A study of Brand Personality construct and development of a scale to measure product

Brand Personality in the Indian context

Thesis submitted to PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

for the award of the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in

Management

by

JIJO GEORGE (Reg. No. 141170008)

under the supervision of Dr. S. VICTOR ANANDKUMAR

Associate Professor

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY PUDUCHERRY – 605014. INDIA

MARCH 2014

JIJO GEORGE [Reg. No. 141170008] Ph. D. Research Scholar (Full–Time) Department of Management Studies School of Management Pondicherry University Puducherry – 605 014 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECLARATION

I, JIJO GEORGE, hereby declare that the thesis titled “A study of Brand

Personality construct and development of a scale to measure product

Brand Personality in the Indian context”, submitted to Pondicherry

University in fulfilment of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in

MANAGEMENT, is a record of original research work done by me under the

guidance and supervision of Dr. S. VICTOR ANANDKUMAR, Associate

Professor, Department of Management Studies, School of Management,

Pondicherry University.

I further declare that the thesis has not previously formed the basis for the

award of any Degree/ Diploma/ Associateship/ Fellowship or any other similar

title.

Place: Puducherry JIJO GEORGE

Date:

ii

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY PUDUCHERRY – 605014. INDIA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. S. VICTOR ANANDKUMAR Associate Professor

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis titled “A study of Brand Personality

construct and development of a scale to measure product Brand

Personality in the Indian context” submitted to Pondicherry University in

fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of DOCTOR OF

PHILOSOPHY in MANAGEMENT, is a record of original and bonafide

research work done by Mr. JIJO GEORGE [Reg. No.141170008] during the

period 2010-2014, at the Department of Management Studies, School of

Management of Pondicherry University, Puducherry, under my supervision and

guidance. This thesis has not previously formed the basis for the award of any

Degree/Diploma/Associateship/ Fellowship or similar titles and it represents

independent work on the part of the candidate.

I further certify that the work is worth submitting for the award of the said

degree.

Place: Puducherry Dr. S. VICTOR ANANDKUMAR

Date: Research Supervisor

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. S. Victor Anandkumar, my research supervisor, for

his guidance, encouragement, patience and friendship throughout this research. His

influence on me has had a great effect on my learning experience. Throughout my

doctoral studies, he has provided encouragement, sound advice, good teaching and

lots of good ideas. I owe him lots of gratitude. Your guidance and mentorship over the

last four years has been instrumental in my development as a scholar and person as a

whole. I am eternally grateful for the time and effort you have put forth on my behalf.

I would also like to thank my doctoral committee members Dr. G.

Anjaneyaswamy (Professor, Department of Tourism Studies, Pondicherry University)

and Dr. T. Nambirajan (Professor & Head, Department of Management Studies,

Pondicherry University). Your contribution to my research work has been

immeasurable. The time, effort, and expertise that you have provided have immensely

improved the quality of my research.

A special thanks to Dr. R. Prabhakara Raya (Dean, School of Management),

Dr. K. Chandrasekara Rao (Professor & Head, Department of Banking Technology,

Pondicherry University), Dr. P. Natarajan (Professor & Head, Department of

Commerce), Dr. P. Sridharan (Head, Department of International Business), Dr.

Yedla Venkata Rao (Head, Department of Tourism Studies), Dr. Binu Zachariah

(Assistant Professor, Department of English), Dr. Lakhimai Mili (Assistant Professor,

Department of English), Dr. S. Visaka Devi (Assistant Professor, Department of

English), Dr. Bushan D. Sudhakar (Associate Professor, Department of International

Business), Dr. B. Rangaiah (Associate Professor, Department of Applied

Psychology), Dr. Surendra Kumar Sia (Associate Professor, Department of Applied

Psychology) and Dr. Pradeep Krishnatray (former Dean, School of Media &

Communication, Pondicherry University) for the assistance and support they

rendered at different levels of my research work.

I am also indebted to my many research scholar colleagues for providing a

stimulating and fun environment which helped me a lot to learn and grow. I thank

each of you for the valuable suggestions and contributions in my research.

iv

I am grateful to my parents (Mr. George P.V. and Mrs. Annamma George) and

my sister (Ms. Jisha George) for their love and support. My parents consistently

reinforced the value of education and learning. Without their tireless effort, sacrifice,

and encouragement, I never would have reached this point. I look forward to returning

the love and support they have given me. I would also like to thank my relatives who

motivated and prayed for the successful completion of my PhD work.

I would also like to thank the experts and respondents who helped me to

produce this research. I owe a great thanks to more than 1000 respondents who spent

their valuable time to give their response. A big ‘thanks’ to all of you.

When it comes to friends, I am indebted to many, both inside Pondicherry

University and outside. However, I cannot bring my acknowledgements to an end

without mentioning to Mr. Biju M.A, Mr. Prince Alex and Ms. Lincy P.T.

A word of thanks to the faculty members of the Department of Management

Studies for their kind support and suggestions rendered at various stages of this work;

especially during different presentations of this work in the department. I would like

to extend my thanks to the administrative staff at the Department of Management

Studies, for their kind help and assistance. I would like to thank all whose direct and

indirect support helped me to complete my thesis in time.

Last but most important, I want to thank my Lord who surely planned it all-

from its humble beginning to its fruitful end. To my fellow brothers and sisters who

intend to embark on this academic journey, I say: “Put all your trust in the Lord and

do not rely on your own understanding. At every step you take, keep the Lord in mind

and He will direct your path.” (Proverbs 3:5-6, The Revised English Bible).

Place: Puducherry

Date: JIJO GEORGE

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS No. TOPIC PAGE

No. Declaration of authorship ii Certificate of authorship iii Acknowledgements iv List of tables x List of figures xi CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction 1 1.2. The concept of brand personality 1 1.2.1. Sources of Brand Personality 2 1.2.2. A Brief Review on Brand Personality Measurement 2 1.2.3. Importance and significance of Brand Personality 3 1.2.4. Objectives and scope of the study 4 1.2.5. Need for the Study 4 1.2.6. The need for a brand personality scale in the Indian

context 5

1.2.7. Significance of the study 5 1.2.8. Original contributions 6 1.2.9. Scope of the Research 6 1.2.10. Period of the study 7 1.3. Overview of the scale development process 8 1.3.1. Phase1: Construct Definition 10 1.3.2. Phase 2: Content Validity 10 1.3.3. Phase 3: Measure Purification 11 1.3.4. Phase 4: Checking the reliability of the scale 11 1.3.5. Phase 5: Confirming brand personality dimensions 12 1.3.6. Phase 6: Validity and reliability 12 1.3.7. Phase 7: Developing a short version of the scale 12 1.3.8. Naming of factors 13 1.4. Discussion and conclusion 13 1.4.1. Limitations and delimitations of the study 13 1.5. Structure of the thesis 14 Chapter 2

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

2.1. Introduction 16 2.1.1. Creating brand personality 17 2.1.2. Brand personality as a relationship builder 17

vi

2.1.3. The position of brand personality in marketing 18 2.1.4. Brand personality in brand building 20 2.2. Conceptualisation of brand personality 20 2.2.1. Demarcating Brand personality 21 2.3. Theories related to brand personality 23 2.3.1. Brand Equity 23 2.3.2. Anthropomorphism Theory 25 2.3.3. Self Concept Theory 25 2.3.4. Self Congruity Theory 26 2.3.5. Personality Theory 27 2.4. Review of select Brand Personality literature 29 2.4.1. Review of select Brand Personality literature 29 2.4.2. Measuring Brand Personality 31 2.4.3. Brand Personality Scales 32 2.4.4. A review of the applications of brand personality

concept 58

2.4.5. Brand Personality Researches in the Indian Context 77 2.5. Chapter discussion and conclusion 78 2.5.1. Gaps considered for the present study 79 2.6. Summary of the literature review 79 Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. The concept of measurement 80 3.2. Approaches to brand personality measurement 80 3.2.1. Qualitative Vs. Quantitative approaches to Brand

Personality Scale development 81

3.3. A review of methodology of building brand personality scales

87

3.3.1. Research approaches 87 3.3.2. Research methods adopted in Brand Personality scale

development 90

3.3.3. Generation of Items 94 3.3.4. Initial item reduction 97 3.3.5. Assessment o f dimensionality 98 3.3.6. Reliability and Validity of the Scale 100 3.4. Proposed scale development procedure 102 3.4.1. Sources of data 102 3.4.2. Brand selection 104 3.4.3. Methodology design for Item Generation 105 3.4.4. Methodology design for Language expert opinion

survey 106

3.4.5. Methodology design for Expert opinion survey 106 3.4.6. Methodology design for identifying the brand 107

vii

personality dimensions 3.4.7. Methodology design for confirming the brand

personality dimensions 108

3.5. Developing a short version of the scale 109 3.6. Research framework 110 3.7. Chapter conclusion 111 Chapter 4

SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

4.1. Introduction 112 4.2. Defining the Construct 112 4.3. Content Validity 112 4.4. Stimuli Selection 113 4.5. Item Generation 114 4.5.1. Qualitative Study: Free Association Test 115 4.5.2. Items from Literature Review 117 4.6. Language Expert Opinion Survey 121 4.7. Expert Opinion Survey 121 4.8. Consumer Survey 122 4.8.1. Measure Purification: Exploratory Factor Analysis 123 4.8.2. Scale Reliability 124 4.9. Confirming Product Brand Personality Scale (PBPS)

dimensions 127

4.9.1. Construct Validity 130 4.10. A short version of the PBPS 133 4.10.1. Checking the reliability of the short version of PBPS 134 4.10.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for short version

of PBPS 135

4.10.3. Construct validity 137 4.11. Naming of seven factors 140 4.12. Chapter conclusion 141 Chapter 5

FINDINGS, DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

5.1. Introduction 142 5.2. Major findings 143 5.3. Originality and novelty 146 5.4. Implications 146 5.4.1. How a brand manager may use the PBPS 147 5.4.2. Implications for Academics 147 5.5. A critical discussion on PBPS 148 5.6. Comparison of PBPS dimensions with other scales 151 5.7. Limitations 153

viii

5.8. Future research 154 5.9. Chapter conclusion 158 REFERENCES

159

APPENDICES

177

I Free elicitation questionnaire II Language Expert Opinion Survey III Expert Opinion Survey IV Questionnaire for consumer survey V Questionnaire for holdout sample survey VI Statistical Outputs A Exploratory factor Analysis Results B Cronbach’s Alpha value Calculations of full version of

the scale

C Test Re-test Results of Full version PBPS D Confirmatory factor analysis outputs of Full version of

PBPS

E Results of Short version of the scale

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE-2. 1 BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE (BPS) DEVELOPED BY AAKER (1997) ............. 35

TABLE-2. 2 BOSNJAK, BOCHMANN, AND HUFSCHMIDT’S BPS – FACTORS AND

ITEMS (2007) ............................................................................................................................... 43

TABLE-2. 3 SUMMARY OF BRAND PERSONALITY SCALES ............................... 49

TABLE-2. 4 COMPARISON OF BRAND PERSONALITY SCALES .............................................. 54

TABLE- 4. 1 BRANDS SELECTED FOR THE STUDY ................................................................. 114

TABLE- 4. 2 LIST OF ADJECTIVES FROM FREE ASSOCIATION TEST .................................. 116

TABLE- 4. 3 LIST OF ADJECTIVES FROM LITERATURE SURVEY ........................................ 117

TABLE- 4. 4 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................. 124

TABLE- 4. 5 FACTOR WISE TEST RE-TEST CORRELATION VALUES .................................. 125

TABLE- 4. 6 VARIABLE-WISE TEST RE-TEST CORRELATION VALUES .............................. 126

TABLE- 4. 7 EVALUATION OF MODEL FIT ............................................................................... 129

TABLE- 4. 8 AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED .................................................................... 130

TABLE- 4. 9 CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY VALUES .................................................................... 131

TABLE- 4. 10 EVALUATION OF DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY .................................................. 132

TABLE- 4. 11 SHORT VERSION OF THE PRODUCT BPS (PBPS) ............................................. 133

TABLE- 4. 12 CRONBACH’S ALPHA VALUES OF THE SHORT SCALE ................................. 134

TABLE- 4. 13 TEST RE-TEST CORRELATION VALUES OF THE FACTORS IN THE

SHORT SCALE .......................................................................................................................... 135

TABLE- 4. 14 - FIT INDICES FOR THE EVALUATION OF CFA MODEL OF THE

SHORT PBPS ............................................................................................................................ 137

TABLE- 4. 15 AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED VALUE IN THE CASE OF SHORT

PBPS ........................................................................................................................................... 138

TABLE- 4. 16 - CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY VALUES OF SHORT PBPS DIMENSIONS ........ 139

TABLE- 4. 17 EVALUATION OF THE DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THE SHORT

PBPS ........................................................................................................................................... 140

TABLE- 4. 18 NAMES OF SEVEN FACTORS IDENTIFIED ........................................................ 140

x

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE-1. 1 SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY POPULATION OF

BRANDS ........................................................................................................................................ 7

FIGURE-1. 2 FLOW CHART OF THE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ................................... 9

FIGURE-2. 1. BRAND PYRAMID ..................................................................................................... 19

FIGURE-2. 2 BRAND BUILDING MODELS .................................................................................... 20

FIGURE-2. 3 BRAND IDENTITY PRISM ......................................................................................... 22

FIGURE-2. 4 FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF HUMAN PERSONALITY ............................................. 28

FIGURE-2. 5 AMBROISE, FERRANDI AND MERUNKA’S BRAND PERSONALITY

SCALE (BPS) (2005) ................................................................................................................... 39

FIGURE-2. 6 SWEENEY AND BRANDON’S BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE (2006) .............. 40

FIGURE-2. 7 BOSNJAK, BOCHMANN, AND HUFSCHMIDT’S BPS (2007) .............................. 422

FIGURE-2. 8 GEUENS, WEIITERS AND WULF’S BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE

(2009) .......................................................................................................................................... 444

FIGURE-2. 9 KUENZEL AND PHAIROR’S BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE (2009) ............... 455

FIGURE-2. 10 HEINE’S LUXURY BPS (2009) ............................................................................... 466

FIGURE-2. 11 HEERE’S BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS (2010) ................................... 477

FIGURE-2. 12 BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS FOR CITIES .......................................... 644

FIGURE- 3. 1 FRAMEWORK FOR SCALE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................... 110

FIGURE- 4. 1 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS MODEL OF PBPS ................................ 128

FIGURE- 4. 2 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS MODEL FOR SHORT VERSION

OF PRODUCT BPS .................................................................................................................... 136

FIGURE- 5. 1 PRODUCT BRAND PERSONALITY SCALE ......................................................... 145

xi

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter intends to introduce the area in which this research is

conducted by presenting the concept of brand personality in general and then

narrowing down to the objectives of this research. An attempt is also made to

demonstrate the importance, significance and originality of the work.

1.1. Introduction

In a competitive business environment, consumers have numerous

choices of brands with several of them providing similar functional benefits.

Because of competition and innovative technologies, it is now easy for

competitors to copy the offerings of its rivals. So, differentiating one brand

from its competitors merely based on its functional attributes alone has become

almost impossible. Offering symbolic benefits to consumers and thereby

gaining an edge over the competitors has become important in this regard.

Brand personality plays a crucial role in offering symbolic benefits to

consumers. It is of greater importance than other concepts like brand identity,

since consumers pay more attention to it when brands become more

homogeneous (Hussey and Duncombe, 1999).

1.2. The concept of brand personality

The tendency to attribute human characteristics to brands existed in the

marketing domain as early as 1950s. According to Azoulay and Kapferer

(2003), it was Martineau (1958) who first introduced this term in marketing

research to refer to the non-material features of a store which makes it special.

King (1970) quoted the research works of J. Walter Thompson Advertising

Agency which indicate that consumers attribute personality characteristics to

brands and talk about it.

1

Before 1980s brand differentiation was mainly based on product

performance. But with increasing number of products which provided almost

the same set of functional benefits, it became difficult for marketers to

differentiate brands merely on the basis of its performance. In order to

overcome this trouble, the advertising agency Ted Bates introduced the concept

of Unique Selling Personality following the concept of Unique Selling

Proposition created by Rosser Reeves. As a consequence, from 1970 onwards

brand personality becomes an inevitable component of advertising strategy and

it captured everything related to the non-material features of the brand

(Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003).

1.2.1. Sources of Brand Personality

Brand personality is a concept that has its roots in human personality

concept in Psychology. However, the two concepts differ mainly in terms of

how they are formed in the minds of people. While the former is formed based

on some indirect sources like celebrity endorsers, typical users, product

features and so on (Aaker, 1997), the latter derives its image out of direct

sources such as individual behaviour, physical characteristics, attitudes and

beliefs, and demographic characteristics (Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986).

1.2.2. A Brief Review on Brand Personality Measurement

Brand personality measurement research can be traced back to 1960’s

(Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969). Early research works focused on the self

congruity concept or in other words, understanding the relationship between

the consumers’ self and brand personality. For example, Birdwell (1968)

conducted a study using a compiled list of bi-polar items containing

appropriate adjectives which described both automobile and human

personalities, to understand the relationship between consumers’ perception

about their car and their self perception. Another early study on product

personality was one done by Dolich (1969). It was done with an intention to

understand the relationship between consumers’ actual and ideal self image and

2

personalities of four product categories namely beer, cigarettes, bar soap and

tooth paste. The researcher used a scale adapted from human personality scales

to study the same. The research works of Malhotra (1981), on construction of a

scale which measured self-concepts, person concepts and product concepts and,

Karande, Zinkhan, and Lum (1997) on brand personality and self-concept are

some of the other noteworthy works.

A breakthrough in the field of brand personality research came with the

work of Aaker (1997) who developed the first reliable, valid and generalizable

brand personality scale (BPS). This scale consisted of five dimensions, 15

facets and 42 traits. However, it was criticized on various grounds such as

loose definition of the construct (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003), considering

only positive brand attributes for measuring brand personality (Geuens,

Weijters, and De Wulf, 2009) and its culture-specific nature since the five

factors identified by Aaker (1997) in the United States (U.S.) were not found to

be replicable in the case of other cultures. For example Aaker, Benet-Martinez,

and Garolera (2001) found that Peacefulness replaced Ruggedness in the case

of Japan and in the case of Spain, only three factors (Sincerity, Excitement, and

Sophistication) out of five were found to be applicable. The other two factors in

the case of Spain were Passion and Peacefulness. This limitation of Aaker’s

scale has lead to a large number of culture-specific studies. A French BPS was

created by Ferrandi, Valette-Florence, and Fine-Falcy (2000), an Italian one

was developed by Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Guido (2001), a German one by

Bosnjak, Bochmann, and Hufschmidt (2007), and a Belgian BPS by Geuens et

al. (2009). Some researchers who followed Aaker (1997), created scales

(Bosnjak et al., 2007; Geuens et al., 2009) which successfully addressed some

criticisms regarding Aaker’s scale.

1.2.3. Importance and significance of Brand Personality

Brand personality assumes significance since it plays a vital role in

understanding brand choice (Plummer, 2000) and is invaluable in building

brand equity (Van Rekom, Jacobs, and Verlegh, 2006). A research by Sirgy

3

(1982) reveals that brand personality plays an essential role in increasing the

consumer preference for the brand as well as its usage. Further, the research

works of Biel (1992) and Keller, Parameswaran, and Jacob (2011) established

that the aforementioned concept helps consumers to differentiate a brand from

its myriad of competitors. Also, it serves as a mode of self expression (Belk,

1988). Functional differences are often minimal among competing brands and

symbolic benefits like brand personality remains as the key to create a strong

point of differentiation, which puts the concept of brand personality in the

forefront of marketing (Biel, 1992; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).

By understanding the personality of the brand, managers can manage

their brands in a better manner. This can also help them to create insights

regarding the problems related with a brand’s personality and generate possible

solutions. Hence measuring brand personality is vital for brand management.

1.2.4. Objectives and scope of the study

The aim of this study is to create a scale that incorporates various

advancements in the field of brand personality measurement and which

measures brand personality in the Indian context. The scope of this study was

limited to product brands. The major objectives of this study are:

• To develop a product Brand Personality scale in the Indian context

• To test the reliability of the scale

• To assess the validity of the scale

• To create a short version of the product Brand Personality Scale

1.2.5. Need for the Study

The need for a Product Brand Personality scale arises out of two

reasons. Firstly, the sources of product and service brand personality

dimensions vary significantly. Further, confining the study to product brands

can help the tool to be more precise. It is better to have separate brand

4

personality scales for product and service brands. Since Aaker (1997) created a

scale to measure brand personality in general, many successive studies were

done to develop category specific brand personality scales, especially in the

case of service brands. For example, Ekinci and Hosany (2006) created a

destination personality scale, d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) developed a scale

to measure store personality, Venable (2005) investigated the personality of

non-profit organizations and so on. This is the first scale to measure Product

Brand Personality.

1.2.6. The need for a brand personality scale in the Indian context

As Aaker’s (1997) scale was not found to be valid in contexts other than

the U.S., it prompted many successors of Aaker to develop country-specific

scales (Aaker, Benet-Martínez, and Garolera, 2001; Caprara et al., 2001; Sung

and Tinkham, 2005; Geuens et al., 2009). Further, Aaker’s scale was not found

to be applicable in the Indian context also (Thomas and Sekar, 2008). Brand

personality research in India is mainly on the basis of Aaker’s (1997) brand

personality scale (For example, Thomas and Sekar, 2008; Purkayastha, 2009).

Again, as discussed earlier, Aaker’s scale was criticised on many grounds. All

these necessitated the study for developing a Product brand personality scale in

the Indian context.

1.2.7. Significance of the study

This scale identifies the product brand personality dimensions and the

items to measure those dimensions in the Indian context. This work will help

Indian researchers to consider a more reliable and valid scale in the Indian

context to conduct studies on brand personality. This scale is expected to foster

marketing research in general and brand personality research in particular, in

India.

From an academic point of view, this scale will help to simplify

theorizing and hypothesis generation. For marketing practitioners, this scale

will help to assess the match or mismatch between the perceived and projected

5

personality of a brand and to assess the congruity of the brand’s personality

with that of its target customers in the Indian context. Also it can help in

making decisions to monitor the intended personality of their brand.

1.2.8. Original contributions

This is the only study hitherto conducted to uncover the brand

personality dimensions focusing on product brands alone (product brand

personality). Further, context-wise, this is the first India-specific study to

develop a scale to measure product brand personality.

1.2.9. Scope of the Research

1.2.9.1. Location and Area of the Study

The area of study was selected to be Indian sub-continent, which is

significantly different from other contexts where brand personality research has

taken place. Most of the brand personality researches took place in developed

countries, whereas India is a developing country and an emerging market. This

makes India a significantly different context.

1.2.9.2. Selection of Sample and Respondents

Stimuli Selection: Stimuli refer to the specific objects based on which

respondents will make their responses during a survey. In the case of this

research, stimuli represented a bouquet of carefully chosen brands. Instead of

relying on a general brand domain, this study was restricted to the product

brand sphere. Again, regional level or state level brands were excluded. As the

study is intended to represent a pan-Indian population, a set of brands which

were relevant in the national stage was opted. In the item generation phase of

this research, respondents were given the option to select brands of their choice

as stimuli, whereas a random sample of brands was opted for in the successive

stages of the study. Figure 1.1 gives a schematic representation of the

population of brands considered.

6

Figure-1.1. Schematic representation of the study population of brands

[Source: Original]

Respondent selection: The respondent selection method varied from phase to

phase, to meet the specific requirements of each stage of this research. In the

item generation phase of the study, a judgement sampling method was adopted.

A set of post-graduate management students was chosen at this phase. In the

Consumer survey phase wherein the Indian product brand personality

dimensions were identified, a quota sampling was adopted to get a

representation of Indian population in terms of area and gender.

1.2.10. Period of the study

The entire scale development process spread over February 2011 to

March 2013. Item generation from literature was done during the period from

February 2011 to December 2011. Item generation based on qualitative study

was done during the month of January and February 2012. This was followed

Brands

Study population

7

by the language expert opinion survey in March 2012. The expert opinion

survey phase was between April 2012 and July 2012, followed by the

Consumer survey phase from July to December 2012. After this, data for Test

re-test study was collected in January 2013. And the final hold out sample

study was done during February to March 2013.

1.3. Overview of the scale development process

The methodology adopted for this study is presented in the form of a

schematic diagram (Figure-1.2) illustrated in the next page.

8

Figure-1.2. Flow chart of the Scale development process

[Source: Adapted from Churchill Jr (1979)

Construct Definition

Content Validity • Item Generation • Stimuli Selection

Measure Purification • Language Expert

Opinion Survey • Expert Opinion Survey • Consumer Survey

Item Selection

Reliability Assessment • Cronbach’s Alpha • Test-retest

Analysis using Hold out sample

• Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Validity Assessment • Discriminant Validity • Convergent Validity

Developing a short version of the scale Assessment of the reliability and validity of the short scale

9

1.3.1. Phase 1: Construct Definition

Among the multitude of definitions of brand personality, the one by

Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) was opted for this study. They define brand

personality as ‘the set of human personality traits that are both applicable to

and relevant for brands’. This definition was adopted since it has been accepted

by different brand personality researchers to be a better and more precise

definition.

1.3.2. Phase 2: Content Validity

Content validity or item sample adequacy refers to the degree to which a

particular set of items reflects a content domain (DeVellis, 2011). Aaker (1997)

entails two steps to ensure content validity, which concerns with item selection

and stimuli selection. Firstly, a broad and representative set of items which can

be used to measure brand personality are to be pooled and secondly, a set of

stimuli (brands) against which the appropriateness of the items shall be

examined using an empirical study are to be selected. Nunnally (2010) argues

that if construct definition, item selection and stimuli selection are done in a

well defined manner, then the content validity of the scale can be established

before its construction.

Item Generation: The item generation phase of this study constituted two parts:

first, generation of item pool from an extensive literature survey and second, a

qualitative study using the method of free elicitation to generate the indigenous

items which will make the scale more localized.

Stimuli Selection: To ensure content validity, it is necessary to choose a broad

and representative set of stimuli (that is, brands). For this, 21 brands were

selected from a list of top brands according to 2012 surveys by Trust Research

Agency and Brand Equity (The Economic Times).

10

1.3.3. Phase 3: Measure Purification

This phase consisted of a Language expert opinion survey, an Expert

opinion survey and a Consumer survey.

Language expert opinion survey: This survey was intended to identify and

eliminate/replace items that are not commonly used in the Indian context. This

study was carried out using a structured questionnaire administered among

three English department faculty members in a University with expertise in

English language teaching and usage assessment and considerable teaching and

research experience.

Expert opinion survey: Following the language expert opinion study, to further

reduce the items to a manageable level, an expert opinion survey was

conducted among 12 experts of which three were marketing area faculty

members in Business Schools, three Brand Managers, three Advertising

Professionals and three Consumer Psychologists.

Consumer survey: The purpose of this survey was to explore the factor

structure of brand personality as perceived by Indian consumers. For this,

responses were collected from 606 respondents who were University students

representing a pan- Indian sample. A total of 21 brands were considered at this

stage and each respondent was required to rate 3 brands of his/her choice based

on his/her familiarity with the brand. The responses were collected using a

structured questionnaire with 5-point Likert scale. The data collected was

analysed using exploratory factor analysis with principal component analysis

and Varimax rotation. This helped in identifying a brand personality structure

consisting of seven factors and 45 items.

1.3.4. Phase 4: Checking the reliability of the scale

The external reliability was checked using test re-test reliability test for

which a survey was conducted among 91 respondents chosen from the first

consumer survey. Internal reliability of the scale was checked using

Cronbach’s alpha. The results of these tests helped to prove that the scale had

both internal and external reliability.

11

1.3.5. Phase 5: Confirming brand personality dimensions

The result obtained by the factor analysis of consumer survey data was

addressed with two questions: First, whether the same dimensions will be

obtained if another set of brands were used for the study? Second, whether

there will be any change in the result if a different subject sample was used? A

hold out sample survey was conducted to address these questions. Brands and

subjects considered for this study were different from that of first consumer

survey. The sample size for this study was restricted to 217. A total of 12

brands were selected using simple random sampling from a list of top brands

according to 2012 surveys by Trust Research Agency and Brand Equity (The

Economic Times). A confirmatory factor analysis of the data from the hold out

sample survey showed adequate level of fit with the model developed using

exploratory factor analysis of consumer survey in Phase 3.

1.3.6. Phase 6: Validity and reliability

Construct validity of the new measure was established by evaluating

convergent validity and discriminant validity of the measure. Three main

indicators of convergent validity, namely factor loadings, average variance

extracted and construct reliability were examined and were found to have

recommended values to indicate convergent validity. The scale was also found

to have adequate discriminant validity.

1.3.7. Phase 7: Developing a short version of the scale

The objective of this part was to create a short version of the Indian BPS.

Since, brand personality is often measured along with other concepts such as

self concept, celebrity personality and so on, a large number of items in the

scale will make it practically insignificant. Hence many researchers have

developed a short version of their scales (For example, Aaker, 1997; Burisch,

1997; Geuens et al., 2009; Rammstedt and John, 2007). To meet this purpose

as well as to satisfy structural model validity, the maximum number of items to

be included under a particular factor was decided to be 4 and minimum as 3.

12

Item selection was done with the help of factor analysis. This resulted in the

final version of the scale with 7 factors and 26 items. The psychometric

properties of this short version were also evaluated by means of testing test re-

test reliability, Cronbach’s alpha values, convergent validity and discriminant

validity.

1.3.8. Naming of Factors

A name was given for each dimension which reflected the general

characteristics of that dimension. The chosen names were as follows: Factor 1 -

Happy, Factor 2 - Youthful, Factor 3 - Reliable, Factor 4 - Adventurous, Factor

5 - Competent, Factor 6 - Accountable and Factor 7 - Appeal.

1.4. Discussion and conclusion

Some of the brand personality dimensions identified by this India-

specific study have similarities with those of Aaker’s (1997) scale. For

instance, the Appeal dimension from this study and Sophistication dimension

of Aaker’s scale try to capture similar aspects of brand personality. However,

Charming is the only item shared in common between the two. The Competent

dimension from this study and Competence dimension of Aaker’s scale to

measure how well a brand appears to be successful and efficient to its

consumers. The Excitement and Sincerity dimensions of Aaker’s scale seem to

be captured by the Happy dimension in the scale developed through this study.

The Ruggedness dimension of Aaker’s scale and Adventure dimension from

this study are distantly similar. However, the dimensions Reliable, Youthful and

Accountable emerge as India-specific dimensions.

1.4.1. Limitations and Delimitations of the study

The study was delimited to a student sample which represented a pan-

Indian population, and was intended to develop a scale which can be used

exclusively to measure the personality of product brands. But these

delimitations may be treated as some of the limitations of this work. The use of

13

a student sample may hinder the generalizability of this study. However, a

study by Aaker (1997) showed that there is no significant difference in the

brand personality dimensions based on demographic features. But, it is worth

examining whether a significant difference exists in brand personality

perception based on demographic characteristics in the Indian context. Next,

the number of brands considered for the study for identifying the number of

dimensions, was limited to 21. The use of a large number of brands would have

enhanced the generalizability.

Area of study is another limitation of this work. The study is limited to

the Indian sub-continent, the brands selected and participants of the survey - all

of which reflect an Indian scenario, which may not reflect the global scenario.

Like in the case of other brand personality researches, the outcome of this study

will have to be tested if it is valid in other contexts.

1.5. Structure of the thesis

This thesis titled ‘A study of Brand Personality construct and

development of a scale to measure product Brand Personality in the Indian

context’ has been presented in five chapters. The organization and brief content

of the chapters are as follows:

Chapter I titled ‘Introduction’ presents an overview of the topic and

discusses on the concept of brand personality, importance of the construct,

need for the study, objectives and research framework, scope of the study,

overview of the scale development process, overview of results, limitations and

delimitations of the study.

Chapter II titled ‘Theoretical background’ details the theoretical

background of the concept which discusses aspects such as the origin of the

concept of brand personality, how the concept is different from similar

concepts like brand identity and brand image, the antecedents and

consequences of the concept of brand personality and the popular scales

available for brand personality measurement.

14

Chapter III titled ‘The measurement concept and methodological

framework’ presents the concept of measurement, its origin and role in

marketing and concepts of reliability and validity. This chapter also discusses

the different scale development practices so as to bring out the best framework

to create a measurement tool.

Chapter IV titled ‘Scale development process’ details the systematic

process adopted for the study. The various steps include construct definition,

content validity, measure purification using exploratory factor analysis, hold

out sample analysis for confirming brand personality dimensions, naming of

factors and checking the reliability and validity of the scale.

Chapter V titled ‘Summary, discussion and conclusion’ brings out the

summary of results, scope for further research, implications for academics and

practitioners.

The ‘Appendix’ contains the data collection instruments and statistical analysis outputs.

15

Chapter 2 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Objective: The structure of any research should rise from a thorough review of

literature. The objective of this chapter is to review the published literature

related to the research problem considered herein. The shared goals of this

chapter include: developing and demonstrating a familiarity with the body of

knowledge in the area of brand personality research, to establish the credibility

of this research, to summarize and link between the various research works

done in this area, and to link the current work with the existing literature.

2.1. Introduction

Consumers perceive brands to possess a personality, which can be used

as an avenue for self expression or to experience the emotional benefits by

which the brand differentiates itself from others (Phau and Lau, 2000).

Researches related to this aspect of brands are termed as brand personality

researches. To conduct any study in this domain, it is necessary to develop a

strong understanding of this concept. Moorthi (2003) argues that many

practitioners and academicians are of the opinion that, it is easier to understand

brand personality intuitively than defining it. For example one may describe the

natural health care product brand Dabur to be like his ‘grandfather’. It is a very

simple presentation of the personality of Dabur as a brand. This in turn can

imply that Dabur

1) Has a strong heritage

2) Can refer to the ayurvedic and herbal benefits of the brand

3) Healthy

4) Nurturing

5) Dependable

The lack of a unique personality may cause a brand go unnoticed for a

long time. Hence it is essential for any brand to have a unique brand

16

personality. A unique and enduring brand personality becomes a need of the

hour given the intense competition among and proliferation of brands. Further,

consumer finds it easier to remember brands that have a strong personality.

Amrutanjan takes on a personality of strength and competence which makes it

hard for consumers to miss it in the pain balm segment. Another benefit of

brand personality is that it helps to distinguish one brand from another or a

brand from another product.

There are mainly two issues related to brand personality; the first one is

connected to creation of brand personality and, the second is related to the

measurement of the personality. Creation of brand personality is mainly

achieved by using high level of advertisements and celebrity endorsements

along with packaging, slogans, logos, user imagery and other elements of

marketing mix (Plummer, 1985; Batra, Lehmann and Singh, 1993; Aaker,

2012).

2.1.1. Creating brand personality

Consumers derive a particular perception regarding the personality of a

brand by mixing their knowledge regarding the brand such as its benefits and

attributes to the identity created by marketers (Keller, 1993). Thus it can be

seen that brand personality is an outcome of the marketer-generated images and

consumer-perceived images and attributes.

Brand personality is one among the intangible associations along with

brand’s values, vision, and philosophy and so on, which brings in emotional

ties beyond product satisfaction with the consumer (Kapferer, 2012). Most

brands did not create brand personality as such. It is the conscious effort of the

marketers to acquire more consumer equity and brand value which results in

the establishment of a strong brand personality.

2.1.2. Brand personality as a relationship builder

Brand personality arises when one talks about a brand as if talking about

a friend or person. One of the factors that contribute to the singularity of the

17

brand is its personality, which usually arises out of an anthropomorphic

conception of the brand. This is an outcome of the need to pursue relationship

marketing; or in other words, it is about giving more importance to building an

enduring relationship between the brand and consumer, rather than focussing

on immediate profit. This is more similar to that of building relationship

between two persons: brand as a person and the consumer as another, hence the

notion of brand personality (Aaker and Biel, 2013)

To communicate a particular kind of personality, a brand may use a

multitude of strategies including advertisements using celebrity endorsers. For

example, ThumsUp is a cola brand which seeks to position itself as a masculine

and adventure-seeking brand. To communicate this, they used celebrity

endorsers like Akshay Kumar, who is a synonym of dare and adventurism in

the Bollywood movies. The impact is that consumers will get a feeling that

Thums Up is a brand which is closely associated with Akshay Kumar; so

naturally they start attributing his characteristics to the brand.

Another example is that of L’Oréal Paris which tries to position itself as

a ‘glamour’ brand. It attains this by employing a ‘dream team’ of Hollywood

stars and globally popular models in their advertisements.

Yet another classic example for crafting of brand personality cited by

Kapferer (2012) was the one made by French automobile manufacturer

Citroen. They named some of their brands with the name ‘Picasso’ (Citroën C3

Picasso, Citroen C4 Picasso and so on). Associating the brand with the world

famous Pablo Picasso, increased the perception and novelty of its brands,

which in turn helped them to compete successfully with its competitor brands

from Renault.

