aakerdimensions of brand personality

8/12/2019 AakerDimensions of Brand Personality

1/11

Dimensions of Brand PersonalityAuthor(s): Jennifer L. AakerSource: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Aug., 1997), pp. 347-356Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151897

Accessed: 09/01/2009 17:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Marketing Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Marketing Research.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151897?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3151897?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/11

JENNIFERL. AAKER*Although a considerable amount of research in personality psychologyhas been done to conceptualize human personality, identify the "BigFive"dimensions, and explore the meaning of each dimension, no parallel

research has been conducted in consumer behavior on brand personal-ity. Consequently, an understanding of the symbolic use of brands hasbeen limited in the consumer behavior literature. In this research, theauthor develops a theoretical framework of the brand personality con-struct by determining the number and nature of dimensions of brand per-sonality (Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, andRuggedness). To measure the five brand personality dimensions, a reli-able, valid, and generalizable measurement scale is created. Finally,the-oretical and practical implications regarding the symbolic use of brandsare discussed.

imensions o r a n d PersonalityInconsumerbehaviorresearch,a considerableamount ofattentionhas been given to the constructbrandpersonality,which refers to the set of human characteristicsassociatedwith a brand.Researchershave focused on how the person-alityof a brandenablesa consumer o expresshis or herownself (Belk 1988), an ideal self (Malhotra1988), or specificdimensions of the self (Kleine, Kleine, and Keman 1993)through he use of a brand.Practitioners iew it as a key wayto differentiate a brand in a product category (Halliday

1996), as a central driverof consumerpreferenceandusage(Biel 1993), and as a common denominator hat can be usedto marketa brandacross cultures(Plummer 1985).However,despite this interest,researchon brandperson-ality and the symbolic use of brandsmoregenerallyhas re-mained limiteddue in partto the lack of consensus regard-ing what brandpersonalityreally is. How is it defined andthereby distinguishedfrom relatedconstructs?Does it havea framework r setof dimensions similarto ordifferent romthe "Big Five"dimensions of humanpersonality?As a re-sult, an understandingof how and when brandpersonalityrelates to a consumer's personalityand therebyinfluencesconsumerpreferencehas remainedelusive (see Sirgy 1982).Furthermore, o researchhas been conducted to developsystematicallya reliable, valid, and generalizablescale tomeasure brand personality.Currently,researchersrely on

*JenniferAaker s Assistant Professorof Marketing,AndersonSchool ofManagement,Universityof California,Los Angeles. The authorgratefullyacknowledgesthe help of RichardBagozzi, LaurenBlock, Susan Broniar-czyk, Lee Cooper, Gavan Fitzsimons,Jim Lattin,DurairajMaheswaran,Don Morrison,Bernd Schmitt, the editor, and the reviewers;as well asAndreRichards,DavidSpengler,and Steve Goldsteinat Levi-Strauss,whoprovided he fundingfor much of thisresearch.Greatamountsof thankstoKevin Lane Keller who provided insightand supportat each stage of thisresearch.

measurement cales that tend to be ad hoc (e.g., checklists,photo-sorts, symbolic analogy) or taken directlyfrom per-sonality psychology but not validated in the context ofbrands Kassarjian1971).As a result,the theoreticalgener-alizabilityand implicationsstemmingfrom the findings inthe researchon thesymbolicuse of brandsarequestionable.The objectiveof this researchis to address these limita-tions by drawingon researchon the "Big Five" humanper-sonality structure to develop a theoretical frameworkofbrand personalitydimensions (Norman 1963; Tupes andChristal1958) and a reliable, valid, and generalizablescalethat measuresthese dimensions.

THEBRANDPERSONALITY ONSTRUCTBrandpersonalityis definedformallyhereas "the set ofhumancharacteristics ssociated with a brand."Toillustrate,Absolut vodka personifiedtends to be described as a cool,hip, contemporary25-yearold, whereasStoli's personifiedtends to be described as an intellectual,conservative,olderman. In contrastto "product-relatedttributes,"which tendto serve a utilitarian unction for consumers,brandperson-ality tends to serve a symbolic or self-expressive function(Keller 1993).It is argued hat he symbolicuse of brands s possiblebe-cause consumersoften imbue brandswithhumanpersonali-ty traits(termedanimism;e.g., Gilmore 1919). Consumerseasily can thinkaboutbrandsas if they were celebrities orfamoushistoricalfigures(Rook 1985) and as they relatetoone's own self (Foumrnier994), which maybe due in part othe strategiesusedby advertisers o imbue a brandwithper-sonality traits such as anthropomorphizatione.g., Califor-nia Raisins), personification e.g., Jolly Green Giant), andthe creation of user imagery (e.g., Charlie girl). Throughsuch techniques, the personality traits associated with abrand, uch as those associated with an individual, end to be

Journalof MarketingResearchVol. XXXIV(August 1997), 347-35647


3/11

JOURNAL OF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1997relativelyenduringand distinct.Forexample,thepersonali-ty traits associated with Coca-Cola are cool, all-American,and real; these traits are relatively enduring(Pendergrast1993)and differentiateCokefrom its competitors e.g., Pep-si being young, exciting, andhip; Dr Pepperbeing noncon-forming,unique,andfun;Plummer1985).Motivatedby this logic, previousresearchhas suggestedthat the greater he congruitybetweenthe humancharacter-istics thatconsistentlyanddistinctivelydescribean individ-ual's actualor ideal self and thosethat describea brand, hegreaterthe preferencefor the brand(e.g., Malhotra1988;Sirgy 1982). However,the empiricalexplorationof this hy-pothesishas been handicappedby a limitedconceptualun-derstandingof the brandpersonalityconstructand the psy-chological mechanismby which it operates.Antecedentsof BrandPersonality

