BIANCA GROHMANN*

Although masculinity and femininity are personality traits relevant to

brands, their measurement and contribution to branding theory and
practice have not been examined. This article describes the development
and validation of a two-dimensional scale measuring masculine and
feminine brand personality that is discriminant with regard to existing
brand personality dimensions and scales measuring masculinity and
femininity as human personality traits. This scale is applied to show that
(1) spokespeople in advertising shape masculine and feminine brand
personality perceptions; (2) brand personality–self-concept congruence
in terms of masculine and feminine brand personality and consumers’
sex role identity positively influences affective, attitudinal, and behavioral
brand-related consumer responses; and (3) masculine and feminine
brand personality lends itself to the creation of brand fit in a brand
extension context, which in turn leads to more positive brand extension
evaluations and increased purchase intentions with regard to the
extension.

Keywords: brand personality, measurement, brand management, brand

evaluation, brand extension

Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality

Positioning strategies frequently aim to associate brands
with masculine or feminine personality traits (e.g., “The
softer side of Sears”). Although masculinity and femininity
are personality traits relevant to brands, their measurement
and contribution to branding theory have not been exam-
ined. Currently, marketers use human personality scales to
measure gender dimensions of brand personality in the
evaluation of positioning or repositioning strategies. How-
ever, scales measuring masculinity and femininity as
human personality traits have not been validated in a brand
personality context. Their use in the measurement of brand
personality is inappropriate because there is evidence that
scales measuring human personality traits do not necessar-
ily lend themselves to the description of personality traits
associated with brands (Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Guido
2001). The primary objective of this article is the develop-
ment and validation of a scale that measures the gender
dimensions of brand personality for use in theory tests per-
*Bianca Grohmann is Associate Professor of Marketing, John Molson
School of Business, Concordia University (e-mail: bgrohmann@jmsb.
concordia.ca). The author gratefully acknowledges feedback on previous
versions of this article provided by Onur Bodur, Joseph Sirgy, and Sandor
Czellar. This article benefited tremendously from the constructive com-
ments provided by two anonymous JMR reviewers and Russell Winer.
This research was funded by the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la
Société et la Culture (FQRSC). Chris Janiszewski served as associate edi-
tor for this article.
taining to gender dimensions of brands and as a diagnostic
tool in the evaluation of positioning strategies.
The application of the masculine brand personality
(MBP) and feminine brand personality (FBP) scale in this
article advances the brand personality literature by address-
ing the following questions: (1) How is brand personality
created? Do spokespeople in advertisements shape con-
sumers’ brand personality perceptions? (2) Does brand
personality–self-concept congruence result in positive
behavioral consumer responses that go beyond the attitudi-
nal responses reported in the literature (e.g., Aaker 1999)?
and (3) Can fit of parent brand personality and extension
category perceptions enhance brand extension evaluations
and purchase intentions with regard to the brand extension?
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: A
more detailed discussion of the nature and significance of
gender dimensions of brand personality precedes Study 1,
which describes the development of the MBP/FBP scale.
Masculinity and femininity emerge as two independent per-
sonality dimensions that are captured by six items, respec-
tively. Study 2 illustrates the scale’s generalizability to both
symbolic and utilitarian product categories. Study 3 pro-
vides evidence of the scale’s predictive ability. Study 4
establishes the scale’s discriminant validity with regard to
the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem 1974)—a meas-
ure of masculinity and femininity as human personality
traits (Study 4a)—and the ruggedness and sophistication
dimensions of Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale

© 2009, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing Research

ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) 105 Vol. XLVI (February 2009), 105–119
106 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2009
(Study 4b). Three studies then address the central research
questions. Specifically, Study 5 shows that spokespeople
in advertisements contribute to the creation of brand per-
sonality. Study 6 demonstrates a positive effect of brand
personality–self-concept congruence on affective, attitudi-
nal, and behavioral consumer responses to brands. Study 7
confirms that brand fit based on brand personality and
extension category perceptions enhances brand extension
evaluations and purchase intentions with regard to the
brand extension.
MASCULINE AND FEMININE DIMENSIONS OF BRAND
PERSONALITY
Brand personality is “the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand” (Aaker 1997, p. 347). It is a multi-
dimensional and multifaceted construct (Aaker 1997) that
enables consumers to express themselves along several
dimensions. Similar to the “Big Five” model of human per-
sonality (Goldberg 1990), brand personality is measured
along five dimensions (sincerity, excitement, competence,
sophistication, and ruggedness) that uniquely apply to con-
sumers’ characterization of brands (Aaker 1997). Con-
sumers associate human personality traits with brands
because they relate to brands as they would to partners or
friends (Fournier 1998), because they perceive brands as
extensions of their selves (Belk 1988), or because mar-
keters suggest that brands have certain characteristics (e.g.,
“Built Ford Tough”). Therefore, it is likely that consumers
map a wide range of human personality traits, including
those associated with gender, onto brands.
A consideration of MBP and FBP traits appears to be
warranted for two reasons: (1) the multidimensional nature
of brand personality and accessibility of masculinity and
femininity as human personality dimensions and (2)
consumers’ need to express their masculinity/femininity
through brand choice and consumption. First, the impor-
tance of masculinity and femininity as human personality
traits has resulted in their inclusion in many comprehensive
human personality inventories: the Adjective Check List
(Gough and Heilbrun 1983), the California Psychological
Inventory (Gough 1978), the Comrey Personality Scales
(Comrey 1970), the Gilford–Zimmerman Temperament
Survey (Guilford and Zimmerman 1949), and the Min-
nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (see Digman
1990). Other scales measuring masculine and feminine per-
sonality traits (e.g., BSRI [Bem 1974], Personal Attributes
Questionnaire [Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp 1974]) are
still widely applied in human personality research. Because
masculinity and femininity are important aspects of human
personality (Constantinople 1973), people often use mascu-
line and feminine personality traits (in addition to demo-
graphics, such as sex) to describe others (Lippa 2005).
Thus, masculine and feminine personality traits are readily
accessible to people. Therefore, it is likely that along with
other personality traits, consumers also associate masculine
and feminine personality traits with brands.
A consideration of gender dimensions of brand personal-
ity raises the concern that though most personality invento-
ries and scales measuring masculinity and femininity pre-
date Goldberg’s (1990) five-factor model, masculinity and
femininity are not part of this model. However, alternative
integrations of personality factors resulted in multifactor
models that include masculinity (Comrey, Jamison, and
King 1968). At this point, research on how masculinity and
femininity fit with the five-factor model supports various
relationships between the Big Five and gender dimensions
(Lippa and Connelly 1990; Marusic and Bratko 1998;
Ramanaiah and Detwiler 1992; Whitley and Gridley 1993),
but because of their complex nature (Digman 1990), these
relationships are still being investigated. In summary, there
is a precedence for the investigation of masculinity and
femininity beyond the Big Five.
Second, a consideration of gender dimensions of brand
personality arises from consumers’ need to express them-
selves along multiple dimensions (Aaker 1997). The mar-
keting literature suggests that the need to express masculin-
ity and femininity through brand choice (e.g., Dolich 1969)
is based on the notion that gender is part of consumers’
self-concept (Freimuth and Hornstein 1982). Consumers
draw on masculine and feminine personality traits associ-
ated with a brand to enhance their own degree of masculin-
ity or femininity when they use brands for self-expressive
purposes (Fournier 1998; Sirgy 1982). Therefore, gender
dimensions of personality appear to be especially relevant
to brands that have symbolic value for consumers attempt-
ing to reinforce their own masculinity and femininity (e.g.,
personal care, fragrance, apparel brands). In practice, mar-
keters support consumers’ need for self-expression by cre-
ating masculine or feminine brand associations—for exam-
ple, using packaging color (e.g., bold versus pastel colors
in deodorant packaging)—but lack appropriate scales to
evaluate these marketing efforts. In light of the importance
of gender dimensions of brand personality in self-
expression and brand choice (Fournier 1998) and their
impact on marketing practice, it is appropriate to investi-
gate masculinity and femininity as brand personality
dimensions. Such an investigation can also contribute to the
brand personality literature by examining the dimensional-
ity of masculinity and femininity in a brand context.
Because consumers draw on human personality traits when
imbuing a brand with personality (Aaker 1997), the dimen-
sionality of MBP and FBP is expected to mirror the two-
dimensional structure of masculinity and femininity
supported in the psychology literature (Bem 1974; Con-
stantinople 1973; Freimuth and Hornstein 1982), which
suggests that people possess both masculine personality
traits (e.g., self-assertion, dominance; Deaux 1985) and
feminine personality traits (e.g., nurturance, interpersonal
warmth, communion; Deaux 1985) to varying degrees. This
prediction is contrary to some of the findings on gender
perceptions pertaining to product categories in the market-
ing literature, which suggest that masculinity and feminin-
ity form the extremes on a continuum (Iyer and Debevec
1986, 1989), though other researchers consider masculinity
and femininity independently (Golden, Allison, and Clee
1977).
CONSTRUCT DEFINITION
Consistent with definitions of brand personality (Aaker
1997; Azoulay and Kapferer 2003), the gender dimensions
of brand personality are defined here as the set of human
personality traits associated with masculinity and feminin-
ity applicable and relevant to brands. Several scales meas-
uring masculinity and femininity as human personality
traits exist, such as the masculinity–femininity scale of the
California Psychological Inventory (Fe; Gough 1978), the
Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality
BSRI (Bem 1974), the Personal Attributes Questionnaire
(Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp 1974), the Masculinity Trait
Index/Femininity Trait Index (Barak and Stern 1986), and
the Sexual Identity Scale (Stern, Barak, and Gould 1987).
However, these scales have not been validated in a brand
personality context. Indeed, their use in the measurement of
brand personality may be inappropriate because scales
measuring human characteristics do not necessarily lend
themselves to the description of personality traits associ-
ated with brands. For example, Caprara, Barbaranelli, and
Guido (2001) fail to replicate the Big Five model of human
personality (Goldberg 1990) for brands and conclude that
human personality characteristics may not translate directly
into brand personality traits. That the dimensions of Aaker’s
(1997) brand personality scale do not replicate those of the
Big Five model supports this conclusion. Given that gender
dimensions of personality are included in widely used,
comprehensive psychological inventories and given that
human personality scales should not be indiscriminately
applied to measure brand personality (Caprara, Bar-
baranelli, and Guido 2001), it is necessary and appropriate
to develop a scale that measures the gender traits associated
with brands rather than to rely on existing scales of mas-
culinity and femininity as human personality traits to cap-
ture these brand personality dimensions.
SCALE CONSTRUCTION
Item Generation and Content Validity
In an item generation exercise, 60 undergraduate students
(53% male) listed words associated with MBP and FBP.
Because brand personality involves human personality
traits associated with brands, scales measuring masculine
and feminine personality traits were added to the item pool
(BSRI [Bem 1974], Personal Attributes Questionnaire
[Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp 1974], and Masculinity
Trait Index/Femininity Trait Index [Barak and Stern 1986]),
along with relevant items from other sources (Block 1973;
Burke and Tully 1977; Otnes and McGrath 2001). The ini-
tial item pool consisted of 184 adjectives pertaining to
MBP and 202 adjectives pertaining to FBP.
Using the definition of MBP and FBP, four consumer
researchers rated the items as a poor, fair, good, or very
good representation of the respective construct. The experts
could identify ambiguous items or add relevant items if
they wanted. On the basis of expert ratings (intraclass cor-
relation = .64; Shrout and Fleiss 1979), an item was elimi-
nated if (1) at least one expert believed that it was ambigu-
ous, (2) at least one expert indicated that it was a poor
representation of its respective construct, or (3) at least two
experts rated it as fair. Item reduction resulted in 40 items
pertaining to MBP and 32 items pertaining to FBP.
Study 1: Initial Administration
Three hundred sixty-nine students at two North Ameri-
can universities (51% female) used 72 items (on nine-point
scales anchored by “not at all descriptive” and “extremely
descriptive”) to rate four well-known, widely available
brands: one brand of soap (Irish Spring or Dove), fragrance
(Old Spice or Tommy Girl), deodorant (Right Guard or
Secret), and cigarettes (Marlboro or Virginia Slims). The
brand and product category choice was based on a pretest
(n = 60), in which participants listed brands associated with
masculine and feminine personality traits. To control for an
107
effect of product category on brand personality perceptions,
product categories in which at least one masculine and one
feminine brand were identified. Overall, 1509 usable
responses were obtained.
Exploratory factor analysis. A two-factor solution
emerged in a principal components exploratory factor
analysis; the first factor (masculinity) accounted for 41.6%
of the total variance explained, and the second factor (femi-
ninity) accounted for 29.5%. After exclusion of ten cross-
loading items, factor loadings exceeded .60, and item-to-
total correlations exceeded .50. In a two-factor
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (LISREL 8.52), normed
fit index (NFI) = .92, nonnormed fit index (NNFI) = .93,
comparative fit index (CFI) = .93, goodness-of-fit index
(GFI) = .31, standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) = .17, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = .19, and critical N (CN; Hoelter 1983) =
60.44. Average variance extracted (AVE; Fornell and Lar-
cker 1981) was .57 (.66) for the masculine (feminine) scale,
and composite reliabilities for both scales were .98.
Item reduction. Items were eliminated on the basis of
individual item reliabilities (<.50) or modification indexes
(>3.84; Bagozzi and Yi 1988). To equate the number of
scale items of the resultant eight-item MBP and six-item
FBP scale, the item with the lowest item-to-total correlation
was dropped, and a chi-square difference test was con-
ducted between the CFA of the full scale and the CFA of
the reduced scale (Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann
2003). The reduced scale was accepted as better if the chi-
square difference test was significant and the adjusted GFI
increased. This process was repeated until the chi-square
difference test was not significant or the adjusted GFI
decreased, resulting in a six-item MBP scale (adventurous,
aggressive, brave, daring, dominant, and sturdy) and a six-
item FBP scale (expresses tender feelings, fragile, graceful,
sensitive, sweet, and tender). A two-factor CFA model indi-
cated good fit: NFI = .98, CFI = .99, NNFI = .98, GFI =
.95, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .06, and CN = 251.86. The
chi-square value was significant (χ2(53) = 131.19, p < .01)
but did not exceed three times its degrees of freedom
(Bollen 1989). The AVE was greater than .50 (Fornell and
Larcker 1981), suggesting that both MBP and FBP are uni-
dimensional constructs. Their correlation (standardized φ =
–.12, SE = .05) strongly suggests that these dimensions are
independent. Table 1 summarizes the relevant scale
characteristics.
SCALE VALIDATION
Study 2: Generalizability Across Product Categories
Study 1 included mainly symbolic brands. Following
Aaker’s (1997) use of Katz’s (1960) symbolic–utilitarian
framework, Study 2 examines the generalizability of the
MBP/FBP scale across a variety of brands drawn from
symbolic, utilitarian, and symbolic–utilitarian product cate-
gories. Brand personality scales that apply to both symbolic
and utilitarian product categories are more useful for theory
tests pertaining to symbolic consumption and its moderat-
ing effects (Aaker 1997).
Product and brand selection. The EquiTrend Study
(2006), which rates brands in 25 product categories in
terms of media expenditure, perceived quality, familiarity,
purchase intent, and equity, was used to select brands for
this study. Brands with familiarity ratings of at least 50%
108 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2009

Table 1
MBP/FBP SCALE CHARACTERISTICS

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 6

Factor Item-to-Total Factor Item-to-Total Factor Item-to-Total Factor Item-to-Total Factor Item-to-Total
Item Loading Correlation Loading Correlation Loading Correlation Loading Correlation Loading Correlation
MBP
Adventurous .79 .75 .90 .80 .84 .76 .82 .75 .76 .68
Aggressive .86 .78 .76 .75 .85 .76 .84 .78 .84 .71
Brave .88 .81 .91 .83 .91 83 .94 .85 .90 .81
Daring .85 .76 .90 .81 .89 .80 .91 .83 .89 .81
Dominant .73 .80 .53 .55 .76 .70 .78 .73 .80 .70
Sturdy .78 .67 .51 .51 .55 .50 .57 .52 .59 .52

FBP
Expresses
tender
feelings .85 .60 .81 .77 .86 .78 .85 .79 .84 .78
Fragile .78 .62 .61 .58 .87 .77 .84 .78 .83 .77
Graceful .89 .81 .73 .69 .90 .81 .88 .82 .81 .73
Sensitive .89 .83 .82 .77 .86 .76 .83 .78 .85 .82
Sweet .88 .72 .77 .72 .59 .53 .84 .78 .76 .76
Tender .88 .82 .79 .83 .86 .81 .90 .85 .88 .85

AVEa
MBP .67 .63 .66 .67 .65
FBP .75 .56 .70 .74 .69

Composite Reliability
MBP .92 .90 .92 .92 .92
FBP .92 .88 .93 .94 .94

Coefficient Alpha
MBP .91 .89 .90 .91 .91
FBP .90 .90 .91 .93 .90
aAccording to Fornell and Larcker (1981).