2.1.3. The position of brand personality in marketing

Kapferer (2012) says it is the common spirit, vision and ideals embodied

in the products of a brand that helps to unify them rather than other external

18

signs and features. He argues that major brands can be compared to a pyramid

as shown below

Figure-2.1. Brand Pyramid [Source: Kapferer (2012)]

According to him, the top of the pyramid stands for brand vision and

purpose, followed by brand personality codes, which should be designed in

such a manner as to reflect a singular character of the brand. The next level

constitutes the brands strategic features arising out of its overall vision and

objectives. The bottom of the pyramid consists of each model’s positioning

strategy.

It can be seen that, in this brand pyramid, brand personality and vision

form the top of the pyramid. Therefore product or model positioning is

something which arises out of these (that is, vision and brand personality) when

it comes to brand building or brand management process whereas, consumers

19

derive their perceptions in the reverse manner - generating an understanding of

the personality of the brand from the positioning of the products.

2.1.4. Brand personality in brand building

According to Kapferer (2012), there are two models to build strong

brands. The first one starts with the tangible added values such as benefits,

attributes and ingredients and move on to intangible ones like brand

personality, vision and values. The second model starts with intangible added

values like brand personality and moves on to products that deliver these

values.

Figure-2.2. Brand building models [Source:Kapferer (2012)]

Brand associations are typically considered to move upward a ladder in

time. For example,a brand will initially focus on ingredient (for example, Dove

is having hydrating cream),then attributes (for example, softening), then benefit

of using the brand (say, protection) and then at the top comes the symbolic or

intangible benefits such as brand personality.

2.2. Conceptualisation of brand personality

A brand refers to ‘a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a

combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or

group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors’ (American

Marketing Association, 1960). According to Keller et al. (2011) a brand can

provide three types of benefits to its customer, namely functional or utilitarian

20

benefits, symbolic benefits and experiential benefits. Functional benefit usually

refers to the ability of a brand to provide solution to a problem faced by a

customer. For example, Unilever’s Surf detergent helps to remove stain from

clothes. Experiential benefits are related with the sensory pleasure which the

customer derives out of the brand (For example, the taste of Dairy Milk

chocolate from Cadbury). Finally, symbolic benefits of a brand indicate the

signs or signals which a brand delivers to its consumer (for instance, the

prestige of owning a Mercedes Benz car). The signal effects of the brand may

originate out of the typical user of the brand, or even from the personality of

the brand. Proliferation of brands and intense competition among them has

forced marketers to move from utilitarian and experiential benefits to symbolic

benefits to differentiate their brands. According to Zentes, Morschett and

Schramm-Klein (2008), brand personality is an important one among such

symbolic benefits. Aaker and Fournier (1995) consider brand personality as

“set of meanings constructed by an observer to describe the ‘inner’

characteristics of another person… that can be used to summarise complex

behaviours and form expectations of future behaviours” or in other words,

brand personality refers to the inner features of a brand as perceived by

consumers based on the characteristics and behaviour of a brand. Batra et al.

(1993) describe this concept as dealing with how consumers use traits that are

used to describe the personality of a person to describe that of a brand. For

Aaker (1997), brand personality refers to ‘the set of human characteristic

associated with a brand’.

2.2.1. Demarcating Brand personality

There is close relationship between the concepts of brand personality,

brand identity and brand image. Hence, it is worth reviewing the inter-

relationships among these concepts in detail. Brand personality is considered to

be an important component of brand identity and brand image (Geuens et al.,

2009). According to Kapferer (2012), brand identity is what the firm wants to

project to its target customers. Whereas, brand image is what the target

21

consumers understand or interpret about the brand identity (De Pelsmacker,

Geuens and Van den Bergh, 2007). Brand image and brand identity are

generally considered to be multidimensional constructs and brand personality is

just a component of them. For instance, as per Keller et al. (2011), personality

of the brand is just a component among many other aspects such as user

profiles, heritage, history, values, purchase and usage situation, experiences

and so on. An important typology of brand identity worth mentioning is the one

proposed by Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000). Their brand identity typology

consists of perspectives which treats brand as a Product, Organization, Person

and a Symbol.

Kapferer (2012) considers brand identity to consist of six facets namely

physique, personality, relationship, culture, reflection and self-image. It is

obvious that brand personality is just a single facet of brand identity, or in other

words one can say that brand personality is contained in brand identity.

Figure- 2.3. Brand Identity Prism [Source: Kapferer (2012)]

22

Based on the literature, it is observed that brand personality has two

faces; the first one is portrayed personality which constitutes the brand identity

and the second is perceived personality dimension which forms a part of brand

image.

Another concept which is closely related to brand personality and often

misunderstood as brand personality is user imagery (Aaker, 2012). According

to Aaker (2012), ‘human characteristics associated with the typical user of a

brand’ is termed as user imagery. Researches have indicated that user imagery

and brand personality are distinct constructs and they will not give similar

results (Keller et al., 2011). The case of P&G’s Oil of Olay given by Plummer

(1984) may be a good example for this. As per Plummer (1984), a typical user

of Oil of Olay is a down-to-earth, solid, pretty, female citizen where as the

brand personality of this brand is more aspirational and upscale one.

2.3. Theories related to brand personality

An understanding of the theories related to or underlying the concept of

brand personality is important to operationally define the construct. It can also

help in understanding the relevance of this construct to the consumer, how a

product’s value is enhanced by the virtue of this attribute and so on. This

section tries to explore the various theories that support and form a background

to the concept of brand personality.

2.3.1. Brand Equity

Brand personality helps in building brand equity. According to Stein

(2004), the role of brand personality in the creation of brand equity can be

explained by relying on different models such as Relationship basis model,

Self-Expression model, and Functional benefit representation model.

Relationship basis model: The ability of a brand to connect with its consumer

is explained based on relationship basis model. A consumer forms relationship

with a brand in two ways; the first one is his direct relationship with the brand,

similar to relationship between two persons and the second is through brand

23

personality, which evokes strong feelings and favourable attitudes towards the

brand in the minds of consumers (Aaker, 2012). Along with brand personality,

a customer sometimes forms a ‘strictly business’ relationship with a brand

which is based on the utilitarian benefits offered by the brand. Among the two

types of relationships discussed, the first is a functional or utilitarian benefit-

based and the second is more a symbolic one.

When customers tend to identify human personality traits relevant to

brands, the partnership between the two becomes stronger. When a brand and

its customers become relationship partners in this manner, the actions and

behaviours of the brand can affect the brand-customer relationships

significantly (Aaker, 2012). For example, a customer may feel difficulty in

maintaining a relationship with a brand, if it goes out of stock or if it is not in

line with his expectations (Aaker, 2012).

Self-Expression model: Brand personality helps a user to express himself/

herself. This is achieved by a brand by attaching with itself, feelings and

emotions which are similar to those the customer wants to express (Aaker,

2012). A customer becomes most fulfilled, when the brand helps him to

express his/her exact feeling. According to Aaker (2012), “a warm person will

be most fulfilled when a warm feeling occurs; similarly, an aggressive person

will seek out context where aggression is accepted”. Brand personality

becomes effective in the process of ‘self expression’ only when it fits with the

needs and desires of the customer. When the personality of the brand is in the

right context and fits the consumer’s self-expression needs, any brand

personality can assist in self-expression. However, symbolic and high

involvement product categories might produce larger effects in the self

expression of a customer (Aaker, 2012).

Functional benefit representation model: Both self expression model and

relationship basis model, basically explain the role played by brand personality

in value creation in terms of linking the consumer and the brand. One can

observe a direct role of brand personality in both these models. But, in the case

24

of functional benefit model its role is more indirect. In this case brand

personality adds value indirectly by acting as a medium for representing and

prompting functional benefits along with brand attributes (Aaker, 2012). If a

brand succeeds in using distinctive symbols that have appropriate associations

with it, then the brand may be considered to be successful in executing the

‘functional benefit representation model’ (Batra, Myers and Aaker, 1996). For

instance, in the case of MRF tyres, the brand uses ‘a muscle man character’

which helps the brand hint the functional benefits such as ‘strength and

durability’ offered by the product. Aaker (2012) argues that a brand may be

able to create a feeling of high quality by associating itself with a country or

region.

2.3.2. Anthropomorphism Theory

‘Anthropomorphism’ is said to have its origin from a Greek word

‘Anthropos’ (meaning ‘human’) and ‘morphic’ (meaning ‘form’ or ‘shape’)

(Ranjbar, 2010). It refers to the attribution of human like mental or physical

characteristics to a non-human thing (for instance, my dog loves me) (Epley,

Waytz and Cacioppo, 2007). It can be considered as a process of forming

inferences regarding the unobservable features of a non-human agent (can be

anything like animals, religious deity, mechanical or electronic devices, natural

forces and so on) and is less related to descriptions of its observable behaviour.

The essence of Anthropomorphism lies in the creation of links between

imagined or real behaviour of non-human agents with human-like emotions,

characteristics or motivations (Ranjbar, 2010).

2.3.3. Self Concept Theory

The self concept refers to an internal model of a person that uses self

assesments to define his or her own ideas and beliefs or self-schemas. Features

such as occupation and hobbies, personality, skills and abilities, physical

characteristics, and so on are assessed and applied to self-schemas, which are

ideas of oneself in a particular dimension (For instance, someone who

25

considers himself a ‘daring person’ will associate ‘daring-like’ features to

himself). A group of self-schemas forms one's general self-concept. For

instance, the statement "I am intelligent" is a self assessment that adds to self

concept. But, a statement like "I am sleepy" cannot be considered as a part of

one’s self concept as it is a temporary state (Wylie, 1979).

2.3.4. Self Congruity Theory

Self congruity refers to the extent to which the personality of the

consumer goes in line with that of the typical user imagery of the brand. The

theory proposes that consumer behaviour, to some extent, depends on the

match between the consumers’ self image and the image of the brand they

choose. Self congruity is a very old widely researched topic in marketing (See

for example Levy, 1959; Dolich, 1969; Sirgy, 1982). The researches in this

area showed that consumers have a tendency to opt brands that match more

with their personality over those do not. These researches further demonstrated

the usefulness of this concept in predicting and explaining the concepts such as

customers intention to purchase, brand loyalty, brand attitude, product usage

and so on (Sirgy et al.,1997).

Sirgy (1982) classifies self congruity in to four types, namely, actual self

congruity, ideal self congruity, social self congruity and ideal social self

congruity. Among these four congruity variants, actual self congruity refers to

the match between the present personality of the person and a stereotypical user

of the brand. Ideal self congruity arises out of ideal self concept and the

personality of the brand. It indicates the match between the personalities which

he would like to present as having and that of the brand’s personality. For

example, if someone wants to present himself as having a macho personality,

he may use a Marlboro cigarette. In this case, a match between the ideal self of

the consumer with a stereotypical user of the brand can be seen. The match

between the social self concept and typical user imagery or personality of the

brand results in social self congruity. Social self concept refers to how others

perceive the self of a person. Ideal social self congruity arises out of how others

26

would like to see the self of a person and the personality of the brand. The

research by Sirgy (1982) showed that all the four variants of self congruity

concepts affect consumers’ attitude towards a brand. However, actual and ideal

self congruity is having highest empirical evidence on their influence on

consumer behaviour.

Self Congruity and Brand personality: User imagery of the brand which

forms the basis for self congruity assessment is one among the many ‘direct’

sources that builds the personality of a brand (Aaker, 1997). Brand personality

is a much broader and inclusive concept than self congruity. It can be noticed

that brand personality is derived out of many direct as well as indirect sources.

2.3.5. Personality Theory

According to Goldberg (1993), the personality of a person refers to a

series of dynamic and organised features of him/her that he/she owns and

specifically affects his/her behaviour and motives in various contexts. Different

theories in personality psychology insist on providing a clear structure and

framework of personality and its dimension to make any individual different

from others (Ranjbar, 2010). Among the different models developed by

psychologists, the big five model is considered to be the most accepted frame

work to measure human personality. This framework was based on the lexical

hypothesis (also known as Lexical Approach, or Sedimentation Hypothesis)

developed by researchers such as Gordon Allport and Raymond Cattell in the

1940’s (Opoku, 2005). The lexical hypothesis assumes that the various

personality characteristics that are important in people’s lives will become part

of their language and the important personality characteristics are likely to be

encoded in to language as a single word. Further, these words will be

transferred from one generation to next, through the process of socialization.

2.3.5.1. Big Five Human Personality Dimensions

The five dimensions of human personality and the corresponding traits

are given in the following figure.

27

Figure-2.4. Five-factor model of Human Personality [Source: Adapted from (Opoku, 2005)]

Big Five Factors

Extroversion

ActiveCompetitive DominantEnergetic

LivelyResoluteStrong

Agreeableness

AffectionateAltruisticAuthenticCordialFaithful

GenerousLoyal

Conscientiousness

Conscientious ConstantEfficientPrecise

ProductiveRegularReliable

Scrupulous

Emotional Stability

CalmLevel-headedLight-hearted

PatientRelaxedSereneStable

Tranquil

Openness

CreativeFancifulInformed

InnovativeModernOriginalRecent

Up-to-date

28

2.3.5.2. Human Personality and Brand Personality

Many researchers consider brand personality to be an application of

human personality theory to brands. During the initial years of brand

personality research, researchers depended on human personality scales to

measure brand personality. Further, Aaker (1997), whose work is considered to

be a seminal one in brand personality, relied on different human personality

scales and conceptualisations, to a great extent to conceptualise and develop the

brand personality scale. Also, most of the brand personality scales try to select

items from human personality scales that are relevant for brands.

2.4. Review of brand personality research

This section reviews a few carefully selected cases of brand personality

scale development and discusses them in detail by

1) Reviewing the existing approaches to brand personality measurements –

starting from the earliest (Aaker, 1997) to the most recent (Heere, 2010).

2) Identifying the commonalities and the basis for comparison, and

3) Developing a comparative framework of Brand Personality

Measurement approaches.

Such a comparison can reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each scale and

the specific contexts wherein they will be most suitable. This will reduce the

efforts of future researchers in identifying and choosing the best as well as the

most suitable scale to measure brand personality in a specific context.

2.4.1. Review of select Brand Personality literature

The tendency to attribute human characteristics to brands existed in the

marketing domain as early as 1950s. Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) noticed that

Martineau (1958) used the word to refer to the non-material dimensions that

make a store special or to have a character of its own. King (1970) quotes the

29

research works of J. Walter Thompson Advertising Agency which indicate that

consumers attribute personality characteristics to brands and talk about it.

Prior to 1980s, brand differentiation was mainly on the basis of product

performance. But with the increasing number of products which provided

almost the same set of functional benefits, it became difficult for marketers to

differentiate brands merely on the basis of its performance. In order to

overcome this trouble, the advertising agency Ted Bates introduced the concept

of Unique Selling Personality following the concept of Unique Selling

Proposition created by Rosser Reeves. As a consequence, the account

executives started to use a new item called brand personality in their copy

strategy. From 1970 onwards every advertising agency started giving a

provision for describing brand personality (along with the target, brand promise

and the reason why). The use of brand personality originated as a non-

product- based definition of the brand: it captured all that was not bound to the

product’s use, performance, attributes, and so on. In copy strategies, brand

personality was used as a common, practical, but rather loose, word for

assessing non- product- based, non-functional dimensions of the brand; it

captured the singularity of the source of the product as if it were a person

(Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003).

Sources of Brand Personality

The major difference in the formation of human personality and brand

personality lies in terms of how these perceptions are formed. Human

personality traits are inferred on the basis of individual behaviour, physical

characteristics, attitudes and beliefs, and demographic characteristics (Park et

al., 1986). But in the case of brands, consumers derive perceptions about a

brand’s personality through direct or indirect contact with the brand (Plummer,

1985; Aaker, 1997). According to Aaker (1997), the direct sources of brand

personality includes the brands user imagery, its employees, Chief Executive

Officer (CEO), brand’s product endorsers and indirect sources may include

product-related attributes, product category associations, brand name, symbols

30

or logo, advertising style, price and distribution channel (Batra et al., 1993;

Aaker, 1997).

Brand Personality definitions

Brand personality has been defined by different researchers in different

ways. Aaker (1997) defines it as “the set of human characteristics associated

with a brand”. Yet another popular definition of brand personality is the one

proposed by Azoulay and Kapferer (2003). They define brand personality as

the “the set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant

for brands”. Sweeney and Brandon (2006) tried to define brand personality

based on interpersonal circumplex model and defined it as “the set of human

personality traits that correspond to the interpersonal domain of human

personality and are relevant to describing the brand as a relationship partner.”

These different definitions on brand personality arise from the attempts of

researchers to make the concept more precise and valid.

2.4.2. Measuring Brand Personality

The product or brand personality measurement research can be traced

back to 1960’s (Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969). Early research studies mainly

focused on relationship between consumer self and product personality. For

example, Birdwell (1968) conducted a study using a compiled list of bipolar

items containing appropriate adjectives which described both automobile and

human personalities, to understand the relationship between consumers’

perception about their cars and their self perception. Another earlier study on

product personality was one done by Dolich (1969). It was done with an

intention to understand the relationship between consumers’ actual and ideal

self image and personalities of four product categories namely beer, cigarettes,

bar soap and tooth paste. The researcher used a scale adapted from human

personality scales to study the same. The research works of Malhotra (1981),

on construction of a scale which measured self concepts, person concepts and

31

product concepts and, Karande, Zinkhan, and Lum (1997) on brand personality

and self concept are noteworthy.

Aaker (1997) describes two types of brand personality scales used by

earlier researchers to study how the relationship between brand and human

personality drives consumer preferences. The first one is Adhoc type scales

(consisting of traits ranging from 20 to 300). The main limitation was that these

scales were developed for specific research studies and also, they lacked a

theoretical background. The second type consists of brand personality scales

based on human personality scales. The validity of these scales was questioned

since the antecedents of both constructs were different. Though some of the

dimensions of human personality may be mirrored on brands, the whole cannot

occur (Kassarjian, 1971).

Ambroise, Ferrandi and Merunka (2005) describe three approaches used

by researchers to measure brand personality. The first one is a hierarchical

approach used by Aaker (1997). Second, a Lexical approach used by Caprara et

al. (2001), and the third one is the direct application of human personality

scales to measure brand personality. For example, Ferrandi and Valette-

Florence (2002) applied Saucier (1994) human personality scales to brands and

the results of their study indicated some congruence between purchasers’

personality and the brand personality of the brand they purchased.

2.4.3. Brand Personality Scales (BPS)

In order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of brand personality

measurements, the following brand Personality scales are discussed in detail.

The scales included in this study were chosen on the basis of two criteria: it

should either introduce a new approach to measure brand personality or be

based on a new conceptual definition of the construct. The selected scales were

compared on the basis of their theoretical base, strengths, limitations and cross

cultural validity.

32

1) Aaker (1997) - This seminal work of Aaker is counted to be the first robust,

reliable, and valid scale to measure brand personality.

2) Ambroise, Ferrandi and Merunka (2005) - This scale was developed in

France, considering two product categories and using Factor analysis to find

out the underlying dimensions of brand personality.

3) Sweeney and Brandon (2006) – This is a brand personality scale developed

in Australia based on the Inter personal Circumplex model.

4) Bosnjak, Bochmann, and Hufschmidt (2007) - This scale was developed in

Germany considering multiple product categories and using a person-centric

perspective.

5) Geuens, Weiiters and Wulf (2009) - This scale was originally developed in a

Belgian cultural context considering multiple product categories. The

uniqueness of this scale lies in the fact that it was the only scale which proved

to be cross culturally valid.

6) Kuenzel and Phairor (2009) – This scale was developed in Germany to

measure the brand personality of an automobile brand.

7) Heine (2009) – This is a scale developed using Repertory Grid Method to

measure brand personality of luxury goods.

8) Lee, Soutar and Quintal (2010) – This is a scale developed to measure

destination personality using a Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) method.

9) Heere (2010) – This scale was developed based on a sports brand and it

yielded a two dimensional brand personality scale.

2.4.3.1. Aaker’s BPS (1997)

Aaker (1997) was the first one to generate a robust, reliable and valid scale

to measure brand personality. Her study was set in the United States of

America (USA). She developed a framework of brand personality dimensions

33

by drawing from research on the “Big Five” human personality structure

(Norman, 1963). The major sources used to generate candidate traits included

1) Personality scales used by psychologists

2) Personality scales used by Marketers and

3) Original qualitative research of personality traits associated with a

number of brands

To identify the brand personality dimensions, a total of 631 subjects

rated a subset of 37 brands on 114 personality traits. An exploratory principal

component factor analysis yielded a five factor structure. The facets of each

factor were found by using a principal component analysis and the specific

features of each facet were found out using a cluster analysis. The robustness of

the structure was proved using a series of factor analysis run on subsets of

subjects, and reliability was verified using test- retest correlation and

Cronbach’s alpha. An additional support for the five factor structure was

provided by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis on 180 subjects, based

on 20 brands in 10 product categories and 42 personality traits

Aaker’s BPS is given in the following table. It has five dimensions, 15

facets and 42 traits.

34

[Source: Adapted from Aaker, J.L. (1997)]

Sl.No. Dimensions Facets Traits 1 Sincerity • Down-to-earth

• Honest • Wholesome • Cheerful

o Down-to-earth o Family-oriented o Small town o Honest o Sincere o Real o Wholesome o Original o Cheerful o Sentimental o Friendly

2 Excitement • Daring • Spirited • Imaginative • Up-to-date

o Daring o Trendy o Exciting o Spirited o Cool o Young o Imaginative o Unique o Up-to-date o Independent o Contemporary

3 Competence • Reliable • Intelligent • Successful

o Reliable o Hard working o Secure o Intelligent o Technical o Corporate o Successful o Leader o Confident

4 Sophistication • Upper class • Charming

o Upper class o Glamorous o Good looking o Charming o Feminine o Smooth

5 Ruggedness • Outdoorsy • Tough

o Outdoorsy o Masculine o Western o Tough o Rugged

Table-2.1. Brand Personality Scale developed by Aaker (1997)

35

A major criticism pertaining to Aaker’s BPS is regarding the loose

definition of the construct. Aaker (1997) defined Brand personality as ‘the set

of human characteristics associated with a brand’. The adoption of such a wide

definition has lead to a concept validity problem. The above mentioned

definition encompasses everything related to a human being and applicable to

brand. Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) argue that Brand Personality is a concept

which has close relations with the personality concept in psychology and

therefore its definition must be in line with the same. Psychologists excluded

intellectual abilities, gender and social class from their definitions and scales on

personality whereas Aaker (1997) included many of these. The main

problematic items in Aaker’s scale, as pointed out by Azoulay and Kapferer

(2003), include Competence (which is a cognitive ability and psychologists

donot include it in their personality scales), Feminine (Gender is absent from

psychology scales of personality and also its meaning is tied to cultures), items

related to age and social class. Some other questionable items include Western,

Small town and so on, which belongs to the cultural facet in the brand identity

prism by Kapferer (2012), and brand personality is just a facet of the same.

(Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003)

Another limitation of the BPS generated by Aaker (1997) is that it is

culture-specific or, the five factors identified by Aaker in the case of USA were

not found to be replicable in the case of other cultures. For example, Aaker et

al. (2001) found that Peacefulness replaced Ruggedness in the case of Japan

and in the case of Spain only three factors (namely Sincerity, Excitement and

Sophistication) out of five were found to be applicable. The other two factors in

the case of Spain were Passion and Peacefulness. This limitation of Aaker’s

(1997) scale has lead to a large number of culture-specific studies. A French

one was developed by Ferrandi, Valette-Florence, and Fine-Falcy (2000),an

Italian one was developed by Caprara et al. (2001), a German BPS was

developed by Bosnjak et al.(2007) and so on.

36

Austin, Siguaw and Matila (2003) in their study titled ‘A re-examination

of the generalizability of Aaker brand personality measurement framework’,

found that Aaker’s framework does not generalize the factor structure at the

respondent level (for a specific brand or within a specific product category).

This issue occurred because Aaker (1997) conducted all analysis on data

aggregated across respondents instead of measuring the personality of

individual brands or aggregating data within a specific product category

(Austin et al., 2003).

Another limitation of Aaker’s (1997) scale is that it considers only

positive brand attributes (for example, Down-to-earth, Spirited, Charming and

Imaginative). But this need not be the case always. A brand may also be

described as arrogant, calculating, cocky and so on. For effective brand

management, the brand manager needs to have a full understanding of the

brand personality.

The researchers who conducted studies in brand personality

measurement tried to address these limitations and come out with various

approaches and results which answered many of these criticisms. Some major

research works which followed Aaker’s (1997) seminal work on brand

personality are discussed inthe following sections.

2.4.3.2. Ambroise, Ferrandi and Merunka’s scale (2005)

Ambroise, Ferrandi and Merunka (2005) conducted a study in France to

develop a new brand personality scale. The researchers considered four brands

for this study and used the items from previously published works on brand

personality. The appropriateness of the items was evaluated by a convenience

sample of 387 business students on a seven point Likert scale. Principal

component factor analysis was used with promax rotation. The final result of

the study consisted of 12 factors and 33 items. The validity of the scale was

proved with the help of a confirmatory factor analysis. The key strength of this

37

scale as compared to Aaker’s (1997) scale is that it uses a more strict definition

of brand personality. The scale derived from this study is shown below.

38

Figure-2.5. Ambroise, Ferrandi and Merunka’s brand personality scale (2004)

[Source: Ambroise et al. (2005)]

Brand Personality Dimensions

GLAMOROUSCharming

VoluptuousSophisticated

ELEGANTGood Looking

ElegantStylish

EXCITINGFunny

ImaginativeOriginal

RELIABLESecureRobust

Comforting

NATURALNatural

Environmentally-friendly

SWEETLikable

AffectionateFriendly

CHEERFULSpiritedTrendyJoyful

RIGOROUSDeterminedIntelligentEfficient

MATUREAdult

DiscreetThoughtful

MISCHIEVOUSYouthfulComical

SECUREReliable

Successful

OUTGOINGLively

PopularSporty

39

2.4.3.3. Sweeney and Brandon’s scale (2006)

Sweeney and Brandon (2006) explored the potential to move from factor

analytical model to Circumplex model. The study was conducted in Australia

and used three sources to generate items required for developing the scale,

which included human personality items from Wiggins’ (1979) interpersonal

adjective scale, items from the Trapnell and Wiggins’ (1990) five-factor model

and Aaker’s (1997) brand personality measures. Thirty two judges rated the

appropriateness of these traits based on the interpersonal definition of brand

personality. The results of the study showed that brand personality can be

viewed in less wholesome ways than those traits originally proposed by Aaker

(1997). They proposed that three dimensions namely, agreeableness,

extroversion and conscientiousness from human personality model and the five

dimensions from Aaker (1997) brand personality framework together, are

suitable and appropriate for measuring interpersonal brand personality.

Figure-2.6. Sweeney and Brandon’s Brand Personality Scale (2006)

[Source: Adapted from Sweeney and Brandon (2006)]

Brand Personality

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Sophistication

Ruggedness

Agreeableness

Extroversion

Conscientiousness

40

2.4.3.4. Bosnjak, Bochmann, and Hufschmidt’s scale (2007)

Bosnjak et al. (2007) conducted a study in Germany with respect to

commercial brands with a person-centric perspective which explored both

positive as well as negative human personality dimensions which are both

applicable and relevant to brands. The study found that a four factor structure

with 20 items could explain the indigenous German brand personality. The

dimensions found were drive, conscientiousness, emotion and superficiality. Of

these, the dimension drive has two facets namely excitement and boredom. The

use of a person-centric approach has resulted in the emergence of a negatively

connoted factor, superficiality and the facet, boredom (belonging to the factor -

drive). A pictorial representation of the relationships between different factors

and facets is given in the following figure.

41

(Note: + denotes positive relationships, -denotes negative relationships and ?indicates that no specific direction of influence is assumed)

Figure-2.7. Bosnjak, Bochmann, and Hufschmidt’s BPS (2007)

[Source: Adapted from Bosnjak et al. (2007)]

42

The various items associated with each factor are given in the following table.

Table-2.2. Bosnjak, Bochmann, and Hufschmidt’s BPS – Factors and Items (2007)

Sl. No. Factors Items

1 Superficiality 1. Hypocritical 2. Obtrusive 3. Arrogant 4. Selfish

2 Emotion 1. Good-natured 2. Cordial 3. Sentimental4. Loving

3 Conscientiousness

1. Competent 2. Responsible 3. Orderly 4.Reliable

4 Drive 1. Excitement 2. Boredom - Exciting - Small-minded - Adventurous - Bourgeois - Spirited - Boring - Saucy - Old-fashioned

[Source: Bosnjak et al. (2007)]

2.4.3.5. Geuens, Weiiters and Wulf’s scale (2009)

One of the most recent and notable development in the field of measuring

brand personality is the work done by Geuens et al.(2009).They tried to address

the criticisms on brand personality scales and come up with a scale which

consisted of personality items only. The study considered 193 brands and was

conducted among 12,789 Belgium respondents. This study yielded a scale with 12

items and five factors (Activity, Responsibility, Aggressiveness, Simplicity and

Emotionality). The scale was proved to be reliable in the case of between-brand

between-category comparisons, between-brand within-category comparisons and

for between-respondent comparisons. The scale had high test-retest reliability and

cross cultural validity in USA and nine other European countries. The uniqueness

of this work lies in the fact that, it is the only scale which proved to be valid to

measure brand personality irrespective of cultural variations.

43

Figure-2.8. Geuens, Weiiters and Wulf’s Brand Personality Scale (2009)

[Source: Geuens et al. (2009)]

2.4.3.6. Kuenzel and Phairor’s scale (2009)

Based on the warning of Austin et al. (2003) to apply general brand

personality scales to single brands, Kuenzel and Phairor (2009) conducted a study

based on an automobile brand in Germany. Data for the study was collected from

1170 consumers of the brand using a five-point Likert-type scale. The analysis,

carried out using an exploratory factor analysis with principal component analysis

and oblique rotation, yielded a two factor structure with four items describing each

factor. The major advantage of this scale lies in its shortness, which can help in

reducing respondent fatigue as compared to that of Aaker’s scale (Koebel and

Ladwein, 1999).

Brand Personality Dimensions

Activity- active - dynamic- innovative

Responsibility- down-to-earth- stable- responsible

Aggressiveness- aggressive- bold

Simplicity- ordinary- simple

Emotionality- romantic- sentimental

44

Figure-2.9. Kuenzel and Phairor’s Brand Personality Scale (2009)

[Source: Kuenzel and Phairor (2009)]

2.4.3.7. Heine’s scale (2009)

Heine (2009) used a qualitative methodology including Repertory Grid

Method (developed by Kelly, 1955) to develop a scale to measure luxury brand

personality. The need for this research lies in the fact that brand personality is a

key source of symbolic benefits and luxury brands derive their value mainly from

these symbolic benefits. The study was conducted among 31 German millionaires

and a content analysis of the data collected through interview revealed that luxury

brand personality consisted of five dimensions

Brand Personality Dimensions

Sincerity (Successful, Down-to-earth, Honest, Original)

Passion (Spirited, Imaginative, Daring, Passionate)

45

T M D E DT O DC ET ST SG

[Note: T-Traditional, M-Modern, D-Decent, E-Eccentric, DT-Discreet, O-Opulent,

D-Democratic, ET-Elitist, ST-Soft, SG-Strong]

Figure-2.10. Heine’s Luxury BPS (2009) [Source: Heine (2009)]

Further Heine (2009) states that the dimensions presented above are

not independent from each other and that the left hand side of the above figure can

be characterised as quiet and the opposite side as rather loud.

2.4.3.8. Lee, Soutar and Quintal’s scale (2010)

Lee et al. (2010) tried to introduce a new brand personality measurement

approach which requires less time to obtain data and removes some of the

response biases. For this purpose, they used a Best Worst Scaling (BWS)

technique to measure the personality of three destinations namely France, U.S. and

China based on the perceptions of people from Australia, Germany, Brazil and

South Korea. They used personality traits from previous studies on brand

personality and with the help of a partially balanced incomplete block design; they

collected the most and least descriptive terms for each of the three destinations

from the respondents. The results of the study showed that France was seen as

Luxury Brand Personality

Modernity

The temporal perspective of a

brand

Eccentricity

The level of discrepancy from social norms and

expectations

Opulence

The level of conspicuousness of the symbols of

wealth

Elitism

The level of status and exclusivity

Strength

the level of toughness and

masculinity

46

significantly more sophisticated, the U.S. as significantly more rugged and lively

and China as significantly more trendy, lively and genuine, than the other

destinations. Though the study does not provide a rigid scale to measure brand

personality, it introduces a new approach with which brand personality can be

measured.

2.4.3.9. Heere’s scale (2010)

A study was done by Heere (2010) based on the notion that managers can

sum up personality traits since they are responsible to a great extent for the

creation of brand personality. He used the free listing technique to elicit the

adjectives they used to describe their brand. The information gathered from

various managers were processed and summarized in to a final set of items which

was rated by 224 respondents on a seven point scale. An exploratory factor

analysis of the data resulted in the clustering of adjectives around two factors,

namely Game-related (associations that are directly related to elite sport and the

emotions resulting from the game) and Event-related (more generic associations

related to the event). The event-related factor consisted of adjectives like

accessible, warm, cool and attractive and game-related factor included adjectives

such as proud and exciting.

Figure-2.11. Heere’s brand personality dimensions (2010)

[Source: Heere (2010)]

Brand Personality Dimensions

Game-related Factor

Event-related Factor

47

2.4.3.10. Summary of Brand Personality scales

The different approaches to measure brand personality are summarized in

Table-2.3 consisting of the context (that is, the country wherein the study was

done and the number of brands considered for the study), sources of traits (that is,

sources used by the researcher to identify the adjectives needed for the study),

sample description (that is, the number and type of respondents participated in the

study), design and analysis (that is, how the researcher identified the various

dimensions of brand personality) and the major findings of the study.

48

Table-2.3. Summary of Brand Personality scales

Author Context Sources of Traits Sample description

Design and Analysis

Major Findings

Aaker (1997)

Study done in U.S based on 37 brands across multiple product categories

Sources include: -Personality scales used by psychologists(Big Five model – Norman, 1963; Tupes and Christal, 1958; NEO Model - McCrae and Costa, 1989; Big Five Prototypes - John, 1990), Adjective Check List (Piedmont, McCrae, and Costa, 1991), and Inter-Circumplex Model - McCrae and Costa, 1989) -Personality scales used by marketers and academicians (Alt and Griggs, 1988; Batra et al., 1993; Levy, 1959; Malhotra, 1981; Plummer, 1985; Wells

Size: 631 Panel: A national mail panel Subjects: A representation of U.S. people based on gender, age, ethnicity, household income and geographic location

Structure: -Used an exploratory principal component factor analysis to identify the dimensions. - Robustness was established using a series of factor analysis run on subsets of subjects. - Reliability was established using test-retest correlations and Cronbach’s alpha - Confirmatory factor analysis was used to find additional support for the stability of the 5 dimensions

-Identified a five dimensional structure with 15 facets and 42 traits -The dimensions include Sincerity, Excitement, Ruggedness, Sophistication and Competence.

49

et al., 1957) -Original qualitative research of personality traits associated with a number of brands - Traits from a free association test conducted among consumers.

Ambroise et al. (2005)

Study done in France considering four brands, namely Pepsi, Coke, Nike and Adidas

Two sources were mainly used - Existing scales which include Aaker et al., 2001; Caprara et al., 2001; Ferrandi et al., 2000 and Ferrandi and Valette-Florence, 2002. and - Generation of new items by consumers and experts (using nominal group technique)

Size: 387 Panel: University Subjects: Business students

Principal component factor analysis with a promax rotation and confirmatory factor analysis were used for the study

Found the brand personality to have an order 1 structure with 33 items loading on 12dimensions. The dimensions found were glamorous, secure, outgoing, sweet, exciting, elegant, mischievous, cheerful, mature, natural, rigorous and reliable.