Althoughhuman and brandpersonality raitsmightsharea similar conceptualization(Epstein 1977), they differ intermsof how they are formed. Perceptionsof humanper-sonality traits are inferred on the basis of an individual'sbehavior,physicalcharacteristics,attitudesandbeliefs, anddemographiccharacteristics Park 1986). In contrast,per-ceptionsof brandpersonality raitscan be formedandinflu-encedby anydirector indirectcontact thatthe consumerhaswith the brand(Plummer1985). Personalitytraitscome tobe associated with a brandin a direct way by the peopleassociated with the brand-such as the brand's userimagery,which is definedhere as "the set of humancharac-teristics associated with the typical user of a brand"; hecompany's employees or CEO; and the brand's productendorsers.In this way, the personalitytraitsof the peopleassociated with the brand are transferreddirectly to thebrand(McCracken1989). In addition,however,personalitytraitscome to be associatedwith a brand n an indirectwaythroughproduct-related ttributes,productcategoryassoci-ations,brandname,symbolor logo, advertising tyle, price,and distribution hannel(Batra,Lehmann,andSingh 1993).In addition to personality characteristics,researchers(Levy 1959,p. 12) arguethat brandpersonality ncludesde-mographic haracteristicsuch as gender("Usually t is hardto evade thinkingof inanimatethings as male or female"),age ("Justas most people usually recognize whethersome-thingis addressed o themas a manor a woman,so aretheysensitiveto symbolsof age"),andclass ("Thepossessionofmink is hardlya matterof winterwarmthalone").Similartopersonalitycharacteristics, hese demographiccharacteris-tics also are inferreddirectlyfrom the brand'suserimagery,employees, or productendorsersand indirectlyfrom otherbrandassociations.Forexample,drivenby distinctuserim-agery, VirginiaSlims tends to be thoughtof as feminine,whereasMarlboro currently) ends to be perceivedas mas-culine. Partlydue to the relativerecencywith whichthe twobrandsenteredthe market,Apple is consideredto be young,and IBM is consideredto be older.On the basisof theirdif-ferentpricingstrategies,Saks FifthAvenueis perceivedasupperclass, whereasKmart s perceivedas blue collar.MeasuringBrandPersonality

To examine how the relationship between brand andhuman personality may drive consumer preference, twotypes of brandpersonalityscales are used.The firsttypeare

ad hoc scales, whichtypicallyarecomposedof a set of traitsranging from 20 to 300. However, though useful, thesescales tendto be atheoretical n nature-often developedforthe purposesof a specific researchstudy.As a result,keytraits may be missing from such scales. Furthermore,hetraits that are selected often are chosen arbitrarily,whichcasts doubt on the scales' reliabilityandvalidity.The second typeof brandpersonality cales arethose thatare more theoretical n nature,but are based on humanper-sonalityscales that have not been validated n the contextofbrands e.g., Bellenger,Steinberg,and Stanton1976;Dolich1969). However, houghsome dimensions(orfactors)of hu-man personalitymay be mirrored n brands,others mightnot. As a result,the validityof such brandpersonalityscalesoften is questionable,leading researchers o argue that "ifunequivocal results are to emerge [in the literatureon thesymbolic use of brands] consumer behavior researchersmustdeveloptheirown definitionsand design their own in-strumentsto measurethepersonalityvariables thatgo intothepurchasedecision"(italics in original;Kassarjian1971,p. 415).In thisresearch,a frameworkof brandpersonalitydimen-sions is developed. By isolating these distinct dimensionsversus treatingbrandpersonalityas a unidimensionalcon-struct,the differenttypes of brandpersonalitiescan be dis-tinguished,and the multipleways in which the brandper-sonality constructinfluences consumerpreferencemay beunderstoodbetter.Inaddition,a scale is developedto providea basis for the-ory-buildingon the symbolic use of brands.Drawingon re-searchby Malhotra 1981), who outlines a processof scaledevelopmentfor measuringself, person,and productcon-structs,reliabilityandvalidityareestablishedby relyingonsubjects representative f the U.S. population,systematical-ly selecting from a large pool of traitsto establish content

validity, and demonstrating he robustnessof the five di-mensions with an independent et of brandsandsubjects.Perhaps most important,this frameworkand scale aregeneralizable across productcategories. Beyond practicalbenefits, a generalizable framework and scale enable re-searchersto understand he symbolic use of brands n gen-eral versus the symbolic use of brandswithin a particularcategory.As a result,the symbolic natureof brandscan beunderstood at the same level as the utilitarian nature ofbrands,which tends to be capturedby models that are gen-eralizable across product categories (e.g., multi-attributemodel;FishbeinandAjzen 1975).Therefore, ike the multi-attributemodel, which sheds insight into when and whyconsumersbuy brands or utilitarianpurposes,a cross-cate-gory frameworkand scale can providetheoreticalinsightsinto when and why consumersbuy brandsfor self-expres-sive purposes.Incontrast,consider the difficulties of a theoretician'sat-temptto explorehypothesesregardingantecedentsandcon-sequencesof brandpersonalityusing personalityscales thatapplyonly to a single productcategory.It wouldbe difficultto use cross-categorystimuli, explore possible moderatingeffects of product ype, orexamine the psychologicalmech-anism that drives the symbolicuse of brandsacrossproductcategories, individuals,and cultures.Thus, productcatego-ry-specific personalityscales are of limited use in buildingtheory.

348


4/11

Dimensions of Brand PersonalityWHATS BRANDPERSONALITY?

To establish content validity,the developmentof a com-prehensiveand representative et of personalitytraitsandthe processof identifyinga set of stimuli aredescribed.PersonalityTraitGeneration

Overview. n the firststageof personality raitgeneration,a set of 309 candidate traits was created by eliminatingredundancyrom trait ists optionedfrom three sources:per-sonalityscales from psychology, personalityscales used bymarketers academicsandpractitioners), ndoriginal quali-tative research. In the second stage, this set of traits wasreduced to a more manageablenumber 114).Firststage. Considerable esearch n psychologyhas con-vergedon a stable,robust,and reliable factorialcompositionof humanpersonality, he "Big Five."A series of scales thathave been used to developand refine the "Big Five," nclud-ing the original work (Norman 1963; Tupes and Christal1958),NEO Model (McCraeandCosta 1989),Big Five Pro-totypes (John 1990), ACL (Piedmont,McCrae,and Costa1991), and Inter-CircumplexModel (McCrae and Costa1989), contributeda total of 204 uniquetraits.Inaddition,personality cales usedby academics(Alt andGriggs 1988; Batra,Lehmann,and Singh 1993; Levy 1959;Malhotra1981;Plummer1985;Wells et al. 1957) andprac-titioners(an advertisingagency,a marketresearchsupplier,and a client company)added a total of 133 uniquetraits.Finally,to ensure thatthe list was completeand the traitswere familiar and meaningfulto people, a free-associationtask was conducted. Subjects (n = 16, 50% female, meanage = 25) werepaid$40 each to participaten astudyon thetypes of personalitytraits associated with brands.Subjectswere asked to write down the personalitytraits that firstcame to mind whenthinkingabouttwo brands n threetypesof productcategories(as identifiedby Ratchford1987 in theAppendix;think-feeldimensions):symbolic(jeans,cosmet-ics, and fragrance),utilitarian(computers,electronics, andappliances),and bothsymbolicand utilitarian(automobiles,beverages, and athletic shoes).' The symbolic-utilitarianframework(Katz 1960) was used here and in subsequentstudies as a systematic way to select brandsthatspana va-rietyof categoriesandserve multiplefunctions,so as to en-hance the generalizabilityof the resulting scale. The 295uniquetraitsresultingfrom this task were added to the poolof personalitytraits.The resultof thefirst traitgeneration tageleft 309 nonre-dundantcandidatepersonality raits.Secondstage. Inthe second traitgenerationstage, the 309traits were reduced to a moremanageablenumber.Subjects(n = 25, 70%female, meanage = 33) werepaid$20 each toparticipate n a studyon the types of personalitytraits asso-

