment
with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 3, Brand Personality of Pepsi is used as independent variable whereas

commitment with Pepsi is used as a dependent variable.
The links between consumer trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand
Hypothesis No. 4

Ho

There is no causal link between consumer trust in Pepsi and his attachment with this
brand

Ha

There is a causal link between consumer trust in Pepsi and his attachment with this
brand.

In Hypothesis No. 4, trust in Pepsi is used as independent variable whereas attachment with
Pepsi is used as a dependent variable.
Hypothesis No. 5

Ho

There is no causal link between consumer attachment with Pepsi and his commitment
with this brand.

Ha.

There is a causal link between consumer attachment with Pepsi and his commitment
with this brand.

In Hypothesis No. 5, attachment with Pepsi is used as independent variable whereas

commitment with Pepsi is used as a dependent variable.
Hypothesis No. 6

Ho

There is no causal link between consumer trust in Pepsi and his commitment with this
brand.

Ha

There is a causal link between consumer trust Pepsi and his commitment with this
brand.

5|Page

In Hypothesis No. 6, trust in Pepsi is used as independent variable whereas commitment with
Pepsi is used as a dependent variable.

1.8 Rationale
The study will give the following insights;

Strong relations with customers set the foundation for customer loyalty. Brand plays a
distinct role in establishing and maintaining long lasting relations with the customers.
Brand management is central to the success of an organization because it involves
activities that are directed at maintaining a powerful emotional connection with
customer. Managing a brand effectively ensures that customers will be attracted and
retained.

The impression of a brands personality in terms of its real and imaginary qualities
constructs a brand image in consumers mind. Having knowledge and understanding
of personality traits associated with a brand helps evaluating its brand personality.

Brand personality illuminates consumers perception of the brand. Complete

knowledge of this will assist Marketers to spot problem areas in overall brand image.

Further more information regarding the impact of brand personality on customers

trust, attachment and commitment towards the brand will help to shape brand
personality traits for accomplishing enduring customer relationship.

Knowledge of appropriate personality traits that can foster customer loyalty will
facilitate in developing and communicating a brand image that can results in high
customer attraction and retention.

On the whole the focus of brand personality is on achieving strong customer loyalty
that will save organization from heavy losses due to customer attrition and help
gaining effectiveness in marketing programs.

1.9 Scope
This study will provide a research model that will assess consumer loyalty based on
perceived brand personality. The research will be conducted on Pepsi to find out how
perceived brand personality of Pepsi affects consumers trust, attachment and commitment to
the brand. . Brand personality of Pepsi will be determined using Brand Personality scale
developed by Ambroise (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004), The study will be conducted only
6|Page

in Karachi which is the largest metropolitan city of Pakistan. The audience of this research
will be the university students of Karachi. The model can be replicated for other brands also.
The study will have implications in brand management. The findings of the study will help to
build and communicate brand personality based on dominant personality traits that will help
to achieve long lasting customer loyalty.

1.10 Target Group

The research focused on university students of Karachi who are consumers of cola soft drinks
particularly Pepsi. The research specifically target university students because cola soft
drinks are most popular among youth. Majority of university students comprises of youth
who are quite familiar with soft drinks especially Pepsi as it is the most favourite soft drink
brand having a dominating share in the market.

7|Page

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Consumer Loyalty
Consumer loyalty is an endless area of research with a focus of retaining customers for life
time period and to make them profitable ones. Loyalty towards brands is defined as
approving inclination towards it. Favourable propensity towards the brand can be attitudinal,
behavioural or mixed (Lombart, 2010). Definitions of loyalty can be singular this means that
they can focus on a single concept that can either be attitudinal or behavioural where as a
complex definition of loyalty takes on a combined approach of attitudinal and behavioural
loyalty.

2.1.1 Behavioural Loyalty

For different contacts of customer with the products or services behavioural loyalty has
different measures. For Brand customer loyalty is measured by share of category expenditure
where hundreds of choices are available for customers within a category, loyalty is measure
in terms of how much the customer has spent on a brand relative to the competing brand of
the same product category. The more the customer has spent on a brand relative to the
competing brand the more is he or she is loyal towards it. Portfolio size loyalty is also used
for the brand. This means that the larger the number of brands in the portfolio of customer the
lesser will be the loyalty. For service brand the behavioural loyalty can be the length of usage
of the service (Robert East, 2005).

2.1.2 Attitudinal Loyalty

Attitudinal loyalty is measured by the consumer attitude towards the brand. The feeling of the
consumer turns out to develop a certain attitude towards the brand. Consumer liking towards
a brand results in retention. Satisfaction that a consumer achieves by using a brand in terms
that the brand has delivered promised benefits develops a positive attitude towards the brand
and ultimately increases the consumer loyalty towards it. Commitment towards the brand
develops customers strong favourable attitude towards the brand. Consumer commitment
towards the brand is the result of strong positive attitude that a consumer has develop towards
the brand and that has been nurtured though out the consumer-brand relationship (Robert
East, 2005). Trust also constructs a positive attitude towards the brand, when consumers
perceive the brand to be a faithful solution to their problem and believe that the brand is
8|Page

competent of delivering on the required needed or value added results from its usage than a
positive relation with the brand in the form of trust is developed (Hunt, 1994).

2.1.3 Mixed Approach of Loyalty

In Jacoby and Chestnut has proposed definition of loyalty that has both the components of
attitude and behaviour (Robert East, 2005). This approach to the conceptualisation of loyalty
partly related to a deficiency to present the need for justifications of loyalty, and partly
semantic, that this is what the term loyalty means. Semantic debates delivers a scientific
aspect but the concept that attitude-behaviour congruence is wanted for loyalty becomes
visible unwell founded.

2.2

Relational Marketing

Customer loyalty can be enhanced through relational marketing. Relational marketing

activities involve attracting, retaining and servicing customers to build a strong and long
lasting relation with them. Relational marketing is focusing on marketing oriented activities
for providing value added service to the customers that are become your ultimate partners
(Hunt, 1994). To develop strong relational exchanges with the customer, the producer of the
goods and services can rely on brands. Brand can assure the customer of high value and
prestige that the relational exchange can bestow them with. Brands are the sources on which
buyers and sellers relation can be built upon. Acting as a mile stone in this relation, brands
are the decisive tools that ensure customer retention. But customer retention cannot solely
rely on brands there are certain efforts that make brands so powerful that they can act as
strong bridge of relationship between the producer and the consumer. Brands are the subject
of great deal of study for the purpose of developing the insights that can raise consumer
loyalty. The following concepts are the areas where brand are excessively studied to find the
important factors in developing strong and long term relation between brands and customers.

Brand identity gives brand the identification in the mind of consumers. Relevant
and favourable brand associations are created in customers perception that
sketches the overall picture of the brand in the mind of consumers. Brand identity
develops an image of the brand.

Brands have to create an image according to the desires of their targeted

customers or consumers. Creating an image that is favourable in the perception of

9|Page

targeted customers ensures them loyalty of repeat purchase and retention. So

brand image is very important.

Brand equity then determines the value of the brand that the customer has
perceived irrespective of the objective monetary value of the brand. The stronger
the brand equity in consumers mind the greater is the chance for success of the
brand in terms of strong relation with customers.

Brand personality which forms the overall personality of the brand by linking
appealing human personality traits to the brand so that consumers or customers
can perceive the brand optimistically and have ease of connectivity with the brand
that builds on a healthier and long lasting relationship.

Brand identity, Brand image and Brand Equity are the important aspects of Branding
resulting in consumer loyalty.

2.2.1 Brand Identity

David Aaker has developed the brand identity system--a framework for brand evaluation.
According to David Aaker when creating a brand identity, the firm should consider four
dimensions of brand identity: brand as a product, organization, person, and symbol
(Tudorica, 2001). Brand identity constitutes of all elements forming the existence of the
brand. The concept allows companies, through the six emission facets of the brand identity
prism physical facet, personality, culture, relationship, reflected consumer and consumer
metallization to specify the meaning, the project, the designing of their brands. Conversely,
brand image is a reception concept. It is the result of the consumers interpretation of all the
signs emitted by the brand (brand name, visual symbols, communications, etc) or external
sources. As a result, brand identity comes before brand image. The brand identity created by
the firm is communicated to consumers, who then interpret it as the brand image (Lombart,
2010).

2.2.2 Brand Image

Brand image is defined as as perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory (Keller, 1993). In consumers mind there are
informational nodes linked to brand node. These informational nodes represent brand
associations. Consumer can have various associations with the brand. Like for edible cooking
oil consumer can have associations of motherly, delicious, healthy, unique, strong heart, old
10 | P a g e

and so on. The stronger, favourable and unique these associations are the more favourable or
positive brand knowledge consumer has about the brand and the more favourably consumer
will value or evaluate the brand. Relevant and stronger brand image lies on this concept.
Positively associated consumer traits will build a good image of the brand in consumers
perception. More stress should be laid on the brand associations. While building brands
through research should be done on consumer profiling and target market preferences. Based
on the findings brands should be designed that fit into the consumer preferences and
automatically generates favourable response.

2.2.3 Brand Equity

Customer based brand equity has been defined by (Keller, 1993) as the differential effect
of brand knowledge on consumer response to marketing of brand. Differential effect is
the difference of customer response to the marketing of a brand with respect to the marketing
of other brand. Brand Knowledge is the customers awareness of the brand. It is how the
customer has perceive the brand and what perceptions the customer has in his or her mind
about the brand memorized in terms of brand association. Consumer response to the
marketing of the brand is in the form of preferences, liking and disliking. Brand Equity can
be said to have positive or favourable response of customers to the marketing efforts (Price,
Product, Place and Promotion) of a brand as compared to the competing brand. The
favourable impact of the brand knowledge on consumers mind can results in high rank of the
brand in consumers perception. Brand knowledge is based on brand associations, so to have
brand association that clearly makes the brand prestigious or more valuable is very important.
The more the consumer has brand awareness and the more favourably they interpret the brand
associations the greater will be chances of a positive behaviour of consumer towards the
brand. As a result consumers consider the brand not a prototype but distinguishing brand with
a promise of exceptional performance which the ordinary ones are incapable of. The higher
the brand equity in the mind of customers the more revenues brand is earning for the
organization so profitability is greatly enhanced.

2.3 Brand Personality

The first ever definition of brand personality was proposed by Aaker. She defines brand
personality as a set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997). So a
better and relevant definition of brand personality has been put forward as the set of human
11 | P a g e

personality traits that are both applicable and relevant to the brand (Kapferer, 2003). As cited
by (Lombart, 2010), Ferrandi and Valette-Florence in 2002 conceptualise brand personality
as all personality traits used to characterise individual associated with a brand. So brand
personality can be described as the set of human traits associated with the brand (Laure
Ambroise S. B., 2005).
The last definition proves to have the true meanings of brand personality in which a
consumer associates himself with the brand on the basis of perception of his personality traits
so either he likes or dislikes and accepts or rejects it.

2.3.1 Human Personality Traits

Multi-Dimensional factors such as individuals behaviour, appearance, attitude and belief are
found to be the determinants of human personality traits. Demographic characteristics are
also influential on human personality traits (Rajagopal, 2006). The Human personality traits
are generally being defined by Costa and McCrae as tendencies to show consistent
patterns of thought, feelings and action. Personality traits are considered as psychological
signals. Human actions and behaviours are dependent on them. Conceptualization and
understanding of human personality is done by trait approach which considers personality as
a set of traits and is defined as any distinctive and relatively durable way in which one
individual differs from other (Tudorica, 2001).
Based on the trait approach, human personality structure is thoroughly defined by Five
Factor Model, generally known as Big Five human personality dimensions. This model
describes

human

personality

through

Big

Five

characteristics.

Big Five Personality Model

Openness to

Extraversion

Neuroticism

experience
Conscientiousness

Agreeableness

Figure2.1:
2: Big
Figure
BigFive
FivePersonality
PersonalityModel
Model
12 | P a g e

2.3.2 Origin of Brand personality from Human personality

Brands are perceived by the consumer on a persons personality dimension and they further
relate it to brand. Dimension of brand personality are derived and defined from the
dimensions of human personality (Rajagopal, 2006). Based on the human personality traits of
Big Five Model, personality traits related to brand were identified by (Aaker, 1997). Aaker
describe forty two traits and five brand personality characteristics which are as follow;
(Aaker, 1997) (Laure Ambroise S. B., 2005).
(Aaker, 1997) Brand
Personality Scale

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Sophistication

Ruggedness

Figure 3: Brand Personality Scale proposed by Aaker

Figure 2.2: Brand Personality Scale proposed by Aaker
Brand personality dimensions proposed by (Aaker, 1997) relates to the human personality
dimension proposed by the Big Five Model. The human personality trait Conscientiousness
and brand personality dimension Competence presents pure skills, precaution and attention to
extra detail. Extraversion and excitement are notions of enthusiasm. The idea of
agreeableness and sincerity is of kindness, authenticity and gentleness. Brand personality
dimension of sophistication and ruggedness is not linked to any of the human personality
traits. This reason has been justified as these brand personality dimensions operate within
different passages or influence consumer preference in different ways (Aaker, 1997).
The personality traits defined by her can include ad hoc terms that even not exist in
personality measurement tool. Scale proposed by (Aaker, 1997) has personality traits that are
not equivalent in terms of personality trait like sophistication and also personality traits
matches to social appreciation like upper class and up-to-date (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F.,
2004) (Lombart, 2010). Contrasting the concept of brand image, brand personality should be
13 | P a g e

applicable across product categories. Items used to measure to brand image are category
specific and also sometimes brand specific whereas items used to measure brand personality
should be applied across categories, cultures and brands. It should also offer the opportunity
to transfer meaning from human personality of consumers to brand personality of brands they
purchase, prefer or reject.

2.3.3 Concept of Brand Personality

The concept of brand personality is derived from human personality. In this concept brands
are linked to human personality traits .Plummer in 1984 has proposed that brands might be
differentiated on three aspects that are physical attributes (red colour), functional
characteristics or benefits associated with the brand (remove stains without damaging
clothes) and personality traits (youthful) associated with the brand (Laure Ambroise S. B.,
2005) . Concept of brand personality in the field of marketing was first applied to advertising
so that consumers can easily associate brands with favourable personality traits that result in
favourable brand image (Laure Ambroise S. B., 2005). Brand personality in marketing is
generally used to build an overall image of the brand by using it as a tactic appealing large
groups of targeted audience. For instance Coca-Cola can be perceived family oriented while
Pepsi as youthful. This might be true due to the marketers or advertisers strategy to
personify the brand so that when consumer thinks about a particular brand they associate
human personality trait with the brand that results in brand differentiation (O. Bouhlel, 2009).