Sweeney et al. (2006)

A study done in Australia considering the features of multiple product categories

Three sources were used: - Human personality items from Wiggins (1979), inter-personal adjective scale items from the Trapnell and

Size: 32 Panel: Online survey Subjects: Academics

32 judges rated the appropriateness of a set of traits based on the interpersonal definition of brand personality

-Brand personality can be viewed in less wholesome ways than those traits originally proposed by Aaker (1997) - Study indicated that

50

Wiggins (1990) and five-factor model- Aaker’s (1997)brand personality measures

broadly Aaker's (1997) brand personality dimensions and the agreeableness, extroversion and conscientiousness dimensions from human personality model are suitable and appropriate for measuring Interpersonal brand personality

Bosnjak et al. (2007)

Study in Germany based on 13 brands in multiple product categories

Two sources were used - Items created by eliciting attributes with the aid of original qualitative research -Items translated from Aaker’s (1997) scale

Size: 131 Panel: Online survey Subjects: People with diverse demographic features

Structure: Factor analysis was done with principal component analysis and varimax rotation

-Found that indigenous German brand personality scale consists of Four factors and 20 items. The dimensions includes drive, conscientiousness, emotion and superficiality

Geuens et al. (2009)

Study in Belgium considering 20 brands in stage-1 and 193 brands in stage-2 from

Consists of items from -Aaker’s (1997) scale -items from Costa and McCrae's revised NEO-PI scale (1992), Mervielde's Dutch Big Five version (1992),

Size: Stage-1 - 1235 Stage-2 - 2789 Panel: Online survey Subjects: People with

Structure: Factor analysis was done with principal component analysis and varimax rotation

-A new scale was formulated consisting of 5 factors and 12 items. - The five dimensions found were Activity, Responsibility,

51

multiple product categories

and Saucier's brief version of Goldberg's Big Five markers (1994) -Items generated using brainstorming sections in two focus groups

diverse demographic features.

Aggressiveness, Simplicity, and Emotionality

Kuenzel et al. (2009)

Study done in Germany based on a popular car brand

Traits were taken from Hieronimus’ (2003) German brand personality scale and adjectives frequently used in the company’s brand communications

Size: 1170 Panel: Company’s national customer database Subjects: Product owners

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to Validate the actual structure of the brand personality scale

Further evidence has been found in Support of Austin et al. (2003)’s warning to apply general brand personality scales to single brands - Brand personality had a two dimensional (security and passion) structure having 5 adjectives each

Heine (2009)

Study in Germany to measure luxury brand personality

Traits were identified by interviewing 31 German millionaires

Size: 31 Panel: Used a snow ball sampling approach Subjects: German millionaires

- Used a qualitative methodology including Repertory Grid Method. -Used content analysis of the data to uncover 5 personality dimensions

Found that consumers perceive 5 different personality dimensions for luxury brands, namely modernity, eccentricity, opulence, elitism and strength

Lee et al. (2010)

Study done among people

Traits were taken from prior studies of Aaker

Size: 209 to 220 in each country

A partially balanced

Found that destinations differed

52

from Australia, Germany, Brazil and South Korea considering three tourist destinations (France, U.S.A and China)

(1997), Phau and Lau (2000), Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera (2001), Austin, Siguaw and Mattila (2003) and Sung and Tinkham (2005)

Panel: Online survey Subjects: People from Australia, Germany, Brazil and South Korea

incomplete block design was used and respondents were asked to pick the most and least descriptive terms for each destination and best-worst ratio score was calculated to produce trade-off scores

in their personality - France was seen as significantly more sophisticated, the USA as significantly more rugged and lively and China as significantly more trendy, lively and genuine than the other destinations

Heere (2010)

Study done in New Zealand and based on a sports brand

Traits were identified by asking the managers of the organization to use the free listing technique to describe their own brand

Size: Stage-1 - 5 Stage-2 - 224 Panel: Online survey and questionnaires administered to spectators of a specific sports event Subjects: Managers and sports spectators

Two stage study – development and evaluation of brand personality associations. Then an exploratory factor analysis was done to examine the schematic associations the consumers had between the different associations

Two factors were found, namely 1) Game-related factor and 2) Event-related factor

[Source: Original]

53

2.4.3.11. Comparison of Brand Personality Scales

The following table shows a comparison of different brand personality scales made on the bases of major theories

which back up the measurement approach used by the researcher, strengths, limitations and cross-cultural validity of

the study.

Table-2.4. Comparison of Brand Personality scales

Author Major theoretical bases

Strengths Limitations/Criticisms Cross-cultural validity

Aaker (1997)

- Based on big five human personality structure - Defined brand personality as the set of human characteristics associated with a brand

-Strong theoretical background -First robust, reliable and valid scale to measure brand personality

- Does not strictly adhere to the conceptual definition employed(Austin et al., 2003) -Loose definition of the brand personality construct - Encompasses unrelated aspects of brand identity -Only positive brand attributes are considered

Not valid; As a result, several researchers have adapted the scale

Ambroise et al. (2005)

- Defines brand personality as the set of human personality traits associated with a brand

-Uses a more strict definition of brand personality than that of Aaker(1997)

-Generalizability of the scale is questioned since the study is based on very few number of brands from two product categories only

Not checked

Sweeney et al. (2006)

-Based on inter-personal circumplex (IPC) model - Defines brand personality as the set

-Enriches understanding of personality. - Offers more relevance when an in-depth inquiry of brand personality is needed.

- Preliminary and largely conceptual study -Analysis is based on a small sample of judges

Not valid

54

of human personality traits that correspond to the interpersonal domain of human personality and are relevant to describing the brand as a relationship partner

- IPC offers detailed information about specific traits, blends of traits, and interpersonal (consumer– brand) interactions

Bosnjak et al.(2007)

-Used a person- centric perspective which entails an exploration of those positive and negative human personality dimensions which are both applicable and relevant to brands. -Uses brand personality definition of Azoulayetal. (2003)

-Addresses various limitations of Aaker’s (1997) scale -Between subjects variability in identifying the dimensionality of brand personality was taken into account -Based on a stricter definition of brand personality -Negative dimensions are also taken in to consideration

-Relatively low sample size -Developed and tested for German cultural context only -Needs to conduct a random sample approach to advance the generalizability of the study

Not checked

Geuens et al. (2009)

- Based on big five dimensions to personality -Uses brand personality definition of Azoulay et al.(2003)

-Restricts brand personality to human personality traits that are relevant for and applicable to brands. -Can be used for a variety of studies such as aggregate level across multiple brands of different product categories, different

-Since the researchers used a data driven method of selecting and retaining items, there is a chance of deleting useful and meaningful items because they were not associated with one of the dimensions. - The validity and reliability were studied extensively in

Found to be cross culturally valid in Europe and U.S

55

competitors within a specific product category, individual brand level, and cross-cultural studies. - Global companies can use the scale toassess the degree to which their brands have a true global personality

Belgium only. In other countries it was done only in a limited manner. -Nomological validity should be further investigated.

Kuenzel et al. (2009)

Mainly based on the studies of Aaker (1997) and Hieronimus (2003)

-Helps to reduce respondent fatigue since it is a short scale

-Limited number of traits were considered for the study

Not valid

Heine (2009)

Based on the Repertory Grid Method (RGM) developed by Kelly (1955)

- Provides more relevant dimensions with respect to a specific product category -RGM allows describing constructs with a group of words, which enables researchers to decode their varying contextual meanings for different constructs - Delivers relevant binary oppositions, which correspond to both the human information processing and the requirements for the design of a brand identity and positioning

-Influenced by subjective interventions of the researcher

Not valid

Lee et al. - Uses Aaker’s (1997) -As there is only one way to - Introduces an approach, not a Not checked

56

(2010) definition of brand personality -Uses aBest-Worst Scaling (BWS) invented by Jordan Louviere.

choose something as best (or worst), the method eliminates response style biases - Provides a context to each answer, by asking people to make choices among relevant options that capture their trade-offs

scale to measure brand personality

Heere (2010)

-Based on Psychological Meaning strategy of Friedmann (1986)

- Helps to capture the brand personality associations as well as provides the researchers with valuable insights on both the organization's ability to represent that particular association, as well as capturing the relative importance of those associations to a particular set of consumers

-Study is on a specific product category and the respondents were mainly women, hence generalizability is limited

Not valid

[Source: Original]

57

The scope of the above review was limited to scales which introduced a

new approach to measure brand personality. Hence, in the following section, a

brief discussion of the most important and noteworthy brand personality

researches is presented. This includes category-specific brand personality scales,

country-specific brand personality scales, brand personality scale for non-profit

sectors, brand personality scale in the online context and so on.

2.4.4. A review of the applications of brand personality concept

A compendium of applications of brand personality concept in the different

realms of knowledge is comprehended and discussed here to portray the

advancement of this concept in the marketing domain. This section of the

literature review focuses on ‘micro’ approaches to brand personality scale

development, which deals with the development of category-specific or product-

specific brand personality scales. An effort is also made to highlight how different

brand personality scales have been used for further research in marketing. The

different categories discussed here consist of destinations, restaurants and so on.

2.4.4. 1. The case of destinations

Research works of Ekinci and Hosany (2006) revealed that brand

personality can be attributed to destinations and it can serve as an effective and

strong tool to differentiate tourist destinations (Murphy, Moscardo and

Benckendorff, 2007). The application of the concept of brand personality to

tourism destinations yielded the concept of destination personality. It is defined as

“the set of personality traits associated with a destination” (Ekinci and Hosany,

2006). A study conducted by Ekinci and Hosany (2006) has given empirical

evidence to prove that tourists attribute human characteristics to destinations.

Destination personality studies have revealed that this concept has a positive

impact on travellers’ intention to recommend (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006), intention

58

to return and word of mouth (Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk and Baloglu, 2007). Several

destination personality studies (Henderson, 2000; Santos, 2004; Ekinci and

Hosany, 2006; Hosany, Ekinci and Uysal, 2006; Ekinci et al., 2007; Murphy et al.,

2007; Prayag, 2007; Sahin and Baloglu, 2009; Usakli and Baloglu, 2011) have

been done to understand the various aspects of destination personality.

Ekinci and Hosany in 2006 undertook a study on destination personality to

understand the application of brand personality concept in the tourism domain.

This research was conducted among 250 tourists from Britain, based on the last

destination they visited, with the help of an adapted version of Aaker (1997) brand

personality scale with 27 items and using a Likert scale with five points to capture

the descriptiveness of each item in the scale. They found that destination

personality is a three dimensional construct consisting of sincerity, excitement, and

conviviality. Further, they found destination personality can help in creating a

positive destination image in the minds of travellers and can help in increasing

their intention to recommend the destination. This study identified that the

conviviality dimension plays a moderating role in travellers’ intention to

recommend the destination.

Yet another study, done by Hosany et al. (2006) involved 148 British

tourists as respondents, relied on the last destination they visited as a stimuli for

making their response in a 27 item questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale.

As in the previous research, this work also yielded three dimensional destination

personality structure with sincerity, excitement and conviviality being the

dimensions. The findings of this research suggested that, destination image and

destination personality are two related constructs and destination image is more

encompassing while destination personality is a part of the affective component of

destination image. In general branding literature, one cannot find an empirical

study examining the relationship between brand image and brand personality and

that makes Hosany et al. (2006)’s work a novel one.

59

Another destination personality study was the one done by Ekinci et al.

(2007) in Turkey among 365 tourists of German origin. It was carried out using a

20 item destination personality scale with a five point Likert type rating as

recommended by Ekinci and Hosany (2006). The same three dimensions namely

sincerity, excitement and conviviality were identified as destination personality

dimensions. Their study revealed that host image has a positive impact on

destination personality. This research also revealed the role played by destination

personality in influencing tourists’ intention to return and word of mouth

promotion of the destination.

Considering two destinations, namely Cairns and Whitsunday Islands in

Australia, a survey was conducted using a 20-item questionnaire developed based

on Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale, among 480 tourists who visited

Queensland by Murphy, Moscardo and Benckendorff (2007). This study found

Cairns Islands to possess a three dimensional personality (sincere, sophisticated

and outdoorsy) while Whitsunday was perceived to possess a four dimensional

personality structure consisting of upper class, honest, exciting and tough. Their

study also provided some empirical evidence for the use of brand personality to

differentiate destinations.

Murphy et al. (2007a), further conducted a study among 277 visitors to

Whitsunday Islands in Queensland in Australia using a 20 item scale developed

from Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale, and identified four dimensions of

destination personality, namely sincerity, excitement, sophistication and

competence, and ruggedness. This study provided evidences for relationship

between destination personality, travel motivation and self congruity. The findings

of the study suggested that tourists’ actual visitation and intention to visit did not

have any relationship with the personality of the destination.

60

Murphy, Benckendorff and Moscardo (2007b) did a study among 277

tourists to Whitsunday Islands in Australia replicated a four dimensional

personality of the Island as identified by Murphy et al. (2007a). This study also

identified associations between high self congruity levels and destination

personality.

Lee and Kaplanidou (2011) conducted a study to understand the influence

of Beijing Olympics in changing the destination personality perception of China

among leisure travellers from the USA. The study found no substantial change in

the collective perception of destination personality of China among the sample.

Usakli and Baloglu (2011) conducted a study among 382 tourists to Las

Vegas. Their research revealed the tendency of tourists to ascribe personality

characteristics to destinations. Also, this study identified a five dimensional

personality structure for the destination personality of Las Vegas and it consisted

of vibrancy, sophistication, competence, contemporary and sincerity. The study

also found that the above mentioned dimensions had a positive impact on tourists’

intention to recommend and intention to return. Another valuable contribution of

this research is that: it gives support to self congruity theory in the tourism context

and identifies that visitors’ behavioural intentions are influenced by actual and

ideal congruity.

Upadhyaya and Makarand (2012) studied the relationship between

destination image and destination personality in an empirical manner. This

research was based on 200 respondents and a scale consisting of items from

different past researches. The results found that the image of a destination is

influenced by the personality perceptions of the tourist regarding that destination.

Xie and Lee (2013) conducted a research in Beijing among 500 foreign

tourists and identified four dimensions, namely competence, excitement,

sophistication and ruggedness as the building blocks to create a strong destination

61

personality. This study also revealed that these personality dimensions play a key

role in projecting the personality of the destination and personality dimensions

such as sophistication, excitement and competence play an important role in

determining the visitors’ behavioural intentions.

Kim and Lehto (2013) tried to compare the difference in the projected and

perceived personality dimensions of South Korea. The projected personality was

measured by conducting a content analysis study of the official Korean tourism

website and the perceived personality dimensions were extracted by analysing the

responses obtained in a survey conducted among the Americans who visited South

Korea. They identified seven personality dimensions namely Family orientation,

Sincerity, Competence, Uniqueness, Excitement, Ruggedness and Sophistication.

2.4.4. 2. Online destination personality studies

Pitt, Opoku, Hultman, Abratt and Spyropoulou (2007) conducted a study to

understand how 10 select African destinations project their personality online. For

this study they developed an inventory of synonyms to Aaker’s (1997) scale and

identified personalities of each country with the help of a computer aided content

analysis. This was the first study which demonstrated a method to measure online

destination personality. The results of theresearch revealed that some of the

African destinations considered for the study communicated a few of the

dimensions in Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale, but many of them failed to

do the same.

Prayag in 2007 conducted a research based on two destinations namely,

South Africa and Cape Town, based on a sample of 85 international tourists who

visited Cape Town. Unlike other destination personality researches in which a

structured questionnaire was employed to understand the personality of the

destination under consideration, he used a qualitative research method relying on

62

projective techniques and in-depth interview method. Though this study did not

yield any personality dimensions, it found that projective technique could be used

to elicit the destination specific personality traits.

2.4.4. 3. Country personality studies

D’Astous and Boujbel (2007) conducted a study to create a country

personality scale based on responses from Canadians who speak French. They

used a scale developed by incorporating traits from various previous researches in

the field and employed a five-point bipolar scale. They defined country personality

as “the mental representation of a country on dimensions that typically capture an

individual's personality”. The study unveiled six dimensions of country personality

namely, agreeableness, wickedness, snobbism, assiduousness, conformity and

unobtrusiveness. They developed two versions of the scale, a full version which

consisted of 37 items and a short version consisting of 24 items.

Sahin and Baloglu (2009) identified five dimensions of destination

personality, namely sincerity, originality and vibrancy, cool and trendy,

competence and modernity and conviviality. This study was done at Istanbul,

Turkey among 272 international tourists who visited this destination using a

structured questionnaire developed by taking 23 items from Aaker’s (1997) brand

personality scale and five items identified through content analysis of travel

brochures and web sites on Istanbul. This study revealed a difference in the

perceptions of different nationals in perceiving the same destination.

Stokburger-Sauer (2011) conducted a study among 421 potential German

tourists to the holiday destination of the Republic of Ireland. This research

revealed that national brand identification and congruence between the tourists’

personality and that of the nation, has a strong influence on the visit intentions.

This work also found that brand advocacy is strongly influenced by nation brand

embeddedness and that it serves as a predictor of brand advocacy.

63

2.4.4. 4. City personality studies

Kaplan, Yurt, Guneri and Kurtulus (2010) tried to understand the use of

brand personality dimensions in differentiating cities. They developed a city

personality scale for this purpose. This study was conducted in Turkey and was a

two-stage study in which the first phase consisted of generation of 410 items to

describe city personality (by means of a qualitative study and a literature survey).

And, in the second phase, the initial item pool was reduced to 87 items based on

judgement by the researchers. The questionnaire was administered among 898

students to identify the city personality dimensions. This study employed a five-

point Likert scale for rating. The new scale consisted of six dimensions, namely

excitement, malignancy, peacefulness, competence, conservatism and ruggedness.

A detailed presentation of this scale is given in the diagram below.

Figure-2.12. Brand personality dimensions for cities

[Source: Kaplan et al. (2010)]

2.4.4. 5. Geographic personality studies

Aiken, Campbell and Koch (2013) conducted a study to understand how the

personality of a team and personality of the home destination of the team

(geographic personality) are related. This research was done in the USA and

considered 10 teams which participate in the national football league. Responses

Brand Personality Dimensions for Cities

Excitementpassionateoutgoingfemininesympathetic

Malignancyunreliablearrogantself-seeking

Peacefulnesscalmdomestic

CompetenceAuthoritariansophisticated

Coservatismreligiousuneducated

Ruggedness

64

were collected from 434 people. For the purpose of this study, they relied on the

definition of geographic personality put forward by Aiken, Koch and Madrigal

(2000). They defined the construct as “the inferred set of human attributes

identified with a geographic location”. The findings of the study revealed a high

level of congruity between team personality and geographic personality.

2.4.4. 6. The case of restaurants

Austin, Siguaw, and Mattila (2003) conducted a study to check the

generalizability of Aaker’s (1997) brand personality framework. For this study

they considered nine restaurant brands as stimuli and a set of 247 student

respondents were considered. Respondent evaluation of restaurant brands were

collected using Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale and using a five-point

Likert scale. A confirmatory factor analysis of the data indicated a poor fit with

Aaker’s (1997) framework. Based on their findings, they urged researchers to be

cautious while employing Aaker’s scale, as it may not be appropriate in the case of

individual brands or in the case of different product categories.

Murase and Bojanic (2004) conducted a study with an intention to

understand how the restaurant brand personality varies across cultures. This study

was done in the USA and Japan using Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale and

considering three popular restaurant chains. The findings of this study exhibited

little difference across cultures in the personality of the three restaurants

considered.

Opoku, Abratt, Bendixen and Pitt (2007) tried to demonstrate a means by

which small and medium sized enterprises in the restaurant industry can evaluate

their projected personality on their websites. This study helped different

restaurants compare their positioning strategy with that of the competitors.

Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale was used for this study and the results of

the work revealed that the Small and Medium enterprises used their websites

effectively to communicate their personality.

65

Ramaseshan and Tsao (2007) investigated how the brand concept played a

moderating effect in the relationship between perceived quality and brand

personality. The study conducted employing Aaker’s (1997) brand personality

scale revealed that excitement and sophistication dimensions indicated a higher

association with perceived quality than the rest of the dimensions, namely

sincerity, competence and ruggedness. The study helped to prove brand

personality as a viable substitute to price as a cue for quality.

A laboratory experiment research done by Magnini and Thelen (2008)

using a set of business school students tried to examine the impact that music

creates in the consumer perception of brand personality. The findings of the

experiment indicated that music can influence the brand personality perceptions of

customers in a restaurant environment.

Musante, Bojanic and Zhang (2008) conducted a study to develop a

modified version of the brand personality scale that will be more relevant in the

restaurant context. The research employed a student sample to reduce the Aaker’s

(1997) brand personality scale to be more relevant in the restaurant context,

considering three brands as stimuli. Analysis done at this phase yielded a seven

factor structure with 67.73% of the variance being explained. However, instead of

proceeding with this structure of brand personality, they set brand personality

dimensions at five, citing Aaker’s (1997) scale and obtained a five-factor structure

which explained around 62.07% of variance. The researchers conducted several

iterations of factor analysis to reach to a final set of 18 item scale of restaurant

personality, which performed better than the first version of 42 item scale.

Lee, Back and Kim (2009) conducted a study among 475 diners at a chain

restaurant to find that Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale was applicable in the

case of restaurants.

66

Lee and Back (2010) conducted a study relying on Aaker’s (1997) brand

personality dimensions to understand the relationship between trust, brand

personality and brand loyalty. Investigation in to these aspects was done

considering the upper upscale hotel segment and the findings of the study revealed

the mediating role of trust in the relation between brand loyalty and brand

personality. This study also indicated user imagery as the strongest predictor of

brand personality.

Kim, Magnini and Singal (2011) conducted a study with 336 respondents to

understand whether brand personality has any positive impact on restaurant

chains. The results of their work revealed that diners’ personality perceptions on

restaurant chains have a positive impact on attitudinal loyalty and brand

preference. The study also provided empirical evidence for the positive influence

of brand preference on attitudinal loyalty and positive influence of attitudinal

loyalty on word of mouth.

2.4.4. 7. Sports brand personality

Carlson, Donavan and Cumiskey (2009) conducted a study among 162

university students who were participants of a sports marketing class. An adapted

version of Aaker’s (1997) scale was employed to collect their responses. The

study indicated that respondents tend to attribute sport brands with unique

personalities and this had a positive influence on their identification of that sports

team.

Kang (2013) developed a five dimensional scale to measure sport brand

personality. The dimensions in this scale included Conscientiousness, Honesty,

Openness, Agreeableness, and Emotionality/Extraversion. This study was

restricted to sport brands in professional leagues in the USA.

67

2.4.4. 8. The case of Sports organization Brands

Smith, Graetz and Westerbeek (2006) employed Aaker’s (1997) brand

personality framework to evaluate its applicability in the case of a sports

organization in Australia. This research gathered responses from 413 respondents

and the factor analysis of their responses revealed that Aaker’s (1997) scale was

found to be less appropriate in the case of sports organization brands. They

suggested a six dimensional frame work to measure sports organization

personality, which consisted of an addition of Innovation dimension to Aaker’s

(1997) brand personality framework.

2.4.4. 9. The case of non-profit organizations

Venable, Rose, and Gilbert (2003) developed a scale to measure brand

personality of non-profit organizations. A mix of qualitative and quantitative

approaches was adopted to develop the scale. The qualitative study revealed that

people attribute human personality traits to non-profit organizations. They

proposed a four dimensional frame work consisting of nurturance, sophistication,

integrity and ruggedness as dimensions. A study by Venable, Rose, Bush, and

Gilbert (2005) found that current and potential contributors to non-profit

organizations attribute personality traits to them and their tendency to contribute

relies to some extent on the personality of the brand.

2.4.4.10. The case of media brands

Kim, Baek and Martin (2010) created a news media brand personality scale

by considering a set of news paper brands and relying on a sample of 444 college

students. The study identified a five dimensional structure with factors such as

trustworthiness, dynamism, sincerity, sophistication and toughness.

68

Valette-Florence and de Barnier (2011) created a print media brand

personality scale considering 24 print media brands and a total of 780 respondents.

An eight dimensional structure (with 27 items) consisting of wisdom, conventional

character, misleading character, natural, agreeable, assertive character,

seduction and elegance formed the scale.

2.4.4.11. Corporate brand personality

Keller and Richey (2006) developed a corporate brand personality scale to

measure the personality dimensions of corporate brands. They defined corporate

brand personality as “the characteristics or traits of the employees of an

organization as a whole”. The six traits and three dimensions identified were

Passionate and Compassionate which constituted the dimension Heart, Creative

and Disciplined constituted the Mind dimension and Agile and Collaborative

formed the Body dimension.

2.4.4.12. Online brand personality

Okazaki (2006) tried to capture the personality dimensions which American

firms intended to communicate to their customers with the help of content

analysis. This study considered 270 websites of 64 American brands which were

developed for countries like the U.S., France, Germany, UK, and Spain. A five

dimensional framework with dimensions affection, popularity, excitement,

sophistication and competence were identified as the online personality

dimensions of American brands with the help of a principal component analysis.

2.4.4.13. Website Personality

Poddar, Donthu and Wei (2009) tried to extend the general marketing

concept of customer orientation of sales people to the online context or more

specifically to the internet marketing context. For the study, they employed an

69

adapted version of D'Astous and Levesque (2003) store personality scale namely

website personality scale and an online version of Saxe and Weitz (1982) scale

was used for measuring customer orientation. The study indicated that the impact

of a websites’ personality on the purchase intention of a consumer is mediated by

the perceived quality of the website.

2.4.4.14. Retailer personality

Retail brand personality studies can be marked as the beginning of brand

personality concept. It is supposed to be introduced by Martineau (1958) who

wrote an article titled ‘The personality of the retail store’ in the Harvard Business

Review journal. However, the term was used in a much broader sense and

captured many aspects of store image as well.

d’Astous and Le´vesque (2003) conducted a research to develop a measure

that captures the personality of a store. An initial version of the store personality

scale was constructed with the help of responses from 226 adult respondents. It

consisted of 34 items falling under five different dimensions namely genuineness,

enthusiasm, sophistication, solidity and unpleasantness. A short version of the

scale was then created which consisted of 20 items and five dimensions, which

helped in increasing the respondent friendliness of the tool.

Beldona and Wysong (2007) tried to explore the role of the personality of a

store in influencing the consumer perception regarding store brands and the

variance occurring in their response after experiencing the product. The findings

indicated that as compared to store brands, national brands had an upper hand;

however the real experience of the products diminished those differences.

Zentes et al. (2008) conducted a study in Germany with a sample of 1337

respondents and found Aaker’s (1997) scale to be applicable in the German

70

retailer store context and also found a relationship between the brand personality

construct and customers loyalty towards the store.

Brengman and Willems (2009) explored shoppers’ perceptions of fashion

store personality. For achieving this objective, they conducted a qualitative

exploratory research among 70 Belgium adult fashion store shoppers with the help

of semi-structured in-depth interviews. A convenience sampling method was

adopted for sampling selection in this research. They relied on d'Astous and

Lévesque (2003)scale for data collection. The findings of this study indicated that,

in the case of fashion stores, design of the store and store environment play a key

role in determining the fashion store personality. This study also explored the

attributes of the store that induces each of the five store personality perceptions

namely unpleasantness, solidity, enthusiasm, sophistication and genuineness. The

major attributes identified includes; consumer perception of pricing in the store,

quality of the service and product in the store, reputation of the store, corporate

social responsibility activities of the store, level of service offered by the retailer,

product assortment in the store and staff in the fashion store.

Willems, Swinnen, Janssens and Brengman (2011) argued that a general

brand personality scale like Aaker (1997) or a general store personality scale

similar to d'Astous and Levesque (2003) will be less relevant in the case of fashion

stores. For this research, they carried out a three phase study in which the first

phase consisted of a repertory grid analysis based on responses collected through

interview from 51 respondents, with an objective to identify the attributes that

shoppers attribute to a fashion store. In the next phase,a purification was done with

a sample of 481respondents and using an exploratory factor analysis, they

identified a five dimensional fashion store personality frame work with

dimensions named as conspicuousness, chaos, agreeableness, innovativeness and

sophistication. In phase three of this study, they examined self congruity principle

71

in the context of fashion store personality and found supporting evidences for this

concept in the fashion retailing context.

2.4.4.15. Drug brand personality

Leonard and Katsanis (2013) conducted a study to understand the consumer

perception of personality of drug brands and the scale was named as ‘drug brand

personality scale’. About 483 respondents from the USA participated in the study.

A total of 15 drug brands were considered and respondents were required to rate

them based on 22 personality traits. The result of the study unveiled a two

dimensional drug brand personality scale with competence and innovativeness as

the two distinct dimensions.

2.4.4.16. Industrial brand personality

Herbst and Merz (2011) developed a scale to measure Industrial brand

personality. This basically dealt with the personality of business-to-business

brands.

2.4.4.17. Country-specific brand personality scales

Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera (2001) developed scales to measure

brand personality dimensions in the Japanese and Spanish contexts. In Japan, they

followed a multi-stage procedure to develop the scale which started with an

indigenous item generation phase followed by the main study for identifying the

major brand personality dimensions in the Japanese context. In the main study,

they considered 25 brands (both product and service) and 1495 respondents, which

represented the Japanese population in terms of gender, marital status, age,

occupation and education level. Their research identified a five dimensional

Japanese brand personality structure consisting of excitement, competence,

peacefulness, sophistication and sincerity. In their research to identify personality

72

dimensions of Spain, 692 respondents were included and a total of 25 brands were

considered as stimuli. A factor analysis of the responses revealed a five factor

structure with dimensions namely excitement, sophistication, sincerity,

peacefulness and passion.

A study conducted by Muniz and Marchetti (2012) among 1,302 Brazilian

consumers identified a five dimensional brand personality structure in the

Brazilian context. A total of 24 brands (consisting of both product and services)

were selected as stimuli in the main study. The dimensions identified were

credibility, joy, audacity, sophistication and sensitivity.

Sung and Tinkham (2005) tried to identify culture specific dimensions in

the American and Korean contexts. For this they selected well known global

brands that were common in both countries. They tried to create a general brand

personality scale by considering 18 product and service categories. To identify the

U.S. brand personality structure, a survey was conducted among a total of 320

university students, using a list of 80 carefully selected personality traits based on

a previous exploratory study. A seven point Likert type scaling was employed in

the study. An exploratory factor analysis of the data yielded an eight dimensional

structure with dimensions such as likeableness, trendiness, competence,

sophistication, traditionalism, androgyny, white collar and ruggedness. For

creating Korean personality measure, a survey was conducted among 337 Korean

undergraduate students. The analysis procedures in the case of Korea were similar

to that of the U.S. case. The Exploratory Factor Analysis conducted on the data set

identified an eight factor structure which explained around 62.5% variance. The

dimensions found were competence, trendiness, likeableness, passive likeableness,

sophistication, accountability, ruggedness and traditionalism.

73

2.4.4.18. Theory building studies using brand personality

In this section some of the important studies based on different brand

personality scales which explores and establishes relationship between brand

personality and other concepts such as loyalty, trust and so on

A research work of Kim, Han, and Park (2001) found that customers’

identification of a brand is positively affected by the different values of brand

personality, such as its distinctiveness, attractiveness and self expressive value.

Diamantopoulos, Smith and Grime (2005) employed Aaker’s (1997) brand

personality scale to examine the impact of brand extensions on the personality of

the brand. The results of this experimental study found that brand extensions do

not adversely affect the personality of the core brand.

Freling and Forbes (2005) provided empirical evidence for the impact of

brand personality on different brand associations.

Fennis and Pruyn (2007) examined whether the personality perceptions

regarding a brand is carried over and attributed to its owner by consumers. The

research found that the influence of brand personality on impression formation

exists but varies depending on the situation.

Boudreaux and Palmer (2007) studied the impact of the consumer

perceived personality of a brand on the purchase intention, in the case of wine

purchase. For this research, the researchers collected responses of 90 experiment

labels of wine brands which varied on their features such as design layout, colour

and so on. The results revealed that brand personality explained only half of the

variance in purchase intention. Further, the study identified the facets such as

74

charming, spirited, successful and up-to-date to be highly correlated with purchase

intent.

Louis and Lombart (2010) conducted a study to understand how trust,

attachment and commitment to a brand are affected by the consumer perceived

dimensions of brand personality. For this purpose, they carried out a study among

348 young French consumers in the age group 19-23 years, considering Coca cola

brand as a stimuli. They found that all the brand personality dimensions had

impact on at least one of the three, namely trust, attachment and commitment

towards the brand.

Müller and Chandon (2003) conducted an experiment research to

understand the effect of forced exposure to a brand website on the personality of

the brand. The study revealed that two dimensions of personality namely,

sincerity/confidence and youthfulness/modernity were increased significantly with

exposure to the websites. The study also revealed that if a website evokes a

positive feeling in the mind of a visitor, then he/she may perceive that brand to be

a more modern or younger one. A positive feeling regarding the website can make

the customer perceive the brand to be more sincere and trustworthy one.

Cervera-Taulet, Schlesinger, and Guillen (2013) tried to understand how

advertising affects the personality of a brand in the airline industry of Spain by

conducting a research relying on Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale. The

research found that only the sophistication dimension among the five dimensions

was influenced by advertising.

Huang and Mitchell (2014) tried to understand the function of brand

personification and imagination in the creation of brand relationships through an

experimental study which employed a 2*2 factorial design and the research was

75

conducted among a total of 468 subjects. The study revealed that brand

personification can moderate the effect of self expansion theory.

2.4.4.19. Celebrity endorsement and brand personality

Celebrity endorsement research can be broadly classified into two streams,

namely source credibility stream of research and congruence research (Roy and

Moorthi, 2012). Congruence research is also known as match-up studies. Three

main dimensions of source credibility include trustworthiness, expertise and

attractiveness.

Congruence studies: This stream of research deals with the match between the

brand and celebrity and is known as match-up hypothesis. The match-up

hypothesis postulates that a celebrity advertisement will be effective when there is

congruence between the celebrity and the brand advertised (Roy and Moorthi,

2012).

The meaning transfer model: The meaning transfer model was proposed by

McCracken, who postulated that celebrities carry and convey a set of meanings to

consumers. Further, they offer a set of personality traits and lifestyle (Roy and

Moorthi, 2012). According to McCracken (1989) endorsers can bring in and

transfer symbolic meanings to endorsement process. These symbolic meanings

may include personality, life style types, age, gender, social class and so on. One

of the rationales behind the use of celebrity endorsers by advertisers could be

obtained from the arguments of Fortini-Campbell (1992). According to him, like

human beings, products also possess personality and consumers will prefer to

consume or own products that have a personality similar to theirs or a personality

they aspire to possess, probably those of their family members or celebrities they

like.

76

Celebrity endorsement is considered to play a crucial role in building brand

personality as it can be used to attribute instant personality to brands (Dickenson,

1996).

2.4.5. Brand Personality Researches in the Indian Context

Purkayastha (2009) studied brand personality of four brands namely 7 up,

Samsung, Motorola and Raymond using a 15-item scale based on Aaker’s (1997)

brand personality scale. A total of 100 responses were collected for each brand and

the brand personality of each brand was measured using a factor analysis of the

responses.

Thomas and Sekar (2008) conducted a study to check the validity of

Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale in the Indian context. Their study found

Aaker’s (1997) scale to be not fully applicable in the Indian context.

Das, Datta and Guin (2012) developed a department store personality scale.

For this purpose they defined department store personality as “a consumer's

perception of the human personality traits attributed to a department store”. The

study consisted of an initial item generation and purification stage using

qualitative methods followed by an empirical study which identified department

store personality dimensions. Out of the three to seven factor structures emerged

as personality dimensions, the researcher opted for a five dimensional framework.

The dimensions of department store personality consisted of dependability,

authenticity, sophistication, empathy and vibrancy. Further, this work also found

each of the above mentioned dimensions had a positive impact on each retailer

equity dimensions (awareness, associations, perceived quality and loyalty with

respect to the retailer). The only exception to this was between empathy and

retailer loyalty.

Das (2013a) tried to understand how store loyalty is influenced by retailer

personality. This study was done in Kolkata, India, using a systematic sampling

77

procedure, and relying on non-food retailers as stimuli. The results of the study

indicated that retailer personality had both direct and indirect (based on purchase

intention and perceived quality) impact on retailer equity.

A research was undertaken by Das (2013b) to find how the personality of a

retailer and match between shoppers’ self and retailer’s personality affect the

loyalty of the shopper towards the store. The findings of this research work

indicated a positive impact of the symbolic benefits on store loyalty.

Das, Guin and Datta (2013) conducted a study to understand the impact of

store personality antecedents on store personality dimensions. The findings of the

research suggested that all the various antecedents of store personality such as

customers’ general attitude regarding the retailer, ambience of the retail store,

product assortment in the store and brand name exhibited a positive impact on the

empathy dimension of store personality. Whereas quality of the product, customer

attitude towards the retailer, ambience of the store, word of mouth and brand name

indicated positive impact on the dependability dimension. In the case of

authenticity dimension, the antecedents that exhibited a positive impact included

ambience of the store, assortment of products, brand name and attitude of

customers towards the retailer, product quality and quality of service in the store.

Finally, for vibrancy dimension, the antecedents with positive impact were

customer attitude towards the retailer, brand name, product variety and style and

store ambience.

2.5. Chapter discussion and conclusion

Further studies are required in brand personality measurement to address

questions like the appropriateness of a general BPS to measure personality of a

specific brand, to identify the product and service categories for which a general

BPS will be suitable and the categories which require category-specific BPS, to

78

test whether the existing scales can measure the brand personality of a new

product, and so on. Some of the scales discussed here have to be tested with

respect to their reliability and validity. The cross cultural validity of most of the

brand personality scales need to be checked. Hence, future researchers can

investigate the applicability of these scales in different cultural contexts and

various validity and reliability tests may also be done with these scales under

various situations.

