The Effect of the Congruence between Brand Personality and Self-Image

on Consumer’s Satisfaction and Loyalty: A Conceptual Framework

Volume 2010 (2010), Article ID 627203, IBMA Business Review, 17 pages.

DOI: 10.5171/2010.627203

Mohamed Ali Achouri and Néji Bouslama

FSEG of Tunis, Tunisia

Copyright © 2010. Mohamed Ali Achouri and Néji Bouslama. This is an open access article distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution License unported 3.0, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that original work is properly cited.

Abstract
This research belongs to the field of the analysis of the consequences of congruence between brand
personality and self-image. The consequences taken into account in this study are consumer’s
satisfaction and loyalty. We will present a literature review on the study of impact of the congruence
between brand personality and self-image on the four dependant variables considered in this research:
Satisfaction, attitude, preference and behavioural intentions.

Keywords: Congruence, Brand personality, Self-image, Satisfaction, Loyalty

Introduction

The saturation of markets, the congestion of the advertising landscape, and the maturity of the
consumers towards the brands have urged companies to go beyond the image brand to the relation
brand (Samama, 2003), in order to preserve their market shares. Keeping their shares in the market is
linked to the level of their customers’ faithfulness. Besides, nowadays consumers tend, for their decisions,
to rely on the brand image as it is developed in their mind rather than on the inherent attributes and
characteristics of the product (Dich et al., 1990). This turns customer loyalty into a major primary
marketing objective (Benavant, 1995; Trinquecoste, 1996).

Marketing researchers have shown a marked interest in the concepts and the mechanisms which are
likely to increase the understanding of the brand-consumer relation. One of these key concepts in
relational marketing is the congruence between the brand personality and the consumer’s self-image. In
fact, it counts among the strategic tools which allow to understand the analogy between the human being
and a given brand. Associating the specific personality features to the brands allows the consumer to
express a certain conception of himself, so as to acquire some value-enhancing, symbolic benefits from a
given consumption (Vernette, 2003).

Our current study is situated within the framework of the effort to understand the impact of the
congruence between the personality of a brand and the consumer’s self-image on his behavior. More
precisely, we will evaluate the effect of this congruence on the consumer’s satisfaction and loyalty to the
brand.
We will first provide an overview of the state of the research undertaken on the congruence between
brand personality and self-image, notably in regard to the central variables of our model, namely the
consumer’s satisfaction and loyalty. We will, then, propose a model and some hypotheses.

Human personality and brand personality: clarifying concepts

The human personality: the origin of the personality of the brand.

Numerous research works have been conducted in the field of Humanities, especially in applied
psychology, aiming at conceptualizing and structuring the human personality according to a number of
characteristic dimensions. While not referring to the concrete individual, this abstract concept is inferred
from the way the individual behaves and reacts to his environment (Koebel and Ladwein, 1999).

Personality is a psychological notion, often presented as a stable and individualized unity of a set of
behaviors (Huteau, 1985) or as a structure of features (Ambroise et al., 2003). The features are defined
as “tendencies to show coherent modes of cognition, affective perception and behavior on the part of the
individual” (Costa and McCrae, 1998); or as “a lasting aspect of the individual personality which
influences behavior in a particular field” (Cloninger, 1999). Taken globally, the personality features must
be perceived as stable psychological characteristics which give meaning to human action and experience.

For many years, personality psychologists have tried to determine the number and the nature of the main
dimensions which are necessary for the description of the features of the human personality. Seeing the
abstract nature of this personality, measuring its features has constituted a research topic for researchers
and practitioners. Several types of scales have been proposed and tested. Ambroise et al., (2003) have
mentioned the Thurstone (1953) constitution scale, the “Cattell Personality Factor Inventory” (1957),
“Edwards Personal Preference Schedule” (1959), or the “Gordon Personality Profile” (1963). More
recently, most authors have become convinced that the best representation of the structure of the
personality features is provided by the “Big FiveModel” (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; 1992; John,
1990; Funder, 2001).

Identifying the Big Five Model has been a crucial discovery in psychology. Devised according to a psycho
lexical approach, this model has allowed to unify a rich literature on the personality features (Plaisant et
al., 2005), and has become the most dominant and widely used model. Caprara et al., (1994) emphasize
the fact “the strength of the five-factor model lies essentially in its application. This model can notably
constitute a link between personality psychology and social psychology and equally between the
researchers and practitioners facing the problem of personality description”. The description of the
personality features will proceed from the five fundamental factors, known as the abbreviation OCEAN:

• Factor “O”: Open-mindedness vs narrow-mindedness, i.e. intellectual curiosity, imagination,

opening to new experiences.
• Factor “C”: Conscientious trait, i.e. orientation, lasting behavior and mastering impulsions.
• Factor “E”: Extraversion vs introversion: leading back to the quality and the intensity of the
relations with the environment.
• Factor “A”: Friendliness and pleasantness: concerning the relation with others.
• Factor “N”: Neuroticism or emotional stability: the person is balanced, optimistic, quiet and feeling
positive emotions.

From the human personality to the brand personality: a metaphorical transfer

During the previous years, brands have become more and more customized (Plummer, 1985; Levy, 1985;
Durgree, 1998; Berry, 1988). The measurement scales developed in human personality psychology have
been transferred to the brands. This transfer does not rely on an explicit theoretical referent, but on a
metaphor whereby the brand is considered as a person, and is thus given a number of attributes which
are habitually given to individuals (Viot, 2006).

The concept of brand personality

Even though the study of the brand has been the focus of many works, this field has not yet been fully
investigated (Ambroise et al., 2003). In fact, there is no agreement around the conceptualization, the
measures or the components of this construct.

In his works, Aaker (1997) defines brand personality as being “a set of human characteristics associated
to a brand”. The author postulates that it can include certain characteristics such as age, socio-economic
class, personality traits and feelings. She developed a model of measurement of the personality of a
brand by identifying 42 features divided up among 15 facets and 5 factors of personality:
sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. However, Aaker’s founding
definition has often been criticized.

Viot (2006) postulates that starting from this definition, the brand personality has become a jumble
concept. According to Azoulay and Kapferer (2003), Aaker defines brand personality, not uniquely as a
facet of identity, but as a much more global construct. Both authors conceptualize brand personality as “
the set of traits of human personality which are pertinent and applicable to brands” . Ambroise et al.,
(2003) also find this definition too global as it can comprise some brand personality traits which have no
equivalents at the human level ; and also because it can present some personality features which rather
correspond to social judgments (provincial, trendy, or aristocratic). Thus, the authors think that it is fairer
to define brand personality as being “the set of traits of human personality associated to a brand”.

Measuring brand personality

Despite the clarifications made by different authors concerning the brand personality, measuring this
concept has remained a study topic for researchers and practitioners. This is notably due to the abstract
nature of the concept and to the difficulty of validating the obtained scales at an intercultural level.

Ambroise et al., show that all the existing scales for measuring brand personality have been elaborated
from human personality measurement scales. Aaker (1997) proposed the first theoretical model of the
concept of brand personality by determining the number and the nature of its dimensions. This model
relies on a hierarchical approach similar to those developed in personality psychology (Ambroise, 2004).

Thus, in a cross-categorical framework, and starting from the inventory of Goldberg (1990), Aaker
identifies five dimensions according to which a brand could be described, namely, sincerity, excitement,
competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. This primarily North American scale has proved to be a
flexible measuring tool which is adaptable according to the products categories (Smaoui, 2006). It has
made it possible to discriminate different product or services (Aaker et al., 2001; Bauer et al., 2000;
Ferrandi et al., 1999; Koebel and Ladwein, 1999). It has been used by different researchers during the
study of the consequences of brand personality (Koebel and Ladwein, 1999; Sigaw et al., 1999; D’Astous
et al., 2002/2003; Vernette, 2003; Diamantopoulos, 2005).

Within the same line of Aaker’s works, the scale has been applied, tested and validated in other cultures.
Ambroise et al., (2003) have synthesized the different transpositions of Aaker’s scale in different cultural
contexts.

These works have shown that Aaker’s scale is transposable, totally pioneer and widely recognized, but
that it suffers a number of failings. Its structural and semantic validity is questioned, notably when it
comes to the generalization of the scale in culturally different contexts (Ambroise et al., 2003).

Some authors have attempted to transpose human personality scales on brands: Caprara and
Barbaranelli(1994,2001) have followed a lexical approach which consists in elaborating, within an Italian
context, a scale for measuring human personality and then transposing it to brands. Their results are little
convincing (Smaoui, 2006). On their part, Ferrandi and Valette-Florence (2002b) started from the list of
adjectives related to human personality made by Saucier (1994). Their results are rather conclusive as
they find out, like Saucier, a five-dimensional structure for the two fields of application of the scale
(Ambroise et al., 2003)

Other authors (Viot, 2003; Ambroise et al., 2003, 2004, 2005) have developed specific barometers for the
description of brands, as the “analogy between human personality and brand personality is not enough to
impose on the brand the same dimensionality which the human personality admits” (Bahria and
Bouslama, 2009).

The Viot scale displays three dimensions: pride, conviviality, and the competence-excitement dimension.
Ambroise et al. (2004) have been able to purify the list of the brands specific qualifiers in order to build a
measuring barometer with a 12-facet and 33-item structure.

On her part, Smaoui (2006) has devised a measurement scale of brand personality which is particular to
the Tunisian context. She followed three steps: the generation of qualifiers, the selection of qualifiers, and
the purification of the scale. This scale has five dimensions: excitement, sincerity, refinement, belonging
and conviviality.

The congruence between brand personality and self-image

The notion of self-image started to emerge in the marketing field in the mid 1960’s and flourished in the
mid 1970’s. The studies focusing on the consumer’s behavior were interested in clarifying the links that an
individual seeks to create between the image he has of a product and his image of himself (Brée, 1994).
These studies refer to the theory of self-image set up by motivationist psychologists, such as Rodgers
and Maslow, and to Freud’s work on the ego.

According to Vernette (2003), the definition of self-image is rather tricky because it entails taking position
within a large number of paradigms.

L’Ecuyer (1978) suggests that this definition depends on the school of thought to whom it belongs, and
Brunel (1990) states that there are as many definitions of self-image as there are psychological theories.
For instance, there is the phenomenal self which is defined as an organized configuration of self
perceptions that are accessible to conscience (Rodgers, 1959). On the opposite, there is the non
phenomenal self, which is the main study focus of the psychoanalytical approach and which refers to the
unconscious aspects. In social psychology, the self is perceived as a product of society that is through the
social interactions which the individual introjects and the way others perceive him (Brunel, 1990).

According to L’Ecuyer (1994), the theory of self-image refers to « the way a person perceives himself, to
a set of characteristics, personal features, roles and values, etc. that the person attributes to himself,
evaluates –positively or negatively- and recognizes as being part of himself, to the intimate experience of
being and recognizing oneself despite changes».

Widely speaking, the notion of self-image is rather close to the notion of self-knowledge (Jamal and Good,
2001), because according to Brunel (1990), the definition of self-image requires a certain degree of self-
knowledge. The author postulates that in order to be able to describe oneself, one needs to know oneself
and that conscience and knowledge cannot be dissociated.

Later, to make things simpler, Vernette (2003) has considered that «self-image is based on an individual
perception that is conscious and organized according to the way an individual defines himself and reacts
towards his environment, while relying on his traits of personality, his values, his abilities and his
experiences”. The author equally thinks that self-image implies a minimum level of introspection on the
part of the individual, which should allow him to link his feelings and/or his behavior to this psychological
organization.