lToensure that the pairof brands,which also varyon the symbolic-util-itariancontinuum,in a productcategory were selected systematically,anindependent et of subjects(n = 20, 50%female,mean age = 28) wasaskedto rate the extent to which 36 brands n nine productcategorieswere rela-tively more "symbolic (i.e., self-expressive) versus utilitarian i.e., func-tional)" n nature.The brands hat received the highest ratingon the "sym-bolic" dimension are listed first, followed by the brands that received thehighest ratingon the "utilitarian" imension: eans (Guess,Wrangler), os-metics (Revlon, Mary Kay), fragrance(Obsession, Chanel), computers(IBM, Apple), electronics (GE, Sony), appliances (Maytag, KitchenAid),cars (Porsche, Volvo), beverages(Diet Coke, Calistoga)and athletic shoes(LA Gear,Adidas).

ciated with brands.To communicate the brandpersonalityconcept to subjects,subjectswere given an example of thepersonality of a brand in a symbolic product category(Wrangler eans-macho, rough, and sturdy), a utilitarianproductcategory(PeptoBismal stomachmedication-calm,sweet, and giving), and a productcategory that was bothsymbolic and utilitarian Dr Peppersoft drink-individual-istic, gregarious, and bold). In addition, to reduce thechances of focusingon a particular randorproductcatego-ry, subjects were told, "Since this study is not about anybrandor productcategory in particular, ry to think of asmanydifferent ypesof brands n variousproductcategorieswhen you evaluate each trait."Subjectsrated how descrip-tive the 309 traitswere of brands n general (1 = not at alldescriptive,7 = extremely descriptive).To isolate the mostrelevant raits, he cutoff for the final list of personality raitswas a scale ratingof 6 (very descriptive),thereby leaving114 personality raitsfor the study.StimuliSelection

Threecriteriaguidedthe selectionof a comprehensive ndrepresentativeet of brands:First,salient,well-knownbrandswere chosen so thata national amplecould be used;second,a wide varietyof brandsrepresenting spectrumof personal-ity types was selectedto enhance the scope of the scale;andthird,a rangeof productcategories,bothsymbolicand utili-tarian,was drawnuponto enhance scale generalizability.To identify the brands,an EquiTrend tudy (1992) wasused. Here, 131 brands n 39 productcategoriesandserviceswere ratedby a nationalsampleon both"salience" propor-tion of consumerswho have anopinionaboutthebrand)and"brandpersonality" on the basis of 30 personalitytraits).The brands selected all had high salience ratings (above50%). In addition, they representeddifferent personalityprofiles as determinedby a clustering procedure n whichthe 131 brands fell into nine distinct clusters. Four brandswere chosenrandomly romeach of these clusterson theba-sis of one guidingcriteria:Approximately he same numberof brandswere to be included romsymbolic,utilitarian, ndsymbolic/utilitarianypes of productcategories.This set of37 brands ncluded hose thatservesymbolicfunctions(e.g.,clothing, cosmetics, fragrance),utilitarianfunctions (e.g.,film, painrelievers, oothpaste),and bothsymbolicand util-itarian unctions(e.g., computers,soft drinks,tennisshoes).Fora list of the brands,see Table 1.Choosinga largenumberof brandshas the advantageofincreasingthe generalizabilityand robustness of the mea-surementscale. Its disadvantage,however,is possible sub-ject fatigue and boredom,which potentiallycould result inresponse bias. To minimize this problem,one brand fromeach of the nineclusters was selected andplacedintoone offour"BrandGroups," uch thateach BrandGroupcontaineda similarprofileof brands.In this way, personalityhetero-geneity ineachof the BrandGroupssimilarto that of the to-tal sample of brands was maintained.Finally, one brand(Levi's jeans) was included in each of the four BrandGroupsso that the extent to which the four distinctgroupsof subjects differed in their brandpersonalityperceptionscould be assessed.Thus,a total of 37 brandswere included.No significantdifferences were found among the meanratings of Levi's jeans in the four groups, which suggestshigh levels of agreementof the humancharacteristicsasso-

349


5/11

JOURNAL OF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1997Table 1

FOUR BRAND GROUPS OF TEN BRANDSBrandGroupI BrandGroup2 BrandGroup3 BrandGroup4Cresttoothpaste Kodak film Lego toys Cheerios cerealCampbell's soup Hershey'scandybar Hallmark ards MatteltoysKmart tores PepsiCola soft drinks Leejeans SaturnautomobilesPorsche automobiles Oil of Olay lotion Charlieperfume Guess?jeansReebok athletic shoes AMEX credit cards ESPN station Nike athletic shoesMichelin tires Sony television AT&Tphone service CNN stationDiet Coke cola Advil painreliever Applecomputers RevloncosmeticsMTV station MCItelephoneservice Avon cosmetics McDonald's restaurantsIBMcomputers Mercedesautomobiles Lexus automobiles Visa credit cardsLevi'sjeans Levi'sjeans Levi'sjeans Levi'sjeans

ciatedwitha particularbrand.Furthermore,he originalrat-ings on the EquiTrendpersonality raits for the nine sets offour brandswere examinedto confirm theirhigh levels ofsimilarity;each of the fourbrandswithin each set were sim-ilaron all personality raits.METHOD

SubjectsThe external validity and generalizabilityof the brandpersonalityscale depended on the subjects on which thescale was based. Therefore,a nonstudent amplewas used;one thatrepresented he U.S. populationwithrespectto fivedemographicdimensions (gender,age, household income,ethnicity,andgeographiclocation)as identified n the 1992U.S. Bureauof the Census.Forexample,56% of thesamplewas female,20% was 18-24 yearsof age, 34%hada house-hold incomeof more than$50,000, 10%wasAfrican-Amer-ican, and 20% lived in the Northeast.The subjects in thefour BrandGroupswere selected to have the same profilesas the total sample. Unless otherwise specified, the same

demographic profile of subjects is used in all remainingstagesof this research.To stimulatea high returnrate,a total of 1200 question-naireswas sent via FederalExpressto subjectsfrom a na-tional mail panel. Approximately55% of the subjects re-turned he questionnaires n = 631).Procedure