2.3.4 The creation of Brand Personality

All contact of consumer with the brand whether direct or indirect results in perception of
brand personality traits in the mind of consumer (Lombart, 2010). Direct contact can be the
result of user imagery with the brand that is the human personality traits associated by
common users of the brand. The perception of brand personality in a direct way is established
by human personality traits associated with the brand, perception of the producer of the brand
and of the person who indorses the brand. Indirectly consumers perception of brand
personality is established through product category association of brand, price and brand
symbols (name, logo e.t.c.)

14 | P a g e

2.3.5 Theory of Animism

Brand is not a living object; it is only a perception or a collection of association that resides in
the mind of consumers. Brand are mere mental image of positive or negative associations that
consumer develop in their minds. This means that certain efforts can be put forward by
Marketers in developing perceptions related to brand in the mind of consumers to acquire a
positive attitude towards brands. One way of establishing perception about brands is relating
brands to human characteristics so that consumers easily grab the concept of the brand and
develop associations in their mind that results in positive attitude towards brands. Theory of
Animism further explains this concept that there is a need of human beings to
anthropomorphize objects in order to establish a contact with imagery or non material world
(Fournier, 1998). Consumers can ascribe human personality traits to brands so that they can
have a well-built linkage with them because by relating the brands with human qualities
consumer think of the brand like themselves and strongly relate to them (Aaker, 1997).
Theories of Animism also explain the ways through which brand personality can be
established leading to stronger brands (Fournier, 1998) as;

Brand personality can be attributed to the person using the brand like members of the
reference groups can be friends and colleagues.

Brand personality can be associated with the person endorsing the brand or
spokesperson of the brand like if a Sports man is endorsing a brand the brand can be
perceive as rugged.

Brand personality can also be linked to the person who has gifted the branded product
to an individual like if the person is trustworthy the brand can be perceived as sincere.

Brand personality is developed overtime indirectly though pricing (high or low),

product features (benefits), store location (imagery associations), product packaging
(size, colour) and symbols that are communicated by media advertising and sales
promotion to the consumers.

2.3.6 Importance of Brand personality

Brand personality is considerably important to persuade the consumers towards the

brand

Brand personality is an excellent way of distinguishing brand from the competitors

thereby increasing the effectiveness of marketing communication because they are
15 | P a g e

based on different brand personalities (Tudorica, 2001). Intense competition between

brands makes it very difficult for marketers and brand managers to differentiate brand
solely on the basis of functional attribute. Incorporating brand personality in
marketing communication campaigns helps distinguishing brand form its competitors
on symbolic level. Also it helps to evaluate that whether marketing communication
efforts to position the brand are successful or not. Although there are various ways
through which consumers learn about the brand such as product-usage experience,
social communication and the marketing environment but understanding and
knowledge about brand construct in terms of brand personality and image will help
achieving successful differentiation (Yongjun Sung, 2010).

Consumer use the brand because they want to create, reinforce and communicate their
self concepts so consumer select and purchase the brand they like as they find the
brand consistent with their self image and personalities. So brand personality
construct can help Marketers to better understand consumers who want to express
themselves through the commercial brand they use or purchase. That is why brand
personality is considered to the focal point in the establishment of positive attitude
and preference towards the brand. (Yongjun Sung, 2010)

Implementing concept of brand personality guarantees a strong consumer and brand

relationship (Yongjun Sung, 2010). Perceiving favourable brand personality is
positively perceived by the consumer and they view brand as relationship partner in
consumer brand relationship (Tudorica, 2001).

Perceiving brand personality consumer can interpret brand image that is personally
more meaningful. Consumer takes more active part in processing perceives brand
personality so they are more involve in the brand (Tudorica, 2001).

The examination of brand personalities across dissimilar places can deliver awareness
regarding the cultural differences in consumer psychology and behaviour which leads
to directing the expansion of more persuasive (either standardized or adapted)
advertising and branding strategies. So that for practitioners any person, who handle
global account assertions, the grasp of brand personality across cultures will assist
them to write very productive global marketing communication strategies (Yongjun
Sung, 2010).

16 | P a g e

2.3.6 Brand Personality Scales

The first ever scale was developed by (Aaker, 1997). Different brand personality scales has
been developed to study the brand personality of various brand. Scales are developed in
different cultural context to find the relevant personality traits associated with brand in that
particular culture. Also brand personality scales are developed for different product
categories and brands. Following is the table that shows various studies of brand personality
dimension (Patel, 2009) (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004).
Brand Personality Scales used for various studies
Author (s)

Product/Brand

Sample (N)

Aaker (1997)

Four product groups

/ 37 brands

National, N=631

Ferrandi,
Valette
Florence and
Fine-Faley
(2000)
Aaker (2000)

Three product
groups / 12 brands

Convenience
(students) France
N = 246

Cruise line Cologne

Aaker, BenetMartinez, and

Garolera
(2001)

Study 1: Four
product groups / 25
brands

Convenience
(graduate students
in United states
and Tokyo)
N=74
Mall intercept (at two West
Coast grocery stores).
N = 198
Japanese national
mail panel
N=1495

Ambroise,

Study 2: Four
product groups / 25
brands

Japanese graduate
students / US
Japanese exchange
students N=90

Study 3: Four
product groups / 25
brands

Spanish national
mail panel N=692

Two product groups/

Convenience sample of 161

Brand Personality
Dimensions
Sincerity,
Sophistication,
Ruggedness,
Competence and
Excitement
Sincerity,
Dynamism,
Femininity,
Robustness and
Conviviality
Sincerity,
Sophistication,
Competence,
Excitement and
Peaceful

Excitement,
Sincerity,
Sophistication,
Competence and
peaceful
Excitement,
Sincerity,
Sophistication,
Competence and
peaceful
Excitement,
Sincerity,
Sophistication,
peaceful and
passion
Friendly
17 | P a g e

Ferrandi and
Merunka
(2004)

Four brands

business students of France

Creative
Charming
Ascendant
Misleading
Original
Elegant
Conscientious
Introvert

Table 1: Brand Personality Scale of various studies

2.4 Brand Personality and its consequences

The concept of Brand personality is found to have an impact on the consumer-brand
relationship (Lombart, 2010) (Laure Ambroise S. B., 2005). Brand personality well defines
the consumer behaviour pertaining to different brands. The concept of brand personality is
about how consumers perceived the personality traits of a brand and based on that what their
possible attitude is? Consumers develop liking towards the brand because they have
associated the brand with their favourable brand personality traits so that they are more
inclined towards it usage and ultimately adopting it to their regular usage pattern and
becoming heavy user or highly loyal towards the brand.
The various consequences of the brand personality can be;

Perceived brand quality

Attitude towards the brand

Intentions of future behaviour

Attachment with the brand

Commitment towards the brand

Trust in the brand

Involvement in the brand

Loyalty towards the brand

Some of the past findings exhibiting the consequences of brand personality are discussed as
follow.
Consumers have thousands of choices available for brands. The most important reason
behind this is that brand personality successfully distinguishes one brand from other.
Consumer choose brand that they find more suitable for the purpose behind their purchase.
The usage or experience of the brand makes consumers habitual of them as they establish a

18 | P a g e

strong liking for them. The favourable attitude of consumer over a long period of time is truly
because by purchasing the brand they are ensure of quality and reliability of their
performance (Rajagopal D. , 2008). Perceived quality of a brand is strongly determined by
the traits of brand personality. The research conducted in India on Business Management
students taken Nokia as brand to be studied found that the most effective trait resulting in
consumers high perception of the Nokia brand is competence followed by ruggedness (Trott,
2011). A study in Korea suggests that different dimensions of brand personality influence
brand trust differently, for some brand personality traits perceived by the consumer the trust
is higher like sophistication trait perceived by Korean consumers results in strong trust in the
brand (Yongjun Sung, 2010). Research conducted by Gouteron in 2005 suggested that all
significant personality traits have influence attachment with a brand (Lombart, 2010).
Using an experiment, (Forbes, 2005) showed that consumers exposed to a product (bottle of
water) with a vignette presenting information about the brand personality of that product have
a more favourable attitude towards that brand than consumers exposed to the same product,
without brand personality information. Brand Personality positively affects not only
consumer brand preference but also purchase intention. The outcome remains true for both
high and low involvement products. But the effect of brand personality is higher for high
involvement products than low involvement products (Punyatoya, 2011). Commitment and
attachment with brand depends upon the involvement in the product. High involvement
results in high attachment and commitment whereas the low involvement has the opposite
consequences. Brand personality builds involvement in the brand which further results in
high attachment and strong commitment. This was proposed by (Laure Ambroise S. B., 2005)
when they conducted research on brand personality affects on Nike, Addidas, Coca-Cola and
Pepsi. Strong and favourable brand personality leads to complimentary product evaluations
and brand associations so a distinct positive personality of brand enhances brand equity
(Forbes, 2005). Brand personality affects the consumer buying intention and loyalty even
through relatively new modes of advertising and mobile marketing. It was observed that
brand personality affects the level of trust, commitment and attachment with the brand whose
advertising message is being sent through SMS. Attachment and commitment for the brand
enhances when the consumer perceive that the brand is sincere (O. Bouhlel, 2009). Brand
personality enhances attachment to the brand. A study conducted in France showed that the
developed brand personality barometer results on an average 32.4 per cent attachment to the
brand (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004) (Laure Ambroise S. B., 2005). A research conducted
in Chinas largest metropolitan city Beijing on Brand personality of Nokia and Sony found
19 | P a g e

that brand personality has a strong influence over the brand preference, brand attitude,
brand loyalty, and buying intent of consumer. The results also suggest that the sense of
brand for Chinese consumers is very strong (Mengxia, 2007). Consumer brand relationship is
determined by perceived brand personality and consumers own personality. The quality of
the brand is also important in this aspect. Consumer- brand relation is dynamic, the relation
merely not rests upon actual physical attribute of the brand but the physiological elements are
also very important in this regard (Helena M. Nobre, 2010). Affective loyalty and action
loyalty both are influenced by brand personality and human personality traits. Research
conducted in Taiwan on individuals buying video games and toys found that competence and
sophistication traits of brand personality results in high affective loyalty whereas
agreeableness and openness traits of human personality leads towards action oriented loyalty
(Lin, 2010).

2.4.1 Influence of Brand personality on three relational consequence

Consumers relation with a brand has three relational outcomes; they are trust, attachment
and commitment with the brand. These three variables are the influencing factor of
consumer-brand relationship. Greater the level of trust, attachment and commitment with the
brand stronger will be the relation with the brand (Lombart, 2010).

2.4.2 Trust in the brand

Trust is a very important factor in consumer-brand relationship. Trust is the willingness to
rely on exchange partner on which one has confidence. Brand Trust in a relationship is
present when one partner (consumer) has the confidence that the exchanging partner (brand)
has the ability to deliver what it has promised. This means that the consumer is confident of
the brands integrity and reliability of delivering the benefits. Integrity of the brand is that the
brand performs in a way that it has promised its target customers in marketing
communication activities. The benefits which the brand has promised are successfully
delivered to its customers. Reliability of the brand is that the brand has consistency of
performing the benefits every time the customer purchases it. Brand is considered to be
reliable when on every usage or experience the customer enjoys the elevated performance
which the brand has claimed to the consumer. The relational marketing efforts are built on
Trust, which is vital to the success of the relationship. Lack of trust in the relation weakens
the relation making it unproductive and inefficient (Hunt, 1994).
20 | P a g e

Brand trust is summarised by consumer trust and experience with the brand. Brand trust is
developed over time. As the customer uses the brand he or she goes through the learning
process of how well the brand has worked with him. Brand trust is developed from the past
brand experience and future intention to use the brand (Munuera-Aleman, 2005). Trust in the
brand is developed though experiential attribute by direct contact (trial and usage) and
indirect contact (marketing communication and word of mouth). The consumption of the
brand gives the most relevant experience for developing brand trust. Through consumption
consumer develops feeling, thoughts and association that are extremely self relevant and
further impacts consumer perception of honesty of the brand.
Trust in brand from the consumer point of view is defined as a psychological variable that
reflects a set of aggregated presumptions relating to the credibility, integrity and
benevolence that the consumer ascribes to the brand (Lombart, 2010). Trust in the brand
is measured by credibility, integrity and benevolence dimensions.

Trust in a brand

Benevolence

Credibility
Integrity

Figure 4: Dimensions of Trust in a Brand

2.4.2.1

Credibility

Credibility dimension of brand is consumers evaluation of the brands ability of fulfilling the
expected performance that it has claimed. Expected performance of the brand is the technical
performance of the brand (Gurviez, Test of a Consumer-Brand Relationship Model, 2003).
This means that the brand is able to perform its basic functions. The functional abilities of the
brand are able to fulfil consumer basic needs for which he or she has made the purchase like a
21 | P a g e

cellular service enables its customers to make calls to other cellular and landline services. It is
the basic function of cellular service; if the cellular service is not able to deliver on its
functional ability of making calls then the subscribers of this service will not consider the
brand trustworthy. The brand fails to fulfil consumers basic need of communication
eventually consumers establish low credibility for the brand.
2.4.2.2

Integrity

Integrity means that there is no distinction in what the brand says or promises or what it
actually does. Integrity of brand is that the brand fulfils all his claims or promises that are
made by it. Integrity of the brand is judged by the honesty of its claims (Gurviez, Test of a
Consumer-Brand Relationship Model, 2003). When the brand has established an excellent
level of integrity in the perception of consumers, then they will be positively motivated
towards the brand and level of loyalty for the brand will rise enormously. Consumer realizing
the honesty of the brand will develop favourable perception towards it becoming an advocate
of the brand which also helps the brand of favourable word-of-mouth.
2.4.2.3

Benevolence

Benevolence means that the brand takes into accounts consumers interest. The brand adopts
customer-oriented policy that facilitates customer at every step of the purchase process,
assists customer in using the product and further provides excellent service to the customer.
A brand is considered benevolent if it values consumer interests more than its short term
brand interest (Gurviez, Test of a Consumer-Brand Relationship Model, 2003). When the
brand has benevolent brand policy then the customer feels secure of using the brand as he or
she has the perception in mind that the purchase is valuable and they are not at any loss by
using the brand. Like if the brand has offered return policy for defective items within a
specific period of time then the brand is considered compassionate enough to fulfil customer
looses then to reject the claim saving the brand from low revenues in the short run. But if the
brand is considered not benevolent then in the long run the brand will suffer loses as
consumer has lost trust over it and perceived it as mean and dishonest brand.
Consumer trust in the product varies to a great extent. Consumer having strong belief of the
honest intentions of brand as well faith in the communication efforts by the brand might have
low level of trust for the technical abilities of the brand (Gurviez, Test of a Consumer-Brand
Relationship Model, 2003). For example if a consumer has purchased a brands new product
and has a disappointing experience because lack of deliverability of the

expected
22 | P a g e

performance then the credibility level of the brand drop immediately but the integrity of the
brand is completely diminished. A loss of integrity not only will prevent customer of the
repeat purchase but also results in bad word of mouth from the customer thus greatly
damaging the brand equity.