2.5.1. Gaps considered for the present study

Spurred on by an increasing body of research in marketing and the

importance of brand personality in it, it is apparent that the research related to this

construct will not subside. Driven by the generally accepted importance of the

brand personality construct in marketing and the lacuna in this area in India and

the limitations of the existing scales, the requirement of an India-specific and

product brands -specific brand personality scale is identified.

2.6. Summary of the literature review

This extensive review of existing literature brings to light that there exists

significant evidence to support the necessity of brand personality research in

marketing in general and branding in particular. There is a scarcity of research

which focuses on product brand personality and brand personality researches in

the Indian context. However, many attempts are made by researchers to contribute

to the knowledge of brand personality construct. It is also obvious from the

reviews that there is a necessity to develop a product brand personality scale,

which will be of much use to advertisers and brand managers, since it will be more

precise and will improve their measurement of the personality of their product

brand. Also, the literature reveals the necessity of an India-specific brand

personality scale which will address the validity issues of the current scales to a

great extent.

79

Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Designing Scale Development Framework

The objective of this chapter is to review the important approaches and

methodologies adopted by researchers to measure brand personality and to design

a research methodology for developing the product brand personality scale.

3.1. The concept of measurement

Measurement is an important aspect of science and social science research.

People generally acquire knowledge in their everyday life by the process of

observation of various happenings around them, in this process; they tend to

quantify what they observe to make a sense and record of it, which one can refer

as measurement in social science. The scientific method to measure concept in

social science and psychology is termed as psychometrics (DeVellis, 2011).

3.2. Approaches to brand personality measurement

Researchers used both qualitative and quantitative approaches to measure

brand personality. Many researchers like Geuens et al. (2009) used a mixed

method approach, wherein both quantitative and qualitative methods were

employed in determining the personality of the brand. For instance, in the case of

Geuens et al. (2009), the researcher used qualitative tools like free elicitation and

expert opinion for initial item generation and initial item reduction; while a

quantitative approach was employed for determining dimensionality, validity and

reliability. It can be observed that, in the item generation phase most of the

researchers who works on scale development tries to include some qualitative

techniques. A few of the prominent qualitative techniques employed in brand

personality research include content analysis, focus group discussion, interviews,

free elicitation studies and so on.

80

Generally, free elicitation method or word association test are employed at

the item generation phase. The purpose of conducting these techniques is to

generate or identify new items. For instance, when a new scale is created to

measure destination personality, many of the items selected from a general brand

personality scale like Aaker’s (1997) may not be sufficient to accurately represent

the dimensions of a destination’s personality. In such cases, a qualitative study can

help the researcher to identify new traits or adjectives that are relevant for

destination brands. Again, in the above mentioned case some of these techniques

may be used to eliminate irrelevant items chosen from the existing literature that

are not applicable in the case of destination brands. In some cases, the meanings

or connotations of the word used may vary from country to country; many of the

terms used in one country may not be so popularly used in other countries. In such

cases also qualitative techniques may come to the aid of the researcher to identify

or to remove the items based on the country or context under consideration.

3.2.1. Qualitative Vs. Quantitative approaches to Brand Personality Scale development

To gain a better understanding regarding the multitude of approaches to

measuring brand personality, it is required to scan through the existing approaches

in scale development, especially in the field of brand personality. Dobni and

Zinkhan (1990) say that, in psychology, human personality construct research

reached the present state over a long period of time. Hence, the brand personality

research may also have to go a long way to achieve stability. The lack of

consensus in this field related to aspects such as definition of the construct,

dimensions of the construct and so on has resulted in application of multitude of

research techniques and definitions for measuring brand personality. Researchers

have tried to adapt many of the measurement techniques employed in human

personality measurement research, in search of a better brand personality

measurement tool. However, none of them have gained universal acceptance. A

81

discussion of these attempts would be of immense help to gather insights for

designing a new tool for product brand personality measurement.

3.2.1.1. Qualitative Measurement

Qualitative approaches to brand personality have contributed significantly

to the enhancement of measurement techniques in this domain. These methods

often employ indirect ways to capture the brand personality perceptions of

consumers. Qualitative methods are often employed or helpful when direct

approaches fail or, in cases were respondents are unwilling to respond. In some

other cases, direct approaches will be less effective to capture the feelings,

attitudes and thoughts of consumers, which also may prompt the researcher to rely

on indirect methods which could be more result yielding.

One such qualitative technique widely used in marketing is the projective

technique. It is based on the hypothesis that “when people attempt to understand

an ambiguous or vague stimulus, their interpretation and response to that stimulus

reflects a projection of their needs, feelings, attitudes and experiences” (Davis,

1997). Free association test is one of the most widely used projective techniques

in brand personality research. Relying on the projective hypothesis, free

association test is conducted by confronting the respondent with a stimulus (say a

brand name, symbols, product category and so on) and encouraging him/her to

give a set of words or associations that come to his/her mind (Aaker, 1991; Batra

et al., 1996).

A research conducted by Durgee and Stuart (1987) employed projective

techniques to identify the associations with five product categories. They used

Free association techniques to identify that the words associated with symbols of

each selected brand. For instance, their study found the brand Exxon which had a

tiger symbol to be associated with ‘speed’ and ‘power’, another brand name

Floaters was found to be associated with ‘comfort’ and ‘relaxation’; while,

82

‘refreshment’ and ‘coolness’ werefound to be associated with the brand Nestle;

‘power’ and ‘dependability’ were associated with Hercules and ‘ruggedness’ and

‘toughness’ with Dodge’s Ram symbol.

Another projective technique that can be employed in brand personality

research is sentence completion test, in which a respondent may be asked to

complete sentences such as “I feel Fanta to be a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ brand”, for which

he/she may answer with words such as ‘cool’, ‘exciting’ and so on.

Another form of projective technique often employed by researchers is the

use of pictures to evoke and elicit perceptions of consumers. According to Aaker

(1991), pictures can help to make respondents express their real feelings and

attitudes in a vicarious manner and transfer them to the characters in the picture

(Aaker, 1991). Valette-Florence et al. (2011) give an example of a research which

used pictures as stimuli to study about brands. According to them in 1950, a

researcher by name Haire used the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to

understand the reasons behind the housewives’ early resistance towards instant

coffee brands. In the study procedure, respondents were given two lists of items to

be shopped. One list contained an instant coffee brand and the other contained a

homemade coffee brand and were then instructed as follows ‘“project yourself into

the situation as far as possible until you can more or less characterize the woman

who bought the groceries…write a brief description of her personality and

character” (Haire, 1950). The study identified adjectives such as ‘bad house

keeper’ and ‘laziness’ to be associated with instant coffee drinkers, while

adjectives like ‘industrious’ and ‘good housekeeper’ to be associated with

homemade coffee.

Repertory Grid: This is a method introduced by Kelly (1955). It is a qualitative

approach used in psychology which has been adopted to brand personality

research (see for instance Heine, 2009). This approach employs an iterative

83

process that requires respondents to compare different triad combinations of

stimuli, to express their perceptions on constructs and to relate the stimuli to the

construct poles. Irrespective of different versions, Repository Grid Method leads

to structured data that facilitate elaborate analysis and interpretation (Heine, 2009).

Content analysis: Content analysis is another widely applied qualitative method

used extensively in social science and in marketing. This technique is applied

extensively in the destination personality research domain to identify the portrayed

personality or, what the destination marketing organizations try to communicate to

potential tourists. The brand personality studies which used this technique include

Douglas and Mills (2006) and Pitt, Opoku, Hultman, Abratt and Spyropoulou

(2007).

Free Elicitation method: This is a widely employed qualitative technique used to

elicit personality traits from respondents. Generally, in brand personality research,

respondents will be introduced to the concept of brand personality and then they

will be asked to imagine a brand as if it were a person and what adjectives they

may use to describe that person. This is similar to free association test (Reilly,

1990).

Focus group discussion: This is another widely employed qualitative technique in

marketing. It is generally conducted among a small group of respondents to

understand their feelings, perceptions, attitudes, opinions and beliefs. This

technique may be employed in brand personality research to identify the adjectives

consumers generally use to describe the personality characteristics of a brand

(Edmunds, 1999).

Though indirect approaches have the advantage of helping to bypass the

inhibitions of the respondent in answering direct questions, the qualitative nature

of the data is considered to be a limitation. Since, most of these qualitative

information are not quantifiable, statistical applicability of these data are less.

84

Another issue according to Aaker (1991) is the non-probability sampling

technique which is often employed in the case of qualitative studies, which

restricts or limits the reliable predictions on the population characteristics. Also,

the interpretation of results of this qualitative study is often criticised as it lacks

objectivity, as the interpretations are made by the practitioner or researcher

himself (Aaker, 1991). Many researchers tend to adopt quantitative methods

because of the limitations of qualitative research methods. Also, quantitative

methods successfully address many of the problems of qualitative research.

3.2.1.2. Quantitative Measurements

According to Aaker (1991), if a brand can be rated based on a set of

dimensions, the objectives of the result could be more quantifiable and objective.

A generally adopted approach in quantitative brand personality research is the

Trait approach which is borrowed from the human personality research studies. A

brief discussion of Trait approach can help us to gain better understanding

regarding this concept. Trait approach is now a commonly employed approach in

the domains of both brand personality and human personality research. Brand

personality research borrowed this concept from the field of Psychology. Traits are

developed as a result of the cognitive processing of an individual. Or, traits refer to

the habitual patterns of behaviour, thought and emotion. Again traits are

considered to be relatively stable over time, changes from person to person and

can influence the behaviour of a person. They are formed as a result of cognitive

processing of an individual, or it is formed as a result of his/ her efforts to

efficiently organize large quantity of information he/ she captures from different

environmental stimuli around them to make use of them (Strausbaugh and Lynn,

1998).

The measurement of brand personality using quantitative techniques is

done with the help of structured questionnaires consisting of a set of items to

measure the performance of the brand with respect to different dimensions. These

85

set of dimensions and adjectives are generally termed as brand personality scales

or instruments to measure brand personality. These instruments are used to collect

responses with some rating scales. Though a variety of rating scales such as Likert

scale, semantic differential scale, best-worst scale and so on are available in

marketing research, most of the researchers in brand personality, like Aaker

(1997), Aaker et al. (2001), Ekinci and Hosany (2006), Hosany et al. (2006),

Ekinci et al. (2007), Murphy et al. (2007a), Murphy et al. (2007b) and soon have

used a five-point Likert scale to collect responses. Only a very few exceptions can

be seen in this regard. One such case is the Best Worst Scaling technique used by

Lee et al. (2010). However, this is not widely accepted in the brand personality

research domain. One of the reasons for the wide acceptance of Likert-type rating

scale (in brand personality research) could be attributed to the purpose of the

brand personality researches. Aaker (1997) argues that a Likert-type scale should

be opted against other rating scales such as semantic differential scale, as the

objective is to determine the extent to which a brand can be described by certain

human characteristics or traits. Whereas a rating scale like semantic differential

scale would be more appropriate when the objective is to examine brand

personality valence of a brand or in other words, when one tries to examine

whether a brand is associated with positive or negative personality characteristics

(Aaker, 1997).

A number of brand personality scales are available to quantitatively assess

the personality of a brand (See for example Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al. 2001;

Geuens et al., 2009). The different scales available are developed with varying

purposes. While some are developed to measure personality of all types of brands

(see for example Aaker, 1997), others focus on specific categories like

destinations (see Ekinci et al., 2007), restaurants (Siguaw et al., 2003) and so on.

Again, the scope of these scales is restricted to specific countries; for instance,

Aaker (1997) scale is suitable in the U.S context; the scale of Sung and Tinkham

86

(2005) is suitable in a Korean context. Also, all these scales differ in the methods

and rigor in the development process. A discussion on this aspect is done in the

following sections.

3.3. A review of methodology of building brand personality scales

A set of articles are selected and reviewed to identify the various

methodologies adopted by researchers in developing brand personality scales.

Popular academic search engines like Google scholar and Scirus were employed to

identify the articles. Also various databases like EBSCO Host, Proquest, Science

direct and so on were also explored to find the most relevant and important

articles. Since the objective of this part was to evaluate the methodological

practices in scale development, only those studies which focused on scale

development were considered. The selected papers were then subjected to an in-

depth and careful review to determine the methodology adopted and the flaws, if

any existed. Finally, considering the inputs from reviews, a viable scale

development strategy was designed to develop a product brand personality scale in

the Indian context. The researcher has mainly looked into the following aspects

while considering the literature. This includes: research methods, sampling

techniques, brands considered, mode of survey, item generation, item purification,

assessment of items, dimensionality, validity and reliability.

3.3.1. Research approaches

One can see micro and macro approaches to brand personality

measurement. Again, Research methods adopted in brand personality research can

be categorized in to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches.

3.3.1. 1. Micro versus Macro approaches to brand personality

Brand personality researches, in general, can be categorized into two: micro

and macro. One of the concerns in brand personality research could be whether to

go for an overly ‘global scale’ (a more holistic one) or to adopt an overly reduced

87

one, developed considering a single brand, a very few brands, or small product or

service category. When considered in this manner, it can be seen that the scope of

brand personality scales ranges from a very narrow, micro versions to very broad,

macro versions. One can also see the domain of brand personality to range from

general (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2001; Capraraa et al., 2001; Sung and

Tinkham, 2005; Bosnjak et al., 2007; Geuens et al., 2009 and so on) to specific

categories (Opoku et al., 2007; Heere, 2010; Maciel, da Rocha and da Silva, 2013

and so on). It is quite difficult to say which one is better. While a ‘micro’

perspective could give more focus and accuracy in terms of results, it hinders the

scope to compare between products over categories based on their personality. A

macro or holistic perspective on scales addresses the above mentioned problem at

the cost of accuracy, to a certain extent. Also, macro approach has the advantage

of cost and time effectiveness as against micro scales. Hence, there exists a

conflict of interest between the researchers on whether to adopt a micro or macro

perspective on brand personality scale development and researches. While few

researchers like Valette-Florence and Barnier (2011) adopted a micro approach of

scale development, Aaker (1997) and Geuens, Weijters and Wulf (2009) adopted a

macro perspective of scale development.

What is chosen for the study: Deviating from the two extremes of micro or macro

perspectives in brand personality research, this research tries to adopt a middle

path, a meso perspective (scope of the scale with respect to brands) that is neither

general nor specific. This research will be focussed on product brands alone so

that the scale will be more useful than a general brand personality scale and will

have a wider application than a category-specific or brand-specific scale.

Considering the fact that less often one need to compare a product brand with a

service brand (a manager needs to compare his brand with its competing brand,

which will also be a product brand) , the effect of avoidance of service brands will

have a lesser impact on the applicability of this scale. Also, creating category-

88

specific scales in the case of product brands will be a challenging task as many of

these brands will be having presence in multiple product categories and when one

goes for product category specific scales, it is difficult to capture the consumer

perception of the brand solely on the particular product category they are trying to

measure.

One of the rationale for researchers to create separate brand personality

scales in the field of service brands is that, they derive personality through many

other sources. For instance, d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) showed retail brands to

have a unique personality which they derive through their sales personnel. This

may be the case with other service brands like banks, telecommunication services,

destinations and so on. In all these cases, the sources of brand personality vary

significantly. For instance, take the case of destinations, a tourist’s personality

perceptions are not restricted to advertisements or brand ambassidors of the

destination. It is highly influenced by the service providers at the destination, local

people, the typical visitors to the destination and so on. However, in the case of

products, these are restricted to a great extent. For instance, most of the product

brands will be sharing a common retail environment, common service personnel

and so on.

3.3.1. 2. Emic and Etic approaches in research

According to Usunier (1998) emic approach is based on the idea that

behaviours and attitudes of people can be understood exclusively within a

particular cultural context. Pike (1967) who introduced the etic approach proposed

the existence of universal principles that stand independently in different cultural

contexts. Valette-Florence et al., (2011) argues that in the case of brand

personality some dimensions were more associated with American culture. The

works of Aaker et al. (2001); Supphellen and Gronhaug (2003) and Sung and

Tinkham (2005) suggests the same. All these suggest to the emic and etic

89

approaches and serves as a further justification for this research in the Indian

context, considering product brands.

3.3.2. Research methods adopted in Brand Personality scale development

One can observe the use of qualitative, quantitative or mixed method

approaches in developing the brand personality scale. These approaches were used

for the measurement of either brand specific or general brand personality

measurement tool generation. However, a large number of researchers in this field

has started with a qualitative approach initially (mainly for item generation and

initial item reduction) and then moved on to quantitative methods for

identification of brand personality dimensions and validation of the scale.

It is good to employ a qualitative technique at the initial stage. For instance,

one important qualitative technique that would be appropriate is the interview

technique. It can be done for a single individual or for a focus group. This can help

the researcher understand how consumers perceive symbolic aspects of the brand.

Another alternative at this phase could be the free elicitation study, which was

discussed before in this chapter. The advantage of free elicitation test over

interview technique is that more respondents can be contacted at a shorter time,

Review of literature indicates that this technique was widely used by researchers

in the item generation phase. Consumers were generally asked to imagine brand as

if it were a person and were then asked to describe it with as many adjectives as

possible.

The two generally employed methods for item reduction are expert opinion

survey and consumer survey. While the item generation phase tries to generate as

many items as possible, the item reduction phase tries to eliminate the less relevant

items from the list. The items are removed either with the help of experienced

consumers or with judges (generally marketing practitioners or researchers). This

90

is more of qualitative nature and the general purpose of this phase is to reduce the

number of items in the item pool to a manageable level. However, to identify

brand personality dimensions, researchers generally employ exploratory factor

analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis techniques are employed to confirm the

brand personality dimensions identified. Many researchers measure the reliability

and validity of the scale with the help of different statistical techniques such as

Cronbach’s alpha, test re-test reliability, and so on with an intention to establish

the psychometric properties of the scale.

3.3.2.1. Sampling choices

Aaker (1997) and d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) relied on households for

collecting data. While some others like Aaker et al. (2001) and Caprara et al.

(2001) conducted survey among consumers. Some other prominent methods

employed by researchers include mall intercept survey used by Helgeson and

Supphellen (2004); online method adopted by Geuens et al. (2009) and student

sample method used by Sung and Tinkham (2005).

Most of the researchers in brand personality research have used

convenience sampling; for instance Aaker (1997), Aaker et al. (2001), Caprara et

al. (2001), d’Astous and Lévesque (2003), Sung and Tinkham (2005), Geuens et

al. (2009) are some of them. Very few researchers like Helgeson and Supphellen

(2004) has used random sampling technique. Aaker (1997) for instance, relied on a

national consumer panel and collected responses through Federal Express mail

service.

3.3.2.2. Brands Considered

Selection of stimuli or brands based on which respondents evaluate the

candiate traits forms an important part of any brand personality research. Aaker

(1997) for instance while selecting the brands for her research observed the

91

following rules such as consideration of salient and well known brands, as the

study was to be conducted among a set of national sample. Again, with the

objective of enhancing the generalizability of the scale, brands from a wide variety

of product categoeries were considered. Further, additional care was given to

ensure that selected brands consisted of three types of product categories namely,

symbolic, utilitarian and symbolic and utilitarian. Considering these aspects her

research work considered 37 brand s at the dimension identification phase and 20

brands at the dimension confirmation phase.

25 global brands that had presence in the two countries under consideration,

namely Spain and Japan was selected by Aaker et al. (2001) to unveil the brand

personality dimensions in these countries. They also considered some more

aspects such as familiarity of the brands among the consumers and

representativeness of different product categories. Caprara et al. (2001) restricted

their study to 12 mass market brands.

d’Astous and Lévesque’s (2003) relied on four departmental store brands to

generate their store personality scale. They considered two types of stors;

hardware and automobile, in order to to generate their scale.

Helgeson and Supphellen (2004) opted a convenience strategy to select five

clothing brands from Sweden to develop their scale. A total of 13 global brands

that had presence in both Korea and U.S (which were the study areas) were

selected by Sung and Tinkham in their efforts to develop their scale to measure

brand personality dimensions in these countries.

Geuens et al. (2009) adopted a different strategy from other researchers in

selecting the brands for their study. The researchers wanted to ensure that the

selected list of brands represented different purchase motivations of customers.

The different purchase motivations they taken in to account while selecting the

brands includes emotional or symbolic, functional, and experiential. Considering

92

the above mentioned criteria, the reseachers seleced 20 brands for their study to

identify the brand personality dimensions and about 193 brands were considered

to check generalizability.

From the reviews in the above section it is observable that researchers tend

to rely on both small and large sample sizes to develop their scales. However, both

of these approaches have its own advantages as well as limitations. According to

Aaker (1997), one can enhance the generalizability and robustness of a scale by

increasing the number of brands considered in the scale development process, but

at a cost of respondent fatigue and boredom. Where as too short number of brands

(say four as in the case of Ambroise et al., 2005) can reduce respondent fatigue

and boredom at the cost of scale reliability and robustness. Hence, it is advisable

to rely on moderate number of brands (say 20 as in the case of Geuens et al.,

2009) to achieve generalizability and robustness to a great extent at a lowered

respondent fatigue and boredom.

3.3.2.3. Survey Administration

Brand personlaity researchers have used both online and offline modes of

data collection in their research. Offline modes were generallly used ot conduct

qualitative study (see for instance, Aaker, 1997; Helgeson and Supphellen, 2004;

and Geuens et al. 2009). In the case of empirical studies both online and offline

methods were used. For instance, Aaker (1997) used Federal express to deliver

questioonnaire to households that were part of a consumer panel.

d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) took help from a set of intrviwers to

administer their questionnaire. The interviewers visited each house hold and

explained the questionnaire and left the respondent to fill it by themself and

collected the questionnaire at a later point of time as per thrir convenience.

Sung and Tinkham (2005) whose respondents for the research were

students, collected their responses directly in classrooms. A mall intercept

93

technique was used by Helgeson and Supphellen (2004) to collect responses from

their target female shoppers. Geuens et al. (2009) sought the help of an online

survey panel to collect responses from the required type of respondents for their

study.

3.3.3. Generation of Items

A systematic generation and selection of items is required to accurately

represent or create the brand personality scale. The items were generated using

both inductive methods such as literature reviews and deductive methods such as

exploratory research.Many studies on brand personality in the initial stages were

mostly a transposition of theories in human personality to the domain of brands

(Wee, 2004). Adoption of these ‘crude’ scales to measure brand personality can

hinder the validity of the scale developed. Aaker (1997) has clearly put forward

this issue in the measurement of brand personality construct. She emphasized that

not all items in human personality scales are relevant or applicable in the case or

brands. And hence she insisted on selecting those items; that are relevant and

applicable’ in the case of brands. Though, Aaker (1997) relied to a great extent on

traits or adjectives from human personality scales, she ensured that only items that

are relevant for brands were included in the scale by means of a consumer centric

study, which evaluated and purified scales by eliminating items irrelevant in the

case of brands. However, while considering the items, she purposely removed

items with negative connotations, arguing that the purpose of any brand

personality scale is to measure how effective advertisers are in communicating

particular human personality traits to their audience and they generally try to

project a positive image only. But, researchers like Bosnjak et al. (2007) disagree

with this, arguing that consumers need not always perceive a brand to be positive,

they may attribute negative traits as well. Based on this argument, Bosnjak et

al.(2007)in their scale included negative traits and even identified a negative

dimension (superficiality) and facet (boredom).

94

For the proposed scale, items from different types of brand personality

scales were decided to be included. However, items from human personality scales

were not considered because many of the brand personality scales considered

herein, were developed relying on human personality scales and the items they

removed were mainly those that were considered less applicable in the context of

brands. Hence, considering items from human personality scales may not provide

any significant contribution in terms of improving the quality of the new tool

against the effort required to filter the inappropriate ones (which may be added

from human personality scales) out. However, no restriction should be put based

on whether items come from micro or macro scales. Items from scales based on

both these approaches can be included in the study. Of course, many items in the

case of some brand personality scales, especially those based on service industry

brands like destination personality scales or restaurant brand personality scales

might be less useful in the product brand personality context. However, it was

decided to include them to avoid any kind of personal bias and to ensure

maximum inclusion of candidate traits. For example, items like ‘Compassionate’

which is a trait in the case of charitable organisations (Venable et al., 2005), need

not be significantly appropriate for product brands or in other words could be less

relevant than other items. But, these were decided to be included and left with the

experts and consumers to decide on the extent of suitability.

Another, aspect to be considered is whether to include negative items in the

scale. Since many previous researchers like (Bosnjak et al., 2007) included

negative items and their argument that a brand may be positioned with a negative

image, it is decided to include negative items as well, and let the purification stage

decide whether to retain or eliminate these items.

In addition to items from literature, many researchers such as Aaker (1997),

Aaker et al., (2001), Geuens et al., (2009) and so on, have developed new and

original items for their study, with an objective of improving the content validity.

95

It is advisable for any future researcher who attempts to develop a new scale to

rely on some qualitative technique discussed earlier in this chapter, to generate

new context-specific items. This will help in improving the content validity of the

scale developed. For the proposed product Brand Personality scale development,

new and context-specific items may be generated by conducting a free elicitation

study.

3.3.3.1. Sources of items

Researchers have relied on different sources to identify the candidate items

to develop the scale. For instance, Aaker (1997) relied on sources suh as items

from scales used by marketing practitioners, human personality scales, and an

original qualitative study. Aaker et al.(2001) adopted item from personality scales

in psychology, items in scales used by practitioners, and a set of newly genrated

items based on an interview conduted among 50 respondents. While Caprara et al.

(2001) relied solely on literature survey for item generation, d’Astous and

Lévesque (2003) used items from literature survey and individual interview,

Helgeson and Supphellen (2004) conducted a survey among shoppers to identify

the relevant items for developing the measurement tool. Sung and Tinkham (2005)

used items from literature survey and personal interview; Geuens et al. (2009)

used items from literature survey and focus group interview.

3.3.3.2. Initial number of items

The initial number of items ranges from as low as eight (Helgeson and

Supphellen, 2004) to as high as 309 (Aaker, 1997). Some other researches wherein

the initial number of items varies in between these values includes 253 and 266

items respectively in the cases of Japan and Spain by Aaker et al., (2001); 40

items used by Caprara et al.(2001) to develop a general brand personality scale; 99

items by d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) for developing a scale to measure store

96

personality; 91 items by Sung and Tinkham (2005); 244 items by Geuens et al.

(2009).

3.3.4. Initial item reduction

Many researchers in the realm of brand personality research tend to adopt

an initial item reduction phase which is intended to reduce the large number of

initial items generated to a manageable level. They either rely on an expert opinion

or a small consumer survey for this. For example, Aaker (1997) used responses

from 25 consumers to reduce the initial item pool generated in their study to a

manageable number of 114 items; Aaker et al. (2001) conducted consumer survey

among consumers respectively to reduce the initial item pool generated to create

brand personality measures for Japan and Spain. The reduced set consisted of 140

items in the case of Japan and 75 items in the case of Spain. Geuens et al. (2009)

conducted two stages of expert opinion surveys. The first stage which employed

responses from eight experts helped them to reduce the item pool to 108. This was

further reduced to 40 with the help of another expert opinion survey consisting of

20 researchers. However, this step was not done in the case of some researchers

like Caprara et al.(2001), Sung and Tinkham (2005) and so on. One reason for

this could be relatively small number of items in the initial item pool generated (

40 in the case of Caprara et al.(2001) and 80 in the case of Sung and Tinkham

(2005)). Though a small number of items in the initial item pool can help the

researcher save a step in the process of scale development, it may affect the

content validity of the scale .

It is observed from the literature that researchers have employed either

expert opinion and consumer survey to reduce the initial pool of items.Further, it

is identified that very small number of judges may be used to eliminate items at

the initial stage.

97

3.3.5. Assessment o f dimensionality

Researchers have depended mainly on exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to

identify the number of dimensions and the items corresponding to each dimension

(see for instance, Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2001; Sung and Tinkham, 2005 and

Geuens et al., 2009). However, depending on exploratory factor analysis alone for

checking dimensionality is not advisable. As factor analysis possesses several

limitations such as the factor structure obtained based on EFA being only one

among the infinite number of potential solutions (Segars and Grovers, 1993).

Again, Segars and Grovers (1993) argues that in the case of data showing

correlation among factors, a varimax rotation may produce distorted factor

loadings and incorrect conclusions on factor solutions. Again, in many cases items

may load on multiple factors which hinder the interpretability of the factors to a

great extent (Sureshchandar, Rajendran and Anantharaman, 2002). Because of

these limitations, it may not be advisable to rely solely on exploratory factor

analysis to assess dimensionality of a scale.

Many of the limitations of an exploratory factor analysis model can be

addressed with the help of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For instance,

CFA enables the researcher to compare different model specifications and evaluate

the invariance (that is, whether values are varying significantly or not) of specific

parameters in the factor solution (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985). Also, the goodness

of fitness index values provided by CFA analysis results helps the researcher to

examine the fit of the factor structure with data. Many researches in brand

personality have employed CFA along with EFA to confirm the brand personality

dimensions (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2001; Sung and Tinkham, 2005; and

Geuens et al., 2009).

Two very important aspects to be considered while conducting a study for

evaluating a scale’s dimensionality are sample size considered and number and

type of brands chosen.

98

Sample size for EFA: Aaker (1997) used 631 respondents to identify the five

dimesion stucture of U.S brand personality. Aaker et al. (2001) used

1495respondents in the case of Japan and 692 respondents in the case of Spain to

identify brand personality dimensions. Sung and Tinkham (2005) collected

responses from 320 in the case of U.S and 337 in the case of Korea. Geuens et al.

(2009) used 1235 respondents to identify the personality dimensions in the case of

Belgium. Helgeson and Supphellen (2004), limited their sample size to 424. It was

d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) who used smallest number of samples at this phase.

They considered responses from only 26 participants to identify the brand

personality dimensions.

Sample size for confirming brand personality: Researchers have used relatively

small sample size for confirming brand personality dimensions. Aaker et al.

(2001) used 180 respondents; d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) used 220

respondents. But many researchers like Caprara et al. (2001), Helgeson and

Supphellen (2004), Sung and Tinkham (2005) did not confirmed the brand

personality dimensions they identified.

Number and type of brands for EFA study: The next important aspect is the

number of brands to be considered. Aaker (1997) used 37 brands; Aaker et al.

(2001) employed 25 brands in the case of both Japan and Spain. Number of brands

used by some other researchers at this phase were as follows Caprara et al. (2001)

used 12 brands, Helgeson and Supphellen (2004) used five brands, d’Astous and

Lévesque (2003) used four brands, Sung and Tinkham (2005) used 13 brands,

Geuens et al. (2009) used 20 brands and so on. The type of brand to be selected

depends on the scope of the study Aaker (1997) for instance tried to develop a

general brand personality scale hence she tried to make her brand profile to be

more general while d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) relied on store brands, as their

objective was to create a store personality scale.

99

Number and type of brands used for CFA study: Aaker (1997) used 20 brands to

confirm the dimensionality of the brand personality scale. d’Astous and Lévesque

(2003) used just two brands at this phase. As mentioned before type of brand

opted depended on the scope of the scale.

3.3.6. Reliability and Validity of the Scale

Reliability of a scale is another important aspect to be considered while

developing a measurement tool. Nunnally (2010) suggests Cronbach’s alpha

values to be an efficient indicator of reliability. A value greater than 0.7, is

considered to indicate a good reliability (Nunnally, 2010). In the case of various

factors identified by Aaker (1997) the reliability values ranged from 0.90 for

ruggedness to 0.95 for excitement or in other words one can observe very good

reliability in the case of Aaker’s (1997) brand personality dimensions. For the

scale of d’Astous and Lévesque’s (2003) reliability values of the factors ranged

between 0.75 and 0.91. Where as in the study done by Sung and Tinkham (2005),

the reliability values for U.S brand personality dimensions ranged between 0.80

and 0.95 and for Korean brand personality dimensions, reliability scores were

between 0.72 and 0.95. All the factors identified by Caprara et al. (2001) indicated

very good reliability scores. All the factors were found to have scores higher than

0.96. In the research work of Geuens et al. (2009), the Cronbach’s alpha values

were found to be higher than the recommended value of 0.7, for four dimensions.

However one dimension namely openness was found to possess a low reliability

score of 0.61 which is less than the recommended value of 0.7. The

recommendations by experts and practices in this field indicate that a Cronbach’s

alpha score of 0.7 or higher will be appropriate in the case of reliability of

dimensions of a brand personality scale.

Another indicator for reliability is split half technique. However, no

researches in brand personality were found to use this technique. But, it is

100

justifiable as Cronbach’s alpha value is considered to be a better indicator of

reliability than split half technique. Both, Cronbach’s alpha value and split half

techniques try to measure the internal reliability of a scale.

Another important aspect to be considered in the case of reliability is the

external reliability of the scale. However, most researchers in the brand

personality domain tend to neglect this aspect. Aaker (1997) conducted a test re-

test study and used the correlation values to assess the external reliability of the

scale. The average test re-test correlation value was found to be .80. The

recommended value for test re-test correlation is 0.70.

Convergent Validity: Convergent validity refers to the extent to which a set of

items intended to represent a construct actually converge on the same construct

(Ladhari, 2010). Many brand personality researchers have overlooked the

convergent validity of their scale. A general procedure to check convergent

validity as recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981) is that the average

variance should be greater than .50. For the scale developed by Sung and

Tinkham (2005), the convergent validity was found to range from 0.75 to 0.94 in

the case of U.S and it ranged between 0.71 and 0.97 in the case of Korea.

Discriminant Validity: Ladhari (2010), describes discriminant validity to be the

extent to which theoretically unrelated constructs practically exhibit less

correlation. Researchers like Sung and Tinkham (2005), Geuens et al. (2009) and

few others verified the discriminant validity of their scale by comparing the

average variance extracted for each factor with the squared correlation between

that construct and other constructs in the model. The average variance extracted

value should be greater than the squared correlation value to suggest discriminate

validity (Gounaris and Dimitriadis, 2003).

101

3.4. Proposed scale development procedure

This is a research done with the objective of developing a tool to measure

product brand personality. Based on the methodology review, the researcher has

adopted a mixed method approach to achieve this objective. This study proposes

to employ both qualitative and quantitative methods. A qualitative approach is

proposed for the initial stages of item generation and initial item reduction. The

empirical or quantitative part of this study will be concerned with identification of

brand personality dimensions, confirming the dimensionality and ensuring the

validity and reliability of the scale. Based on the literature a scale development

model is developed for the proposed product brand personality scale.

The following sections details on the sources of data, brand selection

procedure methodologies and techniques to be adopted in the quantitative part of

the scale development process and so on.

3.4.1. Sources of data

The researcher should rely on primary data for creating the brand

personality scale. Secondary sources can be used as background material. The

variables identified based on literature survey constitutes the background material

that should be used for the study. Another secondary source of information is

related to the selection of brands. To rely on a definite sample frame for the

selection of brands, a list of top brands is required. Since the survey needs to be

conducted with a Pan Indian representation, the brands selected should be familiar

at the national level. Hence, a list of top 200 brands should be created. This needs

to be done relying on secondary data.

The two prominent sources of list of top brands in the Indian context are 1)

brand trust report, which is an annual report published by Trust Research

Advisory, which contains a total of 1000 top brands trusted by Indian consumers.

102

This list was developed based on a survey conducted among 2718 carefully

selected respondents from 15 cities, which generated around 2 million data-points

from 12000 hours of research. This list consists of all types of brands including

global giants like Nokia, Sony, LG, Samsung; Indian multinationals like Tata,

Bajaj; public sector brands like ONGC; celebrity brands like Anna Hazare, Sachin

Tendulkar, Salman Khan and so on. Also, this list covers a wide range of product

and service categories such as consumer products, electronic goods, cosmetics,

fragrances, automobiles, service sector, public sector, and celebrities and so on,

which makes the list a comprehensive one (Trust Advisory, 2012).

Another important and trustworthy list of top brands is the one published by

the Brand Equity survey (from The Economic Times Newspaper). The list is

published every year based on survey conducted in different cities in India. This

project is done with the help of a small team of researchers. They visit households

to collect responses directly from the respondents. The Brand Equity team claim

that the brands they select to be the ones which ‘Indian consumers love and trust

the most’. This list contains top 100 brands including both product and service

brands (ET Bureau, 2011)

.

Though both lists seems to have been developed based on good research

work, it is advisable to develop a new list cosnidering both lists, which will

increase the validity of the brand selection phase. A list of top 200 brands needs to

be considered, so that the list is more general and will cover a wide range of

product categories. The inclusion criteria for the selection of brands is that they

must be product brands, they must belong to either of the two listings. The top

ones in the listing should be considered first. And the exclusion criteria consists of

omission of celebrity brands, service sector brands and so on.