were considered, and an attempt was made to choose
brands in product categories used in the validation of
Aaker’s (1997) five-dimensional brand personality scale.
Although the brands included here differ to some extent
from Aaker’s because of the rise of new brands (e.g., Star-
bucks) and shifts in brand familiarity and ratings over time,
the product categories examined are utilitarian (e.g., pain
relievers, household cleaners), symbolic (e.g., cosmetics,
jeans), or both (e.g., athletic shoes). The selected brands
were grouped into two sets of 22 brands (see Appendix A),
which are similar in terms of product categories included.
Sample, procedure, and measures. In an online survey,
281 students (57.2% male) were randomly assigned to a set
of brands presented in random order. Participants rated
each brand’s MBP (Cronbach’s α = .89) and FBP (Cron-
bach’s α = .90). The analysis is based on 3174 brand
ratings.
Psychometric properties. In a LISREL measurement
model, NFI = .96, NNFI = .95, CFI = .96, GFI = .91,
SRMR = .08, RMSEA = .11, χ2(53) = 1942.68 (p < .001),
and CN = 136. Across utilitarian, symbolic, and utilitarian–
symbolic product categories, the two-factor model for the
MBP/FBP scale shows good fit, except for the RMSEA,
which exceeds .06. However, the value of this frequently
used cutoff criterion is somewhat subjective (Browne and
Cudeck 1992), and its validity has been questioned (Steiger
2000). Thus, the measurement model was accepted as ade-
quate. Masculine and feminine dimensions of brand person-
ality again emerged as unidimensional and independent fac-
tors: The AVE exceeded .50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981),
and the constructs were not highly correlated (standardized
φ = .44, SE = .02).
Discussion. Study 2 suggests that the MBP/FBP scale is
applicable to brands in symbolic, utilitarian, or mixed prod-
uct categories. The independence of the gender dimensions
of brand personality replicated in this study allows for a
classification of brands into (1) high-masculine/low-
feminine, (2) low-masculine/high-feminine, (3) low-
masculine/low-feminine (undifferentiated), and (4) high-
masculine/high-feminine (androgynous) brands. Mapping
brands in terms of their masculinity and femininity can
serve as a diagnostic tool to analyze consumer perceptions
of competing brands or to identify (re)positioning opportu-
nities. Figure 1 maps the brand personality perceptions
identified in Study 2.
Of interest is the absence of androgynous brands in
Figure 1. One explanation for this is the brand selection
process employed in this study, which was not aimed at
identifying brands representing all quadrants. Alternatively,
marketers may not consider androgynous brands a viable
positioning strategy, perhaps assuming that masculinity and
femininity represent a continuum rather than two indepen-
dent dimensions. It is also possible that androgynous
brands are more difficult to manage and sustain over time
because of conflicting consumer expectations of such
brands.
Overall, Study 2 indicates that the MBP/FBP scale can
be used for symbolic, utilitarian, and mixed product cate-
Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality
Figure 1
STUDY 2: MAPPING MBP AND FBP
Notes: For the sake of clarity, overlapping brand names were suppressed.
gories. A test of the scale’s predictive validity is presented
next.
Study 3: Predicting Brand Personality of Existing Brands
This study examines the predictive validity of the MBP/
FBP scale. The scale is applied to a set of brands for which
a priori expectations with regard to their MBP and FBP
were established in a pretest.
Pretest. Participants (n = 36) listed masculine, feminine,
undifferentiated, and androgynous brands from any product
category that came to mind. Brand selection was based on
this categorization and frequency of mention. The pretest
yielded several product categories (soap, fragrance, deodor-
ant, and soft drinks) with brands associated with different
personalities, such that one brand in each category was con-
sidered relatively high in masculinity (Irish Spring, Old
Spice, Right Guard, and Mountain Dew) and one brand was
considered relatively high in femininity (Dove, Chanel,
Secret, and Lipton Brisk iced tea) compared with all other
brands in the same category. The pretest did not yield
androgynous brands but allowed for the selection of addi-
tional undifferentiated brands.
109
Sample, procedure, and measures. Two hundred eighty
undergraduate students (43% male) rated one brand of soap
(Irish Spring, Dove, Safeguard, or Lever 2000), fragrance
(Old Spice, Chanel, Ck One, or 4711 Eau de Cologne),
deodorant (Right Guard, Secret, Sure, or Degree), and soft
drink (Mountain Dew, Lipton Brisk iced tea, Coca-Cola, or
Pepsi) using the 12-item MBP/FBP scale. The analysis is
based on 1050 responses.
Psychometric properties. The psychometric scale proper-
ties were again satisfactory. The LISREL measurement
indicated the following: NFI = .96, NNFI = .96, CFI = .96,
GFI = .92, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .09, χ2(53) = 553.38
(p < .01), and CN = 149.03. The correlations (standardized
φ = .10, SE = .03) between the gender dimensions of brand
personality supported their independence.
Results. The pretest suggests that Irish Spring, Old Spice,
Right Guard, and Mountain Dew are more masculine than
Dove, Chanel, Secret, and Lipton Brisk iced tea, respec-
tively. Furthermore, Dove, Chanel, Secret, and Lipton Brisk
iced tea are more feminine than Irish Spring, Old Spice,
Right Guard, and Mountain Dew, respectively. The addi-
tional, undifferentiated brands are expected to be rated low
110 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2009

Table 2 BSRI/femininity (20 items, Cronbach’s α = .95; Bem

STUDY 3: BRAND PERSONALITY PERCEPTIONS OF EXISTING 1974). The analysis is based on 2406 complete brand
BRANDS evaluations.
Results. Three criteria were applied to demonstrate dis-
Product Category Brand MBP FBP criminant validity of MBP and BSRI/masculinity and FBP
and BSRI/femininity, respectively (Table 3): First, chi-
Soap Irish Spring 4.02 (1.81) 3.95 (1.71)
Dove 3.14 (1.93) 6.40 (1.67)
square difference tests were conducted between relevant
Safeguard 3.99 (1.85) 3.64 (1.97) one- and two-factor CFA models. In support of discrimi-
Lever 2000 3.64 (1.96) 4.30 (2.11) nant validity, two-factor CFA models significantly reduced
the chi-square statistic compared with the one-factor
Fragrance Old Spice 5.39 (2.16) 2.71 (1.69) models.
Chanel 3.66 (1.68) 6.19 (1.77)
Ck One 4.27 (1.75) 4.43 (1.86) Second, confidence intervals around the correlation esti-
4711 3.93 (1.82) 4.15 (2.00) mates did not include |±1| (Anderson and Gerbing 1988).
Third, AVE was compared with the squared correlations
Deodorant Right Guard 5.30 (1.82) 2.87 (1.68) between MBP and BSRI/masculinity and FBP and BSRI/
Secret 4.10 (2.31) 5.33 (1.87)
Sure 4.33 (2.11) 3.46 (1.96)
femininity (Fornell and Larcker 1981): AVE did not exceed
Degree 5.09 (1.94) 3.21 (1.80) the squared correlation of MBP and BSRI/masculinity
(AVEMBP: .65 < .66) and FBP and BSRI/femininity
Soft drinks Mountain Dew 5.69 (1.92) 2.87 (1.52) (AVEFBP: .62 < .64). Because of the conceptual overlap of
Lipton Brisk 4.48 (2.04) 3.41 (1.84) masculinity and femininity as personality traits associated
Coca-Cola 5.12 (1.80) 3.72 (1.72)
Pepsi 4.78 (2.11) 3.34 (1.79) with people or brands and the resultant overlap in items in
the two scales, it is perhaps not surprising that this criterion
for discriminant validity is not met. Overall, however, the
on both dimensions. These expectations were confirmed for results suggest that the MBP/FBP scale is discriminant with
all the product categories.1 Mean values appear in Table 2 regard to the BSRI.
(for contrasts, see Appendix B). In summary, the MBP/FBP Study 4b: Discriminant Validity of MBP/FBP and
scale adequately captured expected differences in the MBP Ruggedness/Sophistication
and the FBP of existing brands.
In the joint application of MBP and FBP and Aaker’s
DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY (1997) brand personality scales, it may be of concern that
Two studies were conducted to establish discriminant the sophistication dimension includes the scale items
validity of MBP and FBP with regard to masculinity and “feminine,” whereas “masculine” and “tough” are items
femininity as human personality traits (Study 4a) and with included in the ruggedness dimension of brand personality.
regard to other brand personality dimensions (Study 4b). Because neither the facets subsumed under sophistication
(i.e., upper class and charming) nor those subsumed under
Study 4a: Discriminant Validity of MBP/FBP and BSRI ruggedness (i.e., outdoorsy and tough) reflect the concepts
Because of its established two-dimensional structure and of femininity and masculinity per se, the gender dimensions
widespread use, the BSRI (Bem 1974) was tested against of brand personality are expected to possess discriminant
MBP/FBP in this study. validity with regard to sophistication and ruggedness.
Sample, procedure, and measures. Five hundred forty- Sample, procedure, and measures. Four hundred sixty-
four undergraduate students rated one of four sets of six one undergraduate students rated four brands from four dif-
brands in different product categories (pain killers, tooth- ferent product categories (soap, fragrance, deodorant, and
paste, running shoes, soap, fragrance, and deodorant) on the shampoo; identified in the pretest to Study 3) on the follow-
following nine-point scales: MBP (six items, Cronbach’s ing nine-point scales: MBP (six items, Cronbach’s α = .91),
α = .91), FBP (six items, Cronbach’s α = .91), BSRI/ FBP (six items, Cronbach’s α = .93), ruggedness (five
masculinity (20 items, Cronbach’s α = .96; Bem 1974), and items, Cronbach’s α = .89; Aaker 1997), and sophistication
(six items, Cronbach’s α = .88; Aaker 1997).2 Because this
1The results reported here hold for male and female participants. Analy-
study requires established brand personality perceptions,
ses of variance testing the effect of brand × participant’s sex on MBP and
FBP reveal a main effect for brand in all categories. Participants’ sex was 2Discriminant validity was established between masculinity and femi-
significant for deodorants only: In general, men rated deodorants higher in ninity and excitement, sincerity, and competence (Aaker 1997) on all crite-
FBP. None of the brand × participant’s sex interactions were significant. ria reported for sophistication and ruggedness.