2.4.3 Attachment with the brand

Attachment with the brand is an emotional link between the customer and the brand in fact it
is key factor that strengthens the relationship between consumer and brand (Tsai, 2011).
Attachment is a bond that attaches an individual with a specific object. The individual might
be the customer or the consumer and the target object is the brand being used or experienced
by the customer (Alexander Fedorikhin, 2008). Customer-brand relations are greatly
influenced by the level of consumer attachment to the brand. Attachment to a brand
guarantees long term profitable relations with the customer. Two approaches in brand
marketing have supported the relevance of attachment to the brand. The first approach says
that brands are personified today by establishing favourable associations with the brand and
also developing brand personality. The result of this brand personification develops an
emotional relation with the brand. This emotional tie with the brand is customers attachment
with the brand (Behi, 2011). The second approach is about building strong and long term
relations with the customers which is the ultimate concept of marketing (Behi, 2011). Self
brand has found to positively affect consumer attachment with the brand (Alexander
Fedorikhin, 2008). Self brand is a belief of consumer that the brand is related to them. The
consumer has a lot of linking towards the brand that they feel are like them or related to their
personality. So the concept of brand personality is very important in this regard. It has also
been observed the passionate love between brand and customer results in brand attachment
(Tsai, 2011). The four indicators are;
1. There is a substantial chemistry between the brand and customer.
2. The customer experiences dejected if he or she does not find the brand.
3. The brand ideally matches the consumers self image.
4. It feels that the consumer and the brand are made for each other.
In 2000 Lacoeuilhe defines attachment with the brand as a psychological variable that
reveals a lasting and inalterable affective relationship (separation is painful) to the
brand and expresses a relation of psychological closeness to it (Lombart, 2010).

23 | P a g e

2.4.4 Commitment with the brand

Commitment is a very important concept in marketing. Consumer commitment is thoroughly
studied in consumer behaviour. Commitment with the brand is ensures long term loyalty and
high profitability for which the businesses exists. Relational commitment is defined by (Hunt,
1994) as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship. Relational commitment
exists when the relational partners (customer and brand) believe that the ongoing relational is
very valuable and important for them so they ensure that relation is maintained. The
exchange partners make their best efforts to keep the relation strong and long so they will be
mutually benefited from it. Relational partners sacrifice short-term benefits for long-term
value (Tsai, 2011). Brand is advantaged by high profits while customer gains high value for
the money that he or she has exchanges in the form of benefits. Manufacturers of the brand
consider brand commitment as an indicator of superior performance so they try to build and
increase consumer loyalty by delivering superior benefits, establishing a positive image
(companys value of social responsibility and trustworthy manufactures) about the
organization in consumers mind. A favourable brand personality perceived by consumer
results in strong commitment with the brand, as consumer relates more to the brand assuming
that they have a linking or resemblance to the brands personality this results in positive
commitment to the brand (Laure Ambroise S. B., 2005). Brand loyalty is related to brand
commitment (Hunt, 1994) (Tsai, 2011).
Commitment is defined as a desire to maintain a current relationship with a brand
(Fullerton, 2003). There are two components of commitment; one is affective commitment
and other is continuance commitment (Lombart, 2010).

24 | P a g e

Commitment
with the brand

Affective
Commitment

Continuance
Commitment

Figure 5: Components of Commitment with a Brand

2.4.4.1 Affective Commitment

Affective commitment is based on identification and liking with the brand. Affective
commitment is built on emotional attachment between the brand and consumer, that the
highly committed consumer strongly identifies with the brand and enjoys a membership as
being a user of the brand (Fullerton, 2003). Affective commitment by the consumer is
enduring desire to maintain a current relationship (Hunt, 1994). Identification, attachment
and shared values result in affective commitment towards the brand (Lombart, 2010).
Consumer identifies with a brand when a favourable perception about personality of the
brand is developed in their mind. Affective commitment is a core of relationship with the
brand (Fournier, 1998). Consumers highly relate themselves to the brand and experience
developing emotional attachment with the brand. Like the users of a brand consider the brand
trustworthy as they their selves think they are so they themselves relate to the brand. Being
related to a brand forces them to make the brand a daily part of their life so they become
frequent buyers and loyal users of the brand. This strong commitment is based on emotional
association that has been developed with the brand. On this basis the consumer will not
sacrifice usage of the brand and value their commitment and relation with the brand.
2.4.4.2 Continuance commitment
Continuance commitment to a brand exists when the consumer has no option of switching to
other brand. Consumer is highly dependent to the brand because no other suitable substitute
is available or the cost of switching to other brand is high (Lombart, 2010). The benefits
consumers getting from a brand are not replaceable by other brand so this prevents consumer
25 | P a g e

switching. Potential loss of losing the benefits associated with the brand is a key feature of
continuance commitment (Fullerton, 2003).

Continuance commitment is the result of

dependence of consumer on the brand either due to lack of substitute or high switching cost
like for expensive product consumers are reluctant to switch over to other brands because
they have already highly invested in the brand and they do not want to again make high
investment so the stick to the brand they are currently using. This is particularly true when
the product is complex.

2.4.5 Link between consumer trust, attachment and commitment with the
Brand
Cited by (Lombart, 2010) Aurier et al. in 2001 found that perceived quality, value, trust and
attachment are positively related to each other which propose that trust in a brand leads to
attachment with the brand. Attachment to a brand tells us how consumer can be loyal to the
brand, what makes consumer stick to one brand more than the other brand (Hunt, 1994).
Attachment to a brand links to commitment to the brand. The first step in a relationship with
the brand is trust in the brand. When consumers believe that the brand is trustworthy and
honest only then a connection can be build between consumer and brand. Having trust in the
brand is because consumers are sure of its performance and deliverance of benefits. Trust in
the brand then further leads to attachment with the brand. Consumer being confident that the
brand has strong ability to fulfil their needs by delivering superior performance chooses the
brand again. Consumer establish an emotional link with the brand thus incorporation brand in
their regular usage patter. Consumer is loyal towards the brand and do not want to switch to
other available choices either because of strong emotional connection or practical reasons of
high switching cost (Tsai, 2011) (Hunt, 1994) (Fullerton, 2003). In this way attachment with
a brand results in strong commitment a brand.

26 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
The study is quantitative. Conclusion is based upon the questionnaires distributed to the
respondents. The study used statistical data as a medium to obtain needed information. The
study has drawn relation between independent and dependent variables. Results and
conclusion drawn for the study are based upon the statistical data collected

3.2 Population
Population of Karachi is 15,329,545. Target population of my research will be the university
students of Karachi who are Pepsi consumers. According to the report, Pakistan Education
Statistics 2007-08 published by Ministry of Education of Pakistan the total number of
enrolled university students of Sindh are 138,149.

3.3 Sample Size

Sample size of research is 227. Valid response was generated from 202 questionnaires as 5
were rejected and 20 were lost.

3.4 Sampling Method

Convenience non-probability sampling method is used to get information from consumers
who were conveniently available. Information was collected from the following universities;

Karachi University

NED university of Engineering and Technology, Karachi

Institute of Business Management, Karachi

Institute of Business Administration, Karachi

National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences Karachi

3.5 Research Instrument

Research instrument used for the research are self administered questionnaires.
Questionnaires helped to get the required information in an efficient manner.

3.6 Questionnaire Preparation

Brand personality scale use for this study is developed by (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004).
This measurement scale includes nine traits comprising 23 items.

27 | P a g e

Creative
Charming

Friendly

Introvert

(Laure Ambroise
J.-M. F., 2004)
Brand Personality
Scale

Ascendant

Misleading

Conscientious
Elegant

Original

Figure 6: (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004) Brand Personality Scale

Brand Personality Scale Proposed By (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004)

Brand Personality Traits

Items

Friendly

Warm, Pleasant, nice

Creative

Inventive, Imaginative

Charming

Attractive, Seductive

Ascendant

Manipulative, Arrogant, Showy

Misleading

Hypocrite, Lying, Deceptive

Original

Trendy, Modern

Elegant

Sophisticated, stylish

Conscientious

Strict, Serious

Introvert

Reserved, Shy

Table 2: Brand Personality Scale Proposed By (Laure Ambroise J.-M. F., 2004)
The scale has previously been used in researches related to brand personality and used CocaCola as brand studied (Laure Ambroise S. B., 2005).
All the items of the brand personality traits are rated on likert scale by asking respondents to
give their response regarding association of these traits with Pepsi. For example 5=Strongly
Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree
28 | P a g e

Further all the items are grouped into their relevant brand personality traits. For example
Warm, Pleasant and Nice items are grouped together into Friendly trait.
Trust in brand is measured by using the scale developed by (Gurviez, 2002). The scale is
composed of three dimensions: credibility, integrity, and benevolence, comprising five items.
These items will be rated on likert scale. For example 5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neither
Agree nor Disagree; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree. Respondents had given their response
for Pepsi brand (See Apendix IV for Questionnaire). Dimensions of trust are analyzed by
grouping (where applicable) of relevant items. Following are the traits of Trust:
i.

The products of this brand brings me safety (credibility dimension)

ii.

I trust the quality of the products of this brand (credibility dimension)

iii.

This brand is sincere towards its consumers (integrity dimension)

iv.

This brand is honest towards its clients (integrity dimension)

v.

I believe that this brand tries to improve its response to consumer needs on an
ongoing basis (benevolence dimension)

Attachment with the brand is measured by the scale derived from the research of
Lacoeuilhe in 2000 consisting of four items (Lombart, 2010). Items will be rated on likert
scale. For example 5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree; 2=Disagree;
1=Strongly Disagree. Respondents had given their response for Pepsi brand (See Apendix IV
for Questionnaire). Attachment with the brand is analyzed by grouping of items. Following
are the traits of trust:
i.

I have a lot of affection for this brand

ii.

I am attached to this brand

iii.

Thinking about this brand brings me a lot of joy, pleasure

Commitment to the brand is measured by the scale developed by (Fullerton, 2005) which
measure affective and continuance commitment. Items will be rated on likert scale. Items will
be rated on likert scale. For example 5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neither Agree nor
Disagree; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree. Respondents had given their response for Pepsi
brand (See Apendix IV for Questionnaire). Commitment with the brand is analyzed by
grouping of items of affective commitment and continuance commitment. Following are the
traits of affective and continuance commitment:

29 | P a g e

Affective commitment
i.

I like this brand

ii.

This brand has a lot of meaning to me

iii.

I am strongly related to this brand

Continuance commitment
i.

Even if I wanted, it would be hard for me to change brands

ii.

My life would be disturbed if I had to change brands

iii.

It would be too costly for me to change brands

3.7 Plan of Analysis

Following analyses is conducted:

Frequency

Mean

Cross Tabulation (symmetric measure)

Paired Sample T-Test

Linear Regression

Cornbachs alpha

3.8 Software Employed

The software used in this research SPSS is used for the better reliability of the results.

30 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
4.1 Demographics
AGE

Figure 7: Age Frequency

Age

Frequency
Valid

Less than 18
18-34

Percent

Cumulative Percent

21

10.4

10.4

10.4

172

85.1

85.1

95.5

4.5

4.5

100.0

202

100.0

100.0

35 and above
Total

Valid Percent

Table 3: Age Frequency

As the population of the study was university students so 85.15% of respondents are of 18-34
of age. 35 and above were only 4.46%.

31 | P a g e

GENDER

Figure 8: Gender Frequency

Gender
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Male
Female
Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

109

54.0

54.0

54.0

93

46.0

46.0

100.0

202

100.0

100.0

Table 4: Gender Frequency

46.04% of respondents were Female and 53.96% of respondents were Male as the pie chart
shows.
PERSONAL INCOME

Figure 9: Personal Income

32 | P a g e

Personal Income
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Rs. 0 to Rs. 9,999

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

120

59.4

59.4

59.4

Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000

37

18.3

18.3

77.7

More than Rs. 25,000

45

22.3

22.3

100.0

202

100.0

100.0

Total

Table 5: Personal Income Frequency

Majority of personal income of respondents fall between Rs. 0 to Rs. 9,999 because only few
university students do job and have earnings. Majority are financially dependent on their
families.
SOFT DRINKERS

Figure 10: Consumers & Non-Consumer Frequency

Soft Drink Consumer & Non-Consumer
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Yes

165

81.7

81.7

81.7

No

37

18.3

18.3

100.0

202

100.0

100.0

Total

Table 6: Consumers & Non-Consumer Frequency

82.18% of respondents said that they are soft drink consumers which show soft drinks are
quite popular among university students.
33 | P a g e

NUMBER OF GLASSES OF SOFT DRINKS CONSUMED PER WEEK

Figure 11: Number of Soft Drink Glasses per Week

Soft Drink Glasses per Week

Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Valid Percent

Percent

Less than 1

27

13.4

16.5

16.5

1-3

52

25.7

31.7

48.2

4-6

47

23.3

28.7

76.8

7-9

20

9.9

12.2

89.0

More than 10

18

8.9

11.0

100.0

164

81.2

100.0

38

18.8

202

100.0

Total
Missing

Percent

System

Total

Table 7: Number of Soft Drink Glasses per Week

31.52% of population said that they consumer 1-3 glasses of soft drinks per week. Heavy
consumers were 10.91% consuming more than 10 glasses per week. Only 10.91% said they
consume less than a glass per week.