103

The list prepared needs to be used in the two different phases of the

research. The first one is at the time of consumer survey done to identify the

dimensionality of the scale. The second time will be the hold out sample phase

where in the dimensionality of the scale needs to be verified using another set of

brands. However, at the second time, the brands selected at the first phase needs to

be omitted, so that any possible influence of those brands in the result can be

avoided.

3.4.2. Brand selection

It is advisable to select the brands randomly. However, inclusion of brands

from different categories can enhance the generalizability of the scale. Hence, it is

advisable to randomly select brands from different product categories at the

dimension identification stage. Random sampling will be more appropriate at the

hold out sample study phase also. This will help to reduce the bias in brand

selection.

Number of brands: Considering the number of brands opted by previous

researchers and considering the objectives of this study, a total of 21 brands seems

to be appropriate at the dimension identification stage and 12 brands would be

sufficient at the stage of confirming the brand personality dimensions.

Primary data sources proposed for the study includes two groups of

respondents, experts and students. Responses from experts shall be collected for

item purification and item reduction stages. While student responses will form the

primary source of data for stages such as item generation, brand personality

dimension identification and for confirming the brand personality dimesnions.

The following sections describes the methodology proposed at different

phases for carrying out this research.

104

3.4.3. Methodology design for Item Generation

Two sources of items are suggested for the study. The first is items from

existing brand personality scales, and the second is using a qualitative study.

Inclusion criteria for items from literature survey should be that, items should be

from a scale developed for measuring brand personality. However, the items from

human personality scales need not be considered as the important and those

relevant in the case of brands will be present in the existing scales. However, it is

less likely that, all the items that are relevant in the Indian context will be covered

by item pool generated in this manner. Hence, a qualitative study to uncover the

specific traits used by Indian consumers to describe the brands needs to be

undertaken.

3.4.3.1. Procedure for item generation from literature survey: All the important

brand personality scales should be identified and the traits used by researchers

should be pooled together to create the initial item pool. A spreadsheet such as

MS Office Excel 2013 may be used to identify the redundant items in the list as

well as to arrange the items in the alphabetical order.

3.4.3.2. Procedure for item generation from the qualitative study

A free elicitation method is proposed to generate new items. The purpose of

this qualitative study is to identify the major personality attributes that consumers

ascribe to different brands.

Research Instrument: A semi-structured questionnaire may be appropriate to

conduct the study. The questionnaire should detail the concept of brand

personality to the respondents with the help of relevant examples and should ask

them to try to think of their favorite brand as if it were a person and then elicit the

human personality traits they ascribe to brands. Respondents may be given the

option to select the brand of their choice from three categories of products such as

symbolic, utilitarian, and those which are both symbolic and utilitarian.

105

3.4.4. Methodology design for Language expert opinion survey

Language expert opinion survey is not a generally used procedure in brand

personality scale development. However, it seems to be rational to include this

step to the scale development process. This is done as a part of the efforts to

eliminate the irrelevant items that may be generated during literature survey phase.

A language expert opinion survey is intended to deliver a refined pool of items by

eliminating or replacing items that are less used in India. A total of three language

experts may serve the purpose.

The modified pool of items from the language expert opinion phase needs

to be combined together with those generated through qualitative study to form a

master pool. Any redundant items may be removed at this phase. MS Office Excel

software may be used to achieve this.

3.4.5. Methodology design for Expert opinion survey

From the literature it is evident that most of the researchers have relied

either on an expert opinion survey or a small consumer survey to reduce the large

number of items to a manageable level. For this research, an expert opinion survey

is suggested, considering the fact that the item pool will be still crude despite the

refinement at the language expert opinion phase. As the language experts need to

look at the semantic aspects of the items in the Indian context, the filtering process

will not be complete.That is, they may not look in to aspects such as whether an

item is suitable considering the definition of brand personality. The purpose of this

phase is to filter the items more rigourously. The experts are suggested as

respondents at this phase as their expertise in the field will be helpful in refining

the items based on the brand personality definition considered for the study and

the appropriateness of the items to describe the personality of a brand.

A total of 12 experts are suggested for this phase. An equal number of

judges from different fields related to branding such as advertising practitioners,

106

brand managers, marketing academicians, and consumer psychologists can help to

give a balanced representation of experts. Each respondent may be asked to give

their responses based on three broad categories of produts as mentioned before in

the case of qualitative study ie, symbolic, utilitarian, and symbolic and utilitarian.

To identify any missing traits that did not turned up at the qualitative study phase,

free association test may also be conducted for these experts and any new and

relevant items identified may be incorporated to the item pool.

3.4.6. Methodology design for identifying the brand personality dimensions

A consumer survey needs to be conducted to uncover the brand personality

dimensions in the Indian context. This survey is expected to identify the

appropriate number of dimensions and the corresponding items to each dimension

that will represent product brand personality in the Indian context.

Research instrument: A structured questionnaire designed from the results of

Expert opinion survey can be used for the consumer survey. The questionnaire as

discussed before, should introduce the brand personality concept with illustrations

and should contain detailed instructions on how to select brands and rate each

items based on the selected brands. A 5-point Likert scale may be used with 5

indicating the item to be very much appropriate to describe the brand and 1

indicating vary inappropriate to describe the brand. A 5-point scale needs to be

considered against a 3 point or 7 point scales as the former will give inadequate

options to respondents while a the latter requiress high level of sensitivity and

discrimination that mght be difficult considering the concept under consideration

and the expertise of the respondents.

Administration of the questionnaire: A university level (mainly post graduate and

doctoral students) student sample may be opted for this study as they have better

proficiency in English language in which the questionnaire will be designed.

Additionally, student samples have been shown to be acceptable for studies

107

involving theory testing due to the homogeneity of the sample (Calder, Phillips,

and Tybout, 1981; Carlson, Donavan and Cumiskey, 2009). Selected respondents

should be representative of the country in terms of gender, family income, and

needs to be from across the country.

Sampling plan: A cluster sampling may be adopted for sample selection. The

sample size may be restricted to 600, considering the sample sizes used in the case

of previous researches in this field. The respondent’s familiarity with the brand

that he/she rates was considered as an inclusion criteria for the study. Familiarity

may be assertained by instructing the respondents to choose brands that they have

used from a list of popular brands.

Data analysis and statistical tools: Exploratory factor analysis may be employed

to identify the factor structure of the brand personality construct. Principal

component analysis with varimax rotation is expected to yield the results. SPSS

(Version 16) software package may be employed for this purpose. Further, the

reliabilty of the scale should be assessed by considering the Cronbach’s alpha

values and test re-test reliability values. Cronbach’s alpha values for each factor

can be calculated relying on the data already collected for this phase. However, to

evaluate test re-test reliability one needs to collect another set of data from a small

set of respondents who participated in the consumer survey phase. The sample size

for this survey can be restricted to 90. The test re-test values for each variable and

each factor needs to be evaluated by correlating the values obtained for the

variables in the two phases. A value of 0.7 or higher is considered to show good

test re-test reliability.

3.4.7. Methodology design for confirming the brand personality dimensions

A hold out sample survey needs to be conducted to confirm the brand

personality dimensions and the items selected.A structured questionnaire based on

the brand personality dimensions and items identified using exploratory factor

108

analysis in the previous phase can be used at this phase. A similar procedure

adopted in the case of brand personality dimension identification phase needs to be

used at this phase also. To elaborate, the survey may rely on a 5-point Likert type

scale to collect responses.The sample size may be restricted to 200 (or depending

on the number of items, minor variations may be made to satisfy the sample size

requirements to employ confirmatory factor analysis method). For this phase also

university-level students may be adopted as respondents.

Data Analysis techniques: A confirmatory factor analysis needs to be performed

with LISREL (Version 8.72) software package to confirm the brand personality

dimensions. Based on the LISREL ouputs, the researcher should check the

construct validity of the scale by considering convergent and discriminant validity

measures.

3.5. Developing a short version of the scale

Many of the brand personality researchers have developed two versions of their

scales. The first is the full version and the second one is called a short version of

the scale(see for instance, Aaker, 1997; Burisch, 1997; Rammstedt and John,

2007; Geuens et al., 2009). In this case also, if the first version contains relatively

large number of items say greater than 40, a short version of the scale may be

developed. For this, data collected during the previous phases may be used.

However, it is required to verify the dimensionality, different types of reliability

(such as Cronbach’s alpha values, test re-test reliability values), validity and so on

separately for the short version of the scale.

109

3.6. Research framework

Construct definiton: Definition based on Azoulay and Kapferer (2003)

Content Validity: • Item Generation:

• Using literature survey • Qualitative study - Free elicitation method, 33 participants,

• Un-restricted stimuli selection (from product brands)

Measure Purification • Language Expert Opinion Survey: 3 language experts

• Expert Opinion Survey: 12 experts; 3 each from among marketing academicians, advertising practitioners, consumer psychologists and brand managers

• Consumer Survey; Sampling: quota method, respondents: 606, Brands: 21 randomly selected

Dimensionality and Item Selection: • Exploratoryfactor analysis using SPSS software

Reliability Assessment • Cronbach’s Alpha

• Test-retest method: 91 participants of consumer survey.

Analysis using Hold out sample Sample:12 brands,217 student respondents

Confirming brand personality dimensions: Confirmatory Factor Analysis using LISREL

Validity Assessment Content validity: based on construct definition, item generation, item selection

• Discriminant Validity: Using LISREL • Convergent Validity : Using LISREL

Developing a short version of the scale Assessment of the reliability and validity of the short scale

Figure- 3.1. Framework for scale development

[Source: Original]

110

3.7. Chapter conclusion

This chapter has reviewed different approaches to measuring brand

personality, various scale development procedures adopted by brand personality

researchers, different aspects considered by researchers in developing the brand

personality scale and so on. Based on these, a methodology for developing a scale

to measure product brand personality in the Indian context has been designed. The

methodology proposed for this study focuses on a mixed method approach

consisting of multiple phases that facilitate systematic generation and filtering of

items to develop the required scale. The qualitative part of this approach is mainly

intended for initial item generation while the quantitative part is intended at

identifying brand personality dimensions and verifying the reliability and validity

of the scale. Various aspects such as selection of brands, sampling procedures and

so on, have also been discussed in detail in this chapter.

111

Chapter 4

SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

This chapter broadly deals with the scale development process employed in

this research and describes the construct definition, item generation, measure

purification, reliability and validity assessment, development of a shorter version

of the tool and so on. The major objective of this chapter is to detail the major

steps involved in formulating the product brand personality framework in the

Indian context.

4.1. Introduction

A rigorous scale development procedure as described in Chapter 3 was

adopted for this study. It is a seven phase process, starting with construct

definition.

4.2. Defining the Construct

As discussed in Chapter 2, brand personality has been defined in a number

of ways by different researchers. However, a definition put forward by Azoulay

and Kapferer (2003) is opted for this study as it is considered to be a better one

than the widely used Aaker’s (1997) definition of brand personality, by many

researchers like Bosnjak et al.(2007), Geuens et al. (2009) and so on. The main

advantage of this definition is that, it is consistent with the human personality

definitions in psychology. Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) define brand personality

as the ‘the set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant

for brands’.

4.3. Content Validity

Content validity refers to item sample adequacy. That is, the extent to

which a specific set of items reflects a content domain (DeVeltis, 2011). Aaker

112

(1995) entails two steps to ensure content validity, of which the first is concerned

with item selection and the second with stimuli selection. Firstly, a broad and

representative set of items are to be pooled, which can be used to measure brand

personality. Next, a set of stimuli (brands) are to be selected against which the

appropriateness of the items shall be examined using an empirical study. Numally

(2010) argue that if the construct definition, item selection andstimuli selection are

done in a well defined manner, then the content validity of the scale can be

established before its construction.

4.4. Stimuli Selection

To ensure content validity, it is necessary to choose a broad and

representative set of stimuli (brand). The selection of brands for the study was

guided by the following principle. Brands that were salient and well known at the

national level were considered for the study, since the study was to be conducted

among a pan-Indian sample.This ensured that the selected brands are more

relevant in the national context and the respondents will be familiar with each

brand. Stimuli (brands) were selected randomly to get a better representation as

well as to avoid bias in the selection process. The selected brands belong to a list

of 200 top product brands developed relying on two popular listings of top brands:

one from an agency named Trust Research Advisory, a leading research agency

and the second was Brand Equity listing (from the Economic Times, a reputed

business newspaper from the Times of India Group). Restricting the study to

product brands was based on the notion that the personality of service brands may

differ significantly from that of product brands. For instance, unlike product

brands, the main antecedent of service brand personality is the service provider,

whereas in the case of product brands advertisements, user imagery and product

features play a key role.

113

Another aspect to be considered in stimuli selection is the number and type

of brands. If a large number of brands are used for developing the scale, the

generalizability and robustness of the scale will be better. But the problem with a

large number of brands is response bias resulting out of boredom and respondent

fatigue. Hence, an optimum number of brands are to be selected which can

maximize gneraliability while reducing respondent fatigue. Based on the previous

researches in this area and considering the Indian scenario, the number of brands

to be considered in this stage was fixed to be 21. Further, to increase

generalizability of the scale, brands from different product categories were

considered in the process. Hence the list of top 200 brands was classified in to

different product categories and a representative brand was selected randomly

from each category using simple random sampling technique (lottery method).

The brands considered for the study are listed in the table given below.

Table-4.1. Brands selected for the study

No. Brand Name No. Brand Name No. Brand Name 1 LEVI'S 8 PONDS 15 AXE

2 MRF 9 LG 16 ASIAN PAINTS

3 GARNIER 10 PEPSI 17 RAYBAN

4 AMUL 11 HERO MOTOR CORP.

18 ADIDAS

5 DABUR 12 LUX 19 BRITANNIA

6 DELL 13 CADBURYS 20 NOKIA

MOBILE

7 COLGATE 14 TITAN 21 GODREJ

[Source: Original]

4.5. Item Generation

There are mainly three areas which Aaker (1995) suggests to be considered

while generating the item pool. Firstly, the selection of the item should be based

114

on existing literature or theory. This was to ensure that item selection was based

on a theoretical framework. Secondly, meaningfulness and familiarity of the items

considered for the study. Third, the importance of each item with respect to the

construct under consideration, to be examined in order to establish external

validity of the measurement tool. Hence, to achieve the above mentioned

objectives, a three phase proceedure was adopted in this research

Phase 1: Generation of Items based on literature survey

Phase 2: Language expert opinion survey

Phase 3: Free elicitation study

4.5.1. Qualitative Study: Free Association Test

The purpose of this study was to generate more items that were relevant

and specific to the Indian context. For this study, a set of 34 MBA students from

different parts of the country were selected. The sample consisted of 35.3%

females and 64.7% male. Firstly, respondents were detailed with the concept of

brand personality and two examples were also given in order to make them more

familiar with the concept. They were then required to select two brands each, from

three product categories and describe them with as many traits/ adjectives as

possible (See Appendix I). The Product categories consisted of Symbolic products

(like Jeans, Cosmetics and Perfume/Fragrance), Utilitarian products (like Laptops,

Electronics, Appliances and Personal care products), and Symbolic-and-Utilitarian

products (like Motorbikes, Smart phones and Athletic Shoes). This categorization

was made as per the guidelines of Aaker (1997). This exercise resulted in 119

unique adjectives.

115

Results

The adjectives derived from the qualitative study are presented in the following table

Table-4.2. List of Adjectives from Free Association Test

Sl. No. Adjectives Sl. No. Adjectives Sl. No. Adjectives 1 Accountable 41 Fashionable 81 Posh 2 Aesthetic 42 Fast 82 Powerful 3 Amorous 43 Flawless 83 Prestigious 4 Aristocratic 44 Flyer 84 Pride 5 Attention Seeker 45 Fresh 85 Professional 6 Attractive 46 Fun 86 Pure 7 Awesome 47 Gallant 87 Quality 8 Beautiful 48 Global 88 Quick 9 Believable 49 Good Looking 89 Racy 10 Best 50 Handsome 90 Reliable 11 Bold 51 Happiness 91 Rich 12 Bright 52 Harmless 92 Richness 13 Capacity 53 Healthy 93 Rough 14 Carefree 54 Helpful 94 Royal 15 Catchy 55 Hot 95 Rugged 16 Charming 56 Iconic 96 Simple 17 Cheap 57 Indian 97 Sleek 18 Chic 58 Innovative 98 Smart 19 Class Apart 59 International 99 Sober 20 Classy 60 Joy 100 Solid 21 Classic 61 Killer 101 Soothing 22 Clean 62 Leonine 102 Speedy 23 Colourful 63 Lively 103 Sporty 24 Comfortable 64 Lovable 104 Strong 25 Compatible 65 Loyal 105 Sturdy 26 Cool 66 Luxurious 106 Stylish 27 Cosy 67 Macho 107 Superior 28 Courageous 68 Magnetic 108 Top class 29 Creative 69 Magnificent 109 Tough 30 Dashing 70 Manly 110 Traditional

116

31 Different 71 Masculine 111 Trendy 32 Distinct 72 Middle Class 112 Trust Worthy 33 Eco-Friendly 73 Mild 113 Trustable 34 Effective 74 Modern 114 Ultimate 35 Efficient 75 Multifaceted 115 Unique 36 Elegant 76 Natural 116 Friendly 37 Enviable 77 Outgoing 117 Versatility 38 Ethical 78 Passion 118 Vibrant 39 Excitement 79 Pleasing 119 Youth 40 Faithful 80 Pleasant

[Source: Original]

The result of the study indicates that Indian consumers also have a tendency

to attribute human characteristics to product brands.

4.5.2. Items from Literature Review

Another way used to create item pool was through an extensive literature

survey. Inclusion of items from literature helps to increase the content validity of

the scale. The scales which were used to derive the personality traits for this study

include scales developed by Aaker (1997), Ferrandi, Valette-Florence and

Finefalcy (2000), Aaker et al. (2001), Caprara et al. (2001), Ambroise et

al.(2005), Sung and Tinkham (2005), Sweeney and Brandon (2006), Okazaki

(2006), Van Rekom et al. (2006), d'Astous and Boujbel (2007), Geuenset

al.(2009), Heine (2009), Heere (2010), Lee et al.(2010), and Usakli and Baloglu

(2011).

Table-4.3. List of Adjectives from Literature survey

Sl. No. Items Sl. No. Items Sl. No. Items 1 Accepting 120 Fighter 239 Provocative 2 Accessible 121 Firm 240 Prudent 3 Accommodating 122 Flaunty 241 Puristic 4 Active 123 Flexible 242 Rakish 5 Adult 124 Flourishing 243 Rational 6 Adventurous 125 Forceless 244 Real

117

7 Affectionate 126 Forgiving 245 Realistic 8 Aggressive 127 Formal 246 Recent 9 Agreeable 128 Frank 247 Reflective 10 Alive 129 Freaky 248 Refreshing 11 Aloof 130 Free 249 Regular 12 Altruist 131 Fresh 250 Relaxed 13 Amusing 132 Friendly 251 Reliable 14 Approachable 133 Frugal 252 Religious 15 Aristocratic 134 Fun 253 Reserved 16 Arrogant 135 Funky 254 Resolute 17 Artificial 136 Funny 255 Respectable 18 Assertive 137 Gay 256 Responsible 19 Attractive 138 Generous 257 Reveller 20 Authentic 139 Genial 258 Rich 21 Balanced 140 Gentle 259 Rigorous 22 Beneficial 141 Genuine 260 Robust 23 Big 142 Glamorous 261 Romantic 24 Bigheaded 143 Golden 262 Rugged

25 Bohemian 144 Good-Looking 263 Ruthless

26 Boisterous 145 Good-Natured 264 Satisfying

27 Bold 146 Handy 265 Scrupulous 28 Bon-Vivant 147 Happy 266 Secure

29 Boring 148 Hard To Work 267 Self-contained

30 Bubbly 149 Hard-Working 268 Self-composed

31 Busy 150 Haughty 269 Self-effacing 32 Calculating 151 Healthy 270 Sensual 33 Calm 152 Heavy 271 Sentimental 34 Careless 153 Honest 272 Serene 35 Casual 154 Hopeful 273 Serious 36 Ceremonious 155 Humorous 274 Sexy

37 Charismatic 156 Ill-Mannered 275 Sharp

38 Charming 157 Imaginative 276 Shrewd 39 Chatty 158 Immoral 277 Showy 40 Chauvinist 159 Impersonal 278 Shrill 41 Cheerful 160 Impolite 279 Shy

118

42 Childlike 161 Important 280 Silent 43 Clean 162 Impractical 281 Simple 44 Clear 163 Impulsive 282 Sincere 45 Clumsy 164 Independent 283 Small-town 46 Cocky 165 Industrious 284 Smooth 47 Comfortable 166 Inefficient 285 Snobbish 48 Comforting 167 Informative 286 Sociable 49 Comical 168 Informed 287 Solid 50 Competent Person 169 Innovating 288 Sophisticated 51 Competitive 170 Innovative 289 Spirited 52 Confidence 171 Intelligent 290 Spiritual 53 Confident 172 Intense 291 Sporty 54 Connoisseur 173 Joyful 292 Stable 55 Conscientious 174 Kind 293 Steady 56 Conservative 175 Kitschy 294 Strict 57 Considerate 176 Laid-Back 295 Strong 58 Consistent 177 Lazy 296 Stunning 59 Conspicuous 178 Leader 297 Stylish 60 Constant 179 Leading 298 Successful

61 Contemporary 180 Level-headed 299 Superficial

62 Cool 181 Light-hearted 300 Sweet

63 Cooperative 182 Likeable 301 Sympathetic 64 Cordial 183 Lively 302 Talkative 65 Corporate 184 Logical 303 Technical

66 Countrified 185 Logo oriented 304 Temperamental

67 Courageous 186 Loyal 305 Tenacious 68 Cowardly 187 Mannered 306 Tense 69 Crazy 188 Masculine 307 Thoughtful

70 Creative 189 Mild-mannered 308 Tidy

71 Cruel 190 Minimalist 309 Timid 72 Cunning 191 Moderate 310 Tolerant 73 Curious 192 Modern 311 Tough 74 Cute 193 Modest 312 Traditional 75 Daring 194 Mysterious 313 Traditionalist 76 Decadent 195 Mystical 314 Tranquil 77 Decorated 196 Naïve 315 Trendy

119

78 Delicate 197 Naked 316 Tricky

79 Dependable 198 Narrow-Minded 317 True

80 Dependant 199 Natural 318 Trustworthy 81 Determined 200 Neat 319 Typical 82 Different 201 Neutral 320 Unaggressive 83 Diffident 202 New 321 Unargumentative 84 Dignified 203 Nice 322 Uncheery 85 Diligent 204 Normal 323 Uncomplex 86 Discreet 205 Offender 324 Unconceited 87 Discrete 206 Offish 325 Uncordial f88 Disrespectful 207 Old 326 Understated

89 Docile 208 Old-Fashioned 327 Undevious

90 Dominant 209 Openhearted 328 Unique

91 Donnish 210 Open-Minded 329 Unknown

92 Down-To-Earth 211 Optimistic 330 Unobtrusive 93 Dubious 212 Orderly 331 Unrefined 94 Dynamic 213 Ordinary 332 Unreliable 95 Easy 214 Organized 333 Unremarkable 96 Easygoing 215 Original 334 Unrevealing 97 Efficient 216 Ostentatious 335 Unselfconscious 98 Egocentric 217 Outdoorsy 336 Unsly 99 Elegant 218 Outgoing 337 Untidy

100 Emotional 219 Over forward 338 Unvain

101 Energetic 220 Overstated 339 Upper-class 102 Engaging 221 Passionate 340 Up-to-date 103 Enthusiastic 222 Patient 341 Urban

104 Environmentally-Friendly 223 Peaceful 342 Versatile

105 Exciting 224 Persistent 343 Vibrant 106 Exotic 225 Playful 344 Violent 107 Expensive 226 Pleasant 345 Voluptuous 108 Exploitative 227 Poised 346 Vulgar 109 Expressive 228 Popular 347 Warm 110 Extravagant 229 Positive 348 Warmth less 111 Faithful 230 Practical 349 Well-made 112 Familiar 231 Precise 380 Well-mannered

120

113 Family-Oriented 232 Prestigious 351 Western 114 Famous 233 Pretenseless 352 Wholesome 115 Fanciful 234 Pretentious 353 Wimpy 116 Fast 235 Productive 354 Young 117 Feminine 236 Professional 355 Youthful 118 Fervent 237 Progressive

119 Feisty 238 Proud [Source: Original]

4.6. Language Expert Opinion Survey

Since, the list of items derived from literature review were based on

different countries, many of the items could be inappropriate and irrelevant in the

Indian context. This necessitated the need for screening the appropriateness of

items in the Indian context. A group of three English language teaching experts

scrutinized the appropriateness of the items in the Indian context. They were

instructed to give alternative words, if existed, which will give a similar meaning

in the Indian context (See Appendix II for the questionnaire). Based on their

opinion, the scale items were modified and the items for which there were no

appropriate Indian words were removed from the item pool. The main objective of

this step was to make the items more relevant in the Indian context.

4.7. Expert Opinion Survey

With the intention to further reduce the personality inventory to a

manageable level, an expert opinion survey was conducted. For this, a total of 12

experts: three Marketing professors, three Consumer psychologists, three

professionals from the Advertising Industry and three brand managers served as

experts. An expert opinion survey was opted against a consumer survey at this

stage for three reasons: experts can better rate the items based on the construct

definition considered in this study; as against consumers, experts will have a better

understanding of the concept and hence they will be in a position to rate the items

more appropriately than the ordinary consumers; a small sample of experts can be

as reliable as a large sample of consumer respondents. Owing to the huge response

121

time required for this study, relying on a large sample of consumers will be

inappropriate and impractical. This large questionnaire can lead to respondent

fatigue and bias.

The experts were introduced to the brand personality definition based on

which they had to rate the items. They were required to rate one brand of their

choice from three types of product categories, namely, symbolic, utilitarian and

symbolic-and-utilitarian. The average time taken for this exercise was around 50

minutes. Both online and offline questionnaires were employed for this survey

(See Appendix III for the questionnaire used). The respondents were required to

rate the items on a 5-point scale with 1 indicating ‘Very inappropriate’ to describe

the brand and 5 indicating ‘Very appropriate’ to describe the brand. Items which

scored 4 or more were selected to the next level of item reduction.

4.8. Consumer Survey

In this phase, items from the Expert opinion survey were further reduced

based on a consumer survey. A student sample was used for this study. A total of

21 brands were considered. The development of the scale based on a large number

of brands has the advantage of increasing the generalizability of the scale. But,

relying on a large number of brands can lead to respondent fatigue and bias.

Hence, it is required to adopt an optimum number of brands which will not cause

respondent fatigue and at the same time will be generalizable. Any branding or

advertising strategy in India is developed for the entire country and hence any

scale developed relying on any single state would be inadequate and inappropriate

in the Indian context. Hence, a pan-Indian sample was required to develop the

scale. The sample was made representative of Indian population in terms home

state, income and gender. For example among the respondents included for the

study, nearly 53 percent were males, around 16 percent were from Uttar Pradesh

(Uttar Pradesh is the most populated state in India). About 78 percent of

respondents were Hindus.

122

Respondents who participated in the survey were introduced with the

concept of brand personality and were given the following instruction “This is a

study to understand how people perceive different brands. To elaborate, if I ask

you to give me your impression about a particular person, you may describe him

as a smart, sincere and competent person. Similarly think of a brand as if it were a

person. For instance you may think Raymond to be a respectable, responsible, and

a caring brand or Thums Up to be a daring, spirited and adventurous brand. The

purpose of this study is to understand which of the adjectives given below are most

appropriate to describe a brand. I request you to spare a few minutes of your

valuable time to take part in this study.”

The respondents were required to rate one brand each from three groups.

The purpose of grouping was twofold; one, to give choice to the respondents so

that they will have enough choices to opt from and second, to control the

responses in such a manner as to get fairly equal number of responses for each

brand. The respondents were required to rate the personality traits on a 5-point

Likert scale (where 1 represented Very Inappropriate, 2 – Moderately

Inappropriate, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderately Appropriate and 5 – Very

Appropriate). They were requested to rate the appropriateness of each personality

trait in describing the brand they opted (See Appendix IV for questionnaire).

4.8.1. Measure Purification: Exploratory Factor Analysis

A total of 606 respondents rated a total of 96 personality traits based on 21

brands. Since the objective of this research is to develop a set of brand personality

factors, which can be used to profile brands, it is necessary to analyze the inter

correlation of personality traits across brands (Aaker, 1995). The 96*96

correlation matrix was subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with

principal components method (see Nunally, 2010). A varimax rotation was

employed during the proceedure with the objective of identifying appropriate

123

factors, rather than ending up with a single large affective factor (Aaker, 1995).

The process of EFA resulted in a 9-factor strucure which explained around

61.42% of the variance.The EFA results are presented in the form of a table

below.

Table-4.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results

Factor Variables Variance explained

(%)

Cumulative Percentage

of Variance

F1 Happiness, Honest, Joyful, Good Natured, Positive, Sincere, Pleasant, Enthusiastic, Optimistic, Well-Mannered, Independent, Passionate, Friendly, Clear, Wholesome, Engaging, Lively, Precise, Practical, Outgoing, Loyal, Rational

21.652

21.652

F2 Stylish, Sexy, Youthful, Trendy 7.239 28.892

F3 Reliable, Trust Worthy, Respectable, Believable

6.682 35.574

F4 Aggressive, Bold, Adventurous, Daring, Courageous,

6.43 42.00

F5 Competent, Competitive, Compatible, Comfortable

4.839 46.844

F6 Accessible, Accountable, Accepting 4.44 51.286 F7 Charming, Charismatic, Appealing 4.165 55.451 F8 Innovative, Creative, Professional 4.164 55.451 F9 Dominant 2.343 61.426

[Source: Original]

4.8.2. Scale Reliability

The next objective was to check the reliability of the scale or to evaluate the

extent to which the scale is free from errors and would show consistency in the

results (Peter, 1981). Reliability can be measured mainly in two ways namely,

Cronbach’s alpha and Test re-test correlations.

124

The Cronbach’s alpha values of the first eight dimensions were 0.9565, 0.774,

0.769, 0.808, 0.799, 0.765, 0.743 and 0.567 respectively. The recommended

value for Cronbach’s alpha is 0.7 (Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson, 2012). After

this stage of the research two dimensions, factors 8 and 9 were dropped from

further analysis. Factor 8 was dropped because of a poor Cronbach’s alpha value

whereas factor 9 was dropped because it contained only one item.

Test re-test reliability: A vital step to prove a scale to be reliable is to prove it is

stable over time. For this a survey was conducted among the respondents chosen

from those who participated in the first measurement purification phase. This was

conducted one month after their first response was collected. The data was

collected from 91 respondents. Although the reliabilities were calculated only for

the items selected to be included in the final structure, all the items which were

included in the questionnaire for first phase item purification, were included here

also as per Aaker’s (1995) recommendations. The rationale of this was to avoid

systematic bias which may occur in the test re-test analysis. The one month time

interval was given with the intention of avoiding any potential memory effects

resulting from their previous responses. The test re-test correlation values ranged

from 0.7 for Precise to 0.93 for Happiness. The test re-test values for the seven

factors and each traits are presented in the following tables.

Table-4.5. Factor wise test re-test correlation values

Sl. No. Factor Test re-test correlation 1 Factor 1 0.87 2 Factor 2 0.91 3 Factor 3 0.9 4 Factor 4 0.83 5 Factor 5 0.81 6 Factor 6 0.84 7 Factor 7 0.82

[Source: Original]

125

Table-4.6. Variable-wise test re-test correlation values

Sl. No. Traits Correlation Sl. No. Traits Correlation Sl. No. Traits Correlation

1 Happiness 0.93 16 Engaging 0.74 31 Aggressive 0.72 2 Honest 0.82 17 Lively 0.74 32 Bold 0.74 3 Joyful 0.78 18 Precise 0.7 33 Adventurous 0.71 4 Good-natured 0.76 19 Practical 0.76 34 Daring 0.75 5 Positive 0.72 20 Outgoing 0.74 35 Courageous 0.76 6 Sincere 0.8 21 Loyal 0.73 36 Competent 0.78 7 Pleasant 0.81 22 Rational 0.7 37 Competitive 0.77 8 Enthusiastic 0.76 23 Stylish 0.93 38 Compatible 0.8 9 Optimistic 0.73 24 Sexy 0.87 39 Comfortable 0.82 10 Well-mannered 0.71 25 Youthful 0.84 40 Accessible 0.82 11 Independent 0.81 26 Trendy 0.76 41 Accountable 0.74 12 Passionate 0.74 27 Reliable 0.82 42 Accepting 0.71 13 Friendly 0.75 28 Trustworthy 0.9 43 Charming 0.79 14 Clear 0.76 29 Respectable 0.71 44 Charismatic 0.72 15 Wholesome 0.81 30 Believable 0.85 45 Appealing 0.82

[Source: Original]

126

4.9. Confirming Product Brand Personality Scale (PBPS) dimensions

Aaker (1995) and Numally (2010) suggest a hold out sample study

mainly for two reasons; first is to check out the sufficiency of the first set of

brands in determining the factorial structure. By reproducing the same factorial

structure with another set of brands, it can be proven that there was no bias in

the structure because of brand selection. Second, it could check whether the

factor structure was a function of subject sample, or in other words, this hold

out sample will help to check whether the factor structure was the result of the

particular set of respondents participated in the study. The stimuli or the brands

considered in this phase were also drawn randomly from the same source, the

list developed by Trust Research Advisory and Brand Equity listing. A total of

12 brands were considered in this stage. The selected brands were Vicks, Rin,

Whirlpool, Dettol, Lee, Horlicks, Bata, Hyundai, Lenovo, Nescafe, Mirinda

and Parle-G.

For this study also a student sample was used. Responses were collected

from 217 students. As done in the earlier study, respondents were required to

rate three brands each of their choice. They were instructed to give their

responses on a 5-point Likert scale and had to rate 45 personality traits based

on the specific brands they opted (See Appendix IV for questionnaire). Since

the objective of this stage was to determine the robustness of the factor

structure across a new set of brands and respondents, a confirmatory factor

analysis was carried out using the LISREL software package.

127

Figure-4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis model of PBPS

[Source: Original]

128

The Chi Square value was significant (2238.09 with 924 degrees of

freedom; P=0.0).This is a common phenomenon in models with large sample

sizes. Because the Chi Square test is sensitive to sample size and can lead to a

rejection of a model differing in a trivial way from the data for large sample

sizes. It is prudent to examine other measures of fit (Bagozzi and Heatherton,

1994). On the other hand, where small samples are used, the Chi-Square

statistic lacks power and because of this, it may not discriminate between good

fitting models and poor fitting models (Kenny and McCoach, 2003). Due to the

restrictiveness of the Model Chi-Square, researchers have sought alternative

indices to assess model fit. One example of a statistic that minimizes the impact

of sample size on the Model Chi-Square is Wheaton’s (1977) relative/ normed

chi-square (χ2/df) [df denotes degrees of freedom]. Although there is no

consensus regarding an acceptable ratio for this statistic, recommendations

range from as high as 5.0 (Wheaton, 1977) to as low as 2.0 (Tabachnick and

Fidell, 2007). Hence, it is required to look in to the other fit indices. Four main

fit indices are reported here considering the recommendations of Hu and

Bentler’s Two-Index Presentation Strategy (1999).

Table-4.7. Evaluation of model fit

Fit Index Estimated Value

Acceptable Threshold Levels

Relative χ2 (χ2/df )

2.423 3:1 (Kline, 2011)

Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) 0.96 Values greater than 0.95

Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)

0.056 SRMR less than 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999)

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.96 Values greater than 0.95

[Source: Original]

The relative Chi square value, SRMR, NNFI and CFI, presented above

indicate a good model fit. In conclusion, the results of the above confirmatory

129

factor analysis indicated that the seven-factor structure is robust and stable over

different set of stimuli and sample.

4.9.1. Construct Validity

Validity refers to the extent to which research is accurate (Hair et al.,

2012). A most popular and widely accepted tool to check construct validity of

the proposed measurement model is Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Construct Validity refers to the extent to which the items used to measure the

construct actually reflect the theoretical latent dimensions those items are

designed to measure (Hair et al., 2012). For this study, Construct Validity was

evaluated in terms of Convergent validity and Divergent validity. Convergent

validity implies that “Items that are indicators of a specific construct should

converge or share a high proportion of variance in common” (Hair et al., 2012).

This is referred to as convergent validity. Hair et al., (2012) suggest different

ways to calculate the relative amount of convergent validity amid item

measures. They point that high loadings on a dimension indicates that the items

unite on a common point called latent construct. The factor loading values in

the standardized estimates of the CFA model ranges from 0.68 for outgoing to

0.90 for daring, which is higher than the recommended minimum value of 0.5

by Hair et al., (2012). Next, the average variance extracted was calculated and

the result was as follows:

Table-4.8. Average Variance Extracted

Factor Average Variance Extracted

Factor 1 0.603914

Factor 2 0.677775

Factor 3 0.64254

Factor 4 0.64685

Factor 5 0.69975

Factor 6 0.651533

Factor 7 0.714167

[Source: Original]

130

The Average Variance Extracted for all factors were greater than 0.5

which indicates that on an average less error remains in the item than what is

explained by the latent construct. In sum, the factors exhibit good convergent

validity.