Table 3
STUDY 4A: DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF MBP/FBP AND THE BSRI

MBP FBP
r χ2Δa φ (SE) R χ2Δa φ (SE)
Masculinity (BSRI) .81 0,5811.27 .82 (.01) .13 17,423.33 .15 (.02)
Femininity (BSRI) .15 17,485.11 .14 (.02) .80 0,2820.35 .89 (.01)
aAll chi-square differences have one degree of freedom and p < .00001.
Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality
participants were included only if they were somewhat
familiar with the brand they rated (two on a seven-point
scale). The analysis is based on 1470 brand evaluations.
Results. Correlations in Table 4 suggest a greater degree
of convergence between conceptually related constructs
(i.e., MBP/ruggedness, FBP/sophistication) than between
unrelated constructs. To demonstrate discriminant validity
of MBP and ruggedness and FBP and sophistication,
respectively, chi-square difference tests were conducted
between relevant one- and two-factor CFA models. In sup-
port of discriminant validity, the two-factor CFA models
resulted in a significant reduction of the chi-square statistic
compared with the one-factor models (Table 4).
Discriminant validity was established for both MBP
and ruggedness and FBP and sophistication because none
of the confidence intervals around the correlation
estimated included |±1| (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Dis-
criminant validity was also supported in a comparison of
AVE and squared correlations between constructs (Fornell
and Larcker 1981): AVE exceeded the squared correlation
of MBP and ruggedness (AVEMBP: .67 > .30) and FBP and
sophistication (AVEFBP: .74 > .41). Thus, the gender
dimensions of brand personality are distinct from the
ruggedness and sophistication dimensions of brand person-
ality and can be administered to complement Aaker’s
(1997) five dimensions.
NOMOLOGICAL VALIDITY
Study 5: The Effect of Spokespeople on Brand Personality
Perceptions
This study examines whether spokespeople in an adver-
tisement influence consumers’ perceptions of MBP and
FBP. How human personality traits come to be associated
with brands is an important question for the management of
brand personality perceptions. The literature suggests that
brand personality is shaped through brand name, symbol or
logo, advertising, product attributes (Batra, Lehmann, and
Singh 1993), or spokespeople (Aaker 1997; Keller 1998),
but there is a lack of empirical research on the antecedents
of brand personality (except for Pantin-Sohier and Brée
2004). The product image literature indicates that the most
effective way to create or alter the gender image associated
with a product is to vary the spokesperson (Iyer and
Debevec 1989). Thus, it is expected that this approach is
viable in shaping MBP and FBP perceptions.
H1: Spokespeople depicted in advertising influence brand per-
sonality perceptions, such that (a) a masculine spokesper-
son increases the perception of MBP and (b) a feminine
spokesperson increases the perception of FBP.
Method. Brand personality of a fictitious brand was
measured after exposure to a print advertisement in a 3
Table 4
STUDY 4B: DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF MASCULINITY/FEMININITY AND RUGGEDNESS/SOPHISTICATION
MBP
r χ2Δa
Ruggedness .55 5811.27
Sophistication .25 7572.28
aAll chi-square differences have one degree of freedom and p < .00001.
111
(spokesperson: masculine, feminine, none) × 2 (partici-
pant’s sex: male, female) between-subjects experiment. Par-
ticipants’ sex was included to rule out differences in brand
personality perceptions across male and female consumers.
Pretests. The first pretest identified a product category
that was equally involving for male and female consumers
and a believable, appropriate, gender-neutral brand name.
Seventy-five students (60% female) completed the personal
involvement inventory (Zaichkowsky 1990) for various
product categories and rated fictitious brand names in terms
of familiarity, appropriateness for product categories,
believability, and gender associations (masculine, feminine)
on nine-point single-item scales. Product and brand order
was rotated. No gender differences in involvement emerged
for vitamin C (p > .58). For the vitamin C brand (Thex-
ton’s) selected for the main study, male and female partici-
pants’ perceptions of believability, appropriateness, gender
associations, and lack of familiarity with the brand did not
differ significantly (all ps > .16). The second pretest (n =
67) indicated that the male and female spokespeople fea-
tured in the study differed in masculinity (t(65) = 11.22, p <
.001) and femininity (t(65) = 20.51, p < .001) but not in
attractiveness and attitude toward the target (ps > .11).
Sample, procedure, and measures. Two hundred ninety-
two undergraduate students (49% male) evaluated a print
advertisement for Thexton’s Vitamin C that featured a mas-
culine spokesperson, a feminine spokesperson, or no
spokesperson. The advertisement featured the brand name,
an image of the spokesperson or an orange (in the control
condition), and a product description: “Thexton’s Vitamin
C—Natural source of vitamin C. No added flavors, sugar,
or preservatives. Manufactured to the highest of purity stan-
dards. 250 capsules – 500 mg.” After viewing the advertise-
ment, participants completed the MBP/FBP scale and
demographic measures.
Psychometric properties. In a LISREL measurement
model, NFI = .94, NNFI = .94, CFI = .95, GFI = .87,
SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .12, χ2(53) = 240.55 (p < .001),
and CN = 93.03. The gender dimensions were independent
(standardized φ = –.03, SE = .07).
Results. Because gender dimensions of brand personality
were orthogonal (r = .09), the effect of spokesperson on the
masculine and feminine dimensions was assessed in sepa-
rate analyses of variance (ANOVAs). In a 3 (spokesperson:
masculine, feminine, none) × 2 (participant’s sex: male,
female) ANOVA with MBP as the dependent variable, there
was a significant main effect for spokesperson (F(2, 286) =
49.50, p < .001, partial η2 = .22). The masculine spokesper-
son increased perceptions of MBP (M = 4.66) compared
with the feminine spokesperson (M = 2.86; t(226) = 8.57,
p < .001) and the control condition (M = 3.20; t(175) =
6.27, p < .001). The main effects for participant’s sex and
FBP
φ (SE) R χ2Δa φ (SE)
.57 (.02) –.20 6693.66 –.24 (.03)
.36 (.02) .64 3657.26 .64 (.02)
112 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2009
the spokesperson × participant’s sex interaction were not
significant (ps > .13). In another 3 (spokesperson: mascu-
line, feminine, none) × 2 (participant’s sex: male, female)
ANOVA with FBP as the dependent variable, the main
effect of spokesperson was significant (F(2, 286) = 23.39,
p < .0001, partial η2 = .14). The feminine spokesperson
increased perceptions of FBP (M = 5.19) compared with
the masculine spokesperson (M = 3.39; t(226) = 6.86, p <
.001) and the control condition (M = 4.18; t(183) = 3.14,
p < .01). The main effects of participant’s sex and the
spokesperson × participant’s sex interaction were not sig-
nificant (ps > .44). These results support H1 and are illus-
trated in Figure 2.
Discussion. A masculine spokesperson in a print adver-
tisement increased consumers’ association of masculine
personality traits with the brand, whereas a feminine
spokesperson increased consumers’ association of feminine
personality traits with the brand. These effects held for
male and female consumers. The pretest ruled out product
category and brand name effects; therefore, the results are
due to the spokesperson featured in the advertisement. Con-
sumers’ brand personality perceptions arose after a single
exposure to the focal advertisement in this experiment, but
they are likely to be shaped over time (Johar, Sengupta, and
Aaker 2005). The impact of marketing activities, such as
marketing communication (e.g., message, media), and the
product itself (e.g., brand name, brand-specific-type font,
logo, product design; Batra, Lehman, and Singh 1993)
should be of interest in further research on brand personal-
ity. Following this investigation of an antecedent of brand
personality, the next study focuses on relevant outcomes of
MBP and FBP perceptions.
Study 6: Brand Personality–Self-Concept Congruence
Effects on Consumer Responses
This study applies the MBP/FBP scale to examine the
influence of brand personality–self-concept congruence on
brand-related consumer responses. Self-concept congru-
ence is a mechanism by which brand personality affects
Figure 2
STUDY 5: EFFECT OF AD SPOKESPERSON ON MBP AND FBP
PERCEPTIONS
consumer responses: Brand personality is likely to result in
positive outcomes when it is congruent with consumers’
self-concept (Aaker 1997). Consumers prefer brands that
are congruent with their self-concept (Dolich 1969; Sirgy
1982; Wells et al. 1957) because such brands allow them to
reinforce their actual or desired view of themselves
(Fournier 1998) and thus help them achieve personal goals.
Given that both brand personality and consumers’ self-
concept consist of multiple dimensions (Aaker 1997; Sirgy
1982), congruence can be achieved only if dimensions of
brand personality are matched with important consumer
self-concept dimensions.
This study examines congruence in terms of gender
dimensions of brand personality and consumers’ sex role
identity. Sex role identity—a core dimension of self-
concept (Stern 1988)—reflects consumers’ perceptions of
their own masculinity and femininity (Gould 1996). This
dimension of self is often reinforced by the use of brands
(see Fournier 1998). Brand-related consumer responses
should be more positive when consumers’ sex role identity
and the MBP/FBP are congruent. This expectation is also in
line with congruence effects of masculine/feminine product
image and consumers’ sex role identity (e.g., Gentry, Doer-
ing, and O’Brien 1978; Sirgy 1982; Vitz and Johnston
1965).
H2: Brand personality–self-concept congruence (compared
with brand personality–self-concept incongruence)
enhances affective (affect, trust), attitudinal (attitude, pur-
chase intentions), and behavioral (loyalty, word-of-mouth
communication) consumer responses to the brand.
In brand personality–self-concept congruence research,
congruence was based on multiple administrations of iden-
tical scales to measure brand personality and human self-
concept dimensions (Aaker 1999; Graeff 1996; Grimm
2005). This raises concerns about demand cues. In addition,
in two of these studies (Graeff 1996; Grimm 2005), the
scales applied to assess brand personality and self-concept
had not been validated on either brands or consumers.
Thus, there is little evidence that these scales validly meas-
ure brand personality or self-concept dimensions or that the
findings extend beyond the context and products studied.
An advantage of using the extensively validated MBP/FBP
scale is that it can be administered along with valid and
widely used human personality scales, such as BSRI or sex
role identity. Such an approach has not been employed with
any other brand personality dimension to date. In addition,
the current study examines brand-related responses beyond
attitude toward the brand, which has been the main focus of
prior research on brand personality–self-concept congru-
ence effects (Graeff 1996; Grimm 2005).
Method. The hypothesis was tested using an experimen-
tal design in which brand personality–self-concept congru-
ence (congruent, incongruent) and brand served as a
between-subjects factor. Because consumer responses
included brand-related behaviors (brand loyalty and word-
of-mouth communication) in addition to affective and atti-
tudinal aspects (brand affect, trust, attitude, preference, and
purchase likelihood), the study involved three existing
brands.
Sample and procedure. In an online experiment, 371 stu-
dents (49% male) answered questions about one of three
randomly assigned brands (Gillette, L’Oréal, or Crest). Dis-
Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality 113