34 | P a g e

4.2 Brand Personality of Pepsi

Brand Personality of Pepsi

Friendly

4.00
3.50

Conscientio
us

Whole
sample

Creative

3.00
2.50

Male

2.00
1.50
1.00

Elegant

Charming

0.50

Female

0.00

Consumers

Orignal

Ascendant

Misleading

Nonconsumers

Introvert

Figure 12: Brand Personality of Pepsi

The above figure summarises the brand personality of Pepsi as perceived by the whole
sample and specifically by Male respondents, Female respondents, Consumer of soft drinks
and Non-Consumers of soft drinks. Original trait perceived by soft drink consumers has
attained the most score. Friendly trait has also got high scores among all segments except for
non consumers. Non-consumers of soft drinks have highly rate negative personality traits for
Pepsi than positive traits. Male and female has almost equally rates all personality traits and
there is no significant difference.

35 | P a g e

Brand Personality of Pepsi

Friendly
4.00
Conscientious

Creative

3.00
2.00
1.00

Elegant

Charming

0.00

Orignal

Ascendant

Misleading

Introvert

Figure 13: Brand Personality of Pepsi for entire sample

Mean Score for Brand Personality Traits of Pepsi (whole sample)
Friendly Creative Charming Ascendant Introvert Misleading Original Elegant
N

Valid

202

202

202

202

202

201

202

202

202

3.5429

3.2797

3.4109

3.1733

2.7203

2.8458 3.7203

3.4134

2.8366

Missin
g
Mean

Conscientious

Table 8: Mean Score of Brand Personality of Pepsi

Ranks of Brand Personality Traits of Pepsi
Rank

Brand Personality Trait

Mean Average Score

Original (trendy, modern)

Friendly (warm, pleasant,
2
nice)
Elegant (sophisticated,
3
stylish)
Charming (attractive,
4
seductive)
Creative (inventive,
5
imaginative)
Ascendant (manipulative,
6
arrogant, showy)
Misleading (hypocrite,
7
liar, deceptive)
Conscientious (strict,
8
serious)
9
Introvert (reserved, shy)
Table 9: Ranks of Brand Personality Traits of Pepsi
1

3.7203
3.5429
3.4134
3.4109
3.2797
3.1733
2.8458
2.8366
2.7203

36 | P a g e

Results show that there is not a significant difference between the mean average scores of
brand personality traits. The difference between the highest (original=3.7203) and lowest
(introvert=2.7203) scoring trait is exactly of 1 point. Also it should be noted that there is only
a slight difference of scores between elegant trait at 3.4134 and charming trait at 3.4109. The
brand personality factors like attractive, seductive, sophisticated and stylish of both these
traits are more or less interrelated regarding appearance of brand so that might be the reason
of these two traits securing almost equivalent mean average scores.

Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Gender

Gender
Male

Friendly Creative Charming Ascendant Introvert Misleading Original Elegant Conscientious

Mean

N
Female Mean

3.6636

3.2798

3.5046

3.2263

2.7248

2.8272

109

109

109

109

109

108

3.4014

3.2796

3.3011

3.1111

2.7151

2.8674

93

93

93

93

93

93

3.7477 3.5000
109

2.8532

109

109

3.6882 3.3118

2.8172

93

93

93

Table 10: Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Gender

Friendly
4.00
Conscientious

3.00

Creative

2.00
1.00

Elegant

Charming

0.00

Female

Orignal
Misleading

Male

Ascendant
Introvert

Figure 14: Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Gender

The average mean score of brand personality traits for Pepsi among Male and Female
respondents in ascending order (highest to lowest score) are shown in the following table:

37 | P a g e

Ranks of Brand Personality Traits of Pepsi with respect to Gender

Rank

Brand Personality Trait

perceived by Males

Mean
Average
Score

Brand Personality Trait

perceived by Females

Mean Average
Score

Original (trendy, modern)

3.7477

3.6882

Friendly (warm, pleasant,

nice)
Charming (attractive,
seductive)

3.6636

Original (trendy,
modern)
Friendly (warm,
pleasant, nice)
Elegant (sophisticated,
stylish)

Elegant (sophisticated,
stylish)
Creative (inventive,
imaginative)

3.5000

Charming (attractive,
seductive)
Creative (inventive,
imaginative)

3.3011

Ascendant (manipulative,
arrogant, showy)

3.2263

3.1111

Misleading (hypocrite,
liar, deceptive)

2.8272

Ascendant
(manipulative, arrogant,
showy)
Misleading (hypocrite,
liar, deceptive)

Conscientious (strict,
2.8532
Conscientious (strict,
serious)
serious)
9
Introvert (reserved, shy)
2.7248 Introvert (reserved, shy)
Table 11: Ranks of Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Gender

2.8172

3
4
5

3.5046

3.2798

3.4014
3.3118

3.2796

2.8674

2.7151

All the brand personality traits are ranked equally among Male and Females except Charming
trait has acquired 3rd position among Males and 4th among Females whereas elegant has
acquired 4th among Males and 3rd among Females.
Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Consumers & Non-Consumers
Soft Drinker
Yes

Mean
N

No

Mean
N

Friendly Creative Charming Ascendant Introvert Misleading Original

Elegant Conscientious

3.6667

3.4061

3.6091

3.1697

2.6182

2.8049

3.9424

3.5606

2.7394

165

165

165

165

165

164

165

165

165

2.9910

2.7162

2.5270

3.1892

3.1757

3.0270

2.7297

2.7568

3.2703

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

Table 12: Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Consumers & Non-Consumers

38 | P a g e

Friendly
4.00
Conscientious

3.00

Creative

2.00
1.00

Elegant

Charming

Consumers
Non-consumers

0.00

Orignal

Ascendant

Misleading

Introvert

Figure 15: Brand Personality of Pepsi with respect to Consumers & Non-Consumers
The average mean score of brand personality traits for Pepsi among soft drink consumers and
non-consumers respondents in ascending order (highest to lowest score) is shown in the
following table;
Ranks of Brand Personality Traits of Pepsi with respect to Soft Drink
Consumers & Non-Consumer
Brand Personality Trait
Mean
Mean
Brand Personality Trait perceived
Rank
perceived by Cola
Average
Average
by Non-Cola Consumers
Consumers
Score
Score
Original (trendy, modern) 3.9424
Conscientious (strict, serious)
3.2703
1
Friendly (warm, pleasant,
3.6700
Introvert (reserved, shy)
3.1757
2
nice)
Charming (attractive,
Ascendant (manipulative, arrogant,
3.6091
3.1892
3
seductive)
showy)
Elegant (sophisticated,
3.5606 Misleading (hypocrite, liar, deceptive)
3.0270
4
stylish)
Creative (inventive,
3.4061
Friendly (warm, pleasant, nice)
2.9910
5
imaginative)
Ascendant (manipulative,
3.1697
Elegant (sophisticated, stylish)
2.7568
6
arrogant, showy)
Misleading (hypocrite,
2.8049
Creative (inventive, imaginative)
2.7162
7
liar, deceptive)
Conscientious (strict,
2.7394
Original (trendy, modern)
2.7297
8
serious)
Introvert (reserved, shy)
2.6182
Charming (attractive, seductive)
2.5270
9
Table 13: Ranks of Brand Personality Traits of Pepsi with respect to Cola consumers &
Non-Consumers

39 | P a g e

The average score of perceived brand personality of Pepsi on various traits by soft drink
consumers is quite high as compare to non-consumers. Soft drink consumers perceived
positive traits like Original, Friendly, Charming, Elegant and Creative to be most associated
with Pepsi whereas negative traits like ascendant, misleading, conscientious and introvert
were least associated with Pepsi. This shows that Soft drink consumers associate a positive
image with Pepsi which might be the cause of Pepsi dominance in soft drink market in
Pakistan.
Respondents that do not drink soft drinks rated negative personality traits like conscientious,
introvert, ascendant, and misleading as the most perceived brand personality traits associated
with Pepsi. Non-consumers of soft drinks might be confused in the sense that they dislike the
product because they consider fizzy drinks to be unhealthy and at the same time they might
have a positive brand image of Pepsi due to its promotional effort (sports event). This is quite
confusing and needs to be analyzed more precisely with additional data which is outside the
scope of this research.

4.3

Trust, Attachment and Commitment

Mean Scores of trust, attachment & commitment of
Pepsi

Valid
Missing

Mean

Trust in

Attachment with

Commitment

Pepsi

Pepsi

with Pepsi

202

202

202

3.2665

3.1749

2.9290

Table 14: Mean Scores of trust, attachment & commitment of Pepsi

Trust in Pepsi
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
Commitment with
Pepsi

Attachment with
Pepsi

Figure 16: Mean Scores of trust, attachment & commitment of Pepsi

40 | P a g e

Above table depicts mean for trust, attachment and commitment for Pepsi. This shows that
Trust which is the first step for relation with a Brand has the highest mean of 3.265 whereas
the mean of attachment with Pepsi is slightly lower than i.e. 3.175. Commitment with Pepsi
has got lowest means of 2.9230.

Trust (Credibility, integrity, benevolence),

Attachment & Commitment with Pepsi
Whole Sample

Credibility
(Trust in the
brand)

Male
Female

4
3.5

Consumers

3
Continuance
commitment
with the
brand

2.5
2
1.5

Non-Consumers
Integrity
(Trust in the
brand)

1
0.5
0

Affective
commitment
with the
brand

Benevolence
(Trust in the
brand)

Attachment
with the
brand

Figure 17: Trust, Attachment and Commitment with Pepsi

41 | P a g e

Mean Score of Trust in Pepsi (Credibility, integrity & benevolence), Attachment

with Pepsi and Commitment (continuance, affective) with Pepsi
Attachment
Trust in Pepsi

with Pepsi

Commitment with Pepsi

Affective

Credibility

Integrity

Benevolence

Attachment

commitment

Continuance

(Trust in

(Trust in

(Trust in the

with the

with the

commitment with the

brand)

brand

brand

brand

the brand) the brand)

N

Valid
Missin
g

Mean

202

202

202

202

202

202

3.0272

3.3267

3.45

3.1749

3.0644

2.7937

Table 15: Mean Score of Trust in Pepsi (Credibility, integrity & benevolence),
Attachment with Pepsi and Commitment (continuance, affective) with Pepsi

Continuance
commitment with the
brand

Credibility (Trust in
the brand)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Affective commitment
with the brand

Integrity (Trust in the

brand)

Benevolence (Trust in
the brand)

Attachment with the

brand

Figure 18: Mean Score of Trust in Pepsi (Credibility, integrity & benevolence),
Attachment with Pepsi and Commitment (continuance, affective) with Pepsi
Among different dimensions of Trust mean is higher for Benevolence dimension which is
3.45, Integritys mean is 3.3267 and credibility means is lowest which is of 3.0272.

42 | P a g e

Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi on the basis of Gender
Credibility
Gender

(Trust in the
brand)

Integrity (Trust
in the brand)

Benevolence
(Trust in the
brand)

Attachment
with the brand

Affective

Continuance

commitment

commitment

with the brand with the brand

Mean

3.1147

3.3991

3.58

3.3150

3.1529

2.8563

109

109

109

109

109

109

Mean

2.9247

3.2419

3.29

3.0108

2.9606

2.7204

93

93

93

93

93

93

Male

Female

Table 16: Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi with respect to
Gender

Continuance
commitment with the
brand

Credibility (Trust in the

brand)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Affective commitment
with the brand

Integrity (Trust in the

brand)

Male
Female

Benevolence (Trust in
the brand)

Attachment with the

brand

Figure 19: Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi with respect to
Gender
The data shows that for each dimension of Trust (credibility, attachment, and commitment)
the mean is higher for Male than Female. Mean among Male respondents for Attachment as
well as Commitment (affective, continuance) is higher than that of Females.

43 | P a g e

Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi on the basis of Soft
drink consumers & non-consumers
Credibility

Soft Drinker
Yes

Mean

(Trust in the

Integrity (Trust

(Trust in the

brand)

in the brand)

brand)

Mean

Attachment

Affective

Continuance

commitment

commitment

with the brand with the brand with the brand

3.1758

3.4636

3.65

3.4000

3.2586

2.8545

165

165

165

165

165

165

2.3649

2.7162

2.54

2.1712

2.1982

2.5225

37

37

37

37

37

37

N
No

Benevolence

Table 17: Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi on the basis of
Soft Drink consumers and Non-consumers

Continuance
commitment with
the brand

Credibility (Trust in
the brand)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Affective
commitment with
the brand

Integrity (Trust in
the brand)
consumer
non-consumer
Benevolence (Trust
in the brand)

Attachment with
the brand

Figure 20: Mean Score of Trust, Attachment and Commitment for Pepsi on the basis of
Soft Drink consumers and Non-consumers
The above tables shows that Soft drink consumers Trust (credibility, integrity, benevolence),
Attachment and Commitment (affective, continuance) has greater mean values than nonconsumers of soft drinks.

44 | P a g e

4.4 Linkage between Brand Personality of Pepsi and

Consumers Trust, Attachment and Commitment with
this brand

Dependent Variable
Trust in Pepsi

Independent
Variables

Credibility

Integrity

Benevolence

Friendly

9.381***

0.418

3.919***

0.5

n.s

n.s

Creative

3.759***

0.334

n.s

n.s

-2.232*

0.421

Misleading

-2.152*

-0.069

-5.249***

-1.48

-6.285***

-0.93

Original

10.2***

0.335

5.97***

0.423

3.76***

0.405

Elegant

6.014***

0.371

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

Conscientious

-2.034*

-0.05

-4.097***

-0.115

-5.674***

-1.25

Charming

3.739***

0.337

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

Ascendant

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

-3.064*

0.018

Introvert

-3.516*

-0.008

6.6512***

-0.007*

-6.726***

-0.227

n.s = not significant

<0.05*
<0.01**
Table 18: Gamma Parameters () and t-value for relation between Brand Personality
and Trust in Pepsi
The above table is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II:
Paired Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross
Tabulation). Finding of the table are as follow;

Friendly trait perceived by consumers has strong positive and significant (=0.418
and <0.01) relation with credibility dimension of Trust as well as integrity
45 | P a g e

dimension (=0.5 and <0.01). For benevolence dimension no significant relation

was found.

Creative trait has highly significant positive relation with credibility dimension
(=0.334 and <0.01) and benevolence dimension (=0.421 and <0.05) of trust.
No relation was found with integrity dimension.

Misleading has highly significant negative relation with integrity (=-1.48 and
<0.01) and benevolence(=-0.93 and <0.01) whereas with credibility relation is
negative and significant (=-0.0693 and <0.05)

Original has highly significant positive relation with credibility (=0.335 and
<0.01), integrity (=0.423 and <0.01) and benevolence (=0.405 and <0.01).