Another indicator of convergent validity is construct reliability (Hair et

al., 2012). Construct reliability is generally used in conjunction with Structural

Equation Models (SEM). It can be calculated by using the formula

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 =(∑ 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛

𝐿𝐿=1 )2 (∑ 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛

𝐿𝐿=1 )2 + (∑ 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛𝐿𝐿=1 )

where Li represents factor loadings and ei represents error variance. The

construct reliability calculated for each construct is given in the following table

Table-4.9. Construct Reliability values

Sl. No. Factors Construct Reliability 1 Factor 1 0.969064862

2 Factor 2 0.894250708

3 Factor 3 0.899435596

4 Factor 4 0.878969957

5 Factor 5 0.899239053

6 Factor 6 0.847967103

7 Factor 7 0.881557383

[Source: Original]

The construct reliability of the factors ranges from 0.84 to 0.96, which is

much higher than the recommended value of 0.7. This indicates that there is a

high internal consistency within the factors, which in turn implies that all the

measures consistently represent the same latent construct.

131

Discriminant Validity

It refers to the extent to which a construct is truly distinct from other

constructs (Hair et al., 2012). To check discriminant validity, the Average

Variance Extracted (AVE) scores of the two constructs needs to be compared

with the square of the correlation estimates between these two constructs. From

the table given below, it is clear that the variance extracted estimates (Diagonal

values) are greater than the squared correlation estimate. This implies that the

latent constructs explains more of the variance in its item measures than it

shares with another construct. This also implies that the individual indicators

measure only one latent measure, which also implies that there are no cross

loadings for the indicator variables.

Table-4.10. Evaluation of discriminant validity

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F1 (0.6039)

F2 0.2025 (0.677775)

F3 0.1369 0.3249 (0.64254)

F4 0.3844 0.1024 0.16 (0.64685)

F5 0.3364 0.1521 0.1296 0.4225 (0.699)

F6 0.2809 0.09 0.0625 0.3969 0.2601 (0.6515)

F7 0.3136 0.2704 0.3364 0.16 0.2809 0.2601 (0.714167)

Notes: Diagonal elements (values in parentheses) are the Average Variance Extracted (AVE); off-diagonal elements are the square correlations among constructs.

[Source: Original]

132

4.10. A short version of the PBPS

The objective of this section is to create a short version of the PBPS.

Since brand personality is often measured along with other concepts such as

self concept, celebrity personality and so on; a large number of items in the

scale will make it practically insignificant. Hence many researchers have

developed a short version of their scales (For example, Aaker, 1997; Burisch,

1997; Rammstedt and John, 2007; Geuens et al., 2009). To meet this purpose

as well as to satisfy structural model validity, the maximum number of items to

be included under a particular factor was decided to be 4 and minimum as 3.

Item selection was done with the help of factor analysis results. Since the first

factor comprised of 22 items, they were factor analyzed and four surrogate

variables were identified to represent them. They include Honest, Enthusiastic,

Precise and Outgoing. Again, Courageous was dropped from factor 4 (which

contained five items initially) being the lowest loading item. All the other

factors contained three or four items only, so they were kept intact. This

resulted in the final version of the scale with 7 factors and 26 items. The

psychometric properties of this short version were also evaluated by means of

evaluating test re-test reliability, Cronbach’s alpha values, Convergent validity

and Discriminant validity. The final set of factors and corresponding items are

given in the following table.

Table-4.11. Short version of the PBPS

Factor Variables

F1 Honest, Enthusiastic, Precise, Outgoing

F2 Stylish, Sexy, Youthful, Trendy

F3 Reliable, Trust Worthy, Respectable, Believable

F4 Aggressive, Bold, Adventurous, Daring

F5 Competent, Competitive, Compatible, Comfortable

F6 Accessible, Accountable, Accepting

F7 Charming, Charismatic, Appealing

[Source: Original]

133

4.10.1. Checking the reliability of the short version of PBPS

The reliability of the short PBPS was evaluated based on Cronbach’s

alpha values and test re-test reliability values.

Cronbach’s Alpha Values

The Cronbach’s alpha values of the seven dimensions were calculated

using SPSS software package and the result is presented in the following table.

Table-4.12. Cronbach’s Alpha Values of the short scale

Sl. No. Factors Alpha Values

1 Factor 1 0.795

2 Factor 2 0.774

3 Factor 3 0.769

4 Factor 4 0.771

5 Factor 5 0.799

6 Factor 6 0.765

7 Factor 7 0.743

[Source: Original]

Cronbach’s alpha values for all the variables are found to be greater than the

recommended value of 0.7.

134

Test re-test reliability

Test re-test values were also examined for the seven dimensions of the

short version of the product brand personality scale and the results are

presented below.

Table-4.13. Test re-test correlation values of the factors in the short scale

No. Trait Test re-test correlation

1 Factor 1 0.805

2 Factor 2 0.91

3 Factor 3 0.90

4 Factor 4 0.813

5 Factor 5 0.81

6 Factor 6 0.84

7 Factor 7 0.82

[Source: Original]

All the values were greater than 0.7 and hence it is concluded that the scale

possesses test re-test reliability.

4.10.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for short version of PBPS

To confirm the seven-factor structure of the short version of product

brand personality scale, a confirmatory factor analysis was done using LISREL

software package. The data collected for the hold out sample study for the full

version of the scale was used in this phase.

135

Figure-4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis model for short version of PBPS

[Source: Original]

136

As discussed before in this chapter, four main fit indices are reported

here considering the recommendations of Hu and Bentler’s Two-Index

Presentation Strategy (1999).

Table-4.14. Fit indices for the evaluation of CFA model of the short PBPS

Fit Index Estimated Value

Acceptable Threshold Levels

Relative χ2 (χ2/df )

2.169 3:1 (Kline, 2011)

Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI)

.96 Values greater than 0.95

Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)

0.054 SRMR less than 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999)

Comparative Fit Index (CFI)

0.97 Values greater than 0.95

[Source: Original]

Since all the fit indices possess recommended values, it can be

concluded that the confirmatory factor analysis confirms the model validity of

the short PBPS.

4.10.3. Construct validity

For the short version of the PBPS scale, Construct Validity was

evaluated in terms of Convergent validity and Discriminant validity (employed

a similar procedure adopted for the validation of the full version of PBPS scale

developed in the previous section).

Convergent validity

Convergent validity of the scale was evaluated based on factor loadings,

average variance extracted and construct reliability. To check the convergent

validity of the scale, the factor loading values in the standardized estimates of

the CFA model was checked. Its values ranged from .65 for Outgoing to .91 for

Charismatic, which is higher than the recommended minimum value of 0.5 by

137

Hair et al., (2012). Next, the average variance extracted was calculated and the

result was as follows:

Table-4.15. Average Variance Extracted value in the case of short PBPS

Sl. No. Factor

Ave. Variance Extracted

1 Factor 1 0.533475 2 Factor 2 0.68165 3 Factor 3 0.64455 4 Factor 4 0.6512

5 Factor 5 0.686775 6 Factor 6 0.651533 7 Factor 7 0.7145

[Source: Original]

The Average Variance Extracted for all factors were greater than 0.5

which indicates that on an average, less error remains in the item than what is

explained by the latent construct. In sum, the factors exhibit good convergent

validity.

Construct reliability

Next, indicator to be checked to ensure convergent validity is construct

reliability (Hair et al., 2012). It was calculated using the formula

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 =(∑ 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛

𝐿𝐿=1 )2 (∑ 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛

𝐿𝐿=1 )2 + (∑ 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛𝐿𝐿=1 )

where Li represents factor loadings and ei represents error variance. The

construct reliability calculated for each construct is given in the following

table.

138

Table-4.16. Construct Reliability values of short PBPS dimensions

No. Factors Construct Reliability

1 Factor 1 0.818324137

2 Factor 2 0.895559211

3 Factor 3 0.876712329

4 Factor 4 0.878881961

5 Factor 5 0.897592188

6 Factor 6 0.847967103

7 Factor 7 0.880344937

[Source: Original]

The construct reliability of the factors ranges from 0.818 to 0.897, which

is much higher than the recommended value of 0.7. This indicates that there is

a high internal consistency within the factors, which in turn implies that all the

measures consistently represent the same latent construct.

Discriminant Validity

As discussed before in the previous section on Discriminant validity, the

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) scores of the two constructs were

compared with the square of the correlation estimates between those two

constructs. From the table given below, it is clear that the variance extracted

estimates (diagonal values) are greater than the squared correlation estimate.

This implies that the latent constructs in the short version of the PBPS explains

more of the variance in its item measures than it shares with another construct.

This also implies that the individual indicators measure only one latent

measure, which also implies that there are no cross loadings for the indicator

variables.

139

Table-4.17. Evaluation of the discriminant validity of the short PBPS

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4 Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

Factor 1

(0.533475)

Factor 2

.25 (0.68165)

Factor 3

.1521 .3364 (0.64455)

Factor 4

.36 .1024 .1369 (0.6512)

Factor 5

.3136 .16 .1156 .42 (0.686775)

Factor 6

.2209 .09 .0529 .3969 .2601 (0.651533)

Factor 7

.36 .2704 .3249 .16 .2809 .2601 (0.7145)

Notes: Diagonal elements (values in parentheses) are the Average Variance Extracted (AVE); off-diagonal elements are the square correlations among constructs

[Source: Original]

4.11. Naming of seven factors

Next, a name was chosen for each dimension which reflected the general

characteristics of that dimension. This naming was designed considering both

the full and short version of the PBPS.

Table-4.18. Names of seven factors identified

Factor Name Factor 1 Happy Factor 2 Youthful Factor 3 Reliable Factor 4 Adventurous Factor 5 Competent Factor 6 Accountable Factor 7 Appeal

[Source: Original]

140

4.12. Chapter conclusion

This chapter has discussed the scale development procedure adopted in

this research. The various sections herein, have elaborated on the item

generation procedure, stimuli selection procedure, item purification methods

adopted, procedures to check the reliability and validity of the scale and so on.

A seven dimensional framework for measuring the product brand personality in

the Indian context was designed. The psychometric properties of this scale

were established with the help of various statistical analysis techniques.

141

Chapter 5 FINDINGS, DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND

CONCLUSION

This chapter includes a discourse on the conclusions, limitations and

implications of this thesis. An effort is made to identify and suggest the various

important research opportunities in this domain.

5.1. Introduction

In the competitive market scenario characterized by proliferation of

brands, brand managers are striving hard to understand and manage the

symbolic benefits their products offer to target consumers. Brand personality is

one among those important benefits. Though, the brand personality concept

originated long ago in branding, unlike its counterpart in psychology (that is,

human personality), the concept is still in its nascent stage. Hence, more

researches are required to build this field. Relying on a stricter definition put

forward by Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) and considering product brands in the

Indian context, a new product brand personality scale has been developed. The

new scale consists of seven dimensions. Through different phases in the scale

development process the researcher has established the content validity,

reliability, construct validity and dimensionality of the scale. With a relatively

less number of items, the new tool proves to be a practical instrument for

branding research. The new tool will be helpful for both academicians and

practitioners. The new scale is expected to simplify theorizing and hypothesis

generation since one scale can be used for any product category.

The following sections in this chapter will elaborate on the major

findings and their implications, besides providing a comparison of the present

scale with the existing ones.

142

5.2. Major findings

The major findings and implications of this research is summarised as

follows. Though all the phases adopted in this research were important, not

every phase provide direct implications for research. However, the most

important ones are discussed here.

The free elicitation study which was conducted as a part of the item

generation phase indicates that Indian consumers do attribute personality

characteristics to brands. This in a way adds support to the previous researches

in this field which suggests that consumers have a tendency to attribute

personality characteristics to brands and talk about them.

The language expert opinion study in this research indicated that, many

items that are relevant in foreign contexts were identified to be irrelevant or

less appropriate in the Indian context. The qualitative study done as a part of

the expert opinion survey did not yielded any extra items to the initial pool

generated, which is an indication of the exhaustiveness of the initial item pool.

Another important result that needs to be mentioned is findings from

exploratory factor analysis done with the data obtained through consumer

survey. The results indicate that, a total of nine dimensions can explain around

61.43% of the total variance. The contribution to variance by each factors were

in the order 21.65, 7.23, 6.68, 6.43, 4.83, 4.44, 4.16, 3.63, and 2.34. However,

the reliability measure results (Cronbach’s alpha values) suggested the removal

of last two dimensions. A test re-test correlation values for the remaining seven

dimensions indicated a good test re-test reliability. Finally, this seven

dimension structure was proved to be a reliable structure to represent product

brand personality in the Indian context. The next important result worth

mentioning is the hold out sample survey conducted to check the validity of the

seven factor structure identified in the previous consumer survey phase. The

results of this study confirmed the seven dimensional structure of product

brand personality. The results of this study also provided proof for the

143

construct validity. The results of the analysis such as factor loadings, average

variance extracted, and construct reliability provided support for convergent

validity of the scale. Whereas a comparison of the average variance extracted

and square correlation among constructs provided support for discriminant

validity. Further, a study done to develop a short version of the scale indicated

that a seven factor structure with 26 items to be adequate enough to measure

product brand personality. The following diagram presents the final version of

the scale.

144

Figure-5.1. Product brand personality scale

[Source: Original]

Product brand personality scale

Happy

Honest, Enthusiastic, Precise, Outgoing

Youthful

Stylish, Sexy, Youthful, Trendy

Reliable

Reliable, Trust Worthy, Respectable, Believable

Adventurous

Aggressive, Bold, Adventurous, Daring

Competent

Competent, Competitive, Compatible, Comfortable

Accountable

Accessible, Accountable, Accepting

Appeal

Charming, Charismatic, Appealing

145

5.3. Originality and novelty

Next, it is worth discussing the originality and contributions of this

research. Though much study exists on the personality of brands in general, no

studies have identified the personality of product brands in particular. This

research addresses this lacuna by following a methodical process in bringing out

the dimensions of product brand personality. Also this is a scale developed in the

Indian context and will be of great use for Indian researchers and marketing

practitioners.

This research has significant implications for theorizing product brand

personality and contributes to marketing theory in terms of a tool to measure

product brand personality. Preliminary studies on the existing brand personality

scales indicate the necessity of a product specific brand personality scale. The

PBPS is parsimoniously presented in terms of a seven dimensional 26 item

measure. For a scale with dimensions, Mowen and Voss (2008) recommends three

to five items per dimension. The PBPS is in line with this recommendation. From

a pragmatic point of view, this scale is relatively short and will help to reduce

respondent fatigue issue, which arise in the case of most of the existing brand

personality scales.

When compared with a five dimensional structure, the seven dimensional

structure of the construct provides more options for the branding practitioners to

position their brands.

5.4. Implications

This tool will be a boon for both academicians and practitioners. For

practitioners this PBPS will help them to contrast between the perceived and

portrayed personality of their brands which will in turn help them in managing

their brands in a better manner. Further, it will help marketers to impart a

146

personality to their brands as desired by their consumers. . The new product brand

personality scale may also help the brand manager to ensure that the personality of

the proposed brand extensions is in line with that of the existing one.

5.4.1. How a brand manager may use the PBPS

A brand manager may use the product brand personality scale to evaluate

the personality of his brand. This can help him/her to understand whether the

target consumers of the brand perceive the same personality which the company

tries to communicate to them. The scale may be administered in a questionnaire

form to target consumers and their perceptions may be gathered. A summated

score of a representative set of target consumers can help to identify how the

personality of the brand is perceived. Based on the results, the practitioner may

modify or manage the personality of the brand. He may also make comparison

with rival brands to formulate new strategies.

The product brand personality scale may be administered to the target

consumers of the brand and they may be asked to rate the brand based on the traits

in the scale. The average of the consumer perception will indicate the performance

of the brand on different personality dimensions. Brand manager may use a radar

chart to better represent the personality of the brand.

Also, a longitudinal data collected using this scale (that is, data collected

over a period of time) may help one to understand how the personality of a brand

moves or changes over time. Another use of this data could be to understand the

impact of advertising on creating and changing brand personality.

5.4.2. Implications for Academics

For academics, this scale can serve as a building block for new theories in

brand management and consumer psychology. For instance, they can identify the

sources of various product brand personality dimensions or they may conduct

147

research to identify the relationship between various product personality

dimensions and consumer behaviour, and so on.

From a theoretical perspective this study reveals that consumers attribute

personality characteristics to product brands. This is in line with previous studies

on brand personality (for example Aaker, 1997; Ambroise et al., 2005; Bosnjak et

al., 2007). This study reveals that the Indian product brand personality framework

consists of seven factors. Further, this research supports the argument that Aaker’s

(1997) brand personality scale may not be applicable in the case of contexts other

than United States. This research informs academicians that the use of Aaker’s

(1997) scale in brand personality research in India would be less meaningful. It

equips them with a better tool for measuring brand personality in the Indian

context.

Another theoretical implication of this study is methodological. This

research indicates that both qualitative and quantitative methods can be employed

together to develop a brand personality scale.

5.5. A critical discussion on PBPS

The scale shares many commonalities and differences with the existing

scales in terms of the methodology adopted and the dimensions identified.

General approach: The mixed method approach adopted in this study is similar

to the works of Aaker (1997), Aaker et al. (2001), Geuens et al.(2009). However

one cannot find this approach in the works of researchers like Caprara et al.

(2001).

Adoption of a ‘meso’ approach against micro and macro approaches: The

introduction of the new approach of a ‘meso’ perception in brand personality

research adds to the novelty of this work. Unlike ‘micro’ the scope of this scale

will not be too narrow, which may reduce the applicability of the scale to compare

148

between different products personality dimensions. Also, this approach can be

considered more powerful than a ‘macro’ approach, since the reduced scope of the

scale will increase the accuracy in measuring the concept.

Focus/domain: The focus of this brand personality scale is product brands in the

Indian context whereas the previous researches in this field tried to focus on

brands in general or brands in a specific product category, with reference to

specific countries. For instance, consider Aaker (1997)’s general brand personality

scale in the U.S. context, Aaker et al. (2001)’s general brand personality scales for

Japan and Spain, Geuens et al. (2009)’s general brand personality scale in the

Belgium context, or retail store personality scale like the one by d’Astous and

Lévesque (2003), Helgeson and Supphellen (2004). In this regard the new scale is

different from all other scales, as it is neither too specific like scales that are

developed with a micto perspective (like a sports personality scale, destination

personality scale or a restaurant personality scale) nor too broad (like those

developed for capturing the personality dimensions of brands in general).

Rigor: Unlike Aaker (1997) this research relies on a stricter definition of brand

personality put forward by Azoulay and Kapferer (2003). Researchers who have

employed this definition in their scale development process includes: Bosnjak et

al. (2007)and Geuens et al. (2009). Methodologically, the scale development

process has adopted many of the best practices in brand personality research.

Initial item pool: The study has relied on a large item pool to narrow down to a

small set of representative items in a systematic manner, which ensures the content

validity of the scale. Other researchers like Aaker (1997), Aaker et al. (2001),

Geuens et al. (2009) have also adopted a similar procedure. Whereas scales

developed by Caprara, Barbaranellia and Guidob (2001), d’Astous and Lévesque

(2003), Helgeson and Supphellen (2004), Sung and Tinkham (2005) relied on

relatively small initial item sets. This research has started with an exploratory

149

study and then moved on to quantitative studies to identify and confirm brand

personality dimensions. This methodology is also observable in the studies done

by Aaker (1997), Aaker et al. (2001) and Geuens et al. (2009).

Sampling: The researchers who relied on student sample to create their brand

personality scale or to study the brand personality construct includes Austin et

al.(2003), Sung and Tinkham (2005), Ambroise et al. (2005), Magnini and Thelen

(2008), Musante et al.(2008), Carlson et al.(2009), Kim et al. (2010), Kaplan et

al.(2010). Other researchers differ with this product brand personality scale with

respect to the sample they adopted.

Dimensionality of the scale: This study has identified seven dimensions. A study

by Kim and Lehto (2013) also identified a seven factor structure consisting of

dimensions such as Family orientation, Sincerity, Competence, Uniqueness,

Excitement, Ruggedness and Sophistication. Some other researchers like Musante

et al. (2008), Das et al. (2012) mentioned in their work that they also identified a

seven factor structure, but judged a five factor structure to be more appropriate for

their study. Though many researchers tend to opt for a five factor structure, in

general, an inconsistency in the number of brand personality dimensions can be

observed. It is advisable to conduct further studies to reach a consensus on the

number of brand personality dimensions. A large number of studies have indicated

a difference of opinion or difference in results with the five dimensional structure

of Aaker (1997). See for instance, three dimensional brand personality structure

identified by Ekinci and Hosany (2006), Murphy et al., (2007); four dimensional

structure by Bosnjak et al. (2007), Murphy et al. (2007a); Six factor structure

proposed by D’Astous and Boujbel (2007), Kaplan et al. (2010), Smith et al.

(2006); eight factor structure by Sweeney and Brandon (2006); 12 factor structure

by Ambroise et al. (2005). Hence, the findings of this research indicate that, unlike

human personality a consensus on a five factor structure in the case of brand

personality dimensions may not be possible to reach.

150

5.6. Comparison of PBPS dimensions with other scales

The various dimensions of the new product brand personality scale are

compared against a few selected brand personality scales in the following sections.

Some of the brand personality dimensions identified by this India-specific

study have similarities with those of Aaker’s (1997) scale. For instance, the

Appeal dimension from this study and Sophistication dimension of Aaker’s scale

try to capture similar aspects of brand personality. However, Charming is the only

item shared in common between the two. The Competent dimension from this

study and Competence dimension of Aaker’s scale try to measure how well a

brand appears to be successful and efficient to its consumers. The Excitement and

Sincerity dimensions of Aaker’s scale seem to be captured by the Happy

dimension in the scale developed through this study. The Ruggedness dimension

of Aaker’s scale and Adventure dimension from this study are distantly similar.

However, the dimensions Reliable, Youthful and Accountable emerge as India-

specific dimensions.

In the case of Ambroise, Ferrandi and Merunka’s scale (2005), the

dimension Cheerful and Happy dimension of this new scale share some

commonality. Both scales have a dimension named Reliable, but the items used to

capture these dimensions differ. The exciting, outgoing dimensions in the case of

Ambroise et al.(2005) shows similarity to the adventurous dimension of PBPS.

Secure and accountable dimensions from the two scales also seem to capture

similar perceptions. Yet other two dimensions namely glamorous and elegant

from Ambroise et al. (2005) can be matched with the Appeal dimension of the

new scale. Other dimensions such as natural, sweet, mature, mischievous seem to

be unique to the scale developed by Ambroise et al. (2005). But, a very large

number of factors in the case of Ambroise et al. (2005) hiders its scope in practical

applications.

151

In the case of Sweeney and Brandon’s scale (2006), the similarities and

dissimilarities are same as discussed before in the case of Aaker (1997), as it is an

extension of Aaker’s (1997) scale. The three dimensions they added to Aaker

(1997), namely Agreeableness, Extroversion and Conscientiousness seems to be

less similar to any items in the newly developed PBPS. However, those three

dimensions were adapted from a human personality scale and the reliability and

validity of those items are questionable.

The scale by Bosnjak et al. (2007) is quite different from the new PBPS in

terms of both number and type of dimensions. This scale has a four dimension

structure against the seven-factor structure of the product brand personality scale.

Again, this scale contains a lot of negative items and facets, like Superficiality

(with items such as Hypocritical, Obtrusive, Arrogant and Selfish) and also other

items such as Boredom, Small-minded, Boring and Old-fashioned. The items that

share some similarity to items in the new scale are: Competent, Responsible,

Reliable, Adventurous and Exciting. However, this scale tends to concentrate

more on the negative aspects of a brand rather than positive aspects.

Another important scale worth compared to is the one by Geuens et al.

(2009), which is an ultra short scale with 12 items and five factors. Though, the

scale is claimed to have good reliability and validity scores, the ability of just 12

items to represent a large set of more than 300 initial items is questionable. The

new PBPS with 26 items would be more representative than this ultra short

version. The dimension Emotionality of the Geuens et al. (2009) scale has some

resemblance with the Youthful dimension of the new scale, Activity dimension

weakly resembles Adventurous dimension, Responsibility factor may be

comparable with the Accountable dimension and Aggressiveness with Adventurous

dimension. However, the Simplicity dimension was not found in the case of

Product brand personality scale. The dimensions such as Happy, Reliable,

152

Competent and Appeal seem to be different and unique to product brand

personality.

5.7. Limitations

No research can be free from limitations. Time and budget constraints

necessitated to limit the scope of the study. The use of a student sample to balance

the limits of time and budget hinders the generalizability of this study. This

practice in consumer research has been widely debated over the years, largely

without resolution (Beltramini, 1983). But from the literature review, it is apparent

that many researchers in the domain of brand personality research rely on student

sample to conduct their research (for example Austin et al, 2003; Sung and

Tinkham, 2005; Ambroise et al., 2005; Magnini and Thelen, 2008; Musante et al.,

2008; Carlson et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Kaplan et al., 2010 and so on). This

practice might have arisen since a study by Aaker (1997) showed that there is no

significant difference in the brand personality dimensions based on demographic

features. Also, none of the existing brand personality research has reported any

variation in the factor structure based on demographic characteristics. Hence, it is

reasonable to use the new PBPS scale in the entire Indian context, until and unless

proved otherwise. India has a large youth demographic: 65 per cent of its

population is 35 and under. Also, there are nearly 150 million 18-23 year olds.

This number equals the population of several European countries put

together (Virmani, 2014). All these indicate that, though the study was based on a

student sample, it is applicable and also generalizable to a great extent in the

Indian context.

But, it is worth examining whether a significant difference in personality

perception based on demographic characteristics exists. Since a factor analytical

approach was employed for this study, some of the meaningful items might be

deleted since they were less related with the prominent product brand personality

153

dimensions or in other words there is a high chance that many meaningful items

were eliminated as they were less associated with any of the identified dimensions.

Another limitation of this scale is related to the context or the vibrant nature

of culture. To elaborate this further, according to Schiffman and Kanuk (2000), the

cultural dimensions may evolve over a period of time (as cited by Muniz and

Marchetti, 2012).This may be because of the changes that may occur in the values,

beliefs and customs of a society over a period of time resulting from various

factors that occur in the socio-cultural environment of the society. Any of these

alterations and developments may affect the way in which consumers perceive

brands. Though major validity checks which were usually done by other

researchers in this field were performed, some types of validity (like predictive

validity) were left out for further studies considering the time and budget

constraints.

5.8. Future research

The outcomes as well as limitations of this research throws open many

avenues for future researchers. This study is limited to product brands, hence it is

advisable to develop brand personality scales to measure categories like political

brands; for instance one can study whether a congruity in the personality of a voter

and a political brand has influence on determining the voters’ intention to vote for

the representative of the political brand. Similar scales and studies are

recommended in areas such as media brands, online stores, web sites and so on

wherein this scale may not applicable. Further studies are required to check the

cross cultural validity of the scale. Since most of the existing brand personality

scales do not have cross cultural validity. It is also worthwhile to check whether

the dimensions vary across different consumer groups. Though, Aaker (1997) has

checked it and proved to be true in the case of her scale, it may not be the case

with product BPS. Also with the introduction of more sophisticated tools like

Exploratory structural equation modeling, this can be done in a better manner.

154

Further studies may also be done to validate the scope of product brand

personality scale in other contexts. Though it is less likely that this scale may find

validity in the case of service brands, as it is developed relying solely on product

brands, it is worth examining the validity of this scale in the case of service

brands. Even though, Aaker’s (1997) scale was proved to be less applicable in the

case of some service brands such as destination brands, retail brands and so on;

this need not be the case with the PBPS scale. Since it is a new scale which is

developed relying on a new definition of brand personality, one can always check

the validity of this scale in other categories such as destination brands, sports

brands (teams/organizations) and so on. Cross industry validation of a brand

personality scale is not new; see for instance the works of Venable et al. (2005),

Smith et al. (2006) and Hosany et al. (2006).

Cross country validation may also be done in the case of the newly

developed product brand personality scale also. The research works which tried to

check the cross country validity of Aaker (1997) include Ferrandi et al. (2000),

Aaker et al. (2001), Supphellen and Grønhaug (2003) and Thomas and Sekar

(2008) .

Another fruitful avenue for further research is to identify the antecedents

and consequences of different product brand personality dimensions. For instance,

researches can be done to identify how a brand can position itself as a youthful

brand. Or, what kind of leverage a brand can acquire from its youthful image.

Further studies are required to identify the role of brand personality

dimensions in determining the consumer’s behaviour in terms of their loyalty,

satisfaction and so on.

It is also worthwhile, investigating the impact of various marketing

programs on different product brand personality dimensions. For example, one can

evaluate the impact of an ad campaign portraying boldness, aggressiveness and

155

adventure on increasing the score of a brand on the adventure dimension or how

the introduction of a particular celebrity endorser change the performance of the

brand in different personality dimensions. Similar studies may also be done in

identifying the impact of various activities related to the brand such as change in

logo, new positioning strategy, brand extension, Corporate Social Responsibility

activities and so on change the perceived personality of the brand.

Though items with negative connotations were included in the initial stage

of the study all of them were eliminated during the various item reduction stages.

Hence this scale may be less effective to capture the personality of those brands

that tries to position themselves with a negative type of personality. However, in

the Indian context, it is uncommon to find any such brands and hence the absence

of these negative traits or dimensions may not affect the scope or applicability of

this scale.

Checking the nomological validity of the tool is another important direction

for future research. The purpose of ensuring nomological validity is to show that,

the structural relationship among different dimensions is consistent with other

studies that have been measured with validated instruments and tested against a

variety of settings, time and persons (Straub, Boudreau and Gefen, 2004). As

suggested by Geuens et al. (2009) a study may be conducted to check the

nomological validity by selecting two groups of respondents who have different

value systems and then the researcher may check how each of the brand

personality dimensions differentially contributes to the attitude of these two group

members towards the brand (Geuens et al., 2009). Previous research works in this

field indicates that consumer values have a great impact on their behaviour and

they will prefer to own products that have a personality similar to that of their own

personality (For an elaborate discussion of the methodology see Geuens et al.,

2009).

156

Another fruitful avenue for future research could be to investigate how

various aspects such as goals, demography, personality and so on of a consumer

affect his / her attitude to different dimensions of the product brand personality

scale. In other words, one can examine whether a male has more affinity to the

adventure dimension, or a professional shows more affinity for competence

dimension and so on. Researchers in future may also examine how a new

advertising or marketing campaign influence the various dimensions of the

product brand personality scale. For instance, one can evaluate whether the

adoption of a youthful, sexy celebrity increases a brand’s score on the Youthful

dimension. It is also worth examining the impact of various corporate social

responsibility activities on the different dimensions of the brand personality scale.

Another research in future could be to examine how the change in

consumer perception regarding the celebrity endorser of the brand affects the

various personality dimensions of the brand. For instance, a brand that employs a

sports star or celebrity as an endorser may suffer if the performance of the

celebrity declines.

It is also worth examining how a scam, quality issues, and other related

aspects of a product affect various personality dimensions of the brand. Again, it

will also be interesting to check the vulnerability of different positioning

techniques that rely on the different dimensions of the product brand personality

scale. Or, which type of positioning will be more affected if some adverse events

occur (that is, which among the seven dimensions will be drastically affected by

the occurrence of an adverse event).Another domain for research is to check the

impact of various product brand personality dimensions in determining brand

choice.

157

5.9. Chapter conclusion

This chapter has summarised the important findings of the research,

implications for academics and practitioners and future research directions in this

domain.

158

REFERENCES

1. Aaker, D. A. (2009). Managing brand equity. Simon and Schuster.

2. Aaker, D. A. (2012). Building strong brands. Simon and Schuster.

3. Aaker, D. A., & Biel, A. L. (2013). Brand Equity & Advertising:

Advertising's role in building strong brands. New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

4. Aaker, D.A. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York:

Free Press.

5. Aaker, J.L. (1995). Brand Personality: Conceptualization, measurement

and underlying psychological mechanisms. Ann Arbor: UMI.

6. Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing

research, 34(3), 347-356.

7. Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption

symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand

personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

81(3), 492-508.

8. Aaker, J.L, & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a

person: three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in

consumer research, 22, 391-395.

9. Aiken, K. D., Campbell, R. M., & Koch, E. C. (2013). Exploring the

relationship between team (as brand) personality and geographic

personality: linking consumer perceptions of sports teams and

cities. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 15(1).

10. Aiken, K. D., Koch, E. C., & Madrigal, R. (2000). What’s in a name?

Explorations in geographic equity and geographic personality. In 2000

AMA Winter Educators' Conference, 11, 301-308.

11. Alt, M., & Griggs, S. (1988). Can a brand be cheeky? Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, 6(4), 9-16.

159

12. Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J. M., & Merunka, D. (2005). How well does brand

personality predict brand choice? A measurement scale and analysis using

binary regression models. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6,

30-38.

13. American Marketing Association. (1960). Marketing definitions: A

glossary of marketing terms. AMA, Chicago, IL.

14. Austin, J.R., Siguaw, J.A., & Mattila, A.S. (2003). A re-examination of the

generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement frame work.

Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(June), 77-92.

15. Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J.-N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really

measure brand personality? The Journal of Brand Management, 11(2), 143-

155

16. Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to

representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state

self‐esteem. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary

Journal, 1(1), 35-67.

17. Batra, R., Myers, J.G., & Aaker, D.A. (1996). Advertising Management (4th

Edn.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

18. Batra, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Singh, D. (1993). The brand personality

component of brand goodwill: some antecedents and consequences. Brand

equity and advertising, 83-96.

19. Beldona, S., & Wysong, S. (2007). Putting the “brand” back into store

brands: an exploratory examination of store brands and brand

personality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(4), 226-235.

20. Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and Self: Wiley Online Library.

21. Beltramini, R. F. (1983). Student surrogates in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 11(4), 438-443.

160

22. Biel, A. L. (1992). How brand image drives brand equity. Journal of

Advertising Research, 32(6), 6-12.

23. Birdwell, A. E. (1968). A study of the influence of image congruence on

consumer choice. The Journal of Business, 41(1), 76-88.

24. Bosnjak, M., Bochmann, V., & Hufschmidt, T. (2007). Dimensions of

Brand Personality Atributions: A Person Centric Approach in the German

Cultural Context. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal,

35(3), 303-316.

25. Boudreaux, C. A., & Palmer, S. E. (2007). A charming little Cabernet:

Effects of wine label design on purchase intent and brand

personality. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19(3), 170-

186.

26. Brengman, M., & Willems, K. (2009). Determinants of fashion store

personality: a consumer perspective. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 18(5), 346-355.

27. Burisch, M. (1997). Test length and validity revisited. European Journal of

Personality, 11, 303-315.

28. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research

for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197-207.

29. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality:

how to make the metaphor fit? Journal of economic psychology, 22(3),

377-395.

30. Carlson, B. D., Donavan, D. T., & Cumiskey, K. J. (2009). Consumer-

brand relationships in sport: brand personality and identification.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 37(4), 370-

384.

31. Cervera-Taulet, A., Schlesinger, M. W., & Yagüe-Guillen, M. J. (2013).

Influence of advertising on brand personality in the airline sector: The case

of Spain. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(5), 445-454.

161

32. Churchill Jr, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of

marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing research, 16(1), 64-73.

33. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised neo personality inventory

(neo pi-r) and neo five-factor inventory (neo-ffi), 101, Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

34. D’Astous, A., & Lévesque, M. (2003). A scale for measuring store

personality. Psychology and Marketing, 20(5), 455-469.

35. Das, G. (2013a). Impacts of retail brand personality and self-congruity on

store loyalty: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services, 21(2), 130-138.

36. Das, G. (2013b). Linkages of retailer personality, perceived quality and

purchase intention with retailer loyalty: A study of Indian non-food

retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, In Press, Corrected

Proof, Available online 22 November 2013.

37. Das, G., Datta, B., & Guin, K. K. (2012). Impact of retailer personality on

consumer-based retailer equity: An empirical study of retail brands. Asia

Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(4), 619-639.

38. Das, G., Guin, K. K., & Datta, B. (2013). Impact of Store Personality

Antecedents on Store Personality Dimensions: An Empirical Study of

Department Retail Brands. Global Business Review, 14(3), 471-486.

39. D'Astous, A., & Boujbel, L. (2007). Positioning countries on personality

dimensions: Scale development and implications for country

marketing. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 231-239.