tribution of male and female participants across brands was
approximately equal (χ2(1) = 1.89, contingency coeffi-
cient = .07, ps > .36).
Measures. Table 5 lists the dependent measures used in
this study: brand trust (Cronbach’s α = .83), brand affect
(Cronbach’s α = .89), brand attitude (Cronbach’s α = .92),
brand preference relative to other brands (Cronbach’s α =
.94), attitudinal brand loyalty (r = .74), behavioral brand
loyalty (r = .83), purchase likelihood (r = .93), likelihood of
recommending the brand (r = .93), and word-of-mouth
communication (Cronbach’s α = .87), all of which were
measured on seven-point scales. Participants also rated their
sex role identity (10 + 10 items; for masculine sex role
identity, Cronbach’s α = .89; for feminine sex role identity,
Cronbach’s α = .89; Barak and Stern 1986), MBP (Cron-
bach’s α = .82), and FBP (Cronbach’s α = .87), and they
provided information on brand familiarity, brand usage, and
demographics. All participants were at least somewhat
familiar with the brand they evaluated.
Results. Congruence between the brand’s personality and
consumers’ sex role identity was calculated for each partici-
pant on the basis of self-ratings of sex role identity and
MBP/FBP brand ratings. For example, congruence
occurred for participant who rated L’Oréal high on feminin-
ity and low on masculinity (compared with the scale mid-
point) and for those who rated themselves as high on femi-
ninity and low on masculinity (compared with the scale
midpoint). Incongruence occurred for participants who
rated Crest low on both masculinity and femininity but
rated themselves as low on femininity but high on mas-
culinity.3 In a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
with brand personality–sex role identity congruence and
3The analysis was replicated using the geometric distance between
MBP/FBP ratings of the brand and consumers’ BSRI scores. For all
dependent variables, regression coefficients for congruence were negative
and significant (all ps < .03): as brand personality–self-concept incongru-
ence increases, consumers respond more negatively to the brand.

Table 5
STUDY 6: BRAND-RELATED CONSUMER RESPONSES MEASURED IN BRAND PERSONALITY–SELF-CONCEPT CONGRUENCE
STUDY

Measure Anchors Source

Bran Trust Strongly disagree/strongly agree Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
I trust this brand.
I rely on this brand.
This is an honest brand.
This brand is safe.

Brand Affect Strongly disagree/strongly agree Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)

I feel good when I use this brand.
This brand makes me happy.
This brand gives me pleasure.

Attitude Toward the Brand Negative/positive

What is your global evaluation of the brand? Dislike/like
Favorable/unfavorable

Brand Preference Very poor/very good Sirgy et al. (1997)

Indicate your degree of liking or preference for Very unsatisfactory/very satisfactory
[brand] relative to other brands in the same Very unfavorable/very favorable
product category.

Purchase Intention Unlikely/likely

How likely are you to purchase this brand in the Improbable/probable
near future?

Attitudinal Brand Loyalty Strongly disagree/strongly agree Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
I am committed to this brand.
I would be willing to pay a higher price for this
brand over other brands.

Behavioral Brand Loyalty Strongly disagree/strongly agree Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
I will buy this brand next time I buy (product
category).
I intend to keep purchasing this brand.

Likelihood of Recommendation Unlikely/likely

How likely are you to recommend this brand to a Improbable/probable
friend?

Word-of-Mouth Communication Strongly disagree/strongly agree Kim, Han, and Park (2001)
I recommend to other people that the brand
should be theirs as soon as possible.
I recommend the brand to other people.
I talked directly about my experience with this
brand with them.
114 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2009

brand serving as the independent factor, there were signifi-
cant multivariate effects of congruence (multivariate F(5,
361) = 2.86, p < .05, partial η2 = .04) and brand (multivari-
ate F(5, 361) = 4.62, p < .001, partial η2 = .06) but no sig-
nificant interaction (p > .96). Brand effects were due to less
favorable responses toward L’Oréal. Congruence had a sig-
nificant univariate effect on brand trust (F(1, 365) = 13.03,
p < .01, partial η2 = .03), brand affect (F(1, 365) = 7.99, p <
.01, partial η2 = .02), brand attitude (F(1, 365) = 11.40, p <
.01, partial η2 = .03), brand preference (F(1, 365) = 7.65,
p < .01, partial η2 = .02), and purchase intentions.
(F(1, 365) = 5.77, p < .05, partial η2 = .02). To examine the
effect of brand personality–self-concept congruence on
brand loyalty and word-of-mouth communication, another
MANOVA was conducted that included only participants
who had used the brand before (n = 328). At the multivari-
ate level, there were significant effects of congruence (mul-
tivariate F(4, 319) = 3.98, p < .01, partial η2 = .05) and
brand (multivariate F(4, 319) = 4.60, p < .001, partial η2 =
.06). The brand effect was due to lower ratings of L’Oréal.
At the univariate level, congruence significantly affected
attitudinal brand loyalty (F(1, 322) = 14.59, p < .001, par-
tial η2 = .04), purchase loyalty (F(1, 322) = 6.94, p < .01,
partial η2 = .02), likelihood of recommendation
(F(1, 322) = 8.77, p < .01, partial η2 = .03) and word-of-
mouth communication (F(1, 322) = 8.74, p < .01, partial
η2 = .03). In all cases, congruence between brand personal-
ity and consumers’ sex role identity resulted in more favor-
able consumer responses. All planned contrasts were sig-
nificant at p < .05 (one-tailed tests), and H2 was supported.
Figure 3 illustrates these results.
Discussion. Across brands, brand personality–self-
concept congruence led to positive consumer responses,
including favorable brand attitude, stronger brand prefer-
ence over competing brands, greater brand affect and trust,
higher degree of attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty,
Figure 3
STUDY 6: BRAND PERSONALITY–SELF-CONCEPT
CONGRUENCE EFFECTS ON CONSUMER RESPONSES TO
BRANDS
7 Congruence
Incongruence
5.67
6 5.41 5.28 5.41
5.02 5.06 5.11
4.69 4.69 4.77 4.88
5 4.31 4.35 4.36
4.09 4.09
3.45 3.62
4 brand fit based on gender dimensions of brand personality
3 Because functional/symbolic brand fit is unlikely to result
s
de
stronger purchase intentions, and increased likelihood of
positive word-of-mouth communication.
Study 7: The Effect of Brand Fit on Brand Extension
Evaluations
This study applies the MBP/FBP scale to test whether
brand personality lends itself to the creation of brand fit in a
brand extension context, as proposed by Keller (1998). Fit
between parent brand and extension product is an important
success factor in brand extension strategies (i.e., use of an
established brand name to launch a new product; Aaker
and Keller 1990; Völckner and Sattler 2006) because it
increases knowledge transfer (i.e., product-related associa-
tions, such as utilitarian benefits, and non-product-related
associations, such as symbolic brand benefits; Keller 1993)
and affect (i.e., feelings associated with a brand name;
Boush and Loken 1991). There are two dimensions of fit
(Bhat and Reddy 2001; Czellar 2003; Park, Milberg, and
Lawson 1991): product fit and brand fit. Product fit refers
to product feature similarity between parent brand and
extension product category (Aaker and Keller 1990) or
transferability of skills in producing the parent brand to the
extension, complementarity, and substitutability of parent
brand and extension (Bottomley and Doyle 1996). Thus,
product fit consists of relevant product-related associations
between parent brand and extension category. Brand fit,
which is also referred to as brand concept consistency
(Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991) or brand image fit (Bhat
and Reddy 2001), denotes fit between nonproduct associa-
tions (e.g., prestigious brand image, brand personality) of
the parent brand and extension product category (Czellar
2003). In the brand extension literature, studies on the
effect of brand fit on extension evaluations are scarce
(Czellar 2003): Park, Milberg, and Lawson (1991) examine
the influence of brand fit on extension evaluation of pres-
tige and functional brands and find that brand fit affects
extension evaluations of prestige but not functional brands.
In another investigation of prestige and functional brands,
Bhat and Reddy (2001) find some support for an influence
of brand fit on affect toward and cognitive evaluation of the
brand extension. Thus, research on the effect of brand fit on
extension evaluation appears to focus on brands with a
prestige versus functional image. The effects of brand fit
based on other brand image components, such as brand per-
sonality, have not received much attention. The only study
to consider brand fit based on brand personality (Diaman-
topoulos, Smith, and Grime 2005) focused on changes in
personality of the parent brand but did not consider exten-
sion evaluations.
The current research extends the notion of brand fit
beyond symbolic/functional brand image by exploring
and product gender perceptions of the extension category.
in successful brand extensions for functional brands (Bhat