Elegant has only high significant positive relation (=0.371 and <0.01) with
credibility dimension of trust.

Conscientious trait has highly significant negative relation with integrity (=0.115 and <0.01) and benevolence (=-1.25 and <0.01) dimensions of trust.
Also for credibility dimension negative relation exists (=-0.05 and <0.05).

Charming trait has significant positive relation with credibility dimension of trust
(=0.337 and <0.01). No relation exists with other two dimensions of trust.

Ascendant trait has positive relation with only benevolence dimension of trust
(=0.018 and <0.05).

Introvert trait has negative relation with all dimensions of trust it has most
significant with benevolence dimension (=-0.227 and <0.01)

46 | P a g e

Dependent Variable
Independent
Variables

Friendly
Creative
Misleading
Original
Elegant
Conscientious
Charming
Ascendant
Introvert

n.s = not significant

Attachment with Pepsi

Attachment
t
6.061***
n.s
3.433*
7.802***
3.431*
3.191*
2.304*
n.s
4.613***

<0.05*

0.475
n.s
-0.78
0.413
0.366
-0.094
0.426
n.s
-0.04

<0.01**

Table 19: Gamma Parameters () and t-value for relation between Brand Personality
Attachment with Pepsi
The above table is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II:
Paired Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross
Tabulation). Finding of the table are as follow;

Friendly trait has significant positive relation (=0.475 and <0.01) with
attachment.

Creative has no relation.

Misleading has significant negative (=-0.78 and <0.05) relation with

attachment,

Original also has significant positive (=0.413 and <0.01) relation.

Elegant also shows a positive relation (=0.336 and <0.05) with attachment,

Conscientious shows a negative relation (=-0.094 and <0.05) with attachment.

Charming shows a positive significant relation (=0.426 and <0.05) with

attachment.

Ascendant shows no relation with attachment

Introvert has negative relation (=-0.04 and <0.01) with attachment.

47 | P a g e

Dependent Variable
Commitment with Pepsi

Independent
Variables

Affective

Continuance

Friendly

8.177***

0.465

10.53***

0.23

Creative

3.219*

0.406

5.969***

0.202

Misleading

-2.364*

-0.83

n.s

n.s

Original

9.726***

0.43

11.378**

0.23

Elegant

5.052***

0.36

8.275***

0.279

Conscientious

-2.192*

-0.101

n.s

n.s

Charming

3.572***

0.452

5.71***

0.277

Ascendant

n.s

n.s

4.367***

-0.43

Introvert

-3.588***

-0.039

n.s

n.s

n.s = not significant

<0.05*

<0.01**

Table 20: Gamma Parameters () and t-value for relation between Brand Personality
Commitment with Pepsi
The above table is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II:
Paired Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross
Tabulation). Finding of the table are as follow;

Friendly trait has a positive significant relation with affective (=0.465 and
<0.01) and continuance (=0.23 and <0.01) dimension of commitment.

Creative also has a positive significant relation (=0.406 and <0.05) with
affective and continuance dimension (=0.202 and <0.01) of commitment.

Misleading shows a significant negative relation (=-0.83 and <0.01) with

affective commitment and no relation with continuance commitment.

Original has a positive significant relation with affective (=0.43 and <0.01) and
continuance (=0.23 and <0.01) dimension of commitment.

Elegant also has a positive significant relation with affective (=0.36 and <0.01)
and continuance dimension (=0.279 and <0.01) of commitment.

Conscientious has a negative relation with affective commitment (=-0.101 and

<0.05) and no relation with continuance commitment.
48 | P a g e

Charming has a positive significant relation with affective (=0.452 and <0.01)
and continuance dimension (=0.277 and <0.01) of commitment.

Ascendant has significant negative relation with continuance commitment (=0.43 and <0.05) and no relation with affective commitment.

Introvert has significant negative relation with affective commitment (=0.039and <0.01) and no relation with continuance commitment.
Dependent Variables

Independent variables

Affective commitment with

Pepsi

Attachment with Pepsi

t-value

Continuance
commitment with
Pepsi

beta

t-value

beta

t-value

beta

0.429
0.268
n.s
---

4.402***
n.s
2.901***
12.548*

0.243
n.s
0.119
0.646

2.263*
n.s
n.s
n.s

0.22
n.s
n.s
n.s

Trust in Pepsi
Credibility 7.256***
Integrity 3.736***
Benevolence
n.s
Attachment with Pepsi
---

n.s = not significant

<0.05*

<0.01**

Table 21: Beta Parameters and t-value for relation between Trust, Attachment and
Commitment with Pepsi
The above table is formed by extracting values of t and beta of Linear Regression form
Appendix IV: Linear Regression. Finding of the table are as follow;
Relation between trust and attachment as;
Credibility (=0.429 and <0.01) and integrity is strongly linked with attachment.

Benevolence (=0.268 and <0.01) dimension of trust is significantly and

positively linked with affective commitment.

Benevolence dimension is not linked with attachment of brand.

Relation between attachment and commitment as;

Attachment is linked only to affective commitment of brand at 0.05 significance

level with of 0.646

Relation between trust and commitment as;

Credibility dimension of trust is linked to affective commitment (=0.243 and

<0.01) and continuance commitment (=0.22 and <0.05).

Integrity dimension of trust is not linked to any dimension of commitment.

49 | P a g e

Benevolence dimension of trust is significantly linked to affective commitment

only (=0.646 and <0.01)

Dependent Variables
Trust in Pepsi
Independent
Variables

Credibility
Male

Integrity

Female

Male

Benevolence

Female

Male

Female

Friendly

7.573
***

0.3
44

5.665
***

0.4
73

3.531
*

0.4
25

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

Creative

n.s

n.s

3.417
***

0.3
43

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

0.3
37

n.s

n.s

Misleading

2.539
*

0.1
67

n.s

n.s

4.804
***

0.1
1

2.7**
*

0.1
67

0.1
28

3.125
***

0.0
46

Original

6.569
***

0.1
28

8.032
***

0.5
11

3.722
***

0.2
44

4.840
***

0.5
83

n.s

n.s

4.033
***

0.5
51

Elegant

4.206
***

0.2
26

4.324
***

0.5

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

Conscientious

2.200
*

0.0
34

n.s

n.s

4.217
***

0.0
92

2.731
***

0.1
42

5.138
***

0.0
66

2.884
***

0.1
99

Charming

4.175
***

0.2
65

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

Ascendant

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

3.900
***

0.1
05

n.s

n.s

5.490
***

0.0
07

3.586
***

0.0
29

0.0
41
0.1
41

n.s

Introvert

2.734
***
6.260
***

3.369
***

0.3
39

n.s = not significant

<0.05*

2.773
***
5.656
***

<0.01**

Table 22: Gamma Parameter () & t-values of relation between Brand Personality and
Trust in Pepsi (Gender)
The above table is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II:
Paired Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross
Tabulation). Finding of the table are as follow;

50 | P a g e

Friendly trait perceived by male (=0.344 and <0.01) and female (=0.4733 and
<0.01) has strong positive and significant relation with credibility dimension of
Trust .

Creative trait has highly significant positive relation with credibility dimension
(=0.343 and <0.05) of trust only for females and benevolence dimension
(=0.337 and <0.05) of trust only for males. No relation was found with integrity
dimension both for male and females.

Misleading has highly significant negative relation with credibility (=-1.67 and
<0.01) only for Males. While for credibility and benevolence traits both males
and females has significant negative relation with misleading trait.

Original has highly significant positive relation for credibility, integrity for both
males and females and on benevolence dimension only for females.

Elegant has only high significant positive relation for males (=0.226 and <0.01)
and females (=0.5 and <0.01) only with credibility dimension of trust.

Conscientious trait has highly significant negative relation for males and females
on all dimensions of trust except credibility dimension shows no significant
relation with females.

Charming trait has significant positive relation with credibility dimension of trust
(=0.265 and <0.01) only for males. No relation exists with other two
dimensions of trust both for males and females.

Ascendant trait has negative relation with benevolence dimension of trust (=0.041 and <0.05) only for males.

Introvert trait has negative relation with all dimensions of trust except females do
not show significant relation with credibility dimension of trust.

51 | P a g e

Independent
Variables
Friendly
Creative
Misleading
Original
Elegant
Conscientious
Charming
Ascendant
Introvert

Dependent Variable
Attachment with Pepsi
Male
Female
t

3.971***
0.304 4.712*** 0.631
n.s
n.s
2.525*
0.431
-3.830***
-0.139 n.s
n.s
4.285***
0.264 7.220*** 0.552
n.s
n.s
3.247*** 0.542
-3.356***
-0.11 n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
-5.053***
-0.041 n.s
n.s

n.s = not significant <0.05*

<0.01**
Table 23: Gamma Parameter () & t-values of relation between Brand Personality and
Attachment with Pepsi (Gender)
Table 23 is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II: Paired
Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross Tabulation).
Finding of the table are as follow;

Friendly trait has significant positive relation with attachment for males
(=0.304and <0.01) and females (=0.631 and <0.01).

Creative has no relation for males and significant positive relation for females.

Misleading has significant negative (=-0.139 and <0.05) relation with

attachment for males and no relation with females.

Original trait has significant positive relation with attachment for males
(=0.264and <0.01) and females (=0.552 and <0.01).

Elegant also shows a positive relation (=0.336 and <0.542) for females and no
relation with males.

Conscientious shows a negative relation (=-0.11 and <0.05) for males and no
relation for females.

Charming trait shows no relation for males and females for attachment with Pepsi.

Ascendant shows no relation with attachment both for males and females.

Introvert has negative relation (=-0.041 and <0.01) with attachment only for
males.

52 | P a g e

Independent
Variables

Dependent variable
Commitment with Pepsi
Affective Commitment
Continuance Commitment
Male

Female

Male

Female

Friendly

5.888***

0.327

5.752***

0.612

7.540***

0.064

n.s

n.s

Creative

n.s

n.s

3.513***

0.48

3.575***

0.063

n.s

n.s

Misleading

-2.517*

-0.142

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

-3.125***

-0.046

Original

6.035***

0.299

8.077***

0.567

7.728***

0.075

4.033***

0.551

Elegant

3.356***

0.188

3.944***

0.524

6.175***

0.172

n.s

n.s

Conscientious

-2.110*

-0.14

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

-2.884***

-0.199

Charming

3.608***

0.324

n.s

n.s

5.865***

0.144

n.s

n.s

Ascendant

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

3.073***

-0.104

n.s

n.s

Introvert

-3.545***

0.13

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

-3.369***

-0.339

n.s = not significant

<0.05*
<0.01**
Table 24: Gamma Parameter () & t-values of relation between Brand Personality and
Attachment with Pepsi (Gender)
Table 24 is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II: Paired
Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross Tabulation).
Finding of the table are as follow;

Friendly trait has a positive significant relation with affective commitment for
males (=0.327 and <0.01) and females (=0.612 and <0.01). Males only have
significant positive relation with continuance commitment.

Creative also has a positive significant relation with affective commitment for
females and for continuance dimension for males.

Misleading shows a significant negative relation for males with affective

commitment (=-0.142 and <0.01) and for continuance commitment (=-0.46
and <0.01).

Original has significant positive relation with both components of commitment.

This is true for both genders.

Elegant also has a positive significant relation with affective both for males and
females and continuance dimension only for males.

Conscientious has a negative relation with affective commitment (=-0.14 and

<0.05) for males and (=-0.199 and <0.05) with continuance commitment with
females.

53 | P a g e

Charming has a positive significant relation with affective and continuance

dimension of commitment only for males.

Ascendant has significant negative relation with continuance commitment (=0.104 and <0.05) only for males and no relation with affective commitment both
for males and females.

Introvert has significant positive relation with affective commitment (=0.13 and
<0.01) for males and negative relation with females for continuance commitment
(=-0.339 and <0.01).

Dependent variable
Attachment with Pepsi

Independent variables

Male

Female

t-value

beta

t-value

beta

5.772***
2.039*
n.s
---

0.537
0.196
n.s
---

4.092***
3.139***
n.s
---

0.413
0.347
n.s
---

Trust in Pepsi
Credibility
Integrity
Benevolence
Attachment with Pepsi

n.s = not significant

<0.05*
<0.01**
Table 25: Beta Parameters and t-value for relation between Trust and Attachment with
Pepsi (Gender)
The above table is formed by extracting values of t and beta of Linear Regression form
Appendix IV: Linear Regression. Finding of the table are as follow;

Credibility and integrity dimension of trust has significant positive relation with
attachment both for males and females.
Benevolence dimension has no relation.
Dependent variable
Affective commitment with Pepsi

Independent variables

Male

Female

t-value

beta

t-value

beta

7.940***
n.s
2.901***
14.385***

0.656
n.s
0.119
0.812

4.171***
2.172*
n.s
17.389***

0.436
0.249
n.s
0.877

Trust in Pepsi
Credibility
Integrity
Benevolence
Attachment with Pepsi

n.s = not significant

<0.05*
<0.01**
Table 26: Beta Parameters and t-value for relation between Trust, Attachment and
Affective Commitment with Pepsi (Gender)
54 | P a g e

The above table is formed by extracting values of t and beta of Linear Regression form
Appendix IV: Linear Regression. Finding of the table are as follow;

Credibility has positive relation with affective commitment both for males and
females.

Integrity has relation with affective commitment only for females.

Benevolence has relation with affective commitment only for males.

Attachment has positive significant relation with males (=0.812 and <0.01) and
females (=0.877 and <0.01)
Dependent variable
Continuance commitment with Pepsi

Independent variables

Male

Female

t-value

beta

t-value

beta

4.163***
n.s
n.s
4.103

0.464
n.s
n.s
0.369

n.s
n.s
2.559*
5.940***

n.s
n.s
0.385
0.529

Trust in Pepsi
Credibility
Integrity
Benevolence
Attachment with Pepsi

n.s = not significant

<0.05*
<0.01**
Table 27: Beta Parameters and t-value for relation between Trust, Attachment and
Continuance Commitment with Pepsi (Gender)
The above table is formed by extracting values of t and beta of Linear Regression form
Appendix IV: Linear Regression. Finding of the table are as follow;

Credibility has relation with continuance commitment only for males.

Integrity has no significant relation with continuance commitment both for males and
females.

Benevolence only has relation with females.