Subjects,who participatedn the studyin exchangefor agift of theirchoosing and a chance to win three firstprizesof $250 and five second prizesof $50, receivedthe follow-ing set of instructions:Mostof thefollowingquestions reabouta variety fbrands f products r services.Wewould ikeyoutothinkof each brandas if it werea person.Thismaysoundunusual, ut hinkof the setof humanharacter-isticsassociatedwith each brand.Forexample,youmight hink hat the human haracteristicsssociatedwithPeptoBismal are kind, warm,caring, oothing,gentle, rustworthynddependable.hehumanharac-teristicsassociatedwith DrPeppermightbe non-con-forming,un, interesting,xcitingand off-beat.We'reinterestednfinding utwhichpersonalityraits r hu-mancharacteristicsometo mindwhenyouthinkof aparticularrand.

Using a five-pointLikert scale (I = not at all descriptive,5 = extremely descriptive), subjectswere asked to rate the

extent to which the 114personality raitsdescribea specificbrand.2 Primarily positively valenced traits were usedbecausebrands ypicallyare linked to positive(versusnega-tive) associationsand because the ultimate use of the scaleis to determine he extentto which brandpersonalityaffectsthe probability hat consumerswill approach versusavoid)products.Subjects repeatedthe ratingtask for the nine additionalbrands n the particularBrandGroup.To controlfor prima-cy and recency effects, the order in which the traits werepresentedfor each brandwas counterbalanced. n addition,the order n which the ten brandswerepresentedn theques-tionnairewas rotatedcompletely.IDENTIFYINGTHE BRANDPERSONALITY IMENSIONS

Because the objective of this stage was to identify thebrand personalitydimensions as perceived in consumers'minds,rather hanthe individualdifferencesin how differ-ent peoplerespond o single brands,a state(versustrait)"O"analysis was used where the correlationmatrix for the per-sonalitytraits n = 114)correlatedacrossthe brands n = 37)is analyzed,and the scores of each brandon each personal-ity trait are averagedacross subjects(n = 631). The 114 x114 correlationmatrixwas factor-analyzedusing principalcomponentsanalysis and a varimaxrotation.A five-factorsolutionresultedon the basis of the followingcriteria:

1.All fivefactorshadeigenvaluesreaterhanone.2. A significant ipin the Screeplot ollowed hefifth actor.3.The first five factorswerethe mostmeaningful,ich,andinterpretable.34. The five-factorolution xplained high evel of variancenbrand ersonality92%).5. The five-factorolutionwas the most stableandrobust, sillustrated y subsample actoranalysesdescribed ubse-quently e.g., malesversusfemales,youngerversusoldersubjects).

2A Likertscale was preferredover a semantic-differentialcale becausetheobjectiveof this studywas to determine he extentto which a brandcanbe describedby certain human characteristics i.e., brandpersonalitycon-tent andstrength),rather han o determinewhen brandsareassociatedwithnegativeversus positive personalitycharacteristics i.e., brandpersonalityvalence).3Althoughat least nine traits oadedon each of the first five factors,onlythree traits oaded on the sixth("special,""classic,"and"tasteful") nd sev-enth ("big,""successful,"and "leader") actors. No traits loaded on anyremaining actors.More detailedinformation s well as the raw correlationmatrixand factor scores areavailable fromthe author.

350


6/11

Dimensions of Brand PersonalityWith the exception of four traits(urban,proud, healthy,and flexible), all of the traits had high loadings ( > .60) onone of the five factors and relatively low loadings on theother four factors.Because traits that load below .40 do notadd to measure purification(Nunnally 1978), these fourtraits were removed andthefactoranalysisrerun.The resultwas an easily interpretable ive-factor solution with highloadingsand communalities oreach of the traits.Moreover,the varianceexplainedin each of the factors was relativelyhigh (see Table2).The names determined o representbest the types of con-cepts subsumed n each of the five dimensions were Sincer-ity (e.g., typified by Hallmarkcards), Excitement (e.g.,MTV channel),Competence(e.g., The WallStreet Journalnewspapers), Sophistication (e.g., Guess jeans), andRuggedness (e.g., Nike tennisshoes).4

ASSESSINGTHESTABILITY F THE BRANDPERSONALITY IMENSIONSOne limitationassociatedwith factoranalysisis potentialdifferences in the meaningof the personalitytraitsamong

distinctgroupsof people.Therefore, o test the generalityofthefive brandpersonalitydimensionsand to determine f themeasurement cale can be used in futureresearchwith par-ticulargroupsof subjects (e.g., students),separateprincipalcomponentfactoranalyses(with varimaxrotationandunre-stricted numberof factors to be extracted)wererun on foursubsamplesof subjects;males (n = 278), females (n = 353),youngersubjects(n = 316), andolder subjects(n = 315).The similarityof the results fromthe four principalcom-ponentsfactoranalyseswas assessed bothqualitativelyandquantitatively. Qualitatively,an inspection of the resultsshows that the three criteria for similar factor structureswere met (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum1957): (1) thesame number of factorswere extracted-five; (2) the sametype of five factors resulted(i.e., the same traits loaded onthe same factors as in the total-samplefactoranalysis);(3)relativelysimilarweightsfor the five factors existed amongthe four subpopulations. n addition,the varianceexplainedby each factor in the four groups was approximatelythesame. The largest difference was for Sincerity,which ex-plained27% of the variance or the youngersubjectsampleversus 31% of the variance for the older subject sample.Quantitatively, actorcongruencecorrelations(the average

4These names were chosen after the second measurementphasebut arereportedhere to simplifythe terminologyused. Threeof these names wererepresented in trait form in the five dimensions (sincere, exciting, andrugged).

factorcorrelationsbetweenthesubsamples)were calculatedandrangedfrom .92 to .95. Althoughno statisticaltests areassociated with this coefficient, the factor structures inter-pretedas essentiallyinvariant f congruencecoefficientsarehigherthan.90 (Everett 1983).REPRESENTING HE FIVE BRANDPERSONALITY IMENSIONS:THEFINALSETOF PERSONALITYRAITS