The dimensions of self-image

Resermberg (1979) considers self-image as being the total sum of thoughts and feelings through which
an individual can describe himself as an object. Building on this, Brunel (1990) has considered the
concept of self-image as a multidimensional variable which comprises at the same time: a) a cognitive
dimension, that is, the ideas, images and opinions an individual has of himself; b) an emotional
dimension, that is, the impressions and the feelings he has towards himself; c) a social dimension, since
the concept of self-image is a setting of projection of the others’ perceptions of the individual. In the field
of marketing, and more specifically in the field of research on the consumer’s behavior, the concept of self
is assimilated to the image of self in a rather diminishing way (Vernette, 2003). The concept of self is
conceived of as a multidimensional notion involving different facets (Zouaghi and Darpey, 2003).
Researchers have enriched this definition by identifying four dimensions of self-image (Sirgyet al., 1997;
Jamal and Goode, 2001).
• The real self: the way an individual sees himself (“what I think I am”).
• The dreamed self or the ideal self: the way I would like to be (“What I would dream to be”).
• The real social self: the way others consider me (“what others think of me”).
• The dreamed social self or the ideal social self: the way I would like others to consider me (“what
I would like others to think of me”).

The advantage of this approach is that it makes it possible to figure out the interactions between the
different dimensions of the self, and to look for congruence between the brand personality and the
consumer’s personality.

The importance of self-image in marketing

The managerial benefit of self-image is neither recent nor exceptional. In fact, among the individual
factors accounting for the consumer’s behavior, we find the notions of personality and self-image. Piéron
(1994) stresses the fact that these notions are highly ranked as they represent the integrative unity of a
person, together with the whole set of permanent differential characteristics and behavior modalities. Self-
image, which we could theoretically substitute for human personality (Gouteron, 2006), can fairly predict
future behaviors. It gives meaning to behavior motivations and leads them towards certain privileged
objects, while keeping them away from others that will be rejected or ignored.

Congruence: a crucial variable in marketing

Congruence between brand personality and self-image

Brand personality and self-image are two research tracks which increased our knowledge of the
relationships between consumers and brands (Vernette, 2003). Sirgy (1982) explains that the concept of
self-image is used as a cognitive referent in the evaluation of symbolic elements. The consumer seeks
certain congruence between the features of a brand’s image and the way his personality is presented
(Belk, 1988; Sirgy, 1982). In other words, the consumer would express his self-image by choosing brands
the personality of which appears to him close to his own personality (Vernette, 2008).
As a matter of fact, brands have an impact on the consumer’s behavior, for the consumer compares his
image to that of the brand, whether implicitly or explicitly. He often sets some imaginary relationships with
it. He can situate himself in relation to a given brand through congruence, or lack of it, between his own
personality and that which he attributes to a given brand (Plummer, 1985; Biel, 1993).

Congruence with self-image is perceived as the similitude between the brand’s symbolic attributes and
the consumer’s self-image (Munson and Spivey, 1981; Sirgy, 1982). Zinkhan and Hong (1991) define
congruence as the degree of coincidence between advertising expression and self-image.

Within the framework of personal musical congruence, Galan (2007) defines congruence as being the
adequacy or the coherence perceived between music and the consumer’s self-image. The author
suggests that it is possible for the individual to judge the congruence between self-image and music.

Seeing that judging personal congruence relies on a four-dimensional concept of self, there are equally
four types of congruence as defined in the literature (Sirgy, 1982; Helegeson and Supphellen, 2004;
Galan, 2007):
- Congruence with the real self-image: it refers to the degree of similitude between the real self-image of
the consumer and the typical image the consumer has of the given product.

Led by their motivation to protect their own identity (Sirgy, 1982), individuals only consume the products
which do reflect their genuine self (Galan, 2007).

• Congruence with the ideal image of self: it refers to the degree of similitude between the
consumer’s self-image and the image of the typical consumer of a given product. Behavior is then
determined by a need of self-esteem. According to Galan (2007), reaching a certain ideal image
of oneself through the consumption or the possession of products which are consistent with one’s
ideal self-image satisfies the consumer’s need for self-esteem.
• Congruence with the social self-image: it corresponds to the degree of similitude between the
consumer’s social self-image and the image of the typical consumer. Such appropriateness
satisfies a need for social coherence which is in fact a motivation to develop or keep attitudes and
behaviors which cohere with the way others perceive an individual (Galan, 2007).
• Congruence with the ideal social self-image: it represents the degree of similitude between the
consumer’s ideal social self-image and the image of the typical consumer. Such congruence
answers the individual’s need for social approbation, or his need to develop a set of cognitions
(Sirgy and Su, 2000).
• Congruence with the ideal social self-image: it represents the degree of similitude between the
consumer’s ideal social self-image and the image of the typical consumer. Such congruence
answers the individual’s need for social approbation, or his need to develop a set of cognitions
(Sirgy and Su, 2000).

Congruence in the other fields of marketing

The analysis of the literature on congruence shows that researchers use this concept in many fields. This
has allowed for an interesting explanation of this variable.

Congruence in sponsorship
The congruence between the sponsor and the sponsored entity has been investigated by numerous
authors. However, the terminology applied has not always been the same (Trendel and Warlop, 2006).
The authors talk of ‘fit’ (Speed and Thompson, 2000), of perceived similarity (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999;
Louis, 2005), of pertinence (Rogers, 2004), of a semantic link between the sponsor and the sponsored
entity (Johar and Pham, 1999), or they oppose a strong link between sponsor and sponsored entity to a
certain congruence between both (D’Astous and Bitz, 1995).

Fleck (2004) defines congruence between sponsor and sponsored entity as being the degree to which the
couple of sponsor/sponsored entity is perceived as fitting together. Speed and Thompson, (2000) have
introduce the attitude variable and broadly define congruence as being the attitude towards associating
the event and the sponsor, and the fact that this association is perceived as fitting or well-adapted.

A condition for the success of sponsorship lies in the existence of a logical link between the event and the
sponsor’s brand. Hence, sponsor and sponsored entity fit together because there is a link (Johar and
Pham, 1999). This link will be all the more strengthened if the sponsor works in a field that is related to
the nature of the sponsored event.

Gwinner and Eaton have established a distinction between congruence that is based on the
characteristics of the image, and congruence that is based on functional characteristics. Crimmins and
Horn (1996) distinguish natural congruence from congruence that needs an explanation through a specific
communication.

Fleck (2005, 2006) studies congruence according to two dimensions: relevance on the one hand and
what is expected from the sponsor/sponsored entity association on the other.

In the field of sponsorship, congruence evokes the strength of a tie linking the sponsor and the sponsored
entity. Thus, congruence is presented as a determinant of the sponsoring efficiency, and as a variable
that has been investigated by many authors.

Several authors have tackled the question of the number of dimensions this variable has. Thus, for
parsimony and simplicity considerations, Speed and Thompson (2000) treat congruence as a one-
dimensional variable, or as a sole construct. There are, however, many criteria which enable us to judge
the logic behind the link between sponsor and sponsored entity. Taking these criteria into account has led
some authors to distinguish several dimensions of congruence (Achouri and Bouslama, 2009).

In most studies on sponsorship, congruence between sponsor and sponsored entity is established on the
basis of functional and symbolic characteristics, taking into account the distinction proposed by Heckler
and Childers (1992), who depict congruence according to two dimensions: relevance on the one hand,
and what is expected from the sponsor/sponsored entity association on the other. Louis (2005) talked
about the similarity perceived between the sponsor and the sponsored entity. He stated two dimensions
for similarity: it can be functional if both entities share functional attributes, that is, if the brand is really
used by those taking part in the event. It can also be a similarity of image when the images of both
entities are linked.

According to Fleck (2006), both the “relevant” and “expected” aspects of congruence are the most
interesting aspects because they allow for a better understanding of the contradictory effects of
congruence between sponsor and sponsored entity, and an explanation of efficiency through the level of
elaboration of the treatment of the delivered information.

Congruence in the field of extending branding and co-branding

Many authors have worked on the variable of congruence in this field. According to Tauber (1988), there
is congruence when the consumer accepts the new product as being logical and expected from the
brand, that is when the brand conveys a sought benefit in its new category of extension products.

While Park et al., (1991) define congruence as being the process of categorization through which we
judge whether the product fits with its category, Lane (2000) singles out two major variables which
intervene in the level of elaboration: the lack of congruence or “the measure where by a brand extension
is surprising or unexpected”, and the “fit” used in the meaning of coherence.

As for co-branding, Park et al. (1996) postulate that congruence is the complementarity between the
brands under three conditions:
• They have in common a set of attributes that are pertinent but necessarily salient.
• They differ in terms of attribute salience, what is salient for one is not for the other.
• The brand for which the attribute is salient is better evaluated than the one for which it is not.
The words used are different; they can correspond to antecedents or to some consequences of
congruence. However, they eventually describe the fact that two entities fit together well: it can be the
new product’s brand and category, or two brands which are associated over a new product.

Congruence in advertising

The notion of congruence equally appears in advertising. It is dealt with in two fields:
• Publicizing celebrities as spokespersons: Advertizing executives use a celebrity to benefit from
his or her fame and gain a better memorization of the advertisement, which entails a better
recognition of the associated brand. In this context, the authors often refer to congruence as a
tool of persuasion (Kamins and Gupta, 1994) or to a “match up effect” (Lynch and Schuler, 1994).
• Advertising through visual and textual elements:
Hechler and Childers (1992) have pondered over congruence among the visual and textual elements of
an advertisement. Congruence is defined according to two dimensions: pertinence and the expected side.
Pertinence shows how much the information contained in the stimulus contributes to or hinders a clear
identification of the theme or the message. The expected side refers to the degree to which an item or a
piece of information falls within a predetermined scheme or a structure evoked by this theme.

The impact of the congruence between brand personality and self-image on the consumer’s
satisfaction and loyalty: Developing a model and hypotheses.

Many researchers have investigated the effects of the congruence between the brand personality and
self-image on the consumer’s behavior (Levy, 1959; Dolich, 1969; Landon, 1979; Sirgy et al., 1997; Park
and Lee, 2005; Sung et al., 2005). According to the theory of congruence with self-image, part of the
individual’s behavior is accounted for by the comparison between his own self-image and the brand’s
image as reflected by the stereotype user of the brand (Sirgy, 1986; Sirgy et al., 1997).

The effect of congruence between brand personality and self-image on satisfaction:

The consumer’s satisfaction is treated as a fundamental notion in marketing. It is defined as the global
evaluation done after a choice related to a specific purchase decision. (Day, 1984; Westbrook and Oliver,
1991). For Achour (2006) satisfaction is defined as “a positive feeling a consumer has after a
consumption experience, and springing out of a comparison between the expectations from a product or
a service and the performance perceived from it.

Many researchers have conducted studies on the effect of the congruence between brand personality
and self-image on the consumer’s satisfaction. Most of these researchers have focused on the post-
purchase behavior (Sirgy, 1986; Richins, 1991; Graeff, 1997).

Concerning brand personality, Ferrandi and Valette-Florence (2002a, 2002b) have found a strong
attraction between some human personality features and those of the similar brand.
According to Ouwersloot and Tudorica (2001), companies should consider brand personality as a tool that
enables them to reach their satisfaction objective. Chon (1990), and Jamal and Goode (2001) have
investigated the field of tourism services, relying on Sirgy’s (1985) congruence theory. They have studied
the direct effect of congruence with self-image on satisfaction. A significant positive relationship appeared
to exist between the two concepts. Park and Lee (2005) have brought to the fore this significant positive
influence of congruence between brand personality and human personality, when it comes to the
consumers’ satisfaction towards the targeted brand. Therefore, taking these research works into
consideration, we can state the following hypothesis:

H1: The congruence between the brand personality and the consumer’s self-image has a positive impact
on satisfaction towards a brand.