Attachment has positive significant relation with males (=0.369 and <0.05) and
females (=0.529 and <0.05)

55 | P a g e

Independent
Variables

Credibility
t

Dependent Variable
Trust in Pepsi
Integrity
t

Benevolence
t

Friendly

8.401***

0.324

3.461***

0.415

n.s

n.s

Creative

3.101***

0.235

n.s

n.s

-3.025***

0.349

Misleading

n.s

n.s

-7.154***

-0.11

-8.732***

-0.01

Original

10.518***

0.193

6.712***

0.314

3.589***

0.249

Elegant

5.473***

0.273

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

Conscientious

-4.833***

0.103

-7.429***

-0.011

-8.512***

-0.27

Charming

3.611***

0.23

n.s

n.s

n.s

n.s

Ascendant

n.s

n.s

-3.319***

-0.72

-5.119***

0.016

Introvert

-6.419***

0.109

-9.276***

-0.74

-9.332***

-0.152

n.s = not significant

<0.05*

<0.01**

Table 28: Gamma Parameter () & t-values for Trust in Pepsi (Soft Drink consumers)
The above table is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II:
Paired Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross
Tabulation). Finding of the table are as follow;

Friendly trait is significantly positively linked with credibility and integrity.

Creative trait has positive relation with credibility and benevolence.

Misleading has negative relation with integrity and benevolence.

Original has positive significant relation with all dimensions of trust.

Elegant has positive significant relation only with credibility dimension of trust.

Conscientious has positive relation credibility and negative with integrity and
benevolence dimensions of trust.

Charming has positive significant relation only with credibility.

Ascendant has negative relation with integrity and positive relation with benevolence.

Introvert has positive relation credibility and negative with integrity and benevolence
dimensions of trust.

56 | P a g e

Independent
Variables
Friendly
Creative
Misleading
Original
Elegant
Conscientious
Charming
Ascendant
Introvert

Dependent Variable
Attachment with Pepsi
Attachment
t

4.128***
0.396
n.s
n.s
-6.225***
-0.01
7.052***
0.285
2.157**
0.288
-6.394***
0.03
n.s
n.s
-2.472*
-0.007
-7.996***
0.062

n.s = not significant <0.05* <0.01**

Table 29: Gamma Parameter () & t-values for Attachment with Pepsi (Soft Drink
Consumers)
The above table is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II:
Paired Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross
Tabulation). Finding of the table are as follow;

Friendly trait is significantly positively (=0.396 and <0.01) linked with attachment.

Creative trait has no relation with attachment.

Misleading has negative relation (=-0.01 and <0.01) with attachment.

Original has positive significant relation (=0.285 and <0.01) with attachment.

Elegant has positive significant relation (=0.288 and <0.01) only with attachment.

Conscientious has positive relation (=0.03 and <0.01) with attachment.

Charming has no relation only with attachment.

Ascendant has negative relation (=-0.007 and <0.01) with attachment.

Introvert has positive relation (=0.062 and <0.01) with all attachment

57 | P a g e

Independent
Variables
Friendly
Creative
Misleading
Original
Elegant
Conscientious
Charming
Ascendant
Introvert

Dependent Variable
Commitment with Pepsi
Affective
Continuance
t

6.273***
0.348
10.178***
0.206
n.s
n.s
5.991***
0.11
-4.867***
-0.024
n.s
n.s
9.221***
0.325
12.394***
0.165
3.958***
0.288
8.536***
0.25
-5.009***
0.018
n.s
n.s
3.118***
0.362
6.075***
0.221
n.s
n.s
3.1*
-0.044
-6.543***
0.46
-2.490*
0.161

n.s = not significant

<0.05*
<0.01**
Table 30: Gamma Parameter () & t-values for Commitment with Pepsi (Soft Drink
Consumers)
The above table is formed by extracting values of paired sample t-test from Appendix II:
Paired Sample t-test and gamma form Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross
Tabulation). Finding of the table are as follow;

Friendly trait has positive significant relation with affective and continuance
commitment.

Creative has positive relation only with commitment

Misleading has negative relation with affective commitment.

Original has positive relation with all components of commitment.

Elegant also has positive relation with affective and continuance commitment.

Conscientious has positive relation with affective commitment.

Charming has positive relation with both components of commitment.

Ascendant has negative relation with continuance commitment.

Introvert has positive relation with both components of commitment.

58 | P a g e

Independent
variables

beta

Dependent Variables
Affective
commitment with
Pepsi
t-value
beta

Attachment with
Pepsi
t-value

Continuance
commitment
with Pepsi
t-value
beta

Trust in Pepsi
Credibility
Integrity
Benevolence
Attachment with
Pepsi

5.415*
**
4.050*
n.s

.417

7.037***

.530

3.537***

0.341

0.320
n.s

2.139*
n.s

.166
n.s

n.s
n.s

n.s
n.s

---

---

17.379***

0.806

6.005

0.426

n.s = not significant

<0.05*

<0.01**

Table 31: Beta parameter and t-value for Trust, Attachment and Commitment with
Pepsi (Soft Drink Consumers)
The above table is formed by extracting values of t and beta of Linear Regression form
Appendix IV: Linear Regression. Finding of the table are as follow;

Credibility leads to attachment and commitment with Pepsi.

Integrity only leads to attachment and affective commitment.

Benevolence does not have a relation with attachment, affective and continuance
commitment.

Attachment with Pepsi results in strong relation with affective commitment and
moderate relation with continuance commitment.

4.4

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis No. 1

Ho

There is no causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer trust in this
brand.

Ha

There is a causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer trust in this
brand.

Findings from Table 18 indicate that Friendly trait perceived by consumers has strong
positive and significant relation with credibility dimension of Trust as well as integrity
dimension. Creative trait has highly significant positive relation with credibility dimension
and benevolence dimension of trust. Misleading has highly significant negative relation with
integrity and benevolence. Original has highly significant positive relation with credibility,
59 | P a g e

integrity and benevolence Elegant has only high significant positive relation with credibility
dimension of trust. Conscientious trait has highly significant negative relation with integrity
dimensions of trust. Introvert trait has negative relation with all dimensions of trust.
On the basis of above finding null hypothesis, There is no causal link between brand
personality of Pepsi and consumer trust in this brand is rejected.
Hypothesis No. 2

Ho

There is no causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer attachment
with this brand.

Ha

There is a causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer attachment
with this brand.

Table 19 shows that Friendly, Original, Elegant and Charming trait has significant positive
relation with attachment. Misleading, Conscientious and Introvert has significant relation
with attachment. Ascendant and Creative shows no relation with attachment.
On the basis of above finding null hypothesis, There is no causal link between brand
personality of Pepsi and consumer attachment with this brand is rejected.
Hypothesis No. 3

Ho

There is no causal link between brand personality of Pepsi and consumer commitment
with this brand.

Ha

There is a causal link between brand personality and consumer commitment to this
brand.

Table 20 indicates that Friendly, Creative, Original, Elegant and charming traits have a
positive significant relation with affective and continuance dimension of commitment.
Misleading, conscientious, and introvert shows a significant negative relation with affective
commitment and no relation with continuance commitment.
On the basis of above finding null hypothesis, There is no causal link between brand
personality of Pepsi and consumer commitment with this brand is rejected.
Hypothesis No. 4

Ho

There is no causal link between consumer trust in Pepsi and his attachment with this
brand
60 | P a g e

Ha

There is a causal link between consumer trust in Pepsi and his attachment with this
brand.

From table 21, Credibility and integrity is strongly linked with attachment. Benevolence
dimension is not linked with attachment of brand.
On the basis of above finding null hypothesis, There is no causal link between consumer
trust in a Pepsi and his attachment with this brand is rejected.
Hypothesis No. 5

Ho

There is no causal link between consumer attachment with Pepsi and his commitment
with this brand.

Ha.

There is a causal link between consumer attachment with Pepsi and his commitment
with this brand.

Table 21 shows that Attachment is linked only to affective commitment of brand

On the basis of above finding null hypothesis, There is no causal link between consumer
attachment with Pepsi and his commitment to this brand. is rejected.
Hypothesis No. 6

Ho

There is no causal link between consumer trust in Pepsi and his commitment with this
brand.

Ha

There is a causal link between consumer trust in Pepsi and his commitment with this
brand.

Table 21 indicates that Credibility dimension of trust is linked to affective commitment and
continuance commitment. Integrity dimension of trust is not linked to any dimension of
commitment. Benevolence dimension of trust is significantly linked to affective commitment
only.
On the basis of above finding null hypothesis, There is no causal link between consumer
trust in Pepsi and his commitment with this brand is rejected.

61 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
5.1 Discussion
Table 8 shows that Brand personality traits with highest mean score are more positive with
respect to Pakistani context like original, friendly, elegant, and charming. Pepsi is associated
with these traits on a high scale as compare to the other. The positive thing that all these traits
are consider to be more appropriate for a brand like Pepsi which is very much incorporated in
youths daily life. The fifth high scoring trait Creative composed of items like imaginative
and inventive; this is also a positive sign that consumers are associating Pepsi as creative
brand which means that Pepsi is up-to-date and innovative brand. Ascendant, conscientious,
misleading and introvert got the lowest score for brand personality traits. This is also a
excellent sign because all these traits are composed of personality factors considered negative
for a good person or even associated with a brand these are considered negative as misleading
may be related to lack of belief regarding functional performance of the brand. The lowest
rated personality trait is introvert composed of shy and reserved personality factors; this is
because Pepsi is considered to be an energetic, outgoing and youthful brand as depicted by
the advertisements so this trait is complete mismatch with the established brand personality
of Pepsi in the minds of consumers.
Table 9 shows that Friendly, Ascendant, charming, elegant and original brand personality
traits are more perceived by the Male respondents than by the Female respondents for Pepsi
on the basis of average scores. The difference among the Male and Female mean average
scores for these brand personality traits is very significant, only minor difference of scores
exists between both the genders. Creative, introvert, misleading and conscientious traits
mean average scores for Male and Female respondents were same. Gender analysis shows
that the brand personality of Pepsi perceived by Male and Female respondents was similar
and no significant difference exists between the two genders.
Table 11 depicts Charming, original, creative and elegant are least attributed to Pepsi by nonconsumers of soft drinks. Overall non-consumers of soft drinks perceived negative traits
more with Pepsi than soft drink consumers who associates positive personality traits with
Pepsi and have a favourable image of Pepsi perceived by them. Also soft drink consumers
associate personality traits with Pepsi with high average mean score for favourable traits and
62 | P a g e

low average mean score for unfavourable traits which is quite the opposite for non-soft drink
consumers.
Table 12 shows that trust in Pepsi has highest mean score followed by attachment with Pepsi.
Difference between mean score of trust and attachment is marginal. Commitment with Pepsi
has lowest mean. The result is quite satisfactory for the initial stages of relation with the
brand like trust but as the relations become deeper like attachment and commitment the mean
score declines which shows that consumers tend to lose their loyalty towards Pepsi. For
example although consumer trust the quality and taste of Pepsi but when Pepsi is not
available they can easily switched to competitive soft drink brand because they are not very
loyal to it.
Benevolence is that the brand takes into account consumer interest and improves its response
to consumer on continuous basis. Integrity shows that consumers feel Pepsi is honest towards
its clients. Credibility dimension says that what the brand promise it delivers, this might be
the case of realization if Pepsi says that drinking it you will be able to achieve you goals or
you will get motivation but if it is not the case then consumer might feel contrast with the
claim of Pepsi and develops a belief of lack of credibility for it. Table 13 shows Benevolence,
integrity dimensions of trust and attachment got highest means. Respondents think that Pepsi
is honest and shows concern towards customers.
Table 14 shows that mean score on all dimension of trust, components of commitment and
attachment is stronger for males than females. This shows that male have more strong
relation Pepsi than female. Keep in mind that this is irrespective of taking into account brand
personality relation with trust, attachment and commitment.
Table 15 shows that Consumers of soft drink has strong relations with Pepsi than nonconsumers. This is obvious that soft drink consumers should be more loyal towards Pepsi
than non-consumers. Non-consumers of soft drinks consider soft drinks to be unhealthy; they
do not tend to have loyalty with soft drink brands so they have a weak relation with Pepsi as
shown in the analysis. Strong relation of consumers with Pepsi also suggests that they
strongly like Pepsi.
Table 16 shows that Friendly and Original traits have the most significant positive relation
with trust. Misleading trait has the most significant negative relation with trust. All the
positive traits like friendly, creative, charming original has positive relation with trust.
63 | P a g e

Negative traits like introvert, conscientious and misleading has negative relation with trust.
One odd thing found was that Ascendant trait composed of manipulative, arrogant and showy
personality factors has a positive relation with benevolence dimension of trust but it is not
highly positive, the value of gamma is only 0.018 for this relation.
Table 17 shows that Friendly and Original trait has most positive significant relation with
attachment of Brand. Original trait associated with Pepsi shows that respondents consider
Pepsi to be original cola brand and Coca-Cola to be its copy which is general perception
among consumers in Pakistan. Misleading has the significant negative relation with
attachment of brand followed by introvert.
Table 18 shows that Friendly, charming, original and creative traits have a positive
significant relation towards commitment with Pepsi. Misleading has the most negative
relation with commitment. On the whole positive personality traits tend to boost commitment
whereas negative personality traits tend to reduce commitment. Also all the personality traits
have more significant positive relation with affective commitment of Pepsi which shows
that consumers has strong liking towards this brand.
Table 19 shows that Credibility and integrity dimension of trust results in attachment with
Pepsi. Attachment with Pepsi strongly leads to affective commitment with this brand.
Credibility dimension of trust leads to affective and continuance commitment with Pepsi.
Table 20 shows that Original trait has most significant relation with trust in Pepsi both for
males and females while introvert and misleading has significant negative relation with trust
in Pepsi. Ascendant trait is not linked with females on any dimension of trust. Negative traits
like misleading, introvert, ascendant and conscientious shows no relation with females on
credibility dimension of trust. Overall females have more significant strong relation with
Pepsi on for positive personality traits like friendly, original and elegant.
Table 21 shows that Friendly and original trait perceived by males and females results in
strong positive attachment with Pepsi. Charming and ascendant trait do not have significant
relation with attachment both for Males and Females. Females have no relation with any of
negative personality trait like misleading, introvert, conscientious and ascendant.
Table 22 shows that Original trait perceived by both the genders results in affective and
continuance commitment with Pepsi. Females do not have a relation with any of negative

64 | P a g e

trait on affective component of commitment with Pepsi. Odd finding is introvert trait results
in positive relation with affective commitment.
Table 23 shows that for both Males and Females credibility and integrity dimension of trust
leads to attachment with Pepsi whereas no significant relation with benevolence dimension.
Table 24 shows that Integrity (trust) in Pepsi leads to affective commitment with Pepsi only
for Females and benevolence only for Males. Both males and females attachment with Pepsi
leads to affective commitment with it.
Table 25 shows that Attachment in Pepsi results in continuance commitment with Pepsi; this
is true for both males and females. Females have a stronger linkage for attachment and
commitment than males. Credibility for Pepsi in Males and benevolence in Females lead to
continuance commitment.
Table 26 shows that for soft drink consumers Original trait has most positive significant
relation with trust in Pepsi while introvert and conscientious trait has most negative influence
on consumer trust in Pepsi.
Table 27 shows that soft drink consumers most significantly link friendly trait for attachment
with Pepsi. Original and elegant also has a positive relation with Pepsi. Misleading and
ascendant trait has negative relation with attachment of Pepsi. Introvert and conscientious
surprisingly leads to positive relation with Pepsi for consumers. This might be because soft
drink consumers are so involved in Pepsi that the negative perception of these traits does not
alter their relation with this brand.