The goal of the next phase was to identifythe traits thatmostreliably,accurately,andcomprehensivelyrepresent hefive dimensions.Therefore,a facet identificationphase wasconducted, whereby each set of items in the five factorsidentifiedin the principalcomponentsanalysis was factor-analyzed individually.The result of those five factoranaly-ses was a set of "facets."Toprovidea reliablerepresentationof each facet (Nunnally 1978), three traits from each facetwere selected.Facet Identification

Because many of the factors are broad,personality psy-chologists (e.g., Churchand Burke1994;McCraeand Costa1989)focus on different"facets" ubsumedby each factortoselect representative raits that provide both breadth anddepthand to serve as a framework or establishingthe simi-laritiesanddifferencesamongalternative onceptionsof the"Big Five." To identify the facets, the set of items in eachfactor(whichresulted rom theprincipalcomponentsanaly-sis) is factor-analyzedndividually,a processthat results inan unconstrained et of facets. For example, the Extrover-sion factor of human personality consists of six facets:Warmth,Gregariousness,Assertiveness, Activity, Excite-ment-Seeking,and Positive Emotions.However, t should benoted thatthese facets are not factorsin andof themselves,but ratherare "used to select and refine items ... to improvethe scales, not to revise the constructs" Churchand Burke1994, p. 107).Therefore, n this research, he set of items in each of thefive factorswas factor-analyzed ndividuallyusing principalcomponentsanalysis,a varimaxrotation cheme,and an un-restrictednumberof factors o be extracted.The result of thefive individual actoranalyseswas a total of 15 facets: Sin-cerityandExcitementeach had fourfacets,Competencehadthree,andSophisticationand Ruggednesseach hadtwo.The next stage was to select the best traitsrepresented neach of the 15 facets to be includedin the scale. To add tothe scale's reliabilityand comprehensivenesswhile mini-mizing traitredundancy, clustering procedureoutlinedbyNunnally(1978) was followed, wherebythree clusterswere

Table 2FIVE DIMENSIONS OF BRAND PERSONALITY

Variance TraitswithHighestName Dimension Explained Eigenvalue Item-to-TotalCorrelationsSincerity 1 26.5% 31.4 Domestic,honest,genuine,cheerfulExcitement 2 25.1% 27.9 Daring, spirited, maginative,up-to-dateCompetence 3 17.5% 14.2 Reliable,responsible,dependable,efficientSophistication 4 11.9% 9.2 Glamorous,pretentious, harming,romanticRuggedness 5 8.8% 6.7 Tough, strong, outdoorsy,rugged

351


7/11

JOURNAL OF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1997formedforeach facet.5Next, the traitwith the highestitem-to-totalcorrelation n eachclusterwas identified, eaving45traits 3 traitsfor each of the 15 facets)to be included n thefinal BrandPersonalityScale. All of these traits had highitem-to-totalcorrelationson both the facets (rangingfrom.75 to .98) and theirfactors(ranging rom .50 to .97), there-by ensuringhigh internalconsistency.See Figure 1 for thebrandpersonalityframework,which includes the five di-mensions and 15 facets.

ARE THEFIVE BRANDPERSONALITYDIMENSIONSRELIABLE?Todetermine hedegreeto which the five brandpersonal-ity dimensions will yield consistentresults, reliabilitywasassessed in two ways: test-retest correlationsand Cron-bach'salpha.

Test-RetestReliabilityA randomsubset of 200 subjects(50 in each of the fourBrandGroups) was selected from the original sample ofsubjects. To minimize both potential memory effects, in

which subjects might remember heirresponsesto the orig-inalquestionnaire,and "brandpersonality" ffects, in whichdifferences in the responses at Time I and 2 might differbecause of gradualchanges in the brandpersonalitiesovertime,the test-retestquestionnairewas sent two months afterthe original questionnaire.To avoidsystematicbias, all 114traits were included in the test-retestquestionnaire.The test-retestsample was composed of 81 subjects (a41% returnrate).The averagePearsoncorrelationbetween51n his clustering procedure, he trait with the highestitem-to-total or-relation within a facet was identified and formed the nucleus of the firstcluster.Then, the traitsthat were correlatedmost highly with the nucleustraitwere identified r > .90), formingthe first cluster n the facet. Next, thenucleusforthe second cluster was obtainedby identifying he traitwiththenexthighestitem-to-total orrelation n the facet. Traitswithrelativelyhighcorrelations with the second nucleus and relativelylow correlations(r


8/11

Dimensions of Brand PersonalityTable 3

CONFIRMATORYAMPLEOFBRANDSMarriotthotels HolidayInnhotelsMacy's stores SearsstoresTheWallStreetJournalnewspapers USATodaynewspapersLiz Claiborneclothing BenettonclothingMarlboro igarettes VirginiaSlims cigarettesMaytag appliances KitchenAidappliancesMetropolitanLife insurance Prudential nsuranceTaster'sChoice coffee Maxwell House coffeeBic razors GilletterazorsNewsweek magazines People magazines

StimuliThe second sample of brands was drawnfrom the samesource as theoriginalset of brands EquiTrend1992).Of the39 productcategoriesused in the original EquiTrend tudy,23 were used in the firststudy.Of the remaining16 productcategories, the 10 product categories that included morethan one brandwere selected. Next, the two brandswiththe

highest salience ratings(all higher than 50%) in these 10product categories were selected, for a total of 20 brands.However,unlike the first measurementpurification phase,these brandswere not chosen on the basis of theirpersonal-ity,so as to provide(1) a randomlychosen independent am-ple of brandsand(2) a more stringent est of the five-factorstructure.See Table 3 for a list of these brands.Analysis

Because the objectiveof the second measurementpurifi-cation stage was to determinethe extent to which the fivedimensionswere robustover a new set of brands and sub-jects, a confirmatoryfactor analysis (Generalized LeastSquareswas conducted),estimatinga five-factormodel for42 traits.Whenthe five factorswereallowedto correlate, hefit statistics suggested a good model fit (cf. Bagozzi andHeatherton1994; Bentler 1990): the confirmatory it index(CFI; Bentler 1990) = .98, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) =.91, adjustedgoodness-of-fitindex (AGFI)= .86, rootmeansquareresidual(RMSR)= .07, andChi-square= 9,216.806(with 809 degrees of freedom;p < .01). When the factorswere restricted o be orthogonal, he fit statistics wereCFI=.94, GFI= .86, AGFI= .85, RMSR= .15, andChi-square=9,447.11 (with 819 degreesof freedom;p < .01). Finally,toprovideconvergent supportof the robustnessof the struc-ture, an exploratoryprincipal components factor analysiswas conducted using a varimax rotation scheme and anunconstrained umberof factors to be extracted.The resultsshowed that the same numberof factorsresulted,the sametypeof five factorsresulted,and similarweights for the fivefactorsexisted.Moreover, actorcongruencecorrelations orthe five factors were high, rangingfrom .97 to .99, whichprovidessupport or thestabilityof the five-factorstructure.Fora list of the final set of personality raits hatmeasure hefive dimensionsof brandpersonality, ee AppendixA.