n
e

m f-M on
ic th
W me ood ty
ct

C d- da f
t

te lty

ec ke o d
s L nd

or tion

or n o
us

io
nc

R Li L ran
l
fe

un ou
tu

om lih ya

om o ti
Be e In oya

at

and Reddy 2001; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991), this

a
Tr

re
Af

n
Br
t

B
At

e
d

al
an

al

study investigates whether functional brands can be suc-

At Pre
an

in
an
Br

Br

vi
ud
d
Br

cessfully extended if brand personality is used to create

ha
ha
an

tit

rc
Br

brand fit.
Pu

Parent brand selection. A pretest (n = 28; 40% male)

identified well-known brands with established, divergent
brand personalities. Gillette and Ivory were selected on the
Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality 115

basis of equal usage rate of their respective product cate- p < .001, effect size r = .67). In a MANOVA with extension
gories (personal care products, soap) among male and evaluation and purchase intentions as dependent variables,
female consumers (ps > .11), similar positioning in terms of the main effects of parent brand personality (F(2, 219) =
function (MGillette = 7.79, MIvory = 7.11; p > .96) and pres- 17.24, p < .000, partial η2 = .14) and extension category
tige (MGillette = 5.71, MIvory = 5.54; p > .99), and brand per- (F(2, 219) = 5.88, p < .01, partial η2 = .05) were qualified
sonality ratings (Gillette: MMBP = 6.88, MFBP = 3.87; p < by a significant parent brand personality × extension cate-
.001; Ivory: MMBP = 2.78, MFBP = 4.77; p < .001). gory interaction (F(3, 218) = 32.27, p < .000, partial η2 =
Extension category selection. Eighty-eight undergraduate .31). For the masculine brand, the masculine extension
students (41% male) rated a subset of 53 product categories category resulted in enhanced extension evaluation
drawn from extant literature on gendered product percep- (Mmasc_cat = 5.02, Mfem_cat = 4.02; t(110) = 2.92, p < .01,
tions (Gentry, Doering, and O’Brien 1978; Iyer and effect size r = .26) and purchase intentions (Mmasc_cat =
Debevec 1986) in terms of perceived masculinity (“not at 3.66, Mfem_cat = 3.05; t(110) = 1.29, p < .10, effect size r =
all masculine/very masculine”; Golden, Allison, and Clee .12). For the feminine brand, the feminine extension cate-
1977), perceived femininity (“not at all feminine/very femi- gory increased extension evaluation (Mmasc_cat = 1.91,
nine”; Golden, Allison, and Clee 1977), usage (“I never/ Mfem_cat = 4.43; t(110) = 7.86, p < .001, effect size r = .60)
regularly use this product”), functionality (“not at all/very and purchase intentions (Mmasc_cat = 1.57, Mfem_cat = 3.59;
functional”), and prestige (“not at all/very prestigious”) on t(110) = 6.45, p < .001, effect size r = .52). These inter-
nine-point scales. Participants also provided demographic action effects appear in Figure 4.
information. On the basis of equal usage rates for men and Discussion. This study shows that brand fit in terms of
women (ps > .27) and significant differences in product gender dimensions of brand personality and extension cate-
gender perceptions, exercise equipment (Mmasc = 7.32,
Mfem = 4.96; p < .001), pocket knives (Mmasc = 7.86, Figure 4
Mfem = 1.66; p < .001), low-fat food (Mmasc = 3.68, Mfem = STUDY 7: EFFECT OF EXTENSION CATEGORY ON EXTENSION
7.32; p < .001), and mineral water (Mmasc = 3.76, Mfem = EVALUATION AND PURCHASE INTENTION REGARDING THE
5.12; p < .01) were selected as extension categories. Prod- EXTENSION
uct gender perceptions did not differ by respondents’ sex
(ps > .23). Except for mineral water, which was perceived
as equally functional and prestigious (p > .40), extension
categories were more functional than prestigious (all ps <
.001). Thus, the extension scenarios in the main experiment
represent functional brands extending to functional cate-
gories, such that there is always a brand fit in terms of func-
tionality of parent brand and extension category but not
in terms of gendered parent brand/extension category
perceptions.
Sample, procedure, and measures. The experiment
employed a 2 (parent brand personality: masculine, femi-
nine) × 2 (extension category: masculine, feminine) mixed
design. One hundred twelve undergraduate students (51.5%
female) indicated their familiarity with each parent brand
on a nine-point scale and then considered a brief scenario
describing an extension of the masculine brand Gillette to
either low-fat food (feminine extension) or exercise equip-
ment (masculine extension) and an extension of the femi-
nine brand Ivory to pocket knives (masculine extension) or
mineral water (feminine extension). Participants completed
the following measures on nine-point scales: extension
evaluation (“bad/good,” “unfavorable/favorable,” “negative/
positive”; α = .96) and purchase likelihood of the extension
(“unlikely/likely,” “improbable/probable”; r = .96). Brand
fit (“The new product and the parent brand have similar
images,” and “The new product conveys the same impres-
sion as the parent brand”; Bhat and Reddy 2001; r = .86)
served as a manipulation check. Participants’ sex and brand
familiarity did not affect the results and are not discussed
further.
Results. The manipulation of brand fit was successful:
For the masculine brand, the masculine extension category
resulted in greater brand fit (Mmasc_cat = 3.25, Mfem_cat =
2.20; t(110) = 3.69, p < .001, effect size r = .33); for the
feminine brand, the feminine extension category increased
brand fit (Mmasc_cat = 1.44, Mfem_cat = 3.58; t(110) = 9.46,
116 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2009
gory perceptions results in more positive extension evalua-
tions and greater purchase likelihood. It demonstrates that
brand fit extends beyond the symbolic/functional dimen-
sions of fit examined in the marketing literature to date
(Bhat and Reddy 2001; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991).
These findings are especially noteworthy in light of the
functional nature of the parent brands and product cate-
gories examined herein. The literature indicates that
functionality-based brand fit per se does not influence
extension evaluations positively (Bhat and Reddy 2001;
Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991); however, extension
evaluations of functional brands can be enhanced by brand
fit based on brand personality and extension category
perceptions.
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
An objective of this research was the development of a
scale to measure the gender dimensions of brand personal-
ity. These dimensions are captured by a two-dimensional,
12-item descriptive adjective scale (MBP/FBP) that applies
to utilitarian and symbolic brands. The MBP and FBP con-
cepts are distinct from Aaker’s (1997) ruggedness and
sophistication dimensions, respectively. They complement
and can be used in conjunction with Aaker’s (1997) five
dimensions of brand personality. The MBP/FBP scale has
discriminant validity with regard to the BSRI in a brand
context. Along with its extensive validation involving more
than 2800 participants in eight studies, this suggests that the
MBP/FBP scale is more appropriate in measuring gender
dimensions of MBP and FBP than human personality
scales.
The MBP/FBP scale proved useful in addressing several
research questions: First, this research demonstrates that
marketers can shape gender dimensions of brand personal-
ity through their choice of masculine and feminine spokes-
people featured in advertisements. Second, gender dimen-
sions of brand personality influence affective, attitudinal,
and behavioral consumer responses positively when they
are congruent with consumers’ sex role identity and thus
enable consumers to express an important dimension of
their self-concept. Finally, in a brand extension context, fit
between gender dimensions of parent brand personality and
gender perceptions associated with the extension category
enhances extension evaluations and purchase intentions.
This effect emerged for functional products extending into
functional categories, for which research had not been able
to identify brand fit effects on extension evaluations (Bhat
and Reddy 2001; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991).
Managerial Implications
The MBP/FBP scale is a diagnostic tool to (1) analyze
consumers’ perceptions of MBP and FBP following brand
positioning, repositioning, or brand extension strategies; (2)
map consumers’ perceptions of competing brands; and (3)
identify alternative positioning strategies. Furthermore,
gender dimensions of brand personality affect brand-related
consumer responses, including brand extension evaluations
when the extension category is associated with specific
gender perceptions. These effects are especially important
to the management of brands that speak to the enhancement
of consumers’ sex role identity, such as brands of personal
care products, clothing, or services (e.g., Curves fitness stu-
dios for women), but they also extend to utilitarian brands
(e.g., toothpaste). Finally, MBP and FBP can be created
through the use of masculine or feminine spokespeople in
advertisements.
Theoretical Implications and Further Research
Similar to human personality, brand personality is multi-
dimensional and comprises masculinity and femininity.
These dimensions are independent and mirror the orthogo-
nality of masculinity and femininity as human personality
traits (e.g., Bem 1974; Freimuth and Hornstein 1982). This
suggests that consumers indeed map human personality
characteristics onto brands (Aaker 1997; Fournier 1998).
The independence of MBP and FBP highlights the differ-
ence between brand personality (human personality traits
associated with the brand) and product gender perceptions
(gender associations with a product category), for which
bipolar rather than independent scales are appropriate (Iyer
and Debevec 1989; Milner and Fodness 1995; Milner,
Speece, and Anderson 1990). Although both product gender
image and gender dimensions of brand personality pertain
to consumers’ perceptions of the gender of nonhuman enti-
ties, brand personality emphasizes human personality traits
associated with one specific brand; conversely, product
image is based on a variety of factors other than personality
traits (e.g., demographics of the perceived typical user of
the product category; associations with the product cate-
gory overall, which may include “averaging” across various
brands within that category). The independence of the gen-
der dimensions of brand personality raises important ques-
tions for further research. For many of the brands included
in Studies 2 and 3, masculinity and femininity appear to be
negatively correlated: Consumers perceive highly mascu-
line brands as low on femininity, and vice versa. Although
there are instances of undifferentiated (i.e., low masculine/
low feminine; Bem 1974) brands, such as Benadryl or
Aquafina, there was an absence of androgynous (i.e., high
masculine/high feminine; Bem 1974) brands. Further
research could address whether androgynous brands result
in conflicting consumer expectations (e.g., how can a brand
be convincingly aggressive and dominant but sensitive and
fragile?) and how these contradictions affect consumer
responses to such brands.4 Androgynous brands could be
contrasted with undifferentiated brands for which conflict-
ing expectations appear to pose less of a challenge; a con-
comitant lack of masculinity and femininity does not neces-
sarily cause a clash in expectations, which may explain
why there are more undifferentiated rather than androgy-
nous brands. Consumers’ sex role identity might act as a
moderator of the effect of expectations toward androgynous
brands on brand evaluation and adoption. Androgynous
consumers who view themselves as caring fathers or ambi-
tious, independent women might reconcile apparently con-
tradicting personality traits more easily and thus be more
favorably predisposed toward androgynous brands. In addi-
tion, a societal shift toward more androgynous gender roles
might positively affect consumer responses to androgynous
brands over time.
Another avenue for further research pertains to the effect
of product category on brand personality perceptions. Par-
ticularly intriguing is the potential effect of a strong dis-
4The author thanks the editor for suggesting this research direction.
Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality 117