5.2 Limitations of the study

Research only covered cover population of Karachi.

Research completed in limited resources and time.

Convenience non-probability sampling is employed.

Respondents filled only a little portion of questionnaire due to which a few questionnaires
were rejected.

Respondents did not return questionnaires which were counted as lost questionnaires.

Ascendant trait (manipulative, arrogant, showy) is found to be positively linked with

benevolence dimension of trust.

65 | P a g e

Introvert trait positively linked with credibility dimension of trust and continuance
commitment among soft drink consumers.

5.3 Recommendations
Brand positioning and communication efforts should associate Pepsi with friendly and
original brand personality traits. Pepsi should focus on friendly (warm, pleasant, nice) and
original (trendy, modern) traits. These traits are considered equally important among Males,
Females, Soft drink consumers and non-consumers. Associating friendly and original image
of Pepsi will results in strong relation with the Brand. Original trait will also establish
credibility of Pepsi as consumers thinks Pepsi is the original cola brand. Brand positioning
and communication strategy of Pepsi should highlight friendly and original aspect of Pepsi.
Currently Pepsi advertisements have themed around number one cola of Pakistan which also
shows that the company want to promote original image of brand. Association of friendly
trait with Pepsi can be achieved by celebrity endorsement. Celebrities as Isam-ul-Haque and
Shahid Afridi can leverage their associations of warm, pleasant and nice to Pepsi.
Linkage of Pepsi with misleading and introvert brand personality traits should be reduced to
minimum extent. Misleading (hypocrite, liar, deceptive), introvert (reserved, shy) and
conscientious (strict, serious) traits should not be associated with Pepsi at all. Brand
Managers should try to develop strategies so that consumers perception for these traits with
Pepsi should not be established or minimised. If consumers associate Pepsi with these
negative personality traits, their relation with the brand will be weakened. Misleading trait in
particular will reduce their trust in Pepsi. Pepsi should focus on delivering best quality drinks
to customers for being honest and trustworthy. Pepsi should develop friendly relation with
customers to avoid being considered as conscientious. Lastly Pepsi communication strategy
particularly TV advertisements should portray its image as outgoing and confident to avoid
being considered as introvert
Marketing efforts should focus on building strong commitment with the Brand. Research
found that the level of trust and attachment with Pepsi is higher than that of commitment with
Pepsi. Pepsi should develop strategies to establish a deeper relation with customers so that
customer should not easily switch to other soft drink brand.
Females tend to have strong linkage with Pepsi on positive dimensions of Brand Personality
than Males. Pepsi should also focus on marketing activities towards female consumers. Pepsi
66 | P a g e

can endorse Women Sports Events so that a strong relation in the form of commitment can be
fostered with females.

5.4 Conclusion
The research thoroughly explains impact of perceived brand personality of Pepsi on trust,
attachment and commitment with the brand. The research indicates that not only all perceived
brand personality traits have a significant positive relation with Pepsi. Some traits tend to
have no relation at all; other traits negatively affect relation with Pepsi.
Perceived brand personality of Pepsi has relations with consumers trust in Pepsi, attachment
with Pepsi and commitment with Pepsi. Positive personality traits (Elegant, charming,
original, friendly) positively impacts trust, attachment and commitment with Pepsi. Negative
personality traits (conscientious, misleading, introvert, ascendant) negatively impact trust,
attachment and commitment with Pepsi.
Friendly and Original traits has the most positive significant relation with trust, attachment
and commitment of Pepsi. Original is the only traits having relation with all dimensions of
Trust (credibility, integrity and benevolence), commitment (affective and continuance) and
attachment. Misleading, conscientious and introvert has negative relation with trust,
attachment and commitment with brand. Misleading has most influential negative relation
with relational aspects of Pepsi. Creative trait perceived by Pepsi has no significant impact on
relational consequences for Males. Females were found to have significant positive relation
with trust, attachment and commitment on creative brand personality trait.
Trust in Pepsi leads to attachment with Pepsi and commitment with Pepsi. Also attachment
with Pepsi results in commitment with Pepsi. Relation between attachment and commitment
with Pepsi is very strong than relation between trust and attachment and trust and
commitment. Consumers that are attached with Pepsi are more positively and significantly
linked with commitment with Pepsi.
Trust among respondents is highest for Pepsi followed by Attachment with a minor
difference while commitment with Pepsi is lowest. Benevolence dimension of trust has
highest mean, followed by integrity dimension and then by attachment. Affective and
continuance commitment has lowest scores. Males have more score relational dimensions
than females. With a significant difference consumers of soft drinks have high mean score on
67 | P a g e

all dimensions of trust, attachment and commitment with Pepsi than non-consumers of soft
drinks.
Original and Friendly trait were most perceived by respondents. Least perceived traits for
Pepsi were introvert and misleading. Pepsi is associated more with positive traits and have a
positive image as the brand personality analysis of the entire sample shows. Male and Female
tend to perceive positive traits (original, friendly) with Pepsi more than negative traits
(misleading, introvert and conscientious). All traits were similarly ranked by males and
females but mean score of male respondents was higher than that of females. This shows that
male associate brand personality traits with Pepsi more than females. Consumers of soft drink
associate Pepsi with positive traits (Original, friendly) and non-consumers with negative
personality traits (misleading, introvert, conscientious). Soft drink consumers have liking
towards Pepsi while non- soft drink consumers do not like fizzy drinks in general so they
have associate negative traits with Pepsi.

5.5 Future Line of Research

Further research should investigate the positive linkage between Ascendant trait
(manipulative, arrogant, showy) and benevolence dimension of trust. Introvert trait (reserved,
shy) is positively linked with credibility dimension of trust and continuance commitment
among soft drink consumers so future research should further explore impact of soft drink
consumers perceived brand personality traits on relation consequences with Pepsi. Further
research should compare the perceived brand personality of Coca-Cola and Pepsi and find its
impact on trust, attachment and commitment with the brand. Model of this study can be used
for other brands also like Apparel brand.

68 | P a g e

References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 34 (No. 3),
pp. 347-356.
Alexander Fedorikhin, C. W. (2008). Beyond fit and attitude: The effect of emotional attachment on
consumer responces to brand extension. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 18, 281-291.
Behi, S. B. (2011). The role of attachment in building consumer-brand relationships: an empirical
investigation in the utilitarian consumption context. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 20
(1), 37-47.
Forbes, T. H. (2005). An empirical analysis of the Brand Perosnality Effect. Journal of Product & Brand
Management , 14 (7), 404-413.
Forbes, T. H. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product & Brand
Management-volume 14 , 404-413.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in Consumer
Research. Journal of Consumer Research , 24 (4), 343-370.
Fullerton, G. (2005). The Impact of Brand Commitment on Loyalty to Retail Service Brands. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences , 97-110.
Fullerton, G. (2003). When Does Commitment Lead To Loyalty? JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH , 5
(4), 333-344.
Gurviez, M. K. (2002). Test of a Consumer-Brand Relationship Model. 30th International Research
Seminar in Marketing. La Londe les Maures, France.
Gurviez, M. K. (2003). Test of a Consumer-Brand Relationship Model. 30th International Research
Seminar in Marketing. La Londe les Maures, France.
Helena M. Nobre, K. B. (2010). Brand Relationships: A Personality-Based Approach. J. Service Science
& Management , 3, 206-217.
Hunt, R. M. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. The Journal of
Marketing , Vol. 58 ( No. 3), pp. 20-38.
Kapferer, A. A. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? The Journal of
Brand Management .
Keller, K. L. (1993). Journal of Marketing. 57 (1), 1-22.
Laure Ambroise, J.-M. F. (2004). How Well does Brand Personality Predict Brand Choice?A
Measurement Scale.
Laure Ambroise, S. B. (2005). The Impact of Brand Persoanlity on Attitude and Commitment Towards
the Brand.

Lin, L.-Y. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty:
an empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 19 (1),
4-17.
Lombart, D. L. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust,
commitment and attachment) to a brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 19 (2), 114-30.
Mengxia, Z. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI:A Comparative Research between Two
Different Brands. International Management Review , 3 (3), 36-44.
Munuera-Aleman, E. D.-B. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of Product &
Brand Management , 14 (3), 187-196.
O. Bouhlel, N. M. (2009). Brand Personality and Mobile Marketing:An Empirical Investigation. World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology , 703-710.
Patel, V. (2009). MEASURING BRAND PERSONALITY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY. PRERNA: JOURNAL OF
MANAGEMENT THOUGHT AND PRACTISE , 1 (2), 59-67.
Punyatoya, P. (2011). How Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement Levels?
European Journal of Business and Management , 3 (2).
Rajagopal. (2006). Brand excellence: measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on
buying decision. Measuring Brand Excellence , 10 (3), 56-65.
Rajagopal, D. (2008). Interdepnedence of persoanlity traits and brand identity in measuring brand
performance.
Robert East, P. G. (2005). Consumer Loyalty: Singular, Additive or Interactive? Australian Marketing
Journal , 13 (2), 10-26.
Trott, S. (2011). The Influnece of Brand Personality-Evidence from India. Globa Journal of Business
Research , 5 (3), 79-83.
Tsai, S.-p. (2011). Fostering international brand loyalty through committed and attached
relationships. International Business Review , 20, 521-534.
Tudorica, H. O. (2001, Februray 2). Brand Personality Creation through Advertising. MAXX WORKING
PAPER SERIES .
Yongjun Sung, J. K.-H. (2010). The Predictive Roles of Brand Personality on Brand Trust and Brand
Affect: A Study of Korean Consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing , 22, 5-17.

Appendices
Appendix I: Reliability Test

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
.866

N of Items
35

Appendix II: Paired Sample t-test

Entire Sample:

Males:

Females:

Soft Drink Consumers:

Appendix III: Symmetric Measures (Cross Tabulation)

Entire Sample:
Friendly * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.418

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.057

6.910

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.500

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.052

8.857

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.475

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.054

8.403

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.465

N of Valid Cases

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

Error

Approx. T
.052

8.537

Approx. Sig.
.000

Friendly * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.230

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.065

3.539

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.334

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.059

5.476

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.421

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.063

6.341

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.406

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.052

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

7.533

Approx. Sig.
.000

Creative * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.406

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.052

7.533

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Charming * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.365

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.059

6.000

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Charming * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.426

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.052

7.890

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Charming * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.426

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.052

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

7.890

Approx. Sig.
.000

Charming * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.277

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.058

4.676

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Ascendant * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.018

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.072

.248

Approx. Sig.
.804

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Ascendant * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.043

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.065

-.669

Approx. Sig.
.504

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma
N of Valid Cases

-.008

Error

Approx. T
.069

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.123

Approx. Sig.
.902

Introvert * Integrity (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.007

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.066

-.111

Approx. Sig.
.912

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.040

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.061

-.652

Approx. Sig.
.515

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.039

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.061

-.635

Approx. Sig.
.526

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma
N of Valid Cases

-.069

Error

Approx. T
.069

201

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.999

Approx. Sig.
.318

Misleading * Integrity (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.148

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.072

-2.054

Approx. Sig.
.040

201

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.093

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.074

-1.258

Approx. Sig.
.208

201

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.078

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.067

-1.170

Approx. Sig.
.242

201

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.083

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.063

-1.305

Approx. Sig.
.192

201

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value

Error

Approx. T

Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.335

N of Valid Cases

202

.063

5.147

.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.423

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.059

6.791

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.405

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.067

5.765

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.413

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.060

6.687

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.430

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.058

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

7.168

Approx. Sig.
.000

Original * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.230

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.057

3.949

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.371

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.067

5.393

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.366

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.058

6.116

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.360

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.060

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

5.861

Approx. Sig.
.000

Elegant * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

.297

N of Valid Cases

202

Error

Approx. T
.062

4.733

Approx. Sig.
.000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.050

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.070

-.720

Approx. Sig.
.471

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Conscientious * Integrity (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.115

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.070

-1.645

Approx. Sig.
.100

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma
N of Valid Cases

-.125

Error

Approx. T
.077

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-1.620

Approx. Sig.
.105

Conscientious * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma

Error

-.094

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.063

-1.483

Approx. Sig.
.138

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma
N of Valid Cases

-.101

Error

Approx. T
.063

202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-1.610

Approx. Sig.
.107

Males:
Friendly * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.344

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.094

3.554

Approx. Sig.
.000

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.425

Approx. T
.081

5.041

Approx. Sig.
.000

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

.304
109

Error

Approx. T
.089

3.388

Approx. Sig.
.001

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.304

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.089

3.388

Approx. Sig.
.001

109

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Friendly * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.064

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.095

.675

Approx. Sig.
.500

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.327

Error

Approx. T
.081

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

3.930

Approx. Sig.
.000

Creative * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.337

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.094

3.505

Approx. Sig.
.000

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.063

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.086

.731

Approx. Sig.
.465

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Charming * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.256

Error

Approx. T
.090

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

2.809

Approx. Sig.
.005

Charming * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.144

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.082

1.748

Approx. Sig.
.080

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Charming * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.324

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.085

3.761

Approx. Sig.
.000

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Ascendant * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