The effect of the consumer’s satisfaction towards a brand on loyalty to this brand

Loyalty to a brand is conceptualized as being the intention to purchase a brand or a product and to
encourage others to do so (Lau and Lee, 1999). For Walters et al., (1989), loyalty is “the consumer’s
propensity to buy the same product (brand) or to frequent the same shop whenever he needs this
product”. It comes out from this definition that loyalty is a routine purchasing behavior. It is perceived as a
positive result of a recurrent relation between buyer and seller. Others suggest that the concept of loyalty
can be described as the attachment of some customers to a brand (Roux, 1986). According to them, loyal
consumers are emotionally attached to a brand and often buy it. However, according to Achour (2006),
loyalty and attachment to a brand are not always synonyms. The author adds that “some consumers who
are loyal to a brand are not necessarily attached to it: it is the case of those customers who are loyal to a
brand because they have no other alternative (limited financial resources, availability of the brand,
appropriateness of the shop where they go shopping, etc.)”.

The literature on loyalty to a brand distinguishes two types of approaches to this concept: a behaviorist or
operational approach which keeps the behavioral dimension of loyalty. According to this approach, the
consumer is loyal when he regularly buys the same brand (Achour, 2006).Yet this approach suffers some
failings, namely the fact that it does not take into account the attitude component of loyalty. Following the
shortcomings of the behavioral approach, a cognitive or conceptual approach is keenly observing the
intentional side of loyalty.
This approach suggests that in order to qualify a recurrent buyer as loyal, it is equally convenient to be
sure that he has developed a favorable attitude towards the brand. This would single out loyalty from
others types of identical purchase. Consequently, according to the attitude approach, loyalty is accounted
for by the consumers’ favorable attitudes towards a product or a brand, and is expressed through
consumption acts (Trinquecoste, 1996). This attitude component is often measured through attitude
scales (cognitive loyalty) (Jacob and keyner, 1973; Dufer and Moulins, 1989).

Many researchers have investigated the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty to a brand. They
have shown that the consumers’ satisfaction towards a brand is a guarantor for their loyalty (Magin et al.,
2003; Park and Lee, 2005; Achour, 2006). Thus, loyalty could be considered as a consequence of
satisfaction (Oliver, 1980). Besides, several researchers (Oh and Park, 1998; Zeithmal et al., 1996) think
that the consumer’s recurrent purchase behavior is always affected by the degree of his satisfaction with
a product or a service that he buys.

Cronin and Taylor (1992) suggest that the consumer’s satisfaction has a significant effect on the
purchase intention of industrial services. Bitner (1990) states that the consumer’s satisfaction towards a
given brand has a direct effect on loyalty to this brand. Oliver (1980) and Kotler (2000) postulate that
satisfaction affects attitudes positively. In the same context, Oliver and William (1983) suggest that the
consumers’ satisfaction affects their attitudes after their decision, their preferences towards a brand as
well as their future intentions. Thus, the following hypotheses could be drawn:

H2a: the consumer’s satisfaction towards a brand has a positive effect on his attitude towards this brand.
H2b: The consumer’s satisfaction towards a brand has a positive effect on the level of his preference of
this brand.
H2c: The consumer’s satisfaction towards a brand has a positive effect on his intention of future behavior
towards this brand.

The effect of the congruence between the brand personality and self-image on loyalty to the brand

Within the framework of brand personality, several researchers have shown that this variable is positively
linked to the consumers’ loyalty (Fournier, 1998; Yi and La, 2002). It has been demonstrated that the
brand personality has a significant positive impact on the attitude of consumers towards this brand
(Helgeson and Supphellen, 2004; Ben Slimane et al., 2005; Ambroise et al., 2005) and their future
intentions and behavior (Ambroise, 2006; Morschett et al., 2007).

Many researchers have pointed at the positive influence of the brand personality on the consumers’
preferences towards this brand (Sirgy, 1982; Jamal and Goode, 2001; Wee, 2004; Ambroise, 2006).
However, only a few research works have developed research empirical protocols to demonstrate this
influence.

Moreover, several researchers have conducted studies on the effect of congruence of the image on the
attitude of the brand’s consumer in terms of behavioral responses (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1989; Sirgy and
Samli, 1985). All of these studies agree on the fact that the consumer prefers the product the image of
which is congruent with his self-image. In other words, consumers only have a favorable attitude towards
a specific brand after applying a set of personality attributes and linking them to their self-images.
According to the image congruence theory by Sirgy (1985), when the image of the brand is perceived as
similar to the consumer’s self-image in terms of personality attribute types, the consumer tends to develop
a favorable attitude towards the brand when deciding about a purchase act, or about buying a product
again.

Govers and Schoormans (2005) and Wee (2004) have shown that congruence between brand personality
and human personality is significantly influential on consumers towards the targeted brand. In other
words, consumers often prefer the brands or the products which have a high level of congruence with
self-image (Sirgy, 1986; Sirgy et al., 1997, Phau and Lau, 2001).

Relying on these different works, we propose the following hypotheses:

H3a: Congruence between brand personality and the consumer’s self-image has a positive effect on his
attitude towards this brand.
H3b: congruence between brand personality and the consumer’s self-image has a positive impact on his
level of preference towards this brand.
H3c: congruence between brand personality and the consumer’s self-image has a positive effect on his
intention of future behavior towards this brand.
The conceptual model and the different hypotheses of the research are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: conceptual model

Conclusion

Although the number of articles on the congruence between brand personality and self-image has
noticeably increased lately, researchers still unanimously deplore the limited amount of investigation in
this topic, as compared with the research dealing with brand personality, for instance. This works aims at
enriching the field.

This article represents dual interest to academic and managerial field.

From an academic standpoint, this research aims at a double contribution: clarifying the concept of
congruence between brand personality and self-image on the one hand, and elucidating its effect on the
customer’s satisfaction and loyalty to the brand on the other.

The current study wishes to show the crucial role of the congruence variable in the relationship between
the brand and the consumer.

From a managerial perspective, congruence between brand personality and self-image is an important
concept which companies should take into account in order to develop and better manage their brand.
Indeed, the existence of a link between the brand personality and the consumer’s self-image provides
marketing executives with the opportunity to have a strategic tool which enables them to improve or
strengthen the mapping of their brands. This would attract consumers who are sensitive to the personality
features displayed or who wish to use them as a vehicle of the conception they have of themselves.

Yet, our work did not go beyond a simple literature review. It would be worthwhile to develop the research
empirical protocols so as to show how the congruence between brand personality and self-image affects
the level of consumer satisfaction and his loyalty towards a brand.

References

Aaker J.L. (1997), « Dimensions of brand personality », Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 34, N°3, pp
347-356.

Aaker J.L., Benet-Martinez V. et Garolera J. (2001), « Consumption symbols as carries of culture, A study
of Japanese and Spanish brand personality conctructs», Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol 21, N°3, pp 249-264.

Achour L. (2006), « La relation entre la satisfaction et la fidélité à la marque : une étude empirique après
des consommateurs tunisiens de yaourts », La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, N°222, Nov/Déc, p 61.

Achouri M. A. et Bousalama N. (2009), « L'efficacité du parrainage sur Internet en termes d'attitude à

l'égard du parrain: Rôle de la congruence », 12ème conférence IBIMA, 29-30 Juin 2009, Kuala Lumpur,
pp 496-512.

Ambroise L. (2006), « La personnalité des marques : une contribution réelle à leur gestion », Revue
Française du Marketing, Vol 207, N°2/5, pp 25-41.

Ambroise L., Ben Sliman S., Bourgeat P., De Barnier V., Ferrandi J-M., Merunka D., Roehrich G. et
Valette-Florence P. (2005), « The impact of brand personality on attitude and commitment towards the
brand », La Londe - Les Maures.

Ambroise L., Ferrandi J-M., Merunka D. et Valette-Florence P. (2004), « La personnalité des marques
explique-t-elle le choix des marques ? Un test de la validité prédictive du baromètre de la personnalité
des marques », Actes du XXe Congrès AFM, 6-7 mai, Saint Malo, CD-ROM.

Ambroise L., Ferrandi J-M., Valette-Florence P. et Merunka D. (2003), « Première application du

baromètre de mesure de la personnalité de la marque à deux enseignes françaises », Actes du 6°
Colloque Etienne Thil, 25-26/09, La Rochelle, CD-ROM.

Azoulay A. and Kapferer J.N. (2003), « Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality »,
Brand Management, Vol 11, N°2, pp 143-155.

Bahria H. et Bousalama N. (2009), « L'influence de la personnalité de la marque sur l’attitude d’achat du

consommateur : Une étude modérée par une caractéristique individuelle permanente : le concept de soi
», 12ème conférence IBIMA, 29-30 Juin 2009, Kuala Lumpur, pp 577-590.

Bauer H.H., Mader R. and Keller T. (2000), «An investigation on the brand personality scale assessment
of validity and implications with regards to brand policy in European cultural domains», Multicultural
Marketing Conference, Academy of Marketing science, Hong-Kong.

Belk R.W. (1988), « Possessions and the extended self », Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 15, pp
139-149.

Ben Sliman S., Ferrandi J-M., Merunka D. et Valette-Florence P. (2005), « L’influence de la personnalité
de la marque sur le comportement du consommateur : modélisation et application à de grandes
enseignes d’hypermarchés en France et en Tunisie », 3éme Colloque International de la Recherche en
Marketing, Association Tunisienne du Marketing, 1-2 avril, Hammamet.

Benavant C. (1995), «Portefeuille clients : une application au marché de Benelux », Décisions Marketing,
N°4, p 45.

Berry N.C. (1988), « Revitalizing brands », Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 15, Eté, pp 15-20.

Biel A. (1993), Converting image into equity, Brand equity and advertising, éds Aaker et Biel, Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 67-82.

Bitner M.J. (1990a), « Evaluating service encounters, the effect of physical surroundings and employees
responses » Journal of Marketing, Vol 54, pp 69-82.

Bitner M.J. (1990b), « Servicescapes : the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees » Journal of Marketing, Vol 54, pp 57-71.

Brée, J. (1994), «Le comportement du consommateur », Collection Que-sais-je?», PUF, pp 101-103.

Brunel M.L. (1990), « Introduction à la conscience de soi et au concept de soi, tels qu’on les perçoit
depuis William James », Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, Vol 11, N°1-2, p79.

Caprara G.V., Barbaranelli C. et Livi S. (1994), « Mapping personality dimension in the Big Five model »,
European Review of Applied Psychology, Vol 44, N°1, pp 9-15.

Caprara G.V., Barbaranelli C. et Livi S. (2001), «Brand personality : How to make the metaphor fit »,
Journal of Economic psychology, Vol 22, N°3, pp 377-395.

Chon K.S. (1990), « Consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction in tourism as related to destination image
perception», Ph.D. Dissertation; Virginia Tech University.

Cloninger S.C. (1999), « La personnalité », Flammarion (traduit de l’américain, Cloninger S.C. (1996).
Personality, description, dynamics and developpement), W.H. Freemen and Company.
Costa P.T.J et McCrae R.R. (1998), «Traits theories of personality», Advanced personality, eds. Barone,
Hersen et Van Hasselt, Plenum Press, New-York, pp 103-121.