40. Davis, Joel B. (1997). Advertising Research: Theory and Practice. Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

41. De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van den Bergh, J. (2007). Marketing

communications: a European perspective. Pearson Education.

42. DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications, 26,

Sage Publications.

162

43. Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G., & Grime, I. (2005). The impact of brand

extensions on brand personality: experimental evidence, European Journal

of Marketing, 39, 1-2.

44. Dickenson, N. (1996). Can celebrities ruin a launch, Campaign, 3, 12-24.

45. Dobni, D. & Zinkhan, G.M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation

analysis.In M.E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R.W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in

Consumer Research, 17, 110-119. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer

Research.

46. Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between self images and

product brands. Journal of Marketing research, 6(1), 80-84.

47. Douglas, A., & Mills, J. E. (2006). Logging Brand Personality Online:

Website content analysis of Middle Eastern and North African

Destinations. In Information and communication technologies in tourism

2006, edited by M. Hitz, M. Sigala and J. Murphy, Vienna: Springer

Verlag, 345.

48. Durgee, J. F., & Stuart, R. W. (1987). Advertising symbols and brand

names that best represent key product meanings. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 4(3), 15-24.

49. Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. Chicago: NTC

Business Books.

50. Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination Personality: An application of

brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research,

45(2), 127-139.

51. Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Baloglu, S. (2007). Host image and

destination personality. Tourism Analysis, 12(5-6), 433-446.

52. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: a three-

factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological review, 114(4), 864.

163

53. ET Bureau. (2011, September 28). Brand Equity Brand List. Retrieved

February 23, 2012, from The Economic Times:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topbrandlisting.cms

54. Fennis, B. M., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2007). You are what you wear: Brand

personality influences on consumer impression formation. Journal of

Business Research, 60(6), 634-639.

55. Ferrandi, J. M., & Valette-Florence, P. (2002). First test and validate the

implementation of a human scale brands personality. Research and

Applications in Marketing, 17(3), 21-40.

56. Ferrandi, J. M., Valette-Florence, P., & Fine-Falcy, S. (2000). Aaker’s

brand personality scale in a French context: a replication and a preliminary

test of its validity. Developments in Marketing Science, 23, 7-13.

57. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models

with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing

Research, 18(1), 39-50.

58. Fortini-Campbell, L. (1992, January). Hitting the sweet spot. Copy

Workshop.

59. Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand

personality effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(7), 404-

413.

60. Friedmann, R. (1986). Psychological meaning of products: Identification

and marketing applications. Psychology & Marketing, 3(1), 1-15.

61. Geuens, a. M., Weijters, B., & Wulf, K. D. (2009). A new measure of brand

personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 97-107.

62. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality

traits. American psychologist, 48(1), 26-34.

63. Gounaris, S., & Dimitriadis, S. (2003). Assessing service quality on the

web: evidence from business-to-consumer portals. Journal of Services

Marketing,17(5), 529-548.

164

64. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Talthem, R. L.

(2012). Multivariate data analysis. New Delhi: Pearson.

65. Haire, M. (1950). Projective Techniques in Marketing Research. Journal of

Marketing, 14 (5), 649-656.

66. Heere, B. (2010). A new approach to measure perceived brand personality

associations among consumers. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19 (1), 17-28.

67. Heine, K. (2009). Using personal and online repertory grid methods for the

development of a luxury brand personality. In 8th European Conference on

Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies: University

of Malta, Valletta, Malta, 22-23 June 2009:[proceedings], p.160.

Academic Conferences Limited.

68. Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement

comparison of self-congruity and brand personality-The impact of socially

desirable responding. International Journal of Market Research, 46(2),

205-233.

69. Henderson, J. C. (2000). Selling places: the new Asia-Singapore brand. The

Journal of Tourism Studies, 11(1), 36-44.

70. Herbst, U., & Merz, M. A. (2011). The industrial brand personality scale:

Building strong business-to-business brands. Industrial Marketing

Management, 40(7), 1072-1081.

71. Hieronimus. F. (2003). Personality-oriented brand management: an

empirical study to measure, perception and impact of brand personality,

Lang.

72. Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and

destination personality: An application of branding theories to tourism

places. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 638-642.

73. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in

covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new

165

alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary

Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

74. Huang, H. H., & Mitchell, V. W. (2014). The role of imagination and brand

personification in brand relationships. Psychology & Marketing, 31(1), 38-

47.

75. Hussey, M., & Duncombe, N. (1999). Projecting the right image: using

projective techniques to measure brand image. Qualitative Market

Research: An International Journal, 2(1), 22-30.

76. John, OP. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of

personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In LA Pervin

(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.

77. Kang, C. (2013). Dimensions of Brand Personality: A New Measure of

Brand Personality in Sport (Doctoral dissertation, Doctoral dissertation,

Texas A & M University. Available electronically from http://hdl.handle.

net/1969. 1/151299).

78. Kapferer, J. N. (2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced

insights and strategic thinking. 18, Kogan page publishers.

79. Kaplan, M. D., Yurt, O., Guneri, B., & Kurtulus, K. (2010). Branding

places: applying brand personality concept to cities. European Journal of

Marketing, 44(9/10), 1286-1304.

80. Karande, K., Zinkhan, G. M., & Lum, A. B. (1997). Brand personality and

self concept: a replication and extension. Paper presented at the American

Marketing Association, Summer Conference.

81. Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and Consumer Behaviour: A Review.

Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 409-418.

82. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-

based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 1-22.

166

83. Keller, K. L., & Richey, K. (2006). The importance of corporate brand

personality traits to a successful 21st century business. Journal of Brand

Management, 14(1), 74-81.

84. Keller, K. L., Parameswaran, M., & Jacob, I. (2011). Strategic brand

management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity: Pearson

Education India.

85. Kelly, G. A. (1955). Psychology of personal constructs 2: clinical diagnosis

and psychotherapy.

86. Pike K.L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure

of human behavior (2nd Edn), 24(24), The Hague: Mouton and Co

87. Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables

on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation

Modeling, 10(3), 333-351.

88. Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. B. (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.

89. Kim, D., Magnini, V. P., & Singal, M. (2011). The effects of customers’

perceptions of brand personality in casual theme restaurants. International

Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 448-458.

90. Kim, J., Baek, T. H., & Martin, H. J. (2010). Dimensions of news media

brand personality. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(1),

117-134.

91. Kim, S., & Lehto, X. Y. (2013). Projected and Perceived Destination Brand

Personalities The Case of South Korea. Journal of Travel Research, 52(1),

117-130.

92. King, S. (1970). What is a Brand? London: J.Walter Thompson Company

Limited.

93. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation

modeling. Guilford press.

167

94. Koebel, M. N., & Ladwein, R. (1999). The scale of brand personality of

Jennifer Aaker: Adaptation to French context. Marketing decisions, 81-88.

95. Kuenzel, S., Phairor, K.H. (2009). A Short Scale for Measuring Brand

Personality. Proceedings of Australian and New Zealand Marketing

Academy conference, 1-9.

96. Ladhari, R. (2010). Developing e-service quality scales: A literature

review.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(6), 464-477.

97. Lee, J. S., & Back, K. J. (2010). Examining antecedents and consequences

of brand personality in the upper-upscale business hotel segment. Journal

of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 132-145.

98. Lee, Y. K., Back, K. J., & Kim, J. Y. (2009). Family restaurant brand

personality and its impact on customer's emotion, satisfaction, and brand

loyalty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33(3), 305-328.

99. Lee,J., Soutar, G., Quintal, V. (2010). Destination personality: cross-

country comparisons. Proceedings of Australian and New Zealand

Marketing Academy conference, edited by David Fortin, Lucie Ozanne,

New Zealand.

100. Leonard, E., & Katsanis, L. P. (2013). The dimensions of prescription

drug brand personality as identified by consumers. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 30(7), 583-596.

101. Levy, Sidney J. (1959). Symbols for Sales. Harvard Business Review, 37

(4), 117-24.

102. Li, X. R., & Kaplanidou, K. K. (2013). The Impact of the 2008 Beijing

Olympic Games on China’s Destination Brand A US-Based

Examination. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(2), 237-261.

103. Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three

major relational consequences (trust, attachment, and commitment to the

brand).Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 114-130.

168

104. Maciel, F., da Rocha, A., & da Silva, J. (2013). Brand Personality of

Global Quick-Service Restaurants in Emerging and Developed Markets: A

Comparative Study in Brazil and the U.S. Latin American Business Review,

14(2), 139-161.

105. Magnini, V. P., & Thelen, S. T. (2008). The influence of music on

perceptions of brand personality, décor, and service quality: The case of

classical music in a fine-dining restaurant. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure

Marketing, 16(3), 286-300.

106. Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self-concepts, person

concepts, and product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4).

107. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor

analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models

and their invariance across groups. Psychological bulletin, 97(3), 562.

108. Martineau, P. (1958). The personality of the retail store. Harvard business

review, 36(1), 47-55.

109. McCracken, G. (1989). Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural

Foundations of the Endorsement Process. Journal of Consumer

Research, 16(3), 310-321.

110. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal

traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 56(4), 586-595.

111. Mervielde, I. (1992). The B5BBS-25: A Flemish set of bipolar markers

for the" Big-Five" personality factors. Psychologica Belgica, 32: 195-210.

112. Moorthi, Y. (2003). Brand Management: The Indian Context . New

Delhi: Vikas Publishing House PVT LTD.

113. Mowen, J. C., & Voss, K. E. (2008). On building better construct

measures: Implications of a general hierarchical model. Psychology and

Marketing, 25(6), 485-505.

169

114. Müller, B., & Chandon, J. L. (2003). The impact of visiting a brand

website on brand personality. Electronic Markets, 13(3), 210-221.

115. Muniz, K. M., & Marchetti, R. Z. (2012). Brand personality dimensions

in the Brazilian context. BAR. Brazilian Administration Review, 9(2), 168-

188.

116. Murase, H., & Bojanic, D. (2004). An examination of the differences in

restaurant brand personality across cultures. Journal of Hospitality &

Leisure Marketing, 11(2-3), 97-113.

117. Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., & Moscardo, G. (2007a). Destination

brand personality: visitor perceptions of a regional tourism destination.

Tourism Analysis, 12, 419-432.

118. Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., & Moscardo, G. (2007b). Linking travel

motivation, tourist self-image and destination brand personality. Journal of

Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(2), 45-59.

119. Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand

personality to differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of travel

research, 46(1), 5-14.

120. Musante, M. D., Bojanic, D. C., & Zhang, J. (2008). A modified brand

personality scale for the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality &

Leisure Marketing, 16(4), 303-323.

121. Norman, Warren T. (1963). Toward an Adequate Taxonomy of

Personality Attribute: Replicated Factor Structure in Peer Nomination

Personality Ratings, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-

583.

122. Nunnally, J. C. (2010). Psychometric Theory 3E: Tata McGraw-Hill

Education.

123. Okazaki, S. (2006). Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary

exploration of online brand personality. International Marketing

Review, 23(3), 279-303.

170

124. Opoku, R. A. (2005). Communication of brand personality by some top

business schools online. Licentiate Thesis, Lulea University of Technology,

ISSN, 1402-1757.

125. Opoku, R. A., Abratt, R., Bendixen, M., & Pitt, L. (2007).

Communicating brand personality: are the web sites doing the talking for

food SMEs? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal , 362 -

374.

126. Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand

concept-image management. The Journal of Marketing, 135-145.

127. Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and

marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 133-145.

128. Phau, I., & Lau, K. C. (2000). Conceptualizing brand personality: a

review and research propositions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and

Analysis for Marketing, 9(1), 52-69.

129. Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adjective Check

List scales and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 60(4), 630-637.

130. Pitt, L. F., Opoku, R., Hultman, M., Abratt, R., & Spyropoulou, S. (2007).

What I say about myself: Communication of brand personality by African

countries.Tourism Management, 28(3), 835-844.

131. Plummer, J. T. (1984, December/January). How personality makes a

difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 27-31.

132. Plummer, J. T. (2000). How personality makes a difference. Journal of

Advertising Research, 40(06), 79-84.

133. Poddar, A., Donthu, N., & Wei, Y. (2009). Web site customer

orientations, Web site quality, and purchase intentions: The role of Web

site personality. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 441-450.

171

134. Prayag, G. (2007). Exploring the Relationship between Destination Image

& Brand Personality of a Tourist Destination-An Application of Projective

Techniques. Journal of Travel & Tourism Research, 7(2), 22-30.

135. Purkayastha, S. (2009). Brand Personality: An Empirical Study of Four

Brands in India. The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, 8(4), 7-20.

136. Ramaseshan, B., & Tsao, H. Y. (2007). Moderating effects of the brand

concept on the relationship between brand personality and perceived

quality. Journal of Brand Management, 14(6), 458-466.

137. Rammstedt, B., and John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one

minute or less: A 10- item short version of the Big Five Inventory in

English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203-212.

138. Ranjbar, S. (2010). Application of Brand Personality Scale in Automobile

Industry- the study of SAMAND's brand personality dimensions. LUlea

University of Technology.

139. Reilly, M. D. (1990). Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives for tourism

image assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 28(4), 21-26.

140. Roy, S., & Moorthi, Y. L. R. (2012). Investigating endorser personality

effects on brand personality: Causation and reverse causation in

India. Journal of Brand Strategy, 1(2), 164-179.

141. Sahin, S., & Baloglu, S. (2009, January). Brand personality and

destination image of Istanbul: A comparison across nationalities. Paper

presented at the 14th annual graduate student research conference in

hospitality and tourism, Las Vegas, NV.

142. Santos, C. A. (2004). Framing Portugal: representational

dynamics. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 122-138.

143. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar

Big-Five markers. Journal of personality assessment, 63(3), 506-516.

172

144. Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. A. (1982). The SOCO scale: a measure of the

customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of marketing research, 343-

351.

145. Schiffman, L. G, & Kanuk L. L. (2000). Consumer behavior. Rio de

Janeiro: LTC.

146. Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use

and usefulness. MIS quarterly, 17(4), 517-525.

147. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical

review. Journal of consumer research, 287-300.

148. Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J. O., Chon, K. S.,

Claiborne, C. B. & Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity

of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the

academy of marketing science, 25(3), 229-241.

149. Smith, A. C., Graetz, B. R., & Westerbeek, H. M. (2006). Brand

personality in a membership‐based organisation. International Journal of

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(3), 251-266.

150. Stein, D. (2004). Testing the reliability and validity of a brand personality

measurement tool. Florida: University of Florida.

151. Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2011). The relevance of visitors’ nation brand

embeddedness and personality congruence for nation brand identification,

visit intentions and advocacy. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1282-1289.

152. Straub, D., Boudreau, M. C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation Guidelines

For Is Positivist Research. Communications of the Association for

Information systems, 13.

153. Strausbaugh, K. L. (1998). " Miss Congeniality" Or" No More Mr. Nice

Guy?": On a Method for Assessing Brand Personality and Building Brand

Personality Profiles (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).

173

154. Sung, Y, & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personality structures in the

United States and Korea: Common and culture-specific factors. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 334-350.

155. Supphellen, M., & Gronhaug, K. (2003). Building foreign brand

personalities in Russia: the moderating effect of consumer

ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 203-226.

156. Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2002).

Determinants of customer-perceived service quality: a confirmatory factor

analysis approach. Journal of services Marketing, 16(1), 9-34.

157. Sweeney, J. C., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: Exploring the

potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychology

& Marketing, 23(8), 639-663.

158. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics.

New York: Allyn and Bacon.

159. Thomas, B. J., & Sekar, P. C. (2008). Measurement and Validity of

Jennifer Aaker's Brand Personality Scale for Colgate Brand. Vikalpa: The

Journal for Decision Makers, 33(3), 49-61.

160. Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal

Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 781-790.

161. Trust Advisory. (2012, January). All India Brand Trust Ranking 2012

(Top 1000 Brands). Retrieved February 22, 2012, from Trust Advisory:

http://trustadvisory.info/allindia_1000.html

162. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. C. (1958). Stability of personality trait rating

factors obtained under diverse conditions (No. Wadc-Tn-58-61). Wright

Air Development Center Wright-Patterson Afb Oh.

163. Upadhyaya, M. (2012). Influence of Destination Image and Destination

Personality: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Marketing &

Communication, 7(3).

174

164. Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist

destinations: An application of self-congruity theory. Tourism

Management, 32(1), 114-127.

165. Usunier, J. C. (1998). International and cross-cultural management

research. Sage.

166. Valette-Florence, R., & de Barnier, V. (2011). Do Print Media Brand

Exhibit Specific Personnality Traits? A Micro Perspective in a French

Setting. In The 38th International Research Conference in Marketing.

167. Valette-Florence, R., & De Barnier, V. (2013). Towards a micro

conception of brand personality: An application for print media brands in a

French context. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 897-903.

168. Van Rekom, J., Jacobs, G., &Verlegh, P. W. J. (2006, July). Measuring

and managing the essence of a brand personality. Marketing Letters, 17,

181-192.

169. Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., & Gilbert, F. W. (2003). Measuring the

brand personality of nonprofit organizations. Advances in Consumer

Research, 30, 379-380.

170. Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The

role of brand personality in charitable giving: an assessment and validation.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295-312.

171. Virmani, P. (2014, April 08). India elections 2014. Retrieved April 08,

2014, from the guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/india-leaders-

young-people-change-2014-elections

172. Wee, T. T. T. (2004). Extending human personality to brands: the

stability factor. The Journal of Brand Management, 11(4), 317-330.

173. Wells, W. D., Andriuli, F. J., Goi, F. J., & Seader, S. (1957). An adjective

check list for the study of" product personality." Journal of Applied

Psychology, 41(5), 317-325.

175

174. Wheaton, D. E. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models.

In D.R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, 84-136.

175. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive

terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 37(3), 395-412.

176. Willems, K., Swinnen, G., Janssens, W., & Brengman, M. (2011).

Fashion store personality: scale development and relation to self-congruity

theory. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 2(2), 55-65.

177. Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept: Theory and research on selected

topics, 2. University of Nebraska Press.

178. Xie, K. L., & Lee, J. S. (2013). Toward the perspective of cognitive

destination image and destination personality: The case of Beijing. Journal

of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(6), 538-556.

179. Zentes, J., Morschett, D., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2008). Brand

personality of retailers–an analysis of its applicability and its effect on store

loyalty. The International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer

Research, 18(2), 167-184.

176

APPENDIX I: Free elicitation questionnaire

Hi,

We are conducting a research on developing a scale to measure brand personality, whichrefers to the ‘set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant forbrands’. We would like you to describe the brand personality (in terms oftraits/adjectives that you feel appropriate or representative) of two brands each, from the3 product categories given below.

1) Symbolic products (e.g. Jeans, Cosmetics andPerfume/Fragrance)2) Utilitarian products (e.g. Laptops, Electronics, Appliances and Personal care

products)3) Symbolic and Utilitarian products (like Bikes, Smartphones and Athletic Shoes)

Write the names of 2 brands that first come to your mind when you think about theseproduct categories and describe each brand with as many traits/adjectives as possible.

Thanks for your valuable participation.Yours truly,Jijo George (Doctoral research scholar)Dr.S.Victor Anandkumar (Research Supervisor)Department of Management StudiesPondicherry University, Puducherry – 605 014.

Gender: Male / FemaleHome State:

ProductCategory

Brand name Descriptors

Symbolic

Utilitarian

Symbolic andUtilitarian

APPENDIX II: Language Expert Opinion Survey

Dear Sir/ Ma’am,

We are conducting a research on developing a scale to measure brand personality in theIndian context. For this purpose a list of adjectives has been created based on theprevious researches done in this field in different countries. We acknowledge yourexpertise in the field of English language and request for your expert opinion on theappropriateness of these words in conveying meaning in an Indian context. If you feelthat a particular word is not common in India, suggest an alternative word which willconvey the same meaning as the original one.

Thanks for your valuable participation.Yours truly,Jijo George (Doctoral research scholar)Dr.S.Victor Anandkumar (Research Supervisor)Department of Management StudiesPondicherry University, Puducherry – 605 014.

Sl. No. Items Alternative word

1 Accepting2 Accessible3 Accommodating4 Active5 Adult6 Adventurous7 Affectionate8 Aggressive9 Agreeable10 Alive11 Aloof12 Altruist13 Amusing14 Approachable15 Aristocratic16 Arrogant17 Artificial18 Assertive19 Attractive20 Authentic

21 Balanced22 Beneficial23 Big24 Bigheaded25 Bohemian

26 Boisterous27 Bold28 Bon-Vivant29 Boring30 Bubbly31 Busy

32 Calculating33 Calm34 Careless35 Casual36 Ceremonious37 Charismatic38 Charming39 Chatty40 Chauvinist41 Cheerful42 Childlike43 Clean44 Clear45 Clumsy46 Cocky47 Comfortable48 Comforting49 Comical50 Competent Person51 Competitive52 Confidence53 Confident54 Connoisseur55 Conscientious56 Conservative57 Considerate58 Consistent59 Conspicuous60 Constant61 Contemporary62 Cool63 Cooperative64 Cordial65 Corporate66 Countrified67 Courageous68 Cowardly69 Crazy70 Creative

71 Cruel72 Cunning73 Curious74 Cute

75 Daring76 Decadent77 Decorated78 Delicate79 Dependable80 Dependant81 Determined82 Different83 Diffident84 Dignified85 Diligent86 Discreet87 Discrete88 Disrespectful89 Docile90 Dominant91 Donnish92 Down-To-Earth93 Dubious94 Dynamic

95 Easy96 Easygoing97 Efficient98 Egocentric99 Elegant100 Emotional101 Energetic102 Engaging103 Enthusiastic104 Environmentally-Friendly105 Exciting106 Exotic107 Expensive108 Exploitative109 Expressive110 Extravagant

111 Faithful112 Familiar113 Family-Oriented

114 Famous115 Fanciful116 Fast117 Feminine118 Fervent119 Feisty120 Fighter121 Firm122 Flaunty123 Flexible124 Flourishing125 Forceless126 Forgiving127 Formal128 Frank129 Freaky130 Free131 Fresh132 Friendly133 Frugal134 Fun135 Funky136 Funny

137 Gay138 Generous139 Genial140 Gentle141 Genuine142 Glamorous143 Golden144 Good-Looking145 Good-Natured

146 Handy147 Happy148 Hard To Work149 Hard-Working150 Haughty151 Healthy152 Heavy153 Honest154 Hopeful155 Humorous

156 Ill-Mannered

157 Imaginative158 Immoral159 Impersonal160 Impolite161 Important162 Impractical163 Impulsive164 Independent165 Industrious166 Inefficient167 Informative168 Informed169 Innovating170 Innovative171 Intelligent172 Intense

173 Joyful

174 Kind175 Kitschy

176 Laid-Back177 Lazy178 Leader179 Leading180 Level-headed181 Light-hearted182 Likeable183 Lively184 Logical185 Logo oriented186 Loyal

187 Mannered188 Masculine189 Mild-mannered190 Minimalist191 Moderate192 Modern193 Modest194 Mysterious195 Mystical

196 Naïve197 Naked

198 Narrow-Minded199 Natural200 Neat201 Neutral202 New203 Nice204 Normal

205 Offender206 Offish207 Old208 Old-Fashioned209 Openhearted210 Open-Minded211 Optimistic212 Orderly213 Ordinary214 Organized215 Original216 Ostentatious217 Outdoorsy218 Outgoing219 Over forward220 Overstated

221 Passionate222 Patient223 Peaceful224 Persistent225 Playful226 Pleasant227 Poised228 Popular229 Positive230 Practical231 Precise232 Prestigious233 Pretenseless234 Pretentious235 Productive236 Professional237 Progressive238 Proud239 Provocative240 Prudent241 Puristic

242 Rakish243 Rational244 Real245 Realistic246 Recent247 Reflective248 Refreshing249 Regular250 Relaxed251 Reliable252 Religious253 Reserved254 Resolute255 Respectable256 Responsible257 Reveler258 Rich259 Rigorous260 Robust261 Romantic262 Rugged263 Ruthless

264 Satisfying265 Scrupulous266 Secure267 Self-contained268 Self-composed269 Self-effacing270 Sensual271 Sentimental272 Serene273 Serious274 Sexy275 Sharp276 Shrewd277 Showy278 Shrill279 Shy280 Silent281 Simple282 Sincere283 Small-town284 Smooth285 Snobbish

286 Sociable287 Solid288 Sophisticated289 Spirited290 Spiritual291 Sporty292 Stable293 Steady294 Strict295 Strong296 Stunning297 Stylish298 Successful299 Superficial300 Sweet301 Sympathetic

302 Talkative303 Technical304 Temperamental305 Tenacious306 Tense307 Thoughtful308 Tidy309 Timid310 Tolerant311 Tough312 Traditional313 Traditionalist314 Tranquil315 Trendy316 Tricky317 True318 Trustworthy319 Typical

320 Unaggressive321 Unargumentative322 Uncheery323 Uncomplex324 Unconceited325 Uncordial326 Understated327 Undevious328 Unique329 Unknown

330 Unobtrusive331 Unrefined332 Unreliable333 Unremarkable334 Unrevealing335 Unselfconscious336 Unsly337 Untidy338 Unvain339 Upper-class340 Up-to-date341 Urban

342 Versatile343 Vibrant344 Violent345 Voluptuous346 Vulgar

347 Warm348 Warmthless349 Well-made380 Well-mannered351 Western352 Wholesome353 Wimpy

354 Young355 Youthful

APPENDIX III: Expert Opinion Survey

Dear Sir/ Ma’am,

We are conducting a research on developing a scale to measure brand personality in theIndian context. We acknowledge your expertise in this field and request for your expertopinion in this survey. For the purpose of this research we rely on the definition of brandpersonality as the ‘set of human personality traits that are both applicable to andrelevant for brands’. Considering this definition, we would appreciate your freeelicitation of brand personality traits and critical assessment of appropriateness ofcommonly considered traits.

For your convenience we have split this survey in to three parts, each part may takeapproximately 15 to 20 minutes.

Thanks for your valuable participation.

Yours truly,

Jijo George (Doctoral research scholar)

Dr.S.Victor Anandkumar (Research Supervisor)

Department of Management Studies

Pondicherry University, Puducherry – 605 014.

Part-1: Think of a brand from symbolic products such as Jeans, Cosmetics andPerfume/Fragrance; that you admire as a branding/marketing expert. Freely elicitpersonality traits that describe this brand very appropriately, in your opinion.

Brand Name (Symbolic Brand):

Traits:

Part-2: Here is a comprehensive compilation of Brand personality traits as identifiedfrom the existing research literature and using a qualitative study. Rate each of the itemsgiven below on a 5 point scale (1: Very Inappropriate, 2: Somewhat inappropriate, 3:Neutral, 4: Somewhat appropriate, 5: Very Appropriate) according to its appropriatenessto describe the symbolic brand you have mentioned above.

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

AcceptingAbnormalAccessibleAccountableActiveAdultAdventurousAestheticAffectionateAggressive

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

AgreeableAliveAmusingAppealingApproachableAristocraticArrogantArtificialAssertiveAttentionSeeker

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

AttractiveAuthenticAwesomeBalancedBeautifulBelievableBeneficialBestBig

BoldVeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

BrightBusyCalmCapabilityCarefreeCarefulCarelessCaringCasualCatchy

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

CeremoniousCharismaticCharitableCharmingChattyChauvinistCheapCheerfulChicChildlike

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

Class ApartClassicClassyCleanClearClumsyColdColorfulComfortableComforting

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

ComicalCompatibleCompetentPersonCompetitiveConfident

ConservativeConsiderate

ConsistentConstantContemporary

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

CoolCooperativeCordialCorporateCosyCourageousCowardlyCrazyCreativeCunning

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

CuriousCuteDaringDashingDecoratedDelicateDependableDependantDetachedDetermined

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

DifferentDignifiedDisrespectfulDistinctDominantDown-To-EarthDullDynamicEasyEasygoing

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

Eco Friendly

EconomicalEffectiveEfficientElegantEmotionalEnergeticEngagingEnthusiasticEnviable

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

EthicalExcitementExcitingExoticExpensiveExpressiveExtravagantEye CatchingFaithfulFamiliar

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

Family-OrientedFamousFancifulFashionableFastFeminineFighterFirmFlawlessFlexible

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

FlourishingForcelessForgivingFormalFrankFreeFreshFriendlyFun

FunnyVeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

GallantGenerousGentleGenuineGlamorousGlobalGoldenGood-LookingGood-NaturedHandsome

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

HandyHappinessHappyHardHard-WorkingHarmlessHealthyHelpfulHonestHopeful

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

HotHumorousIconicImaginativeImmoralImportantImpracticalImpressiveIndependentIndian

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

IndustriousInefficientInformative

InformedInnocentInnovativeIntelligentIntenseInternationalJoyful

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

KillerKindLawbreakerLeaderLeadingLevel-HeadedLight-HeartedLikeableLivelyLogical

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

LovableLovelyLoyalLuxuriousMachoMagneticMagnificentManageableManipulativeManly

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

ManneredMasculineMerry MakerMiddle ClassMildModerateModernModestMultifacetedMysterious

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

NaturalNeatNeutralNewNiceNominalNormalObligingOffensiveOld

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

Old-FashionedOpenheartedOpen-MindedOptimisticOrderlyOrdinaryOrganizedOriginalOutgoingPassion

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

PassionatePatientPeacefulPersistentPlayfulPleasantPleasingPopularPoshPositive

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

PowerfulPracticalPrecisePrestigiousPrideProductiveProfessionalProgressiveProud

PureVeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

QualityQuickRationalRealRealisticRecentReflectiveRefreshingRegularRelaxed

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

ReliableReligiousReservedRespectableResponsibleRetiringRichRichnessRobustRomantic

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

RoughRoyalRudeRuggedRuralRuthlessSatisfyingScholarlySecureSelf-Composed

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

Self-ContainedSensualSentimentalSereneSerious

SexySharpShowyShySilent

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

SimpleSincereSleekSlowSmartSmoothSoberSociableSolidSoothing

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

SophisticatedSpecialistSpeedySpiritualSportySteadyStrongStunningSturdyStylish

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

SuccessfulSuperiorSweetSympatheticTechnicalThoughtfulTidyTimidTolerantTop Class

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

TouchyTough

TraditionalTraditionalistTrendyTrust WorthyTrustableTypicalUltimateUnConventional

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

UnfriendlyUnimpressiveUniqueRareUnreliableUnrevealingUntidyUpper-ClassUp-To-DateUrban

VeryInappropriate

SomewhatInappropriate

Not Sure SomewhatAppropriate

VeryAppropriate

VersatileVibrantVoluptuousWarmWell-MadeWell-ManneredWesternWholesomeYoungYouthfulTrue

Part-3: Think of a brand from utilitarian products such as Laptops, Electronics,Appliances and Personal care products and freely elicit personality traits that describethis brand very appropriately, in your opinion.

Brand Name (Utilitarian Brand):

Traits:

Part-4: Now, rate each of the items given below on a 5 point scale (1: VeryInappropriate, 2: Somewhat inappropriate, 3: Neutral, 4: Somewhat appropriate,5: Very Appropriate) according to its appropriateness to describe the utilitarianbrand you have mentioned above.

(The same set of items used in part 2 were used here)

Part-5: Think of a brand from Symbolic and Utilitarian products such as Bikes,Smartphones and Athletic Shoes ; and freely elicit personality traits that describethis brand very appropriately, in your opinion.

Brand Name (Symbolic and Utilitarian Brand):

Traits:

Part-6: Now, rate each of the items given below on a 5 point scale (1: VeryInappropriate, 2: Somewhat inappropriate, 3: Neutral, 4: Somewhat appropriate,5: Very Appropriate) according to its appropriateness to describe the symbolicand utilitarian brand you have mentioned above.

(The same set of items used in part 2 were used here)

Personal Details

Name:

Organization:

APPENDIX IV: Questionnaire for consumer survey

Dear Sir/ Ma’am,

I am Jijo George, a full time research scholar in Pondicherry University. As part of mydoctoral research work, I am conducting a study to understand how people perceivedifferent brands. To elaborate, if I ask you to give me your impression about a particularperson, you may describe him as a smart, sincere and competent person. Similarly thinkof a brand as if it were a person. For instance you may think Raymond to be arespectable, responsible, and a caring brand or ThumsUp to be a daring, spirited andadventurous brand. The purpose of this study is to understand which of the adjectivesgiven below are most appropriate to describe a brand. I request you to spare a fewminutes of your valuable time to take part in this study.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3LEVI'S PONDS AXE

MRF LG ASIANPAINTS

GARNIER

PEPSI RAYBAN

AMUL HEROMOTORCORP.

ADIDAS

DABUR LUX BRITANNIA

DELL CADBURY’S

NOKIAMOBILE

COLGATE

TITAN GODREJ

1) Select a brand which you have used from the brands given in Group 1

Brand Name:

Now, rate each of the items given below on a 5-point scale (1 – Very Inappropriate, 2 –Moderately Inappropriate, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderately Appropriate, 5 – VeryAppropriate) according to its appropriateness to describe the brand you have indicatedabove.

SlNo.

Items Ratings SlNo.

Items Ratings SlNo.

Items Ratings

1 Accepting 34 Dominant 67 Professional2 Accessible 35 Dynamic 68 Progressive3 Accountable 36 Efficient 69 Proud4 Active 37 Energetic 70 Quick5 Adventurous 38 Engaging 71 Rational6 Affectionate 39 Enthusiastic 72 Realistic7 Aggressive 40 Exciting 73 Reliable8 Alive 41 Expressive 74 Respectable9 Appealing 42 Faithful 75 Responsible10 Approachable 43 Friendly 76 Romantic11 Authentic 44 Fun 77 Sexy12 Balanced 45 Genuine 78 Sharp13 Believable 46 Good-

Natured79 Sincere

14 Beneficial 47 Happiness 80 Smart15 Bold 48 Honest 81 Sophisticated16 Capable 49 Independent 82 Sporty17 Charismatic 50 Innovative 83 Strong18 Charming 51 Intelligent 84 Stylish19 Cheerful 52 Joyful 85 Successful20 Clear 53 Leading 86 Superior21 Comfortable 54 Lively 87 Tough22 Compatible 55 Loyal 88 Trendy23 Competent 56 Modern 89 True24 Competitive 57 Optimistic 90 Trust Worthy25 Confident 58 Outgoing 91 Unique26 Consistent 59 Passionate 92 Up-To-Date27 Courageous 60 Pleasant 93 Versatile28 Creative 61 Positive 94 Well-

Mannered29 Daring 62 Powerful 95 Wholesome30 Dependable 63 Practical 96 Youthful31 Determined 64 Precise32 Different 65 Prestigious33 Dignified 66 Productive

2) Select a brand which you have used from the brands given in Group 2

Brand Name:

Now, rate each of the items given below on a 5-point scale (1 – Very Inappropriate, 2 –Moderately Inappropriate, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderately Appropriate, 5 – VeryAppropriate) according to its appropriateness to describe the brand you have indicatedabove.

( The same set of items used in the case of group 1 was employed here)

3) Select a brand which you have used from the brands given in Group 3

Brand Name:

Now, rate each of the items given below on a 5-point scale (1 – Very Inappropriate, 2 –Moderately Inappropriate, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderately Appropriate, 5 – VeryAppropriate) according to its appropriateness to describe the brand you have indicatedabove.

(The same set of items used in the case of group 1 was employed here)

4) Demographic Details

Age:

Gender:

Home State:

Approximate Family Income (p.a):

Less than Rs 2 lakhRs 2 lakh to 5 lakhRs 5 lakh to 10 lakhAbove Rs 10 lakh

Religion:

HinduMuslimChristianJainBuddhistOthers

APPENDIX V: Questionnaire for holdout sample survey

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am Jijo George, a full time research scholar in Pondicherry University. As part of mydoctoral research work, I am conducting a study to understand how people perceivedifferent brands. To elaborate, if I ask you to give me your impression about a particularperson, you may describe him as a smart, sincere and competent person. Similarly thinkof a brand as if it were a person. For instance you may think Raymond to be arespectable, responsible, and a caring brand, Coca Cola to be a friendly, creative,charming brand or MRF to be a sporty, powerful and adventurous brand. The purpose ofthis study is to understand which of the adjectives given below are most appropriate todescribe a brand. I request you to spare a few minutes of your valuable time to take partin this study.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3Fastrack Rin Whirlpo

ol

Dettol Lee Horlicks

Bata Hyundai Lenovo

Vicks Mirinda Parle - G

APPENDIX V: Questionnaire for holdout sample survey

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am Jijo George, a full time research scholar in Pondicherry University. As part of mydoctoral research work, I am conducting a study to understand how people perceivedifferent brands. To elaborate, if I ask you to give me your impression about a particularperson, you may describe him as a smart, sincere and competent person. Similarly thinkof a brand as if it were a person. For instance you may think Raymond to be arespectable, responsible, and a caring brand, Coca Cola to be a friendly, creative,charming brand or MRF to be a sporty, powerful and adventurous brand. The purpose ofthis study is to understand which of the adjectives given below are most appropriate todescribe a brand. I request you to spare a few minutes of your valuable time to take partin this study.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3Fastrack Rin Whirlpo

ol

Dettol Lee Horlicks

Bata Hyundai Lenovo

Vicks Mirinda Parle - G

APPENDIX V: Questionnaire for holdout sample survey

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am Jijo George, a full time research scholar in Pondicherry University. As part of mydoctoral research work, I am conducting a study to understand how people perceivedifferent brands. To elaborate, if I ask you to give me your impression about a particularperson, you may describe him as a smart, sincere and competent person. Similarly thinkof a brand as if it were a person. For instance you may think Raymond to be arespectable, responsible, and a caring brand, Coca Cola to be a friendly, creative,charming brand or MRF to be a sporty, powerful and adventurous brand. The purpose ofthis study is to understand which of the adjectives given below are most appropriate todescribe a brand. I request you to spare a few minutes of your valuable time to take partin this study.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3Fastrack Rin Whirlpo

ol

Dettol Lee Horlicks

Bata Hyundai Lenovo

Vicks Mirinda Parle - G

1) Select a brand which you have used from the brands given in Group 1

Brand Name:

Now, rate each of the items given below on a 5-point scale (1 – Very Inappropriate, 2 –Moderately Inappropriate, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderately Appropriate, 5 – VeryAppropriate) according to its appropriateness to describe the brand you have indicatedabove.