-.041

Error

Approx. T
.101

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.407

Approx. Sig.
.684

Ascendant * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.104

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.093

-1.117

Approx. Sig.
.264

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.105

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.099

1.055

Approx. Sig.
.292

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.007

Error

Approx. T
.098

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)

.069

Approx. Sig.
.945

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.141

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.096

-1.444

Approx. Sig.
.149

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.041

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.091

.450

Approx. Sig.
.653

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.013

Error

Approx. T
.090

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

.148

Approx. Sig.
.882

Misleading * Credibility (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.167

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.099

-1.679

Approx. Sig.
.093

108

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.110

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.103

-1.063

Approx. Sig.
.288

108

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

-.128
108

Error

Approx. T
.097

-1.314

Approx. Sig.
.189

Misleading * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.139

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.093

-1.497

Approx. Sig.
.134

108

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.142

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.088

-1.601

Approx. Sig.
.109

108

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.128

Error

Approx. T
.100

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

1.265

Approx. Sig.
.206

Original * Integrity (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.244

Approx. T
.094

2.535

Approx. Sig.
.011

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.264

Approx. T
.089

2.933

Approx. Sig.
.003

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.075

Error

Approx. T
.081

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

.925

Approx. Sig.
.355

Original * Affective commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.299

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.086

3.436

Approx. Sig.
.001

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.226

Approx. T
.103

2.194

Approx. Sig.
.028

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.172

Error

Approx. T
.093

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

1.844

Approx. Sig.
.065

Elegant * Affective commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.188

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.093

2.026

Approx. Sig.
.043

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.034

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.098

-.344

Approx. Sig.
.731

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

-.092

Error

Approx. T
.098

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.937

Approx. Sig.
.349

Conscientious * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.066

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.104

-.636

Approx. Sig.
.525

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

-.110

Approx. T
.090

-1.218

Approx. Sig.
.223

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

-.140

Error

Approx. T
.086

109

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-1.610

Approx. Sig.
.107

Females:
Friendly * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.473

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.065

6.702

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Friendly * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.631

Approx. T
.047

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

11.744

Approx. Sig.
.000

Friendly * Affective commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.612

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.053

10.187

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.398

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.075

5.118

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.343

Approx. T
.088

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

3.765

Approx. Sig.
.000

Creative * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.431

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.081

5.040

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.486

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.074

6.043

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.354

Approx. T
.074

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

4.559

Approx. Sig.
.000

Charming * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.415

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.081

5.005

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Ascendant * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.007

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.094

.078

Approx. Sig.
.938

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

-.029

Approx. T
.090

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.326

Approx. Sig.
.745

Introvert * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.339

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.100

-3.340

Approx. Sig.
.001

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.167

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.101

-1.658

Approx. Sig.
.097

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

-.046

Approx. T
.114

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.404

Approx. Sig.
.686

Original * Credibility (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.511

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.069

6.756

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.583

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.065

8.198

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.551

Approx. T
.086

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

5.778

Approx. Sig.
.000

Original * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.552

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.070

7.391

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.567

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.072

7.275

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.366

Approx. T
.075

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

4.714

Approx. Sig.
.000

Elegant * Credibility (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.500

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.082

5.741

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.542

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.065

7.845

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.524

Approx. T
.068

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

7.260

Approx. Sig.
.000

Elegant * Continuance commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.407

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.080

4.951

Approx. Sig.
.000

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.142

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.102

-1.389

Approx. Sig.
.165

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

-.199

Approx. T
.114

93

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-1.744

Approx. Sig.
.081

Consumers:
Friendly * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.324

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.074

4.215

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.415

Approx. T
.068

5.766

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

.396
165

Error

Approx. T
.071

5.422

Approx. Sig.
.000

Friendly * Affective commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.348

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.068

4.914

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Friendly * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.206

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.073

2.802

Approx. Sig.
.005

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

.235
165

Error

Approx. T
.073

3.166

Approx. Sig.
.002

Creative * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.349

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.080

4.207

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Creative * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.110

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.068

1.609

Approx. Sig.
.108

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Charming * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.230

Error

Approx. T
.076

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

2.985

Approx. Sig.
.003

Charming * Affective commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.362

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.065

5.355

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Charming * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.221

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.067

3.237

Approx. Sig.
.001

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Ascendant * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

-.072

Error

Approx. T
.079

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.908

Approx. Sig.
.364

Ascendant * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.016

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.086

.190

Approx. Sig.
.849

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Ascendant * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

-.007

Approx. T
.070

-.102

Approx. Sig.
.919

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Ascendant * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

-.044

Error

Approx. T
.072

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.610

Approx. Sig.
.542

Introvert * Credibility (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.109

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.075

1.451

Approx. Sig.
.147

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.074

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.073

1.012

Approx. Sig.
.312

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

-.152

Error

Approx. T
.082

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-1.831

Approx. Sig.
.067

Introvert * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.062

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.070

.884

Approx. Sig.
.377

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.046

Approx. T
.070

.653

Approx. Sig.
.514

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Introvert * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.161

Error

Approx. T
.069

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

2.316

Approx. Sig.
.021

Misleading * Credibility (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.000

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.079

-.009

Approx. Sig.
.992

164

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.110

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.082

-1.348

Approx. Sig.
.178

164

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

-.010

Error

Approx. T
.085

164

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.118

Approx. Sig.
.906

Misleading * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.010

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.076

-.138

Approx. Sig.
.891

164

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Misleading * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

-.024

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.072

-.331

Approx. Sig.
.741

164

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.193

Error

Approx. T
.076

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

2.498

Approx. Sig.
.012

Original * Integrity (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.314

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.072

4.191

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.249

Approx. T
.086

2.831

Approx. Sig.
.005

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Attachment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.285

Error

Approx. T
.075

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

3.719

Approx. Sig.
.000

Original * Affective commitment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.325

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.071

4.482

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Original * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.165

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.066

2.503

Approx. Sig.
.012

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Credibility (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.273

Error

Approx. T
.082

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

3.282

Approx. Sig.
.001

Elegant * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.288

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.072

3.926

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.288

Approx. T
.072

3.935

Approx. Sig.
.000

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Elegant * Continuance commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.250

Error

Approx. T
.071

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

3.490

Approx. Sig.
.000

Conscientious * Credibility (Trust in the brand)

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

Error

.103

N of Valid Cases

Approx. T
.077

1.330

Approx. Sig.
.184

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

-.011

Approx. T
.080

-.141

Approx. Sig.
.888

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Benevolence (Trust in the brand)
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

-.027

Error

Approx. T
.087

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

-.309

Approx. Sig.
.757

Conscientious * Attachment with the brand

Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

Error

.030

Approx. T
.073

.418

Approx. Sig.
.676

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Conscientious * Affective commitment with the brand
Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal

Gamma

N of Valid Cases

.018

Error

Approx. T
.071

165

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

.250

Approx. Sig.
.802

Appendix IV: Linear Regression

Entire Sample:
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

Std. Error

(Constant)
Credibility (Trust in the
brand)
Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Benevolence (Trust in the
brand)

.182

.213

.600

.083

.299
.054

Coefficients
Beta

Sig.
.855

.394

.492

7.256

.000

.080

.268

3.736

.000

.055

.055

.974

.331

a. Dependent Variable: Attachment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B
(Constant)
Credibility (Trust in the
brand)
Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Benevolence (Trust in the
brand)

Std. Error
.091

.197

.653

.076

.151
.143

Coefficients
Beta

Sig.
.463

.644

.561

8.538

.000

.074

.142

2.047

.042

.051

.155

2.822

.005

a. Dependent Variable: Affective commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B
(Constant)

Std. Error
1.073

.273

Coefficients
Beta

t
3.928

Sig.
.000

Credibility (Trust in the

brand)
Integrity (Trust in the brand)
Benevolence (Trust in the
brand)

.419

.106

.347

3.942

.000

.229

.103

.207

2.226

.027

-.089

.071

-.093

-1.266

.207

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

Std. Error

(Constant)

.503

.120

Attachment with the brand

.807

.036

Coefficients
Beta

.845

Sig.

4.181

.000

22.370

.000

a. Dependent Variable: Affective commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B
(Constant)
Attachment with the brand

Std. Error
1.356

.208

.453

.062

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment with the brand

Coefficients
Beta

.457

Sig.

6.528

.000

7.268

.000

Males:
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

.568

.326

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.655

.114

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.210

-.002

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

1.739

.085

.537

5.772

.000

.103

.196

2.039

.044

.068

-.003

-.032

.975

a. Dependent Variable: Attachment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

(Constant)

Std. Error

-.139

.300

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.829

.104

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.069

.133

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

a. Dependent Variable: Affective commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

-.462

.645

.656

7.940

.000

.095

.062

.724

.471

.063

.147

2.116

.037

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

(Constant)

Std. Error

1.355

.417

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.604

.145

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.061

-.164

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

3.247

.002

.464

4.163

.000

.132

.053

.463

.644

.087

-.176

-1.880

.063

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

.367

.201

Attachment with the brand

.840

.058

Coefficients

Beta

.812

Sig.

1.827

.070

14.385

.000

a. Dependent Variable: Affective commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

(Constant)

Attachment with the brand

Std. Error

1.552

.329

.393

.096

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Beta

.369

Sig.

4.711

.000

4.103

.000

Females:
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

(Constant)

Std. Error

-.087

.284

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.499

.122

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.396

.108

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

-.306

.760

.413

4.092

.000

.126

.347

3.139

.002

.092

.101

1.168

.246

a. Dependent Variable: Attachment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

.211

.264

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.473

.113

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.255

.165

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

a. Dependent Variable: Affective commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

.798

.427

.436

4.171

.000

.117

.249

2.172

.033

.086

.172

1.914

.059

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

.818

.364

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.184

.156

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.414

.006

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

2.248

.027

.162

1.179

.242

.162

.385

2.559

.012

.119

.006

.051

.960

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

.589

.145

Attachment with the brand

.788

.045

Coefficients

Beta

.877

Sig.

4.047

.000

17.389

.000

a. Dependent Variable: Affective commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

(Constant)

Attachment with the brand

Std. Error

1.218

.270

.499

.084

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Beta

.529

Sig.

4.516

.000

5.940

.000

Consumers:
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

.487

.275

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.503

.093

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.357

.022

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

1.774

.078

.417

5.415

.000

.088

.320

4.050

.000

.060

.023

.367

.714

Sig.

.980

.329

a. Dependent Variable: Attachment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

.258

.263

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.627

.089

.530

7.037

.000

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.181

.084

.166

2.139

.034

.106

.058

.112

1.836

.068

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

a. Dependent Variable: Affective commitment with the brand

Beta

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

1.195

.368

Credibility (Trust in the brand)

.440

.124

Integrity (Trust in the brand)

.131

-.052

Benevolence (Trust in the

brand)

Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

3.251

.001

.341

3.537

.001

.118

.110

1.111

.268

.080

-.051

-.650

.516

Sig.

3.574

.000

17.379

.000

Sig.

4.888

.000

6.005

.000

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

.572

.160

Attachment with the brand

.790

.045

Coefficients

Beta

.806

a. Dependent Variable: Affective commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients

Model

Std. Error

(Constant)

1.305

.267

Attachment with the brand

.456

.076

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment with the brand

Coefficients

Beta

.426

Appendix V: Questionnaire

National University of Computer and

Emerging Sciences
FAST School of Business, Karachi

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Respondent:
I am pursuing Bachelors in Business Management with majors in Marketing from FAST
School of Business, Karachi. As a part of my bachelors programme I need to submit a final
year research project. My research project is based on Impact of Brand Personality on
relational consequences towards Pepsi. The questions asked in the questionnaire are very
simple and related to what we see and observe in common daily life. Please rate the
questions according to what you actually feel about Pepsi in real life.
The whole questionnaire may take around 5 minutes of your precious time. I promise that
your response will remain confidential and you will not be contacted for any marketing
purposes.

Please complete the questionnaire in the pages that follow

National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences

Karachi City Campus
22-G, Block-6,
PECHS, Karachi.
Tel: (021) 439 0941-5

k080054@nu.edu.pk

Questionnaire
Age:
Less than 18
Gender:
Male

18-34

35 and above

Female

Personal Income:
Rs. 0 - Rs. 9,999

Rs. 10, 000- Rs. 25,000

More than Rs. 25, 000

1. Do you drink soft drinks? (Please check only one choice)

Yes
No if No then please go to Q-3 (skip Q-2)
2. How many soft drink glasses do you drink per week?
(Please check only one choice)
Less than 1
3.

1-3

4-6

7-9

More than 10

You find Pepsi as?

Rank according to your opinion (Please check, )
Strongly
agree

Warm
Shy
Imaginative
Sophisticated
Reserved
Manipulative
Attractive
Seductive
Strict
Arrogant
Modern
Stylish
Liar
Showy
Trendy
Nice
Deceptive
Serious
Hypocrite
Inventive
Pleasant

Agree

Neither
agree nor
disagree

Disagree

Strongly
disagree

Please Rank the following according to your opinion about Pepsi .

(Please check,)
4.

Strongly
agree

Agree

Neither
agree nor
disagree

Disagree

Strongly
disagree

I am attached to Pepsi
Pepsi brings me safety
I strongly relate myself to Pepsi
Pepsi is honest towards its clients
Thinking about Pepsi brings me a
lot of pleasure and joy
I like Pepsi
I trust the quality of Pepsi
Pepsi tries to improve its response
to consumer needs on an ongoing
basis
Pepsi has a lot of meaning to me
Pepsi is sincere towards its
consumers
I have a lot of affection for Pepsi
brand

5. Please rank the following according to your attitude towards brands in general
(Please check,)
Strongly Agree
Neither
Disagree Strongly
agree
agree nor
disagree
disagree
Even if I wanted, it would be hard
for me to switch brands
My life would be disturbed if I had
to switch brands
It would be too costly for me to
switch brands

Appendix VI: Code Book

Go to the link following link and view Code Book
excel sheet
..\Zill-e-Arsh (08-0054) FYP\Code book and code
sheet.xlsx

Appendix VII: Code Sheet

Go to the link following link and view Code Sheet
excel sheet
..\Zill-e-Arsh (08-0054) FYP\Code book and code
sheet.xlsx

Appendix VIII: E-mail of Dider Louis

Permission was granted to me for employing Mr. Dider Louiss and Mr. Cindly Lombart
proposed research model of Brand Personality. Following figure shows E-mail
conversation of Mr. Dider Louis in French.

Translation of E-mail (using Google Translate)