Crimmins J. and Horn M. (1996), « Sponsorship: from management ego tip to marketing success. »,
Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 4, pp11-21.

Cronin J.J. and Taylor S.A. (1992), « Measuring service quality. A re-examination and extension», Journal
of Marketing, Vol 56, pp 55-68.

D’Astous A. and Bitz P. (1995), « Consumers evaluations of sponsorship programmes», European

Journal of Marketing, 29, 12, pp 6-22.

D’Astous A. and Bitz P. (2003), «A scale for measuring store personality », Psychology and Marketing,
Vol 20, N°5, pp 455-496.

D’Astous A., Said I et Levesque M. (2002), «Conception et test d’une échelle de mesure de la
personnalité des magasins », Actes du Congrès de l’Association Française de Marketing, 18, Lille, pp
115-130.

Day R.L. (1984), «Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction», Advances in
Consumer Research, 11, pp 496-499.

Diamantopoulos A. Smith G. and Grima I. (2005), «The impact of brand extensions on brand personality:
experimental evidence», European Journal on Marketing, Vol 39.

Dich A., Dipankar C. and Gabriel B. (1990), «Memory based inference during consumer choise», Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol 17 June, pp 82-93.

Digman J.M. (1990), «Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model», Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol 41, pp 417-440.

Dolich I.J. (1969), «Congruence relationships between self images and product brands», Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol 6, N°1, pp 80- 84.

Dufer J. et Moulins J.L. (1989), «La relation entre la satisfaction du consommateur et sa fidélité à la
marque : un examen critique », Recherches et Applications en Marketing, Vol 4, N°2, pp 21-36.

Durgee J.F. (1988), « Understanding brand personality », Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 5, Eté, pp
21-25.

Ferrandi J.M. et Valette-Florence P. (2002a), « Premier test et validation de la transposition d’une échelle
de personnalité de personnalité humaine aux marques », Recherches et Applications en Marketing, Vol
17, N°3, pp 21-40.

Ferrandi J.M. et Valette-Florence P. (2002b), « Le transfert d’une échelle de personnalité humaine réduite
à la marque», Journées Thématiques AFM-IRG, Paris.

Ferrandi J.M., Fine Falcy S. et Valette-Florence P. (1999), « L’échelle de personnalité des marques de
Aaker appliquée au contexte français : Un premier test », Actes de congrès de l’Association Française de
Marketing, Strasbourg, 15, pp 1089-1112.
Fleck – Dousteyssier N. (2005), « La congruence dans le parrainage : définition, rôle et mesure», Actes
du XXI° Congrès AFM, 18-20 Mai, Nancy, pp 7-12.

Fleck-Dousteyssier N. (2004), « Une application des modèles de traitement de l’information au parrainage

: rôle de la congruence », Actes de la 1ère journée thématique du Nord-East de la France sur la
communication marketing.

Fleck-Dousteyssier N. (2006) « Effet du parrainage sur les réactions affectives et cognitives du

consommateur envers la marque : le rôle de la congruence », Recherches et Applications en Marketing,
Vol 21, N°4, p104.

Fournier S. (1998), « Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research»,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 24, N°4, pp 343-373.

Funder D.C. « Personality », Annual Review of Psychology, Vol 52, pp 197-221.

Galan J.P. (2007), « Proposition d’une échelle de mesure de la congruence entre la musique et le
concept de soi », Actes du XXIIIème Congrès International de l’AFM, Aix-les-Bains.

Goldberg L.R. (1990), «An alternative “description of personality”: the big five factor structure», Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 6, 1216-1229

Gouteron J. (2006), «L’impact de la personnalité de la marque sur la relation marque consommateur,

application au marché du prêt-à-porter féminin », Revue Française du Marketing, Avril, Vol 207, pp 43-59

Govers P.C.M. and Schoormans J.P.L. (2005), « Product personality an dits influence on consumer
preference », Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 22, N°4, pp 189-197.

Graeff T.R. (1996), «Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self image on
brands evaluations», Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 13, N°3, pp 4-18.

Gwinner K. P. and Eaton J. (1999), « Building brand image through event sponsorship: the role of the
image transfert. », Journal of Advertising, Vol 28, N°4, Winter, pp 47-57

Heckler S. E. and Childers T. L. (1992), « The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory from verbal
and visual information: what is incongruency? », Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 18, N°4, March, pp
475-492.

Helgeson J.G. and M. Supphellen (2004), «A Conceptual and measurement camparison of self congruity
and brand personality», International Journal of Market Research, Vol 46, N°2, pp 205-233.

Huteau M. (1985), « Les conceptions cognitive de la personnalité», Presses Universitaires de France.

Jacoby J. et Keyner D.B. (1973), «Brand loyalty vs Repeat purchasing behaviour», Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol 10, February, pp 1-9.

Jamal A. and Goode M.M.H. (2001), « Consumers and brands: a study of the impact of self image
congruence on brand preference and satisfaction», Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol 19, N°7, pp
482-492.

Johar L. E. and Pham M. T. (1999), « Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification»,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol, 36, N°3, August, pp299-312.
John O.P. (1990), «The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the natural language and
in questionnaires», in L.A. Pervin (ed.), Handbook of personality: theory and research, London, New
York, Guilford press pp 66-100.

Kamins M. A. and Gapta K. (1994) « Congruence between spokesperson and product type: a mutch up
hypothsis perspective», Psychology and Marketing, Vol 11, N°6, pp 569-586.

Koebel M.N. et Ladwein R. (1999), « L’échelle de personnalité de la marque de Jennifer Aaker :

Adaptation au contexte français », Décisions Marketing, Vol 16, pp 81-88.

Kotler Ph. (2000), «Marketing management», the millennium edition, Prentice-Hill.

L’Ecuyer R. (1978), « Le concept de soi », Paris, PUF, p24.

L’Ecuyer R. (1994), « Le développement du concept de soi, de l’enfance à la vieillesse », les Presses de

l’Université de Montréal, Montréal, p45.

Landon E.L.J.R (1979), « Self concept, ideal self concept, and consumer purchase intentions», Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol 1, pp 44-51.

Lane V. R. (2000), « The impact of ad repetition and ad content on consumer perceptions of incongruent
extensions», Journal of Marketing, 64, April, pp 80-91.

Lau G.T. and Lee S.H. (1999), «Consumers’trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty », Journal of
Market Focused Management, Vol 4, pp 341-370.

Levy S.J. (1959), « Symbols for sale », Harvard Business Review, Vol 37, July-August, pp 17-24.

Levy S.J. (1985), « Dreams, Fairy Tales, Animals and Cars », Psychologie et Marketing, Vol 2, Eté, pp
67-81.

Louis D. (2005), « Le parrainage sur Internet : mode de fonctionnement et influence de la similarité

perçue entre l’entité parrainée et le parrain », Revue Française de Marketing, Paris, N°205, pp 41-71.

Lynch M. A. and Shuler D. (1994), « The match up effect of spokesperson and product congruency: a
schema theory interpretation », Psychology and Marketing, Vol 11, N°5, September- October, pp 417-
445.

Magin S., Algesheimer R., Huber F. et Herrmann A. (2003), The impact of brand personality and
customer satisfaction on customer’s loyalty: theoretical approach and findings of a causal analytical study
in the sector of Internet service providers, Electronic Markets, Vol 13, N°4, 294-308.

Morschett D., Jara M., Schramm-Klein H. and Swoboda B. (2007), «Retail Brand Personality as Influence
Factor on store Loyalty – An Empirical Test of an Integrative Model», Emac Proceedings, CD-ROM.

Munson J.M. and Spivey W.A. (1981), « Relation between social class and three aspects of self concept :
actual, ideal and egocentric self », Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 119, N°1, p 85.

Oh H. and S.C. Parks (1997), «Customer satisfaction and service quality: critical review of the literature
and research implications for the hospitality industry», Hospitality Research Journal, Vol 20, N°3, pp 35-
64.
Oliver R. and William O.B. (1983), «The role of involvement in satisfaction process», Advances in
consumer research, Vol 10, N°1, pp 250-255.

Oliver R.L. (1980), « A cognitive model of antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decision »,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 20, N°3, pp 44-51.

Onkvisit S. and Shaw J.J. (1989), «Service marketing: image and branding and competition», Business
Horizons, pp 13-18.

Ouwersloot H. and Tudorica A. (2001), «Brand personality, creation through advertising», MAXX Working
Paper Series, 2001-01.

Park C. W., Jun S. Y. and Shucker A. D. (1996), « Composite branding alliances: an investigation of
extension and feedback effects», Journal of Marketing Research, 33, November, pp 453-466.

Park C. W., Milberg S. and Lawson R. (1991), « Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product
feature similarity and brand concept consistency», Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 18, September, pp
185-193.

Park S.Y. and Lee E.M. (2005), Congruence between brand personality and self-image, and the
mediating roles of satisfaction and consumer-brand relationship on brand loyalty, Asia-Pacific Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol 6, 39-45

Phau I. and Lau K.C. (2001), «Brand personality and consumer self-expression: single or dual
carriageway? », Brand Management, Vol 8, N°6, pp 428-444.

Piéron H. (1994), « Vocabulaire de la psychologie », 2éme édition, Paris, PUF.

Plaisant O., Srivastava S., Mendelsohn G.A., Debray Q. et John O.P. (2005), « Relations entre le Big
Five Inventory français et le manuel diagnostique des troubles mentaux dans un échantillon clinique
français », Annales Médico Psychologiques, p2.

Plummer J.T. (1985), « How personality makes a difference », Journal of Advertising Research, Vol 24,
N°6, pp 27-31.

Richins M.L. (1991), «Social comparison and the idealized image of advertising », Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol 18, pp 71-88.

Rodgers C.R. (1959), « Conditions suffisantes et nécessaires d’un changement de personnalité en

psychothérapie » », Hommes et techniques, N°169, pp 150-157.

Rodgers S. (2004), « The effects of sponsor relevance on consumer reactions to Internet sponsorship»,
Journal of Advertising, Vol 32, N°4, p 68.

Resenberg M. (1979), « Conceiving the self », Basic Books, New York.

Roux J. (1986), « L’influence de la marque dans le comportement du consommateur », Thèse pour la

Doctorat en sciences de Gestion, Université de Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbone.

Samama A. (2003), « De l’importance aujourd’hui de passer de la marque image à la marque relation »,

Revue Française du Marketing, Vol 2-3/5, N°192/193, pp 73-88.
Saucier G. (1994), « Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers», Journal of
Personality assessment, Vol 63, N°3, pp 506-516.

Sigaw J.A., Mattila A. and Austin J.R., «The brand personality scale: An application for restaurants»,
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, June, pp 48-55.

Sirgy M.J. (1982), «Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review», Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol 9, N°3, pp 287-300.

Sirgy M.J. (1985), « Self image/Product image congruity and consumer decision making», International
Journal of Management, Vol 2, N°4, pp 49-63.

Sirgy M.J. (1986), «Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation», Journal of
Business Research, Vol 13, N°1, pp 195-206.

Sirgy M.J. and Samli A.C. (1985), «A path analytic model of store loyalty involving self-concept, store
image, socioeconomic status and geographic loyalty», The Journal of the Academy of Marketing science
Vol 13, pp 265-291.