crepancy between gender dimensions of brand personality that despite the theoretical and managerial importance of
and gender perceptions associated with a product category brand personality, there is hardly any research on the crea-
(e.g., for a low-masculine/high-feminine brand of power tion of brand personality or on managing a change in brand
tools) on perceived differentiation, credibility, and other personality over time (with notable exception of Johar, Sen-
brand personality dimensions (e.g., competence). Finally, gupta, and Aaker 2005). Perhaps the strong impact of brand
further research regarding potential antecedents of brand personality on brand-related consumer responses reported
personality, such as brand name, symbols, marketing com- herein will encourage additional research in this direction.
munications, pricing, and distribution (Aaker 1997; Batra,
Lehmann, and Singh 1993), is necessary. It is surprising REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), “Consumer
Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, 54
Appendix A (January), 27–41.
STUDY 2: SYMBOLIC AND UTILITARIAN BRANDS USED TO Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,”
TEST SCALE GENERALIZABILITY Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), 347–56.
——— (1999), “The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression
Brand Set 1 Brand Set 2 in Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May),
45–57.
Best Western hotels Marriott hotels
Cover Girl cosmetics Revlon cosmetics
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural
Aquafresh toothpaste Sensodyne toothpaste Equations Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended
Staples stores Best Buy stores Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–23.
Lexus automobiles Porsche automobiles Azoulay, Audrey and Jean-Noël Kapferer (2003), “Do Brand Per-
Reebok athletic shoes Nike athletic shoes sonality Scales Really Measure Brand Personality?” Journal of
Tylenol pain reliever Advil pain reliever Brand Management, 11 (2), 143–55.
AT&T phone service Bell phone service Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of
Panasonic televisions Sony televisions Structural Equations Models,” Journal of the Academy of Mar-
Apple computers Dell computers keting Science, 16 (1), 74–94.
Wrangler jeans American Express credit card
BP gas stations Shell gas stations
Barak, Benny and Barbara Stern (1986), “Sex-Linked Trait
Gatorade sports drink Aquafina water Indexes Among Baby-Boomers and Pre-Boomers: A Research
Budweiser beer Heineken beer Note,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, R. Lutz, ed.
Absolut vodka Bacardi rum Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 204–209.
Starbucks coffee Häagen-Dazs ice cream Batra, Rajeev, Donald R. Lehmann, and Dipinder Singh (1993),
Lysol cleaner Pine Sol cleaner “The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some
Kleenex facial tissue Scotties facial tissue Antecedents and Consequences,” in Brand Equity and Advertis-
Scott toilet paper Charmin toilet paper ing, David A. Aaker and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, NJ:
Cheer laundry detergent Arm & Hammer laundry detergent Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 83–96.
Benadryl allergy medicine Claritin allergy medicine
Tums Ex stomach medicine Pepcid AC stomach medicine
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (2), 139–68.

Appendix B
STUDY 3: DIFFERENCES IN BRAND PERSONALITY PERCEPTIONS OF EXISTING BRANDS

Product Effect Effect

Category Brand n MBP Contrasts for MBP Size r FBP Contrasts for FBP Size r
Soap 1. Irish Spring 63 4.02 (1.81) 1–2 t132 = 2.70* .23 3.95 (1.71) 2–1 t132 = 7.57*** .55
2. Dove 71 3.14 (1.93) 1–3 t125 = .88 .01 6.40 (1.67) 2–3 t133 = 8.59*** .60
3. Safeguard 64 3.99 (1.85) 1–4 t125 = 1.14 .10 3.64 (1.97) 2–4 t133 = 6.54*** .49
4. Lever 2000 64 3.64 (1.96) 4.30 (2.11)

Fragrance 1. Old Spice 65 5.39 (2.16) 1–2 t127 = 5.28*** .42 2.71 (1.69) 2–1 t127 = 10.85*** .69
2. Chanel 64 3.66 (1.68) 1–3 t132 = 3.50** .29 6.19 (1.77) 2–3 t131 = 5.56*** .44
3. Ck One 69 4.27 (1.75) 1–4 t118 = 4.29*** .37 4.43 (1.86) 2–4 t117 = 6.10*** .49
4. 4711 55 3.93 (1.82) 4.15 (2.00)

Deodorant 1. Right Guard 67 5.30 (1.82) 1–2 t129 = 3.35** .28 2.87 (1.68) 2–1 t129 = 7.73*** .56
2. Secret 64 4.10 (2.31) 1–3 t119 = 2.58* .23 5.33 (1.87) 2–3 t115 = 5.54*** .46
3. Sure 54 4.33 (2.11) 1–4 t132 = .57 .05 3.46 (1.96) 2–4 t129 = 6.68*** .51
4. Degree 67 5.09 (1.94) 3.21 (1.80)