6The chi-squareis of limited value in this context and greaterweightshould be given to other fit statistics "because[the chi-squarestatistic] issensitive to samplesize and can lead to a rejectionof a model differingina trivialway fromthe data" Bagozzi and Heatherton1994, p. 45).

GENERALDISCUSSIONSummaryof the Research

Theobjectiveof this researchwas to developa frameworkof brandpersonalitydimensions and a reliable, valid, andgeneralizablescale to measure the dimensions. To identifythe brandpersonalitydimensions, a total of 631 subjectsrated a subset of 37 brands on 114 personalitytraits. Theresults of anexploratoryprincipalcomponentsfactoranaly-sis suggest that consumersperceive that brandshave fivedistinct personality dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement,Competence,Sophistication,andRuggedness.Theresultsofa series of factoranalysesrun on subsets of subjectsestab-lishedtherobustnessof the brandpersonalitydimensions.Inaddition, high levels of reliabilityof the five dimensionswere establishedthroughtest-retest correlationsand Cron-bach's alphas.Finally, the resultsof a confirmatory actoranalysis relying on 180 subjects,20 brandsin ten productcategories,and 42 personality raitsprovidedadditional up-portfor the stabilityof the five dimensions.Insummary, heresultsof these analysesdemonstrate hat the frameworkofbrandpersonalitydimensions,as representedby the 42-itemBrandPersonalityScale, is reliable, valid,andgeneralizable.TheSymbolicUse of Brands: BrandPersonalityVersusHumanPersonality

This researchhas both theoreticaland practical mplica-tions.Theoretically, hebrandpersonality rameworkdevel-oped in this researchsuggests thatone reason for the weakfindings in the self-congruityliteraturemay be due to theasymmetricrelationshipin the structure of brand versushumanpersonality.Althoughit could be arguedthat threebrand personalitydimensions relate to three of the "BigFive" human personalitydimensions (i.e., Agreeablenessand Sincerityboth capturethe idea of warmth and accep-tance; Extroversion and Excitement both connote thenotions of sociability, energy, and activity;Conscientious-ness and Competence both encapsulate responsibility,dependability, ndsecurity),two dimensions(SophisticationandRuggedness)differ fromanyof the"BigFive"of humanpersonality(Briggs 1992). This patternsuggests that brandpersonalitydimensions might operate in differentways orinfluence consumer preference for different reasons. Forexample, whereas Sincerity,Excitement,and Competencetap an innatepartof humanpersonality,SophisticationandRuggedness tap a dimensionthat individuals desire but donot necessarily have. This premise is consistent with theadvertisingcreated for prototypical Sophisticated brands(e.g., Monet,Revlon,Mercedes), n whichaspirational sso-ciations such as upper class, glamorous, and sexy are afocus. Similarly, Ruggedness brands (e.g., Marlboro,Harley-Davidson,Levi's)tendto glamorizeAmerican dealsof Western,strength,andmasculinity.If true,this premisewouldsuggest thatone reason fortheweak empirical supportfor self-congruityeffects (both ac-tual and ideal) is the focus on matchingthe personalitybe-tween a brand and a consumerat the aggregatelevel (i.e.,across all personalitytraits).Rather, his researchsuggeststhatdimensions of personalitiesmust be examined(Kleine,Kleine,and Keman1993; see also Kleine, Kleine, and Allen1995). Furthermore, he importanceof these dimensionsmustbe examined in order to understand heircentralityto

353


9/11

JOURNAL OF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1997the self (Markus1977;MarkusandWurf 1987) and the ex-tent to which they influence preferencefor brands acrosssituations.Practicalapplicationsof this research also exist. This isthe first attempt to develop a measurementscale that isbased on a representativeampleof subjects,a comprehen-sive list of traits,and a systematicallychosen set of brandsacross productcategories.Therefore,practitionershave analternative o theadhoc scales currentlyused.Moreover, hescale can be used to comparepersonalitiesof brandsacrossproductcategories,thereby enablingresearcherso identifybenchmarkpersonalitybrands.To aid this process,a set ofpersonality raitnorms is provided n AppendixA.TheAntecedents,Consequences,and ProcessingofBrandPersonality

Assuming that having a brandpersonalityis important,the questionarises:How does a brandgo aboutdeveloping

one?The brandpersonality rameworkand scale developedin this researchalso can be used to gaintheoreticalandprac-tical insightinto the antecedentsandconsequencesof brandpersonality,which have received a significant amount ofattentionbut littleempirical esting.Intermsof antecedents,manyhave suggestedthat brandpersonality s createdby avarietyof marketingvariables(e.g., user imagery,advertis-ing, packaging;cf. Batra,Lehmann,and Singh 1993; Levy1959; Plummer1985). However,the extent to which thesevariables independently and interdependently influencebrandpersonalityhas yet to be determined.With the use ofthe BrandPersonalityScale, the variables can be manipu-latedsystematicallyand theirimpacton a brand'spersonal-ity measured. Similarly, in terms of consequences,researcherssuggest that brandpersonality increases con-sumerpreferenceand usage (Sirgy 1982), evokes emotionsin consumers(Biel 1993), and increases levels of trustandloyalty (Foumier 1994). These assertionscan be tested byAppendix A

A BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE(Means and Standard Deviations)*