Sirgy M.J. et Su Ch. (2000), «Destination image, Self congruity and travel behavior: toward an integrative
model», Journal of Travel Research, Vol 38, May, pp 340-352.
Sirgy M.J., Grewal D. and Mangleburg T.F. (2000), «Retail environment, Self congruity and Retail
patronage: An integrative model and a research agenda», Journal of Business Research, Vol 49, pp 127-
138.

Sirgy M.J., Grewal D., Mangleburg T.F., Park J.-O, Chon K-S, Claiborne C.B., Johar J.S. et Berkman H.
(1997), «Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence», Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol 25, N°3, pp 229-241.

Smaoui F. (2006), «La mesure de la personnalité de la marque dans le contexte tunisien : proposition
d’une échelle de mesure : premiers résultats », 4éme Colloque International de la Techerche en
Marketing, Association Tunisienne de Marketing, Mai 2006.

Speed R. and Thompson P. (2000), « Determinants of sponsorship response. », Journal of the Academy
of Marketing science, 28, 2, pp 226-238.

Sung Y-S., Park E. and Han M-K. (2005), «The influences of the brand personality on brand attachment
and brand loyalty: centered on the differences between the brand community members and non
members», Asia – Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 156.

Tauber E. M. (1988), « Brand leverage: strategy for growth in a cost – control world», Journal of
Advertising Research, September, pp 26-30.

Trendel O. et Warlop L. (2006), « Mémorisation implicite des parrains : avantages aux parrains non
congruents. », Actes du XXII° Congrès AFM, 11-12 Mai, Nantes, p4.

Trinquecoste J.F. (1996), « Fidéliser le consommateur : un objectif commercial prioritaire », Décisions

Marketing, N°7, Janvier-Avril, pp 17-23.

Vernette E. (2003), « Personnalité de la marque et image de soi », Les tendances du Marketing, ESCP-
EAP, pp 1-21.
Vernette E. (2008), « Les atouts et les pièges de la personnalité de la marque », Décisions Marketing, Vol
49, Jan-Mar, p 24.

Viot C. (2003) «Personnalité de la marque: Approche comparative », Actes du Congrès International de

l’Association Française du Marketing.

Viot C. (2006) « Personnalité de la marque : la métaphore justifie-elle la transposition d’échelles de

personnalité humaine ? », 5th International congres « Marketing Trends », Venise.

Walters C.G., Bergiel B.G. and Sheth J.N. (1989), « Consumer behavior : A decision-marketing approach.
South-Western publishing CO.

Wee T. (2004), « Extending human personality to brands: the stability factors, Brand Management», Vol
11, N°4, pp 317-330.

Westbrook R.A. and Oliver R.L. (1991), «The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and
consumer satisfaction», Journal of Consumer Research, 18, June, 84-91

Yi Y.J. and La S.N. (2002), Brand Personality-Brand Identification-Brand Equity Model: An Exploratory
Study on the Difference Between Users vs. Non-Users, Korean Marketing Review, Vol 17, N°3, pp 1-34.

Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L. and Parasuraman A. (1996), « The behavioral consequences of service quality»,
Journal of Marketing, Vol 60, April, pp 31-46.

Zinkhan G.M. and Hong J.W. (1991), «Self concept and advertising effectiveness: A conceptual model of
congruency, conspicuousness and response mode», Advances in consumer research, Vol 18, pp 348-
354.

Zouaghi S. et Darpy D. (2003), « Du soi au groupe : naissance du concept de nous et exploration d’une
échelle de mesure de nous idéal », Recherches et applications en Marketing, Vol 18, N°4, pp 3-22.
Dimensions of brand personality
Jennifer L Aaker. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research. Chicago: Aug 1997. Vol. 34, Iss. 3;
pg. 347, 10 pgs
Abstract (Summary)
Although a considerable amount of research in personality psychology has been done to
conceptualize human personality, identify the "Big Five" dimensions, and explore the meaning
of each dimension, no parallel research has been conducted in consumer behavior on brand
personality. Consequently, an understanding of the symbolic use of brands has been limited in
the consumer behavior literature. A study develops a theoretical framework of the brand
personality construct by determining the number and nature of dimensions of brand personality
(Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness). To measure the 5 brand
personality dimensions, a reliable, valid, and generalizable measurement scale is created. Finally,
theoretical and practical implications regarding the symbolic use of brands are discussed
» Jump to indexing (document details)
Full Text
(7861 words)
Copyright American Marketing Association Aug 1997

[Headnote]
Although a considerable amount of research in personality psychology has been done to
conceptualize human personality, identify the "Big Five" dimensions, and explore the meaning
of each dimension, no parallel research has been conducted in consumer behavior on brand
personality. Consequently, an understanding of the symbolic use of brands has been limited in
the consumer behavior literature. In this research, the author develops a theoretical framework of
the brand personality construct by determining the number and nature of dimensions of brand
personality (Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness). To measure
the five brand personality dimensions, a reliable, valid, and generalizable measurement scale is
created. Finally, theoretical and practical implications regarding the symbolic use of brands are
discussed.

JENNIFER L. AAKER*
In consumer behavior research, a considerable amount of attention has been given to the
construct brand personality, which refers to the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand. Researchers have focused on how the personality of a brand enables a consumer to
express his or her own self (Belk 1988), an ideal self (Malhotra 1988), or specific dimensions of
the self (Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993) through the use of a brand. Practitioners view it as a
key way to differentiate a brand in a product category (Halliday 1996), as a central driver of
consumer preference and usage (Biel 1993), and as a common denominator that can be used to
market a brand across cultures (Plummer 1985).
However, despite this interest, research on brand personality and the symbolic use of brands
more generally has remained limited due in part to the lack of consensus regarding what brand
personality really is. How is it defined and thereby distinguished from related constructs? Does it
have a framework or set of dimensions similar to or different from the "Big Five" dimensions of
human personality? As a resuit, an understanding of how and when brand personality relates to a
consumer's personality and thereby influences consumer preference has remained elusive (see
Sirgy 1982).
Furthermore, no research has been conducted to develop systematically a reliable, valid, and
generalizable scale to measure brand personality. Currently, researchers rely on measurement
scales that tend to be ad hoc (e.g., checklists, photo-sorts, symbolic analogy) or taken directly
from personality psychology but not validated in the context of brands (Kassarjian 1971). As a
result, the theoretical generalizability and implications stemming from the findings in the
research on the symbolic use of brands are questionable.
The objective of this research is to address these limitations by drawing on research on the "Big
Five" human personality structure to develop a theoretical framework of brand personality
dimensions (Norman 1963; Tupes and Christal 1958) and a reliable, valid, and generalizable
scale that measures these dimensions.
THE BRAND PERSONALITY CONSTRUCT
Brand personality is defined formally here as "the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand." To illustrate, Absolut vodka personified tends to be described as a cool, hip,
contemporary 25-year old, whereas Stoli's personified tends to be described as an intellectual,
conservative, older man. In contrast to "product-related attributes," which tend to serve a
utilitarian function for consumers, brand personality tends to serve a symbolic or self-expressive
function (Keller 1993).
It is argued that the symbolic use of brands is possible because consumers often imbue brands
with human personality traits (termed animism; e.g., Gilmore 1919). Consumers easily can think
about brands as if they were celebrities or famous historical figures (Rook 1985) and as they
relate to one's own self (Fournier 1994), which may be due in part to the strategies used by
advertisers to imbue a brand with personality traits such as anthropomorphization (e.g.,
California Raisins), personification (e.g., Jolly Green Giant), and the creation of user imagery
(e.g., Charlie girl). Through such techniques, the personality traits associated with a brand, such
as those associated with an individual, tend to be relatively enduring and distinct. For example,
the personality traits associated with Coca-Cola are cool, all-American, and real; these traits
are relatively enduring (Pendergrast 1993) and differentiate Coke from its competitors (e.g.,
Pepsi being young, exciting, and hip; Dr Pepper being nonconforming, unique, and fun;
Plummer 1985).
Motivated by this logic, previous research has suggested that the greater the congruity between
the human characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individual's actual or
ideal self and those that describe a brand, the greater the preference for the brand (e.g., Malhotra
1988; Sirgy 1982). However, the empirical exploration of this hypothesis has been handicapped
by a limited conceptual understanding of the brand personality construct and the psychological
mechanism by which it operates.
Antecedents of Brand Personality
Although human and brand personality traits might share a similar conceptualization (Epstein
1977), they differ in terms of how they are formed. Perceptions of human personality traits are
inferred on the basis of an individual's behavior, physical characteristics, attitudes and beliefs,
and demographic characteristics (Park 1986). In contrast, perceptions of brand personality traits
can be formed and influenced by any direct or indirect contact that the consumer has with the
brand (Plummer 1985). Personality traits come to be associated with a brand in a direct way by
the people associated with the brand-such as the brand's user imagery, which is defined here as
"the set of human characteristics associated with the typical user of a brand"; the company's
employees or CEO; and the brand's product endorsers. In this way, the personality traits of the
people associated with the brand are transferred directly to the brand (McCracken 1989). In
addition, however, personality traits come to be associated with a brand in an indirect way
through product-related attributes, product category associations, brand name, symbol or logo,
advertising style, price, and distribution channel (Batra, Lehmann, and Singh 1993).
In addition to personality characteristics, researchers (Levy 1959, p. 12) argue that brand
personality includes demographic characteristics such as gender ("Usually it is hard to evade
thinking of inanimate things as male or female"), age ("Just as most people usually recognize
whether something is addressed to them as a man or a woman, so are they sensitive to symbols
of age"), and class ("The possession of mink is hardly a matter of winter warmth alone"). Similar
to personality characteristics, these demographic characteristics also are inferred directly from
the brand's user imagery, employees, or product endorsers and indirectly from other brand
associations. For example, driven by distinct user imagery, Virginia Slims tends to be thought of
as feminine, whereas Marlboro (currently) tends to be perceived as masculine. Partly due to the
relative recency with which the two brands entered the market, Apple is considered to be
young, and IBM is considered to be older. On the basis of their different pricing strategies,
Saks Fifth Avenue is perceived as upper class, whereas Kmart is perceived as blue collar.
Measuring Brand Personality
To examine how the relationship between brand and human personality may drive consumer
preference, two types of brand personality scales are used. The first type are ad hoc scales, which
typically are composed of a set of traits ranging from 20 to 300. However, though useful, these
scales tend to be atheoretical in nature-often developed for the purposes of a specific research
study. As a result, key traits may be missing from such scales. Furthermore, the traits that are
selected often are chosen arbitrarily, which casts doubt on the scales' reliability and validity.
The second type of brand personality scales are those that are more theoretical in nature, but are
based on human personality scales that have not been validated in the context of brands (e.g.,
Bellenger, Steinberg, and Stanton 1976; Dolich 1969). However, though some dimensions (or
factors) of human personality may be mirrored in brands, others might not. As a result, the
validity of such brand personality scales often is questionable, leading researchers to argue that
"if unequivocal results are to emerge [in the literature on the symbolic use of brands] consumer
behavior researchers must develop their own definitions and design their own instruments to
measure the personality variables that go into the purchase decision" (italics in original;
Kassarjian 1971, p. 415).
In this research, a framework of brand personality dimensions is developed. By isolating these
distinct dimensions versus treating brand personality as a unidimensional construct, the different
types of brand personalities can be distinguished, and the multiple ways in which the brand
personality construct influences consumer preference may be understood better.
In addition, a scale is developed to provide a basis for theory-building on the symbolic use of
brands. Drawing on research by Malhotra (1981), who outlines a process of scale development
for measuring self, person, and product constructs, reliability and validity are established by
relying on subjects representative of the U.S. population, systematically selecting from a large
pool of traits to establish content validity, and demonstrating the robustness of the five
dimensions with an independent set of brands and subjects.
Perhaps most important, this framework and scale are generalizable across product categories.
Beyond practical benefits, a generalizable framework and scale enable researchers to understand
the symbolic use of brands in general versus the symbolic use of brands within a particular
category. As a result, the symbolic nature of brands can be understood at the same level as the
utilitarian nature of brands, which tends to be captured by models that are generalizable across
product categories (e.g., multi-attribute model; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Therefore, like the
multiattribute model, which sheds insight into when and why consumers buy brands for
utilitarian purposes, a cross-category framework and scale can provide theoretical insights into
when and why consumers buy brands for self-expressive purposes.
In contrast, consider the difficulties of a theoretician's attempt to explore hypotheses regarding
antecedents and consequences of brand personality using personality scales that apply only to a
single product category. It would be difficult to use cross-category stimuli, explore possible
moderating effects of product type, or examine the psychological mechanism that drives the
symbolic use of brands across product categories, individuals, and cultures. Thus, product
category-specific personality scales are of limited use in building theory.
WHAT IS BRAND PERSONALITY?
To establish content validity, the development of a comprehensive and representative set of
personality traits and the process of identifying a set of stimuli are described.
Personality Trait Generation
Overview. In the first stage of personality trait generation, a set of 309 candidate traits was
created by eliminating redundancy from trait lists optioned from three sources: personality scales
from psychology, personality scales used by marketers (academics and practitioners), and
original qualitative research. In the second stage, this set of traits was reduced to a more
manageable number (114).
First stage. Considerable research in psychology has converged on a stable, robust, and reliable
factorial composition of human personality, the "Big Five." A series of scales that have been
used to develop and refine the "Big Five," including the original work (Norman 1963; Tupes and
Christal 1958), NEO Model (McCrae and Costa 1989), Big Five Prototypes (John 1990), ACL
(Piedmont, McCrae, and Costa 1991), and Inter-Circumplex Model (McCrae and Costa 1989),
contributed a total of 204 unique traits.
In addition, personality scales used by academics (Alt and Griggs 1988; Batra, Lehmann, and
Singh 1993; Levy 1959; Malhotra 1981; Plummer 1985; Wells et al. 1957) and practitioners (an
advertising agency, a market research supplier, and a client company) added a total of 133
unique traits.
Finally, to ensure that the list was complete and the traits were familiar and meaningful to
people, a free-association task was conducted. Subjects (n = 16, 50% female, mean age = 25)
were paid $40 each to participate in a study on the types of personality traits associated with
brands. Subjects were asked to write down the personality traits that first came to mind when
thinking about two brands in three types of product categories (as identified by Ratchford 1987
in the Appendix; think-feel dimensions): symbolic (jeans, cosmetics, and fragrance), utilitarian
(computers, electronics, and appliances), and both symbolic and utilitarian (automobiles,
beverages, and athletic shoes).1 The symbolic-utilitarian framework (Katz 1960) was used here
and in subsequent studies as a systematic way to select brands that span a variety of categories
and serve multiple functions, so as to enhance the generalizability of the resulting scale. The 295
unique traits resulting from this task were added to the pool of personality traits.
The result of the first trait generation stage left 309 nonredundant candidate personality traits.
Second stage. In the second trait generation stage, the 309 traits were reduced to a more
manageable number. Subjects (n = 25, 70% female, mean age = 33) were paid $20 each to
participate in a study on the types of personality traits associated with brands. To communicate
the brand personality concept to subjects, subjects were given an example of the personality of a
brand in a symbolic product category (Wrangler jeans-macho, rough, and sturdy), a utilitarian
product category (Pepto Bismal stomach medication-calm, sweet, and giving), and a product
category that was both symbolic and utilitarian (Dr Pepper soft drink-individualistic, gregarious,
and bold). In addition, to reduce the chances of focusing on a particular brand or product
category, subjects were told, "Since this study is not about any brand or product category in
particular, try to think of as many different types of brands in various product categories when
you evaluate each trait." Subjects rated how descriptive the 309 traits were of brands in general (I
= not at all descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive). To isolate the most relevant traits, the cutoff
for the final list of personality traits was a scale rating of 6 (very descriptive), thereby leaving
114 personality traits for the study.
Stimuli Selection
Three criteria guided the selection of a comprehensive and representative set of brands: First,
salient, well-known brands were chosen so that a national sample could be used; second, a wide
variety of brands representing a spectrum of personality types was selected to enhance the scope
of the scale; and third, a range of product categories, both symbolic and utilitarian, was drawn
upon to enhance scale generalizability.
To identify the brands, an EquiTrend study (1992) was used. Here, 131 brands in 39 product
categories and services were rated by a national sample on both "salience" (proportion of
consumers who have an opinion about the brand) and "brand personality" (on the basis of 30
personality traits). The brands selected all had high salience ratings (above 50%). In addition,
they represented different personality profiles as determined by a clustering procedure in which
the 131 brands fell into nine distinct clusters. Four brands were chosen randomly from each of
these clusters on the basis of one guiding criteria: Approximately the same number of brands
were to be included from symbolic, utilitarian, and symbolic/utilitarian types of product
categories. This set of 37 brands included those that serve symbolic functions (e.g., clothing,
cosmetics, fragrance), utilitarian functions (e.g., film, pain relievers, toothpaste), and both
symbolic and utilitarian functions (e.g., computers, soft drinks, tennis shoes). For a list of the
brands, see Table 1.
Choosing a large number of brands has the advantage of increasing the generalizability and
robustness of the measurement scale. Its disadvantage, however, is possible subject fatigue and
boredom, which potentially could result in response bias. To minimize this problem, one brand
from each of the nine clusters was selected and placed into one of four "Brand Groups," such that
each Brand Group contained a similar profile of brands. In this way, personality heterogeneity in
each of the Brand Groups similar to that of the total sample of brands was maintained. Finally,
one brand (Levi's jeans) was included in each of the four Brand Groups so that the extent to
which the four distinct groups of subjects differed in their brand personality perceptions could be
assessed. Thus, a total of 37 brands were included.
No significant differences were found among the mean ratings of Levi's jeans in the four groups,
which suggests high levels of agreement of the human characteristics associated with a particular
brand. Furthermore, the original ratings on the EquiTrend personality traits for the nine sets of
four brands were examined to confirm their high levels of similarity; each of the four brands
within each set were similar on all personality traits.
Enlarge 200%
Enlarge 400%