Soft drinks 1. Mountain Dew 67 5.69 (1.92) 1–2 t136 = 3.60** .30 2.87 (1.52) 2–1 t136 = 5.28*** .42
2. Lipton Brisk 71 4.48 (2.04) 1–3 t138 = 1.70 .14 3.41 (1.84) 2–3 t142 = 1.07 .09
3. Coca-Cola 73 5.12 (1.80) 1–4 t133 = 2.67* .23 3.72 (1.72) 2–4 t137 = .24 .02
4. Pepsi 68 4.78 (2.11) 3.34 (1.79)
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Notes: p-values are for one-sided tests with adjustment for multiple comparisons. In each product category, the reference brand in contrasts (Brand 1 for
contrasts involving MBP, Brand 2 for contrasts involving FBP) was identified as high masculine–low feminine (Brand 1) or high feminine–low masculine
(Brand 2) in a pretest.
118 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 2009
Bem, Sandra L. (1974), “The Measurement of Psychological
Androgyny,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42
(2), 155–62.
Bhat, Sobodh and Srinivas K. Reddy (2001), “The Impact of Par-
ent Brand Attribute Associations and Affect on Brand Extension
Evaluation,” Journal of Business Research, 53 (2), 111–22.
Block, Jeanne H. (1973), “Conceptions of Sex Role: Some Cross-
Cultural and Longitudinal Perspectives,” American Psycholo-
gist, 28 (June), 512–26.
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent
Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bottomley, Paul A. and John R. Doyle (1996), “The Formation of
Attitudes Toward Brand Extensions: Testing and Generalising
Aaker and Keller’s Model,” International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 13 (4), 635–77.
Boush, David M. and Barbara A. Loken (1991), “A Process-
Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation,” Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 28 (February), 16–28.
Browne, Michael W. and Robert Cudeck (1992), “Alternative
Ways of Assessing Model Fit,” Sociological Methods and
Research, 21 (2), 230–58.
Burke, Peter and Judy C. Tully (1977), “The Measurement of
Role Identity,” Social Forces, 55 (4), 881–97.
Caprara, Gian V., Claudio Barbaranelli, and Gianluigi Guido
(2001), “Brand Personality: How to Make the Metaphor Fit?”
Journal of Economic Psychology, 22 (3), 377–95.
Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), “The Chain of
Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Perfor-
mance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 65
(April), 81–93.
Comrey, Andrew L. (1970), Manual for the Comrey Personality
Scales. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
———, Kay Jamison, and Nathan King (1968), “Integration of
Two Personality Factor Systems,” Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 3 (2), 147–59.
Constantinople, Anne (1973), “Masculinity–Femininity: An
Exception to a Famous Dictum,” Psychological Bulletin, 80 (5),
389–407.
Czellar, Sandor (2003), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Brand
Extensions: An Integrative Model and Research Propositions,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20 (1), 97–115.
Deaux, Kay (1985), “Sex and Gender,” Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 36, 49–81.
Diamanthopoulos, Adamantios, Gareth Smith, and Ian Grime
(2005), “The Impact of Brand Extensions of Brand Personality:
Experimental Evidence,” European Journal of Marketing, 39
(1–2), 129–49.
Digman, John M. (1990), “Personality Structure: Emergence of
the Five-Factor Model,” Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
417–40.
Dolich, Ira J. (1969), “Congruence Relationships Between Self-
Images and Product Brands,” Journal of Marketing Research, 6
(February), 80–84.
EquiTrend Study (2006), “Superbrands: A Special Report,”
BrandWeek, (June 19), S3–S86.
Fornell, Claes and David. F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Struc-
tural Equations Models with Unobservable Variables and Mea-
surement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (February),
39–50.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Develop-
ing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343–73.
Freimuth, Marylin J. and Gail A. Hornstein (1982), “A Critical
Examination of the Concept of Gender,” Sex Roles, 8 (5),
515–32.
Gentry, James W., Mildred Doering, and Terrence O’Brien (1978),
“Masculinity and Femininity Factors in Product Perception and
Self-Image,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, H.
Keith Hunt, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 326–32.
Goldberg, Lewis R. (1990), “An Alternative ‘Description of Per-
sonality’: The Big Five Factor Structure,” Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 59 (9), 1216–29.
Golden, Linda, Neil Allison, and Mona Clee (1977), “The Role of
Sex Role Self-Concept in Masculine and Feminine Product Per-
ceptions,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, H. Keith
Hund, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,
599–605.
Gough, Harrison G. (1978), Manual for the California Psycho-
logical Inventory (CPI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholo-
gists Press.
——— and Alfred B. Heilbrun Jr. (1983), The Adjective Check
List Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gould, Stephen J. (1996), “Gender Identity and Gender Salience:
A Dual-Path, Person-Situation Approach to Gender Effects in
Consumer Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
23, Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch Jr., eds. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 478–83.
Graeff, Timothy R. (1996), “Using Promotional Messages to Man-
age the Effects of Brand and Self-Image on Brand Evaluations,”
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13 (3), 4–13.
Grimm, Pamela (2005), “Ab Components’ Impact on Brand Pref-
erence,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (4), 508–517.
Guilford, Joy Paul and William S. Zimmerman (1949), The
Guilford–Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sheridan Supply.
Hoelter, Jon W. (1983), “The Analysis of Covariance Structures:
Goodness-of-Fit Indices,” Sociological Methods and Research,
11 (3), 325–44.
Iyer, Easwar S. and Kathleen Debevec (1986), “Gender Stereotyp-
ing of Products: Are Products Like People?” in Developments
in Marketing Science, Vol. 9, Naresh K. Malhotra and Jon M.
Hawes, eds. Atlanta: Academy of Marketing Science, 40–45.
——— and ——— (1989), “Bases for the Formation of Product
Gender Images,” in Developments in Marketing Science, Vol.
12, Jon M. Hawes and J. Thanopoulos, eds. Akron, OH: Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, 38–42.
Johar, Gita Venkatramani, Jaideep Sengupta, and Jennifer L.
Aaker (2005), “Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality
Impressions: Trait Versus Evaluative Inferencing,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 42 (November), 458–69.
Katz, Daniel (1960), “The Functional Approach to the Study of
Attitudes,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (2), 163–204.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Market-
ing, 57 (January), 1–22.
——— (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measur-
ing, and Managing Brand Equity, 2d ed. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, Chung K., Dongschul Han, and Seung-Bae Park (2001),
“The Effect of Brand Personality and Brand Identification on
Brand Loyalty: Applying the Theory of Social Identification,”
Japanese Psychological Research, 43 (4), 195–206.
Lippa, Richard A. (2005), “How Do Lay People Weight Informa-
tion About Instrumentality, Expressiveness, and Gender-Typed
Hobbies When Judging Masculinity-Femininity in Themselves,
Best Friends, and Strangers?” Sex Roles, 51 (1–2), 43–55.
——— and Sharon Connelly (1990), “Gender Diagnosticity: A
New Bayesian Approach to Gender-Related Individual Differ-
ences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5),
1051–1065.
Marusic, Iris and Denis Bratko (1998), “Relations of Masculinity
and Femininity with Personality Dimensions of the Five-Factor
Model,” Sex Roles, 38 (1–2), 29–44.
Milner, Laura M. and Dale Fodness (1995), “Product Gender Per-
ception: The Case of China,” in AMA Winter Educators’ Con-
Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality
ference: Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 6, David W.
Stewart and Naufel Vilcassim, eds. Chicago: American Market-
ing Association, 331–36.
———, Mark Speece, and Jon Anderson (1990), “Product Gender
Perceptions: The Case of Greeks,” in Proceedings of the Third
Symposium on Cross-Cultural Consumer and Business Studies,
Nicolaos E. Synodinos, Charles F. Keown, Thomas H. Becker,
Klaus G. Gruner, Thomas E. Miller, and Julie Yu, eds. Hon-
olulu: Association for Consumer Research, 404–414.
Otnes, Cele and Mary Ann McGrath (2001), “Perceptions and
Realities of Male Shopping Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 77
(1), 111–37.
Pantin-Sohier, Gaëlle and Joël Brée (2004), “L’Influence de la
Couleur du Produit sur la Perception des Traits de Personnalité
de la Marque,” Revue Française du Marketing, 196 (1), 19–32.
Park, C. Whan, Sandra Milberg, and Robert Lawson (1991),
“Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product-Level
Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 18 (2), 185–93.
Ramanaiah, Nerella V. and Fred R.J. Detwiler (1992), “Psycho-
logical Androgyny and the NEO Personality Inventory,” Psy-
chological Reports, 71 (12), 1216–18.
Shrout, Patrick E. and Joseph L. Fleiss (1979), “Intraclass Corre-
lations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability,” Psychological
Bulletin, 86 (2), 420–28.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 287–300.
———, Dhruv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg, Jae-Ok Park, Kye-
Sung Chon, C.B. Claiborne, et al. (1997), “Assessing the Pre-
dictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Con-
gruence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3),
229–41.
Spence, Janet T., Robert Helmreich, and Joy Stapp (1974), “The
Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A Measure of Sex Role
119
Stereotypes and Masculinity-Femininity,” in JSAS Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol. 4. New York: Johnson
Associates, 43–44.
Steiger, James H. (2000), “Point Estimation, Hypothesis Testing,
and Interval Estimation Using the RMSEA: Some Comments
and a Reply to Hayduk and Glaser,” Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 7 (2), 149–62.
Stern, Barbara B. (1988), “Sex-Role Self-Concept Measures and
Marketing: A Research Note,” Psychology & Marketing, 5 (1),
85–99.
———, Benny Barak, and Stephen J. Gould (1987), “Sexual
Identity Scale: A New Self-Assessment Measure,” Sex Roles, 17
(9–10), 503–519.
Vitz, Paul C. and Donald Johnston (1965), “Masculinity of Smok-
ers and the Masculinity of Cigarette Images,” Journal of
Applied Psychology, 49 (3), 155–59.
Völckner, Franziska and Henrik Sattler (2006), “Drivers of Brand
Extension Success,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), 18–34.
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann
(2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of
Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40
(August), 310–20.
Wells, William D., Frank J. Andriuli, Fedele J. Goi, and Stuart
Seader (1957), “An Adjective Check List for the Study of
‘Product Personality,’” Journal of Applied Psychology, 41 (5),
317–19.
Whitley, Bernard E. and Betty J. Gridley (1993), “Sex-Role Ori-
entation, Self-Esteem, and Depression: A Latent Variables
Analysis,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (4),
363–69.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1990), “The Personal Involvement
Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertis-
ing,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (December), 59–70.