1 Items Ratings SlNo.

Items Ratings SlNo.

Items Ratings

1 Happiness 20 Clear 39 Compatible

2 Joyful 21 Loyal 40 Charming

3 Cheerful 22 Outgoing 41 Appealing

4 Pleasant 23 Lively 42 Charismatic

5 Friendly 24 Precise 43 Stylish

6 Accepting 25 Intelligent 44 Sexy

7 Enthusiastic 26 Practical 45 Youthful

8 Engaging 27 Rational 46 Romantic

9 Comfortable 28 Competent 47 Trendy

10 Positive 29 Professional 48 Sporty

11 Independent 30 Accessible 49 Aggressive

12 Optimistic 31 Innovative 50 Bold

13 Passionate 32 Creative 51 Adventurous

14 Honest 33 Competitive 52 Daring

15Good-Natured 34 Accountable 53 Courageous

16Well-Mannered 35

TrustWorthy 54 Dominant

17 Sincere 36 Believable

18 True 37 Respectable

19 Wholesome 38 Reliable

2) Select a brand which you have used from the brands given in Group 2

Brand Name:

Now, rate each of the items given below on a 5-point scale (1 – Very Inappropriate, 2 –Moderately Inappropriate, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderately Appropriate, 5 – VeryAppropriate) according to its appropriateness to describe the brand you have indicatedabove.

(The same set of items used in the case of group 1 was employed here)

3) Select a brand which you have used from the brands given in Group 3

Brand Name:

Now, rate each of the items given below on a 5-point scale (1 – Very Inappropriate, 2 –Moderately Inappropriate, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Moderately Appropriate, 5 – VeryAppropriate) according to its appropriateness to describe the brand you have indicatedabove.

(The same set of items used in the case of group 1 was employed here)

4) Demographic Details

Age:

Gender:

Home State:

Approximate Family Income (p.a):

Less than Rs 2 lakhRs 2 lakh to 5 lakhRs 5 lakh to 10 lakhAbove Rs 10 lakh

Religion:

HinduMuslimChristianJainBuddhistOthers

APPENDIX VI: Statistical Outputs

A) Exploratory factor Analysis Results

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .966

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 5.844E4

df 1485

Sig. .000

CommunalitiesInitial Extraction

Honest 1 0.751492Happiness 1 0.720678Good-Natured 1 0.642251Joyful 1 0.727262Sincere 1 0.651693Positive 1 0.608061Optimistic 1 0.589512Precise 1 0.567758Cheerful 1 0.745918TRUE 1 0.695297Well-Mannered 1 0.627263Pleasant 1 0.589069Independent 1 0.568404Clear 1 0.601172Practical 1 0.549707Wholesome 1 0.546055Intelligent 1 0.654115Passionate 1 0.577917Outgoing 1 0.582023Enthusiastic 1 0.610099Friendly 1 0.536427Lively 1 0.538462Responsible 1 0.664817Loyal 1 0.490238Engaging 1 0.54471Rational 1 0.490018Sexy 1 0.650946Stylish 1 0.656569Sporty 1 0.597625Trendy 1 0.541567

Romantic 1 0.680776Youthful 1 0.616003Trust Worthy 1 0.563733Reliable 1 0.651801Believable 1 0.586042Respectable 1 0.651395Aggressive 1 0.591732Adventurous 1 0.556696Bold 1 0.666233Courageous 1 0.55985Daring 1 0.569447Accessible 1 0.763259Accountable 1 0.662237Accepting 1 0.62144Dominant 1 0.519854Compatible 1 0.668839Competitive 1 0.663173Competent 1 0.760407Innovative 1 0.753041Creative 1 0.589635Appealing 1 0.509567Comfortable 1 0.578013Professional 1 0.326319Charismatic 1 0.650886Charming 1 0.706559Extraction Method: Principal ComponentAnalysis.

Total Variance ExplainedComponent Initial Eigenvalues Extr

action

Sums ofSquaredLoadings

RotationSums ofSquaredLoading

sTota

l% ofVariance

Cumulative %

Total % ofVariance

Cumulative %

Total

% ofVariance

Cumulative%

1 20.7808

4

37.7833

5

37.78335

20.78084

37.7833

5

37.78335

11.9087

3

21.6522

3

21.652

2 3.32117

2

6.03849

4

43.82184

3.321172

6.03849

4

43.82184

3.98177

7

7.23959

5

28.892

3 2.33437

4.24432

48.06616

2.334377

4.24432

48.06616

3.67496

6.68175

35.574

7 2 2 4 34 1.60

8439

2.92443

5

50.9906

1.608439

2.92443

5

50.9906

3.53682

3

6.43058

7

42.004

5 1.31458

4

2.39015

2

53.38075

1.314584

2.39015

2

53.38075

2.66195

1

4.83991

2

46.844

6 1.22434

2.22607

2

55.60682

1.22434

2.22607

2

55.60682

2.44314

3

4.44207

7

51.286

7 1.11152

8

2.02096

57.62778

1.111528

2.02096

57.62778

2.29073

4

4.16497

1

55.451

8 1.06723

5

1.94042

7

59.56821

1.067235

1.94042

7

59.56821

1.99713

3

3.63115

1

59.082

9 1.02154

9

1.85736

1

61.42557

1.021549

1.85736

1

61.42557

1.28881

2.34329

1

61.426

10 0.95459

4

1.73562

6

63.1612

11 0.89816

5

1.63302

6

64.79422

12 0.86252

6

1.56822

9

66.36245

13 0.80328

6

1.46052

1

67.82297

14 0.78557

6

1.42832

69.25129

15 0.74570

2

1.35582

2

70.60711

16 0.70875

1.28863

7

71.89575

17 0.69140

1

1.25709

2

73.15284

18 0.63553

5

1.15551

8

74.30836

19 0.63422

2

1.15313

2

75.46149

20 0.61301

1

1.11456

6

76.57606

21 0.60296

3

1.09629

7

77.67236

22 0.58408

1

1.06196

5

78.73432

23 0.57 1.04 79.77

4578

4687

901

24 0.55526

8

1.00957

8

80.78859

25 0.55123

8

1.00225

81.79084

26 0.51449

6

0.93544

6

82.72628

27 0.48963

3

0.89024

2

83.61652

28 0.47823

5

0.86951

8

84.48604

29 0.45560

4

0.82837

1

85.31441

30 0.44253

9

0.80461

6

86.11903

31 0.43586

4

0.79247

9

86.91151

32 0.42864

9

0.77936

3

87.69087

33 0.41943

7

0.76261

4

88.45348

34 0.40441

4

0.73529

9

89.18878

35 0.39291

8

0.71439

7

89.90318

36 0.38120

1

0.69309

2

90.59627

37 0.36648

2

0.66633

2

91.2626

38 0.35221

4

0.64038

9

91.90299

39 0.34554

7

0.62826

7

92.53126

40 0.33986

1

0.61792

8

93.14919

41 0.32749

3

0.59544

1

93.74463

42 0.31925

3

0.58046

1

94.32509

43 0.30070

6

0.54673

8

94.87183

44 0.29820

3

0.54218

8

95.41402

45 0.29057

2

0.52831

4

95.94233

46 0.26714

5

0.48571

8

96.42805

47 0.26613

9

0.48388

8

96.91194

48 0.25297

8

0.45996

1

97.3719

49 0.24110

8

0.43837

9

97.81028

50 0.23216

7

0.42212

1

98.2324

51 0.21738

0.39523

7

98.62763

52 0.20358

4

0.37015

3

98.99779

53 0.19246

5

0.34993

6

99.34772

54 0.18426

5

0.33502

8

99.68275

55 0.17448

7

0.31725

100

Extraction Method:Principal ComponentAnalysis.

Rotated Component Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Happiness 0.7852

57Honest 0.7752

09Joyful 0.7277

49Good-Natured

0.719811

Positive 0.66641

Cheerful 0.650478

0.476344

Sincere 0.649413

Pleasant 0.6414

42Enthusiastic

0.631044

Optimistic 0.620384

Well-Mannered

0.616102

Independent

0.615333

Passionate 0.608873

TRUE 0.606323

0.472679

Friendly 0.602971

Clear 0.592987

Wholesome 0.590498

Intelligent 0.589082

0.440141

Engaging 0.58825

Lively 0.585019

Precise 0.583589

Practical 0.554616

Outgoing 0.547604

Loyal 0.543292

Rational 0.462261

Stylish 0.708435

Sexy 0.698898

Youthful 0.672062

Trendy 0.646876

Romantic 0.412879

0.643486

Sporty 0.592406

0.450307

Reliable 0.710464

TrustWorthy

0.640095

Respectable

0.639469

Responsible

0.519077

0.587831

Believable 0.512246

Aggressive 0.698058

Bold 0.640274

Adventurous

0.637102

Daring 0.583174

Courageous

0.541115

Competent 0.780911

Competitive 0.663801

Compatible 0.648082

Comfortable

0.510445

Accessible 0.82543

Accountable

0.713912

Accepting 0.667728

Charming 0.650112

Charismatic 0.618478

Appealing 0.519772

Innovative 0.733176

Creative 0.514885

Professional

0.431811

Dominant 0.517

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

B) Cronbach’s Alpha value Calculations of full version of the scale

Factor 1Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.957 .956 22

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Happiness 70.0496 379.031 .779 .691 .953

Honest 70.1278 377.965 .786 .707 .953

Joyful 70.2375 382.094 .741 .640 .954

Good-Natured 70.1324 381.028 .717 .582 .954

Positive 69.9924 381.353 .741 .609 .954

Sincere 70.2713 380.501 .727 .583 .954

Pleasant 70.0951 383.581 .711 .586 .954

Enthusiastic 70.1779 383.876 .680 .560 .955

Optimistic 70.1826 383.341 .698 .579 .954

Well-Mannered 70.2001 382.517 .708 .570 .954

Independent 70.2911 383.223 .671 .495 .955

Passionate 70.1849 382.584 .690 .538 .955

Friendly 70.0111 384.537 .670 .482 .955

Clear 70.0910 385.717 .652 .454 .955

Wholesome 70.2736 386.440 .631 .463 .955

Engaging 70.2631 386.215 .663 .541 .955

Lively 70.1441 383.850 .674 .511 .955

Precise 70.3390 383.997 .695 .588 .955

Practical 70.1394 384.589 .684 .572 .955

Outgoing 70.2806 385.348 .646 .528 .955

Loyal 69.9376 388.477 .613 .456 .955

Rational 70.4452 388.896 .621 .424 .955

Factor 2

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.774 .781 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Stylish 10.2228 10.237 .639 .424 .689

Sexy 10.9978 9.790 .514 .267 .763

Youthful 10.2184 10.365 .584 .347 .716

Trendy 10.3049 10.890 .594 .382 .714

Factor 3

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.769 .770 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Trust Worthy 11.2594 7.839 .556 .315 .721

Respectable 11.3980 7.434 .580 .365 .709

Believable 11.1851 7.798 .536 .295 .732

Reliable 11.3071 7.632 .609 .390 .694

Factor 4

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.809 .809 5

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Aggressive 12.8087 16.282 .569 .333 .780

Bold 12.3293 16.036 .636 .413 .759

Adventurous 12.3960 16.304 .564 .332 .781

Daring 12.6352 16.245 .610 .383 .767

Courageous 12.3938 16.408 .597 .383 .771

Factor 5

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.800 .800 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Competitive 11.3437 7.979 .571 .431 .769

Competent 11.4767 7.513 .675 .525 .719

Compatible 11.6619 7.161 .655 .478 .728

Comfortable 11.3592 7.929 .552 .371 .778

Factor 6

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.765 .767 3

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Accepting 7.7220 3.441 .561 .320 .726

Accessible 7.7276 3.454 .640 .411 .642

Accountable 8.1340 3.245 .597 .369 .687

Factor 7

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.744 .740 3

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Charming 7.0301 4.103 .632 .475 .582

Charismatic 7.0797 4.035 .670 .497 .535

Appealing 6.7921 5.357 .424 .183 .812

Factor 8

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.568 .626 3

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Innovative 7.3296 6.343 .502 .338 .335

Creative 7.2937 6.554 .424 .307 .424

Professional 7.3117 4.583 .296 .095 .710

C) Test Re-test Results of Full version PBPS

Factor wise test re-test correlations

Factor 1

Correlations

Factor1T1 Factor1T2

Factor1T1 Pearson Correlation 1 .867**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 258 257Factor1T2 Pearson Correlation .867** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 257 262**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Factor 2

Correlations

Factor2T1 Factor2T2Factor2T1 Pearson Correlation 1 .909**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 269 269Factor2T2 Pearson Correlation .909** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 269 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Factor 3

Correlations

Factor3T1 Factor3T2

Factor3T1 Pearson Correlation 1 .901**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 270Factor3T2 Pearson Correlation .901** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 271**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Factor 4

Correlations

Factor4T1 Factor4T2

Factor4T1 Pearson Correlation 1 .830**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 269 269Factor4T2 Pearson Correlation .830** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 269 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Factor 5

Correlations

Factor5T1 Factor5T2

Factor5T1 Pearson Correlation 1 .807**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Factor5T2 Pearson Correlation .807** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Factor 6

Correlations

Factor6T1 Factor6T2

Factor6T1 Pearson Correlation 1 .844**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Factor6T2 Pearson Correlation .844** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Factor 7

Correlations

Factor7T1 Factor7T2

Factor7T1 Pearson Correlation 1 .818**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 270Factor7T2 Pearson Correlation .818** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Item wise test re-test correlations

1) Test re-test correlation value for the variable Appealing

Correlations

Appealing Appealing

Appealing Pearson Correlation 1 .762**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Appealing Pearson Correlation .762** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 272 272

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

2) Test re-test correlation value for the variable Charismatic

Correlations

Charismatic Charismatic2

Charismatic Pearson Correlation 1 .723**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Charismatic2 Pearson Correlation .723** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3) Test re-test correlation value for the variable CharmingCorrelations

Charming2 Charming

Charming2 Pearson Correlation 1 .788**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 271Charming Pearson Correlation .788** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4) Test re-test correlation value for the variable Accepting

Correlations

Accepting Accepting2

Accepting Pearson Correlation 1 .712**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Accepting2 Pearson Correlation .712** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5) Test re-test correlation value for the variable Accountable

Correlations

Accountable2 Accountable

Accountable2 Pearson Correlation 1 .742**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Accountable Pearson Correlation .742** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

6) Test re-test correlation value for the variable AccessibleCorrelations

Accessible Accessible

Accessible Pearson Correlation 1 .820**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Accessible Pearson Correlation .820** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

7) Test re-test correlation value for the variable ComfortableCorrelations

Comfortable2 Comfortable

Comfortable2 Pearson Correlation 1 .818**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 272Comfortable Pearson Correlation .818** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

8) Test re-test correlation value for the variable CompatibleCorrelations

Compatible Compatible2

Compatible Pearson Correlation 1 .796**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Compatible2 Pearson Correlation .796** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

9) Test re-test correlation value for the variable CompetitiveCorrelations

Competitive Competitive2

Competitive Pearson Correlation 1 .770**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Competitive2 Pearson Correlation .770** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

10)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Competent

Correlations

Competent Competent2

Competent Pearson Correlation 1 .780**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Competent2 Pearson Correlation .780** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

11)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Courageous

Correlations

Courageous Courageous2

Courageous Pearson Correlation 1 .763**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Courageous2 Pearson Correlation .763** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

12)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Daring

Correlations

Daring Daring2

Daring Pearson Correlation 1 .754**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Daring2 Pearson Correlation .754** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

13)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Adventurous

Correlations

Adventurous Adventurous2

Adventurous Pearson Correlation 1 .713**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Adventurous2 Pearson Correlation .713** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

14)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Bold

Correlations

Bold Bold2

Bold Pearson Correlation 1 .742**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Bold2 Pearson Correlation .742** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

15)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Aggressive

Correlations

Aggressive Aggressive2

Aggressive Pearson Correlation 1 .718**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Aggressive2 Pearson Correlation .718** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

16)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Believable

Correlations

Believable Believable

Believable Pearson Correlation 1 .850**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Believable Pearson Correlation .850** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

17)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Respectable

Correlations

Respectable Respectable2

Respectable Pearson Correlation 1 .708**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Respectable2 Pearson Correlation .708** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

18)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Trustworthy

Correlations

Trust Worthy Trust Worthy2

Trust Worthy Pearson Correlation 1 .900**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Trust Worthy2 Pearson Correlation .900** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

19)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Reliable

Correlations

Reliable Reliable2

Reliable Pearson Correlation 1 .821**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Reliable2 Pearson Correlation .821** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

20)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Trendy

Correlations

Trendy Trendy2

Trendy Pearson Correlation 1 .760**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Trendy2 Pearson Correlation .760** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

21)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Youthful

Correlations

Youthful Youthful2

Youthful Pearson Correlation 1 .836**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 270Youthful2 Pearson Correlation .836** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

22)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Sexy

Correlations

Sexy Sexy2

Sexy Pearson Correlation 1 .865**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Sexy2 Pearson Correlation .865** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

23)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Stylish

Correlations

Stylish Stylish2

Stylish Pearson Correlation 1 .929**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Stylish2 Pearson Correlation .929** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

24)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Rational

Correlations

Rational2 Rational

Rational2 Pearson Correlation 1 .704**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Rational Pearson Correlation .704** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

25)Test re-test correlation value for the variableLoyal

Correlations

Loyal Loyal2

Loyal Pearson Correlation 1 .732**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Loyal2 Pearson Correlation .732** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

26)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Outgoing

Correlations

Outgoing Outgoing2

Outgoing Pearson Correlation 1 .743**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 265 265Outgoing2 Pearson Correlation .743** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 265 271**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

27)Test re-test correlation value for the variablePractical

Correlations

Practical Practical2

Practical Pearson Correlation 1 .759**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 270Practical2 Pearson Correlation .759** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

28)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Precise

Correlations

Precise Precise2

Precise Pearson Correlation 1 .701**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 268 268Precise2 Pearson Correlation .701** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 268 271**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

29)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Lively

Correlations

Lively Lively2Lively Pearson Correlation 1 .742**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 270Lively2 Pearson Correlation .742** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 270 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

30)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Engaging

Correlations

Engaging Engaging2

Engaging Pearson Correlation 1 .738**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Engaging2 Pearson Correlation .738** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

31)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Wholesome

Correlations

Wholesome Wholesome2

Wholesome Pearson Correlation 1 .811**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Wholesome2 Pearson Correlation .811** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

32)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Clear

Correlations

Clear Clear2

Clear Pearson Correlation 1 .763**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Clear2 Pearson Correlation .763** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

33)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Friendly

Correlations

Friendly Friendly2

Friendly Pearson Correlation 1 .745**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Friendly2 Pearson Correlation .745** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

34)Test re-test correlation value for the variable PassionateCorrelations

Passionate Passionate2

Passionate Pearson Correlation 1 .743**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 268 268Passionate2 Pearson Correlation .743** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 268 269**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

35)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Independent

Correlations

Independent Independent2

Independent Pearson Correlation 1 .809**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 267 267Independent2 Pearson Correlation .809** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 267 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

36)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Well-Mannered

Correlations

Well-Mannered Well-Mannered2

Well-Mannered Pearson Correlation 1 .708**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Well-Mannered2 Pearson Correlation .708** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

37)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Optimistic

Correlations

Optimistic Optimistic2

Optimistic Pearson Correlation 1 .732**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 269 269Optimistic2 Pearson Correlation .732** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 269 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

38)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Enthusiastic

Correlations

Enthusiastic Enthusiastic2

Enthusiastic Pearson Correlation 1 .756**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Enthusiastic2 Pearson Correlation .756** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

39)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Pleasant

Correlations

Pleasant Pleasant2

Pleasant Pearson Correlation 1 .810**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 268 267Pleasant2 Pearson Correlation .810** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 267 270**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

40)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Sincere

Correlations

Sincere Sincere2

Sincere Pearson Correlation 1 .799**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Sincere2 Pearson Correlation .799** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

41)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Positive

Correlations

Positive Positive2

Positive Pearson Correlation 1 .724**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 267 267Positive2 Pearson Correlation .724** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 267 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

42)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Good-natured

Correlations

Good-Natured Good-Natured2

Good-Natured Pearson Correlation 1 .758**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 271Good-Natured2 Pearson Correlation .758** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 271 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

43)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Joyful

Correlations

Joyful Joyful

Joyful Pearson Correlation 1 .779**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272Joyful Pearson Correlation .779** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

44)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Honest

Correlations

Honest2 Honest

Honest2 Pearson Correlation 1 .821**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 272Honest Pearson Correlation .821** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 272 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

45)Test re-test correlation value for the variable Happiness

Correlations

Happiness Happiness

Happiness Pearson Correlation 1 .933**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273Happiness Pearson Correlation .933** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 273 273**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

D) Confirmatory factor analysis outputs of Full version of PBPS

Raw Data from file 'D:\EDUCATION\Thesispreparation\cfa\original+50\ori50.psf'Latent Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Relationships

Happines = 1Honest = 1

Goodnatu = 1Joyful = 1Positive = 1Sincere = 1Pleasant = 1

Enthusia = 1Wellmann = 1Optimist = 1

Independ = 1Passiona = 1Friendly = 1

Wholesom = 1Clear = 1Engaging = 1Lively = 1Precise = 1

Practica = 1Loyal = 1Outgoing = 1Rational = 1Stylish = 2Sexy = 2Youthful = 2Trendy = 2

Aggressi = 3Bold = 3

Adventur = 3Daring = 3

Courageo = 3Reliable = 4

trustwor = 4Respecta = 4Believab = 4Competen = 5Competit = 5Compatib = 5Comforta = 5Accessib = 6Accounta = 6Acceptin = 6Charming = 7Charisma = 7

Appealin = 7Measurement Equations

Happines = 0.87*1, Errorvar.= 0.70 , R² = 0.52(0.071) (0.069)12.16 10.05

Honest = 0.90*1, Errorvar.= 0.41 , R² = 0.67(0.062) (0.042)

14.58 9.76

Goodnatu = 0.79*1, Errorvar.= 0.49 , R² = 0.56(0.062) (0.049)12.80 9.99

Joyful = 0.93*1, Errorvar.= 0.53 , R² = 0.62(0.067) (0.054)13.82 9.87

Positive = 1.02*1, Errorvar.= 0.44 , R² = 0.70(0.067) (0.045)15.21 9.64

Sincere = 1.04*1, Errorvar.= 0.45 , R² = 0.71(0.068) (0.047)15.25 9.63

Pleasant = 0.90*1, Errorvar.= 0.52 , R² = 0.61(0.066) (0.053)13.66 9.90

Enthusia = 0.86*1, Errorvar.= 0.79 , R² = 0.49(0.074) (0.078)11.66 10.09

Wellmann = 0.99*1, Errorvar.= 0.65 , R² = 0.60(0.073) (0.066)13.48 9.92

Optimist = 1.01*1, Errorvar.= 0.57 , R² = 0.64(0.071) (0.058)14.14 9.83

Independ = 0.93*1, Errorvar.= 0.68 , R² = 0.56(0.073) (0.068)12.82 9.99

Passiona = 0.89*1, Errorvar.= 0.50 , R² = 0.61(0.065) (0.050)13.69 9.89

Friendly = 1.03*1, Errorvar.= 0.56 , R² = 0.65(0.072) (0.057)14.36 9.80

Wholesom = 0.93*1, Errorvar.= 0.72 , R² = 0.54(0.074) (0.072)12.57 10.02

Clear = 0.93*1, Errorvar.= 0.61 , R² = 0.58(0.070) (0.061)13.24 9.95

Engaging = 0.91*1, Errorvar.= 0.71 , R² = 0.54(0.073) (0.071)12.52 10.02

Lively = 0.87*1, Errorvar.= 0.75 , R² = 0.50(0.073) (0.074)11.93 10.07

Precise = 0.98*1, Errorvar.= 0.55 , R² = 0.64(0.070) (0.056)14.08 9.84

Practica = 0.97*1, Errorvar.= 0.68 , R² = 0.58(0.073) (0.068)13.14 9.96

Loyal = 0.85*1, Errorvar.= 0.64 , R² = 0.53(0.069) (0.064)12.33 10.04

Outgoing = 0.79*1, Errorvar.= 0.97 , R² = 0.39(0.078) (0.095)10.14 10.19

Rational = 0.88*1, Errorvar.= 0.86 , R² = 0.48(0.077) (0.085)11.49 10.11

Stylish = 1.20*2, Errorvar.= 0.55 , R² = 0.72(0.079) (0.074)15.08 7.41

Sexy = 1.21*2, Errorvar.= 0.76 , R² = 0.66(0.086) (0.092)14.06 8.20

Youthful = 1.25*2, Errorvar.= 0.54 , R² = 0.74(0.081) (0.076)15.37 7.12

Trendy = 1.07*2, Errorvar.= 0.77 , R² = 0.60(0.082) (0.088)13.02 8.75

Aggressi = 0.83*3, Errorvar.= 0.78 , R² = 0.47(0.074) (0.081)11.13 9.59

Bold = 0.92*3, Errorvar.= 0.67 , R² = 0.56(0.073) (0.073)12.53 9.24

Adventur = 1.08*3, Errorvar.= 0.52 , R² = 0.69(0.073) (0.062)14.71 8.29

Daring = 1.14*3, Errorvar.= 0.31 , R² = 0.81(0.068) (0.047)16.62 6.51

Courageo = 1.01*3, Errorvar.= 0.45 , R² = 0.69(0.069) (0.055)

14.72 8.29

Reliable = 0.83*4, Errorvar.= 0.75 , R² = 0.48(0.074) (0.079)11.21 9.48

trustwor = 0.94*4, Errorvar.= 0.68 , R² = 0.56(0.075) (0.075)12.59 9.08

Respecta = 1.14*4, Errorvar.= 0.38 , R² = 0.77(0.071) (0.056)15.91 6.84

Believab = 1.10*4, Errorvar.= 0.34 , R² = 0.78(0.069) (0.051)16.08 6.63

Competen = 1.04*5, Errorvar.= 0.37 , R² = 0.74(0.067) (0.050)15.48 7.35

Competit = 1.05*5, Errorvar.= 0.44 , R² = 0.72(0.070) (0.056)15.02 7.76

Compatib = 1.04*5, Errorvar.= 0.41 , R² = 0.72(0.068) (0.053)15.15 7.65

Comforta = 0.85*5, Errorvar.= 0.56 , R² = 0.57(0.068) (0.061)12.60 9.06

Accessib = 1.00*6, Errorvar.= 0.70 , R² = 0.59(0.080) (0.087)12.56 8.03

Accounta = 1.10*6, Errorvar.= 0.49 , R² = 0.71(0.076) (0.078)14.36 6.25

Acceptin = 1.01*6, Errorvar.= 0.55 , R² = 0.65(0.075) (0.076)13.47 7.25

Charming = 1.04*7, Errorvar.= 0.40 , R² = 0.73(0.069) (0.056)15.17 7.10

Charisma = 1.12*7, Errorvar.= 0.28 , R² = 0.82(0.068) (0.053)16.50 5.29

Appealin = 0.98*7, Errorvar.= 0.68 , R² = 0.59(0.076) (0.077)12.89 8.80

Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

1 1.00

2 0.45 1.00

3 0.37 0.57 1.00

4 0.62 0.32 0.40 1.00

5 0.58 0.39 0.36 0.65 1.00

6 0.53 0.30 0.25 0.63 0.51 1.007 0.56 0.52 0.58 0.40 0.53 0.51

Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables

7--------

7 1.0

Goodness of Fit StatisticsDegrees of Freedom = 924

Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square = 2238.09 (P = 0.0)Normal Theory Weighted Least Squares Chi-Square =2352.39 (P=0.0)

Estimated Non-centrality Parameter (NCP) = 1428.3990 Percent Confidence Interval for NCP = (1289.13; 1575.28)

Minimum Fit Function Value = 10.36Population Discrepancy Function Value (F0) = 6.61

90 Percent Confidence Interval for F0 = (5.97 ; 7.29)Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.085

90 Percent Confidence Interval for RMSEA = (0.080 ; 0.089)P-Value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.00

Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) = 11.9290 Percent Confidence Interval for ECVI = (11.27 ; 12.60)

ECVI for Saturated Model = 9.58ECVI for Independence Model = 171.59

Chi-Square for Independence Model with 990 Degrees of Freedom =36972.86

Independence AIC = 37062.86Model AIC = 2574.39

Saturated AIC = 2070.00Independence CAIC = 37259.95

Model CAIC = 3060.56Saturated CAIC = 6603.19

Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.94Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.96

Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) = 0.88Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.96Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0.96Relative Fit Index (RFI) = 0.94

Critical N (CN) = 100.11Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = 0.089

Standardized RMR = 0.056Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.67

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.63Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) = 0.60

E) Results of Short version of the scale

E.1. Reliability Values

Cronbach’s alpha values

Factor 1Reliability Statistics

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

.795 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

Scale Variance ifItem Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

Honest 9.7667 9.648 .639 .727Enthusiastic 9.8324 10.104 .592 .751Precise 9.9875 10.095 .614 .740Outgoing 9.9264 10.149 .578 .758

Factor 4Reliability Statistics

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

.771 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

Scale Variance ifItem Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

Aggressive 9.5611 9.887 .558 .724Bold 9.0833 9.957 .589 .707Adventurous 9.1489 9.772 .573 .716Daring 9.3900 10.079 .569 .718

For other factors results are same as in the case of full versionevaluation

Test re-test results

Factor 1

Correlations

ShortFactor11 ShortFactor12ShortFactor11 Pearson Correlation 1 .805**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 263 263ShortFactor12 Pearson Correlation .805** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 263 269**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Factor 4

Correlations

ShortFactor41 ShortFactor42

ShortFactor41 Pearson Correlation 1 .813**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 269 269ShortFactor42 Pearson Correlation .813** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 269 272**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

For other factors results are same as in the case of full versionevaluation

E.2. CFA Results

Latent Variables F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7RelationshipsHonest = F1

Enthusia = F1Precise = F1Outgoing = F1Stylish = F2Sexy = F2Youthful = F2Trendy = F2

Aggressi = F3Bold = F3

Adventur = F3Daring = F3Reliable = F4

trustwor = F4Respecta = F4Believab = F4Competen = F5Competit = F5Compatib = F5Comforta = F5Accessib = F6Accounta = F6Acceptin = F6Charming = F7Charisma = F7

Appealin = F7

Measurement Equations

Honest = 0.85*F1, Errorvar.= 0.50 , R² = 0.59(0.068) (0.064)12.49 7.75

Enthusia = 0.84*F1, Errorvar.= 0.83 , R² = 0.46(0.079) (0.094)10.55 8.87

Precise = 0.99*F1, Errorvar.= 0.53 , R² = 0.65(0.074) (0.075)13.37 6.98

Outgoing = 0.82*F1, Errorvar.= 0.93 , R² = 0.42(0.082) (0.10)9.93 9.11

Stylish = 1.20*F2, Errorvar.= 0.54 , R² = 0.73(0.079) (0.073)15.14 7.35

Sexy = 1.21*F2, Errorvar.= 0.76 , R² = 0.66(0.086) (0.093)14.03 8.22

Youthful = 1.24*F2, Errorvar.= 0.56 , R² = 0.74

(0.081) (0.077)15.25 7.25

Trendy = 1.07*F2, Errorvar.= 0.76 , R² = 0.60(0.082) (0.087)13.12 8.71

Aggressi = 0.86*F3, Errorvar.= 0.73 , R² = 0.50(0.074) (0.079)11.52 9.19

Bold = 0.94*F3, Errorvar.= 0.64 , R² = 0.58(0.074) (0.073)12.72 8.73

Adventur = 1.13*F3, Errorvar.= 0.41 , R² = 0.75(0.073) (0.062)15.46 6.61

Daring = 1.08*F3, Errorvar.= 0.43 , R² = 0.73(0.072) (0.061)15.09 7.02

Reliable = 0.82*F4, Errorvar.= 0.75 , R² = 0.47(0.074) (0.079)11.17 9.49

trustwor = 0.94*F4, Errorvar.= 0.68 , R² = 0.56(0.075) (0.075)12.55 9.09

Respecta = 1.14*F4, Errorvar.= 0.38 , R² = 0.77(0.071) (0.056)15.92 6.80

Believab = 1.11*F4, Errorvar.= 0.34 , R² = 0.78(0.069) (0.051)16.12 6.55

Competen = 1.03*F5, Errorvar.= 0.37 , R² = 0.74(0.067) (0.050)15.46 7.35

Competit = 1.05*F5, Errorvar.= 0.44 , R² = 0.72(0.070) (0.056)15.03 7.74

Compatib = 1.04*F5, Errorvar.= 0.41 , R² = 0.73(0.068) (0.053)15.16 7.63

Comforta = 0.85*F5, Errorvar.= 0.56 , R² = 0.56(0.068) (0.062)12.58 9.06

Accessib = 1.00*F6, Errorvar.= 0.70 , R² = 0.59(0.080) (0.087)12.56 8.01

Accounta = 1.10*F6, Errorvar.= 0.49 , R² = 0.71(0.077) (0.078)14.30 6.30

Acceptin = 1.01*F6, Errorvar.= 0.55 , R² = 0.65(0.075) (0.076)13.50 7.19

Charming = 1.04*F7, Errorvar.= 0.41 , R² = 0.73(0.069) (0.056)15.06 7.20

Charisma = 1.12*F7, Errorvar.= 0.27 , R² = 0.82(0.068) (0.053)16.57 5.16

Appealin = 0.98*F7, Errorvar.= 0.67 , R² = 0.59(0.076) (0.077)12.93 8.79

Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

F1 1.00

F2 0.50 1.00(0.06)

7.96

F3 0.39 0.58 1.00(0.07) (0.05)

5.73 10.86

F4 0.60 0.32 0.37 1.00(0.06) (0.07) (0.07)10.81 4.70 5.58

F5 0.56 0.40 0.34 0.65 1.00(0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.05)

9.77 6.08 5.09 13.92

F6 0.47 0.30 0.23 0.63 0.51 1.00(0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.05) (0.06)

7.01 4.15 3.05 12.15 8.49

F7 0.60 0.52 0.57 0.40 0.53 0.51(0.06) (0.06) (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)10.76 9.11 10.35 6.20 9.42 8.51

Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables

F7--------

F7 1.00

Goodness of Fit Statistics

Degrees of Freedom = 278Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square = 603.18 (P = 0.0)

Normal Theory Weighted Least Squares Chi-Square = 613.05 (P = 0.0)Estimated Non-centrality Parameter (NCP) = 335.05

90 Percent Confidence Interval for NCP = (267.26 ; 410.58)

Minimum Fit Function Value = 2.79Population Discrepancy Function Value (F0) = 1.55

90 Percent Confidence Interval for F0 = (1.24 ; 1.90)Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.075

90 Percent Confidence Interval for RMSEA = (0.067 ; 0.083)P-Value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.00

Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) = 3.5190 Percent Confidence Interval for ECVI = (3.20 ; 3.86)

ECVI for Saturated Model = 3.25ECVI for Independence Model = 45.56

Chi-Square for Independence Model with 325 Degrees of Freedom =9789.85Independence AIC = 9841.85

Model AIC = 759.05Saturated AIC = 702.00

Independence CAIC = 9955.73Model CAIC = 1078.78

Saturated CAIC = 2239.34

Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.94Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.96

Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) = 0.80Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.97Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0.97Relative Fit Index (RFI) = 0.93

Critical N (CN) = 121.24

Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = 0.087Standardized RMR = 0.054

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.82Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.77Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) = 0.65