Table 1

METHOD
Subjects
The external validity and generalizability of the brand personality scale depended on the subjects
on which the scale was based. Therefore, a nonstudent sample was used; one that represented the
U.S. population with respect to five demographic dimensions (gender, age, household income,
ethnicity, and geographic location) as identified in the 1992 U.S. Bureau of the Census. For
example, 56% of the sample was female, 20% was 18-24 years of age, 34% had a household
income of more than $50,000, 10% was African-American, and 20% lived in the Northeast. The
subjects in the four Brand Groups were selected to have the same profiles as the total sample.
Unless otherwise specified, the same demographic profile of subjects is used in all remaining
stages of this research.

To stimulate a high return rate, a total of 1200 questionnaires was sent via Federal Express to
subjects from a national mail panel. Approximately 55% of the subjects returned the
questionnaires (n = 631).
Procedure
Subjects, who participated in the study in exchange for a gift of their choosing and a chance to
win three first prizes of $250 and five second prizes of $50, received the following set of
instructions:
Most of the following questions are about a variety of brands of products or services. We would
like you to think of each brand as if it were a person. This may sound unusual, but think of the
set of human characteristics associated with each brand. For example, you might think that the
human characteristics associated with Pepto Bismal are kind, warm, caring, soothing, gentle,
trustworthy and dependable. The human characteristics associated with Dr Pepper might be non-
conforming, fun, interesting, exciting and off-beat. We're interested in finding out which
personality traits or human characteristics come to mind when you think of a particular brand.
Using a five-point Likert scale ( = not at all descriptive, 5 = extremely descriptive), subjects were
asked to rate the extent to which the 114 personality traits describe a specific brand.2 Primarily
positively valenced traits were used because brands typically are linked to positive (versus
negative) associations and because the ultimate use of the scale is to determine the extent to
which brand personality affects the probability that consumers will approach (versus avoid)
products.
Subjects repeated the rating task for the nine additional brands in the particular Brand Group. To
control for primacy and recency effects, the order in which the traits were presented for each
brand was counterbalanced. In addition, the order in which the ten brands were presented in the
questionnaire was rotated completely.
IDENTIFYING THE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS
Because the objective of this stage was to identify the brand personality dimensions as perceived
in consumers' minds, rather than the individual differences in how different people respond to
single brands, a state (versus trait) "O" analysis was used where the correlation matrix for the
personality traits (n = 114) correlated across the brands (n = 37) is analyzed, and the scores of
each brand on each personality trait are averaged across subjects (n = 631). The 114 x 114
correlation matrix was factor-analyzed using principal components analysis and a varimax
rotation. A five-factor solution resulted on the basis of the following criteria:
1. All five factors had eigenvalues greater than one.
2. A significant dip in the Scree plot followed the fifth factor.
3. The first five factors were the most meaningful, rich, and interpretable.3
4. The five-factor solution explained a high level of variance in brand personality (92%).
5. The five-factor solution was the most stable and robust, as illustrated by subsample factor
analyses described subsequently (e.g., males versus females, younger versus older subject).
With the exception of four traits (urban, proud, healthy, and flexible), all of the traits had high
loadings ( > .60) on one of the five factors and relatively low loadings on the other four factors.
Because traits that load below .40 do not add to measure purification (Nunnally 1978), these four
traits were removed and the factor analysis rerun. The result was an easily interpretable five-
factor solution with high loadings and communalities for each of the traits. Moreover, the
variance explained in each of the factors was relatively high (see Table 2).
The names determined to represent best the types of concepts subsumed in each of the five
dimensions were Sincerity (e.g., typified by Hallmark cards), Excitement (e.g., MTV
channel), Competence (e.g., The Wall Street Journal newspapers), Sophistication (e.g., Guess
jeans), and Ruggedness (e.g., Nike tennis shoes).4
ASSESSING THE STABILITY OF THE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS
One limitation associated with factor analysis is potential differences in the meaning of the
personality traits among distinct groups of people. Therefore, to test the generality of the five
brand personality dimensions and to determine if the measurement scale can be used in future
research with particular groups of subjects (e.g., students), separate principal component factor
analyses (with varimax rotation and unrestricted number of factors to be extracted) were run on
four subsamples of subjects; males (n = 278), females (n = 353), younger subjects (n = 316), and
older subjects (n = 315).
The similarity of the results from the four principal components factor analyses was assessed
both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitatively, an inspection of the results shows that the
three criteria for similar factor structures were met (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957): (1)
the same number of factors were extracted-five; (2) the same type of five factors resulted (i.e.,
the same traits loaded on the same factors as in the total-sample factor analysis); (3) relatively
similar weights for the five factors existed among the four subpopulations. In addition, the
variance explained by each factor in the four groups was approximately the same. The largest
difference was for Sincerity, which explained 27% of the variance for the younger subject
sample versus 31% of the variance for the older subject sample. Quantitatively, factor
congruence correlations (the average factor correlations between the subsamples) were
calculated and ranged from .92 to .95. Although no statistical tests are associated with this
coefficient, the factor structure is interpreted as essentially invariant if congruence coefficients
are higher than .90 (Everett 1983).
REPRESENTING THE FIVE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS: THE FINAL SET OF
PERSONALITY TRAITS
The goal of the next phase was to identify the traits that most reliably, accurately, and
comprehensively represent the five dimensions. Therefore, a facet identification phase was
conducted, whereby each set of items in the five factors identified in the principal components
analysis was factoranalyzed individually. The result of those five factor analyses was a set of
"facets." To provide a reliable representation of each facet (Nunnally 1978), three traits from
each facet were selected.
Facet Identification
Because many of the factors are broad, personality psychologists (e.g., Church and Burke 1994;
McCrae and Costa 1989) focus on different "facets" subsumed by each factor to select
representative traits that provide both breadth and depth and to serve as a framework for
establishing the similarities and differences among alternative conceptions of the "Big Five." To
identify the facets, the set of items in each factor (which resulted from the principal components
analysis) is factor-analyzed individually, a process that results in an unconstrained set of facets.
For example, the Extroversion factor of human personality consists of six facets: Warmth,
Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement-Seeking, and Positive Emotions. However,
it should be noted that these facets are not factors in and of themselves, but rather are "used to
select and refine items ... to improve the scales, not to revise the constructs" (Church and Burke
1994, p. 107).
Therefore, in this research, the set of items in each of the five factors was factor-analyzed
individually using principal components analysis, a varimax rotation scheme, and an unrestricted
number of factors to be extracted. The result of the five individual factor analyses was a total of
15 facets: Sincerity and Excitement each had four facets, Competence had three, and
Sophistication and Ruggedness each had two.
The next stage was to select the best traits represented in each of the 15 facets to be included in
the scale. To add to the scale's reliability and comprehensiveness while minimizing trait
redundancy, a clustering procedure outlined by Nunnally (1978) was followed, whereby three
clusters were formed for each facet.5 Next, the trait with the highest itemto-total correlation in
each cluster was identified, leaving 45 traits (3 traits for each of the IS facets) to be included in
the final Brand Personality Scale. All of these traits had high item-to-total correlations on both
the facets (ranging from .75 to .98) and their factors (ranging from .50 to .97), thereby ensuring
high internal consistency. See Figure I for the brand personality framework, which includes the
five dimensions and IS facets.
ARE THE FIVE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS RELIABLE?
Enlarge 200%
Enlarge 400%