Standard StandardTraits Mean Deviation Facet Facet Name FactorName Mean Deviationdown-to-earth 2.92 1.35 (Ia) Down-to-earth Sincerity 2.72 .99family-oriented 3.07 1.44 (Ia)small-town 2.26 1.31 (la)honest 3.02 1.35 (Ib) Honestsincere 2.82 1.34 (Ib)real 3.28 1.33 (Ib)wholesome 2.81 1.36 (Ic) Wholesomeoriginal 3.19 1.36 (Ic)cheerful 2.66 1.33 (Id) Cheerfulsentimental 2.23 1.26 (Id)friendly 2.95 1.37 (Id)daring 2.54 1.36 (2a) Daring Excitement 2.79 1.05trendy 2.95 1.39 (2a)exciting 2.79 1.38 (2a)spirited 2.81 1.38 (2b) Spiritedcool 2.75 1.39 (2b)young 2.73 1.40 (2b)imaginative 2.81 1.35 (2c) Imaginativeunique 2.89 1.36 (2c)up-to-date 3.60 1.30 (2d) Up-to-dateindependent 2.99 1.36 (2d)contemporary 3.00 1.32 (2d)reliable 3.63 1.28 (3a) Reliable Competence 3.17 1.02hardworking 3.17 1.43 (3a)secure 3.05 1.37 (3a)intelligent 2.96 1.39 (3b) Intelligenttechnical 2.54 1.39 (3b)corporate 2.79 1.45 (3b)successful 3.69 1.32 (3c) Successfulleader 3.34 1.39 (3c)confident 3.33 1.36 (3c)upperclass 2.85 1.42 (4a) Upperclass Sophistication 2.66 1.02glamorous 2.50 1.39 (4a)good looking 2.97 1.42 (4a)charming 2.43 1.30 (4b) Charmingfeminine 2.43 1.43 (4b)smooth 2.74 1.34 (4b)outdoorsy 2.41 1.40 (5a) Outdoorsy Ruggedness 2.49 1.08masculine 2.45 1.42 (5a)Western 2.05 1.33 (5a)tough 2.88 1.43 (5b) Toughrugged 2.62 1.43 (5b)

*Basedon n = 9, 910

354


10/11

Dimensions of Brand Personalitysystematicallymanipulating istinctdimensions of a brand'spersonality (e.g., Sincerity)and examiningtheir impactonkey dependentvariables.Theoretically, his learningwouldcontribute o anoverallunderstandingf thesymbolicuse ofbrands.Practically, t would provide insight into the vari-ables that influence brandpersonality,as well as those thatare influencedby brandpersonality.Furtherresearch also is needed to examine how brandpersonality nformation s processed.Past researchdemon-strates that under conditions of high motivation or ability,brand attributes end to be processed systematically(Mah-eswaranand Chaiken 1991). However,less is knownaboutattitude formation under conditions of low motivation orability.Onepossibilityis thatbrandpersonality nformation,used as a heuristiccue, might influenceconsumerattitudesand attenuate he processingof brandattribute nformationunder low motivation.Another is that,due to the matchingprocess requiredto determine if a brand personalityandone's own personality are congruent versus incongruent,brandpersonality nformationmightrequiresystematic pro-cessing, and thereforeshould influence attitudesadditivelyunderhigh motivation.A final possibilitythat meritsexplo-ration s that brandpersonalitycould bias brandattributen-formation, n which the brandattributesare interpreteddif-ferently given the personalityassociated with a brand(cf.Chaiken and Maheswaran1994).TheSymbolicUse of BrandsAcross Cultures

Finally,the brandpersonality rameworkandscale devel-opedhere have important mplications or researchers xam-ining the perceptionsof brandpersonalityacross cultures.Forexample, the extent to which brandpersonalitydimen-sions are cross culturally generalizablemust be examined.Although research has shown that the human personalitydimensions remainrobust across cultures (Paunonenet al.1992), thesame maynotbe so for brandpersonalitybecauseof differences in the antecedentsof the two constructs.Con-sequently, the current scale might not be appropriate ormeasuringbrandpersonality n a different culturalcontext.Additional research is needed to determine the extent towhich these brandpersonalitydimensions are stable acrossculturesand, if not, theoreticallywhy they mightbe altered.Answers to these questionswill shed insight into the extentto which a brand'spersonality versusthebrand'sattributes)should remainconstant acrosscultures,whatdimensions ofbrandpersonalityare valued across cultures,and how con-sumers use brands across cultures (cf. Aaker and Mah-eswaran1997).Finally, little is known about the psychological mecha-nism by which brandpersonality operates across cultures.However, recent researchin culturalpsychology suggeststhat the symbolic use of brandsdiffersconsiderablyacrosscultures(Aakerand Schmitt 1997). Forexample, in individ-ualistcultures,whereindependence,autonomy,andunique-ness are valued(MarkusandKitayama1991),consumersaremore likely to use brandsto expresshow they are differentfrom members of their in-group.In contrast,in collectivistcultures,where interdependence, onformity,and similarityare valued (Markus and Kitayama 1991), consumers aremore likely to use brands o expresshow they are similar tomembers of their in-group. Such research would demon-strate hatthesymbolicorself-expressiveuse of brands s ro-

bust acrosscultures,while the natureof thatself-expressiondifferssignificantly.REFERENCES

Aaker,Jenniferand DurairajMaheswaran 1997), "TheImpactofCulturalOrientationon Persuasion," ournalof ConsumerRe-search, forthcoming.and Bemd Schmitt (1997), "The Influence of Culture onthe Self-Expressive Use of Brands,"Working Paper #274,UCLAAndersonGraduateSchool of Management.Alt, MichaelandSteveGriggs(1988), "CanA BrandBe Cheeky?"Marketing ntelligenceand Planning,4 (6), 9-16.Bagozzi, RichardP. and Todd F. Heatherton 1994), "A GeneralApproach o RepresentingMultifacetedPersonalityConstructs:Applicationto State Self-Esteem,"StructuralEquationModel-ing, 1 (1), 35-67.Batra,Rajeev, Donald R. Lehmann,and Dipinder Singh (1993),"The BrandPersonalityComponentof Brand Goodwill: SomeAntecedentsandConsequences,"n BrandEquityandAdvertis-ing, David A. Aaker and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Belk, Russell W. (1988) "Possessions and the Extended Self,"Journalof ConsumerResearch,2 (September),139-68.Bellenger, Danny N., Earle Steinberg, and WilburW. Stanton(1976), "TheCongruenceof StoreImageandSelf Image,"Jour-nal of Retailing,52 (Spring), 17-32.Bentler,Peter M. (1990), "ComparativeFit Indexes in StructuralModels,"PsychologicalBulletin,107, 238-46.Biel, Alexander(1993) "Converting mage into Equity,"n BrandEquityandAdvertising,DavidA. AakerandAlexanderBiel, eds.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Briggs, Steven (1992), "Assessingthe Five-FactorModel of Per-sonalityDescription," ournalof Personality,60 (2), 253-93.Chaiken,Shelly and DurairajMaheswaran1994), "HeuristicPro-cessing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of SourceCredibility,ArgumentAmbiguity,and Task Importanceon At-tributeJudgment," ournalof Personalityand Social Psycholo-gy, 66 (3), 460-73.Church,TimothyA. and Peter J. Burke(1994), "Exploratory ndConfirmatoryTests of the Big Five and Tellegen's Three andFour-DimensionalModels,"Journal of Personalityand SocialPsychology,66 (1), 93-114.Churchill,GilbertA., Jr.(1979), "AParadigm or DevelopingBet-ter Measures of MarketingConstructs," ournal of MarketingResearch,16 (February),64-73.Digman, John M. (1990), "PersonalityStructure:Emergenceofthe Five-Factor Model," Annual Review of Psychology, 41,417-40.Dolich, IraJ. (1969), "CongruenceRelationshipBetweenSelf-Im-age and ProductBrands,"Journal of MarketingResearch, 6(February),80-84.Epstein, Seymour(1977), "Traitsare Alive andWell," n Personal-ityat the Crossroads,D. Magnussonand N.S. Endler,eds. Hills-dale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, 83-98.EquiTrend1992), TotalResearchCorporation,Princeton,NJ.Everett,John E. (1983), "FactorComparability s a Means of De-terminingthe Number of Factors and Their Rotation,"Multi-variate BehavioralResearch, 18, 197-218.Fishbein,Martinand IcekAjzen (1975), Belief,Attitude,Intentionand Behavior:An Introduction o Theoryand Research. Read-ing, MA:Addison-Wesley.Fournier,Susan (1994), "AConsumer-BrandRelationshipFrame-work for Strategy Brand Management"unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,Universityof Florida.Gilmore, George W. (1919), Animism.Boston: Marshall JonesCompany.Halliday,Jean (1996), "ChryslerBrings Out BrandPersonalities