Table 2

To determine the degree to which the five brand personality dimensions will yield consistent
results, reliability was assessed in two ways: test-retest correlations and Cronbach's alpha.
Test-Retest Reliability
A random subset of 200 subjects (50 in each of the four Brand Groups) was selected from the
original sample of subjects. To minimize both potential memory effects, in which subjects might
remember their responses to the original questionnaire, and "brand personality" effects, in which
differences in the responses at Time I and 2 might differ because of gradual changes in the brand
personalities over time, the test-retest questionnaire was sent two months after the original
questionnaire. To avoid systematic bias, all 114 traits were included in the test-retest
questionnaire.
The test-retest sample was composed of 81 subjects (a 41% return rate). The average Pearson
correlation between Time I and Time 2 on the 45 traits was .80, ranging from .49 to .90. Three
traits with test-retest correlations below .60 were dropped from the scale. Based on the remaining
42trait scale, the test-retest correlations for each of the five factors were as follows: Sincerity = .
75, Excitement = .74, Competence = .76, Sophistication = .75, and Ruggedness = .77, all of
which met Nunnally's (1978) criterion of testretest scores of greater than .70 at this stage of
research.
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's alphas were calculated for each of the five dimensions using the 42-trait scale. The
resulting values were high: Sincerity = .93, Excitement = .95, Competence = .93, Sophistication
= .91, and Ruggedness = .90. In addition, all traits within each of the five dimensions had high
itemto-total correlations (averaging .85, all exceeding .55), which indicate high levels of internal
reliability.
CONFIRMING THE BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS
The factor analysis conducted in the first measurement purification phase raises two questions:
First, to what extent are the five dimensions based on the particular brands selected as stimuli,
and therefore biased if another set of brands were used? Second, to what extent are the five
dimensions a function of the particular subject sample, and therefore would change if another
sample was used? To answer these questions, an additional phase of research was conducted: the
confirmation of the five dimensions of brand personality using a second independent sample of
brands and subjects.
Subjects and Procedure

A total of 250 questionnaires was sent via Federal Express to subjects from a national mail
panel. The end sample included 180 subjects (a 72% response rate) with the same demographic
profile as those in the first phase. Subjects followed the identical procedure as in the first
measurement purification phase, except for two changes: (1) 42 personality traits were used
(versus 114) and (2) a different set of brands was used.
Stimuli
Enlarge 200%
Enlarge 400%

Figure 1
 Enlarge 200%
Enlarge 400%

Table 3

The second sample of brands was drawn from the same source as the original set of brands
(EquiTrend 1992). Of the 39 product categories used in the original EquiTrend study, 23 were
used in the first study. Of the remaining 16 product categories, the 10 product categories that
included more than one brand were selected. Next, the two brands with the highest salience
ratings (all higher than 50%) in these 10 product categories were selected, for a total of 20
brands. However, unlike the first measurement purification phase, these brands were not chosen
on the basis of their personality, so as to provide (I) a randomly chosen independent sample of
brands and (2) a more stringent test of the five-factor structure. See Table 3 for a list of these
brands.
Analysis
Because the objective of the second measurement purification stage was to determine the extent
to which the five dimensions were robust over a new set of brands and subjects, a confirmatory
factor analysis (Generalized Least Squares was conducted), estimating a five-factor model for 42
traits. When the five factors were allowed to correlate, the fit statistics suggested a good model
fit (cf. Bagozzi and Heatherton 1994; Bentler 1990): the confirmatory fit index (CFI; Bentler
1990) = .98, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .91, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .86, root
mean square residual (RMSR) = .07, and Chi-square = 9,216.806 (with 809 degrees of freedom;
p < .01). When the factors were restricted to be orthogonal, the fit statistics were CFI = .94, GFI
= .86, AGFI = .85, RMSR = .15, and Chi-square = 9,447.11 (with 819 degrees of freedom; p < .
01). Finally, to provide convergent support of the robustness of the structure, an exploratory
principal components factor analysis was conducted using a varimax rotation scheme and an
unconstrained number of factors to be extracted. The results showed that the same number of
factors resulted, the same type of five factors resulted, and similar weights for the five factors
existed. Moreover, factor congruence correlations for the five factors were high, ranging from .
97 to .99, which provides support for the stability of the five-factor structure. For a list of the
final set of personality traits that measure the five dimensions of brand personality, see
Appendix A.
GENERAL DISCUSSION Summary of the Research
The objective of this research was to develop a framework of brand personality dimensions and
a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale to measure the dimensions. To identify the brand
personality dimensions, a total of 631 subjects rated a subset of 37 brands on 114 personality
traits. The results of an exploratory principal components factor analysis suggest that consumers
perceive that brands have five distinct personality dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement,
Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness. The results of a series of factor analyses run on
subsets of subjects established the robustness of the brand personality dimensions. In addition,
high levels of reliability of the five dimensions were established through test-retest correlations
and Cronbach's alphas. Finally, the results of a confirmatory factor analysis relying on 180
subjects, 20 brands in ten product categories, and 42 personality traits provided additional
support for the stability of the five dimensions. In summary, the results of these analyses
demonstrate that the framework of brand personality dimensions, as represented by the 42-item
Brand Personality Scale, is reliable, valid, and generalizable.
The Symbolic Use of Brands: Brand Personality Versus Human Personality
This research has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the brand
personality framework developed in this research suggests that one reason for the weak findings
in the self-congruity literature may be due to the asymmetric relationship in the structure of
brand versus human personality. Although it could be argued that three brand personality
dimensions relate to three of the "Big Five" human personality dimensions (i.e., Agreeableness
and Sincerity both capture the idea of warmth and acceptance; Extroversion and Excitement both
connote the notions of sociability, energy, and activity; Conscientiousness and Competence both
encapsulate responsibility, dependability, and security), two dimensions (Sophistication and
Ruggedness) differ from any of the "Big Five" of human personality (Briggs 1992). This pattern
suggests that brand personality dimensions might operate in different ways or influence
consumer preference for different reasons. For example, whereas Sincerity, Excitement, and
Competence tap an innate part of human personality, Sophistication and Ruggedness tap a
dimension that individuals desire but do not necessarily have. This premise is consistent with the
advertising created for prototypical Sophisticated brands (e.g., Monet, Revlon, Mercedes), in
which aspirational associations such as upper class, glamorous, and sexy are a focus. Similarly,
Ruggedness brands (e.g., Marlboro, Harley-Davidson, Levi's) tend to glamorize American
ideals of Western, strength, and masculinity.
If true, this premise would suggest that one reason for the weak empirical support for self-
congruity effects (both actual and ideal) is the focus on matching the personality between a
brand and a consumer at the aggregate level (i.e., across all personality traits). Rather, this
research suggests that dimensions of personalities must be examined (Kleine, Kleine, and
Kernan 1993; see also Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). Furthermore, the importance of these
dimensions must be examined in order to understand their centrality to the self (Markus 1977;
Markus and Wurf 1987) and the extent to which they influence preference for brands across
situations.
Practical applications of this research also exist. This is the first attempt to develop a
measurement scale that is based on a representative sample of subjects, a comprehensive list of
traits, and a systematically chosen set of brands across product categories. Therefore,
practitioners have an alternative to the ad hoc scales currently used. Moreover, the scale can be
used to compare personalities of brands across product categories, thereby enabling researchers
to identify benchmark personality brands. To aid this process, a set of personality trait norms is
provided in Appendix A.
The Antecedents, Consequences, and Processing of Brand Personality
Assuming that having a brand personality is important, the question arises: How does a brand go
about developing one? The brand personality framework and scale developed in this research
also can be used to gain theoretical and practical insight into the antecedents and consequences
of brand personality, which have received a significant amount of attention but little empirical
testing. In terms of antecedents, many have suggested that brand personality is created by a
variety of marketing variables (e.g., user imagery, advertising, packaging; cf. Batra, Lehmann,
and Singh 1993; Levy 1959; Plummer 1985). However, the extent to which these variables
independently and interdependently influence brand personality has yet to be determined. With
the use of the Brand Personality Scale, the variables can be manipulated systematically and their
impact on a brand's personality measured. Similarly, in terms of consequences, researchers
suggest that brand personality increases consumer preference and usage (Sirgy 1982), evokes
emotions in consumers (Biel 1993), and increases levels of trust and loyalty (Fournier 1994).
These assertions can be tested by systematically manipulating distinct dimensions of a brand's
personality (e.g., Sincerity) and examining their impact on key dependent variables.
Theoretically, this learning would contribute to an overall understanding of the symbolic use of
brands. Practically, it would provide insight into the variables that influence brand personality,
as well as those that are influenced by brand personality.
Further research also is needed to examine how brand personality information is processed. Past
research demonstrates that under conditions of high motivation or ability, brand attributes tend to
be processed systematically (Maheswaran and Chaiken 1991). However, less is known about
attitude formation under conditions of low motivation or ability. One possibility is that brand
personality information, used as a heuristic cue, might influence consumer attitudes and attenuate
the processing of brand attribute information under low motivation. Another is that, due to the
matching process required to determine if a brand personality and one's own personality are
congruent versus incongruent, brand personality information might require systematic
processing, and therefore should influence attitudes additively under high motivation. A final
possibility that merits exploration is that brand personality could bias brand attribute
information, in which the brand attributes are interpreted differently given the personality
associated with a brand (cf. Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994).
The Symbolic Use of Brands Across Cultures
Finally, the brand personality framework and scale developed here have important implications
for researchers examining the perceptions of brand personality across cultures. For example, the
extent to which brand personality dimensions are cross culturally generalizable must be
examined. Although research has shown that the human personality dimensions remain robust
across cultures (Paunonen et al. 1992), the same may not be so for brand personality because of
differences in the antecedents of the two constructs. Consequently, the current scale might not be
appropriate for measuring brand personality in a different cultural context. Additional research is
needed to determine the extent to which these brand personality dimensions are stable across
cultures and, if not, theoretically why they might be altered. Answers to these questions will shed
insight into the extent to which a brand's personality (versus the brand's attributes) should
remain constant across cultures, what dimensions of brand personality are valued across cultures,
and how consumers use brands across cultures (cf. Aaker and Maheswaran 1997).
 Enlarge 200%
Enlarge 400%

Appendix A

Finally, little is known about the psychological mechanism by which brand personality operates
across cultures. However, recent research in cultural psychology suggests that the symbolic use
of brands differs considerably across cultures (Aaker and Schmitt 1997). For example, in
individualist cultures, where independence, autonomy, and uniqueness are valued (Markus and
Kitayama 1991), consumers are more likely to use brands to express how they are different from
members of their in-group. In contrast, in collectivist cultures, where interdependence,
conformity, and similarity are valued (Markus and Kitayama 1991), consumers are more likely
to use brands to express how they are similar to members of their in-group. Such research would
demonstrate that the symbolic or self-expressive use of brands is robust across cultures, while the
nature of that self-expression differs significantly.
[Footnote]
*Jennifer Aaker is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Anderson School of Management,
University of California, Los Angeles. The author gratefully acknowledges the help of Richard
Bagozzi, Lauren Block, Susan Broniarczyk, Lee Cooper, Gavan Fitzsimons, Jim Lattin, Durairaj
Maheswaran, Don Morrison, Bernd Schmitt, the editor, and the reviewers; as well as Andre
Richards, David Spengler, and Steve Goldstein at Levi-Strauss, who provided the funding for
much of this research. Great amounts of thanks to Kevin Lane Keller who provided insight and
support at each stage of this research.

[Footnote]
1To ensure that the pair of brands, which also vary on the symbolic-utilitarian continuum, in a
product category were selected systematically, an independent set of subjects (n = 20, 50%
female, mean age = 28) was asked to rate the extent to which 36 brands in nine product
categories were relatively more "symbolic (i.e., self-expressive) versus utilitarian (i.e.,
functional)" in nature. The brands that received the highest rating on the "symbolic" dimension
are listed first, followed by the brands that received the highest rating on the "utilitarian"
dimension: jeans (Guess, Wrangler), cosmetics ( Revlon, Mary Kay), fragrance (Obsession,
Chanel), computers ( IBM, Apple), electronics ( GE, Sony), appliances (Maytag, Kitchen
Aid), cars ( Porsche, Volvo), beverages (Diet Coke, Calistoga) and athletic shoes (LA Gear,
Adidas).

[Footnote]
2A Likert scale was preferred over a semantic-differential scale because the objective of this
study was to determine the extent to which a brand can be described by certain human
characteristics (i.e., brand personality content and strength), rather than to determine when
brands are associated with negative versus positive personality characteristics (i.e., brand
personality valence).
3Although at least nine traits loaded on each of the first five factors, only three traits loaded on
the sixth ("special," "classic," and "tasteful") and seventh ("big," "successful," and "leader")
factors. No traits loaded on any remaining factors. More detailed information as well as the raw
correlation matrix and factor scores are available from the author.

[Footnote]
4These names were chosen after the second measurement phase but are reported here to simplify
the terminology used. Three of these names were represented in trait form in the five dimensions
(sincere, exciting, and rugged).

[Footnote]
5In this clustering procedure, the trait with the highest item-to-total correlation within a facet
was identified and formed the nucleus of the first cluster. Then, the traits that were correlated
most highly with the nucleus trait were identified (r > .90), forming the first cluster in the facet.
Next, the nucleus for the second cluster was obtained by identifying the trait with the next
highest item-to-total correlation in the facet. Traits with relatively high correlations with the
second nucleus and relatively low correlations (r < .89) with the first nucleus were then identified
to form the second cluster. This procedure was repeated until all clusters of the facet were
identified (which was three clusters for 13 of the facets and four for the remaining 2 facets, with
only one trait in the final fourth cluster). For more details, see Church and Burke (1994).

[Footnote]
6The chi-square is of limited value in this context and greater weight should be given to other fit
statistics "because [the chi-square statistic] is sensitive to sample size and can lead to a rejection
of a model differing in a trivial way from the data" (Bagozzi and Heatherton 1994, p. 45).
[Reference]
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer and Durairaj Maheswaran (1997), "The Impact of Cultural Orientation on
Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming. ----and Bernd Schmitt (1997), "The
Influence of Culture on the Self-Expressive Use of Brands," Working Paper #274, UCLA
Anderson Graduate School of Management.
Alt, Michael and Steve Griggs (1988), "Can A Brand Be Cheeky?" Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, 4 (6), 9-16.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Todd E Heatherton (1994), "A General Approach to Representing
Multifaceted Personality Constructs: Application to State Self-Esteem," Structural Equation
Modeling, I (1), 35-67.
Batra, Rajeev, Donald R. Lehmann, and Dipinder Singh (1993), "The Brand Personality
Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences," in Brand Equity and
Advertising, David A. Aaker and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Belk, Russell W. (1988) "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer Research, 2
(September), 139-8. Bellenger, Danny N., Earle Steinberg, and Wilbur W. Stanton (1976), "The
Congruence of Store Image and Self Image," Journal of Retailing, 52 (Spring), 17-32.
Bentler, Peter M. (1990), "Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models," Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238-46.
Biel, Alexander (1993) "Converting Image into Equity," in Brand Equity and Advertising, David
A. Aaker and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Briggs, Steven (1992), "Assessing the Five-Factor Model of Personality Description," Journal of
Personality, 60 (2), 253-93.
Chaiken, Shelly and Durairaj Maheswaran (1994), "Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic
Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on
Attribute Judgment," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3), 460-73.
Church, Timothy A. and Peter J. Burke (1994), "Exploratory and Confirmatory Tests of the Big
Five and Tellegen's Three and Four-Dimensional Models," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66 (1), 93-114.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
Digman, John M. (1990), "Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model," Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-40.
Dolich, Ira J. (1969), "Congruence Relationship Between Self-Image and Product Brands,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (February), 80-84.
Epstein, Seymour (1977), "Traits are Alive and Well," in Personality at the Crossroads, D.
Magnusson and N.S. Endler, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 83-98.
EquiTrend (1992), Total Research Corporation, Princeton, NJ.
Everett, John E. (1983), "Factor Comparability as a Means of Determining the Number of
Factors and Their Rotation," Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 197-218.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fournier, Susan (1994), "A Consumer-Brand Relationship Framework for Strategy Brand
Management" unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
Gilmore, George W. (1919), Animism. Boston: Marshall Jones Company.
Halliday, Jean (1996), "Chrysler Brings Out Brand Personalities

[Reference]
with '97 Ads," Advertising Age (September 30), 3.
John, Oliver (1990), "The `Big Five' Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural
Language and in Questionnaires," in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, L.A.
Pervin, ed. San Francisco: Harper, 66-100.
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1971), "Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review," Journal of
Marketing Research, 8 (November) 409-18.
Katz, Daniel (1960), "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24, 163-204.
Keller, Kevin L. (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), I-22.
Kleine, Robert E., Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan (1993), "Mundane Consumption
and the Self: A Social-Identity Perspective," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 209-35.
Kleine, Susan Schultz, Robert E. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen (1995), "How Is a Possession
'Me' or `Not Me'? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent of Material Possession Attachment,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (December), 32743.
Levy, Sidney J. (1959), "Symbols for Sales," Harvard Business Review, 37 (4), 117-24.
Maheswaran, Durairaj and Shelly Chaiken (1991), "Promoting Systematic Processing in Low
Motivation Settings: Effect of Incongruent Information on Processing Judgment," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
Malhotra, Naresh K. (1981), "A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Concepts and Product
Concepts," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (November), 45664.
(1988), "Self Concept and Product Choice: An Integrated Perspective," Journal of Economic
Psychology, 9, 1-28.
Markus, Hazel (1977), "Self-Schemata and Processing Information About the Self," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (2), 63-78.
and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), "Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion and
Motivation," Psychology Review, 98, 224-53.
and Elissa Wurf (1987), "The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective,"
Annual Review of Psychology, 38 (2), 299-337.
McCracken, Grant (1989), "Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the
Endorsement Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 310-21.

[Reference]
McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Costa, Jr. (1989), "The Structure of Interpersonal Traits:
Wiggins's Circumplex and Five-Factor Model," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56
(4), 586-95.
Norman, Warren T. (1963), "Toward an Adequate Taxonomy of Personality Attribute:
Replicated Factor Structure in Peer Nomination Personality Ratings," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 66, 574-83.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957), The Measurement of
Meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Park, Bernadette (1986), "A Method for Studying the Development of Impressions of Real
People," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 907-17.
Paunonen, Sampo V., Douglas N. Jackson, Jerzy Trzebinski, and Friedrich Forsterling (1992),
"Personality Structure Across Cultures: A Multimethod Evaluation," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62 (3), 447-56.
Pendergrast, Mark (1993), For God, Country and Coca-Cola. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons.
Piedmont, Ralph L., Robert R. McCrae, and Paul T. Costa, Jr. (1991), "Adjective Check List
Scales and the Five-Factor Model," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (4), 630-
37.
Plummer, Joseph T. (1985), "Brand Personality: A Strategic Concept For Multinational
Advertising," in Marketing Educators' Conference. New York: Young & Rubicam, 1-31.
Ratchford, Brian (1987), "New Insights About the FCB Grid," Journal of Advertising Research,
27 (August/September), 24-26.
Rook, Dennis W. (1985), "The Ritual Dimension of Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer
Research, 12 (December), 251-64.
Sirgy, Joseph (1982), "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review," Journal of
Consumer Research, 9 (December) 287-300.
Tupes, Ernest C. and Raymond E. Christal (1958), "Stability of Personality Trait Rating Factors
Obtained Under Diverse Conditions," USAF WADS Technical Report No. 58-61. Lackland Air
Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.
Wells, William, Frank J. Andriuli, Fedele J. Goi, and Stuart Seader (1957), "An Adjective
Checklist for the Study of `Product Personality,"' Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 317-l9.

305 PQ 1293086497

Indexing (document details)

Subjects: Market research, Studies, Statistical analysis, Brand identification,
Personality
Classification 9190 US, 9130 Experimental/theoretical treatment, 7100 Market research
Codes
Locations: US
Author(s):
Jennifer L Aaker profile
Publication title: JMR, Journal of Marketing Research. Chicago: Aug 1997. Vol. 34, Iss. 3; pg.
347, 10 pgs
Source type: Periodical
ISSN: 00222437
ProQuest 13238166
document ID:
Text Word 7861
Count
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
did=13238166&sid=1&Fmt=4&clientId=28403&RQT=309&VName=PQD