355


11/11

JOURNAL OF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1997with '97 Ads,"AdvertisingAge (September30), 3.John, Oliver (1990), "The 'Big Five' FactorTaxonomy:Dimen-sions of Personality n the NaturalLanguageand in Question-naires," n Handbookof Personality:Theoryand Research,L.A.Pervin,ed. San Francisco:Harper, 6-100.Kassarjian,Harold H. (1971), "Personalityand Consumer Behav-ior:A Review,"Journalof MarketingResearch,8 (November)409-18.

Katz,Daniel(1960), "The FunctionalApproach o the Studyof At-titudes,"Public Opinion Quarterly,24, 163-204.Keller, Kevin L. (1993), "Conceptualizing,Measuring,and Man-aging Customer-BasedBrandEquity," ournalof Marketing,57(January),1-22.Kleine, RobertE., Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan(1993), "MundaneConsumptionand the Self: A Social-IdentityPerspective," ournalof ConsumerPsychology,2 (3), 209-35.Kleine, Susan Schultz, RobertE. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen(1995), "HowIs a Possession 'Me' or 'Not Me'? CharacterizingTypes and an Antecedentof Material Possession Attachment,"Journalof ConsumerResearch,3 (December),327-43.Levy, SidneyJ. (1959), "Symbolsfor Sales,"HarvardBusiness Re-view,37 (4), 117-24.Maheswaran,Durairajand Shelly Chaiken (1991), "PromotingSystematic Processingin Low MotivationSettings:Effect of In-congruent nformation n ProcessingJudgment,"ournalof Per-sonalityand Social Psychology,61, 13-25.Malhotra,Naresh K. (1981), "A Scale to MeasureSelf-Concepts,PersonConcepts and ProductConcepts,"Journalof MarketingResearch,23 (November),456-64.(1988), "Self Conceptand ProductChoice:An IntegratedPerspective," ournalof EconomicPsychology,9, 1-28.Markus,Hazel(1977), "Self-SchemataandProcessingInformationAboutthe Self,"Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology,35 (2), 63-78.and ShinobuKitayama 1991), "Cultureand the Self: Im-plicationsfor Cognition,Emotionand Motivation,"PsychologyReview,98, 224-53.and Elissa Wurf(1987), "The Dynamic Self-Concept:ASocial Psychological Perspective,"Annual Reviewof Psycholo-gy, 38 (2), 299-337.McCracken,Grant(1989), "Who Is the CelebrityEndorser?Cul-turalFoundationsof the EndorsementProcess,"Journalof Con-sumerResearch,16 (3), 310-21.

McCrae,RobertR. andPaul T. Costa,Jr.(1989), "TheStructure fInterpersonalTraits: Wiggins's Circumplex and Five-FactorModel,"Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 56 (4),586-95.Norman,WarrenT. (1963), "Towardan Adequate TaxonomyofPersonalityAttribute:ReplicatedFactorStructure n Peer Nom-ination Personality Ratings,"Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology,66, 574-83.Nunnally,Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory.New York: Mc-Graw-Hill,Inc.Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum(1957), The Measurementof Meaning. Chicago: UniversityofIllinois Press.Park,Bemadette 1986), "AMethod for Studyingthe Developmentof Impressionsof Real People,"Journalof Personalityand So-cial Psychology,51, 907-17.Paunonen,Sampo V., Douglas N. Jackson,JerzyTrzebinski,andFriedrichForsterling 1992), "PersonalityStructureAcrossCul-tures:A Multimethod Evaluation," ournal of PersonalityandSocial Psychology,62 (3), 447-56.Pendergrast,Mark 1993), ForGod, Countryand Coca-Cola.NewYork:Charles Scribner'sSons.Piedmont,Ralph L., Robert R. McCrae, and Paul T. Costa, Jr.

( 1991),"AdjectiveCheckList Scalesandthe Five-FactorModel,"Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology,60 (4), 630-37.Plummer,JosephT. (1985), "BrandPersonality:A StrategicCon-cept For MultinationalAdvertising," n MarketingEducators'Conference.New York:Young& Rubicam,1-31.Ratchford,Brian (1987), "New Insights About the FCB Grid,"Journalof AdvertisingResearch,27 (August/September), 4-26.Rook, DennisW.(1985), "TheRitual Dimension of ConsumerBe-havior," ournalof ConsumerResearch,12(December),251-64.Sirgy, Joseph (1982), "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: ACriticalReview,"Journalof ConsumerResearch,9 (December)287-300.Tupes, Ernest C. and RaymondE. Christal (1958), "StabilityofPersonalityTraitRatingFactorsObtainedUnderDiverse Condi-tions," USAFWADSTechnicalReportNo. 58-61. LacklandAirForceBase,TX: U.S. Air Force.Wells, William,FrankJ.Andriuli,Fedele J. Goi, and StuartSeader(1957), "AnAdjectiveChecklistfor the Study of 'ProductPer-sonality,"'Journalof AppliedPsychology,41, 317-19.

356

aakerdimensions of brand personality

Documents