Abstract—This paper seeks to explore how symbolic brand

features and functional brand features affect consumers' brand

preferences. Although researches on brand preferences have

been focused on consumers’ cognitive judgments of brand

attributes on a rational basis, the shift to experiential marketing,

the cornerstone of branding, has expanded the role of the brand

from a bundle of attributes to experiences. In this paper, besides

functional features of brand (price and appearance), emotional

factors of brand (experience, brand personality, and

self-congruity) were chosen to determine consumers' brand

preferences criteria. It is found that symbolic/emotional factors

were the main factors for brand preferences.

Index Terms—Brand preferences, experience, brand

personality, self-congruity.

I. INTRODUCTION

Customer’s brand preferences take a vital role in

marketing. There are many studies made on brand preference

features based on brands and brand strategies. Majority of the

studies in the literature focused on brand equity, brand image,

brand knowledge, brand awareness, brand association, which

means brand preferences have been focused on consumers’

cognitive judgement of brand attributes on a rational basis.

[1]. However, the shift to experiential marketing, the

cornerstone of branding, has expanded the role of the brand

from a bundle of attributes to experiences [2]. Experience

became more critual when brands in the high-technology are

taken account. Likewise, high-technology product features

become more similar, consumers are often unable or

unwilling to differentiate between brands on rational

attributes alone [3]; thus they seek the brand that creates an

experience; that intrigues them in a sensorial, emotional and

creative way [2].

Besides experiences, it is argued that consumer’s

preferences consist of the relationship between the

consumer’s perception of brand’s personality and their

perception of their own personalities [4]. In other word,

brand preference is a function of brand self-congruity and

brand personality which enhances the effect of brand

experience on brand preferences [5]. It is suggested that

effective branding results from the creation of both a

cognitive and an emotive bond [6]. In other words, brands

have both functional and symbolic significance for consumer

[7]. Therefore, building on these prior studies, the purpose of

the current study is to examine the effect of symbolic (brand

experience, brand personality and self- congruity) and

Manuscript received July 23, 2017; revised September 25, 2017.

Akin Kocak is with Ankara University, Turkey (e-mail:

kocak@politics.ankara.edu.tr)

Nursel Ruzgar is with Ryerson University, Canada (e-mail:

nruzgar@ryerson.ca)

functional features for a smart phone. The purpose of the

study leads us to explore the following research question; “Is

the impact of symbolic brand features on brand preference

higher than functional brand features for high-technological

brands? High-tech brands have been recently examined and

yet there is little empirical research on brand preferences of

high-tech brands in the literature. Thus, this study has a

contribution to literature with showing the effects of

symbolic and functional brand features for high-tech brands.

II. RESEARCH MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The concept of brand experience and the effect of brand

experience on brand preference and/or brand loyalty have

recently emerged in the brand literature. Brand experiences

include specific sensations, feelings, cognitions, and

behavioral responses triggered by specific brand-related

stimuli [5]. Thus, brand experience is beyond general

evaluative judgments about the brand (e.g., “I like the

brand”). Experiences may result in general evaluations and

attitudes, especially evaluations of the experience itself (e.g.,

“I like the experience”) [5].

Brand experience includes various dimensions: a sensory

dimension, which refers to the visual, auditory, tactile,

gustative, and olfactory stimulations provided by a brand; an

affective dimension, which includes feelings generated by

the brand and its emotional bond with the consumer; an

intellectual dimension, which refers to the ability of the brand

to engage consumers’ convergent and divergent thinking;

and a behavioral dimension, which includes bodily

experiences, lifestyles, and interactions with the brand [8]. In

the literature it was found that brand experience has positive

affects on consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty, as well as

brand preferences [2], [9].

Based on interpersonal relationship theory, in a

consumer–brand relationship, consumers assume the

perspective of the brand in order to articulate their own

relationship views and may assign personality qualities to

inanimate brand objects by thinking about brands as if they

were human characters [9]. The personality of brand enables

a consumer to express his or her own self [10], which thus

creates a strong bond between the consumer and the brand

[10]. Therefore, brand personality has an effect on brand

preferences.

Brand personality traits are formed from consumer

experience and any direct/indirect contact between the

consumer and the brand [11]. From the aspect of individual

experience, experiences help to formulate brand personality

[11]. Based on this argument, brand personality enhance the

effect of brand experience on brand preferences [2], [5], [9].

So, with this respect, the following hypotheses are proposed;

Antecedents of Brand Preference: Symbolic or Functional

Akin Kocak and Nursel Ruzgar

331doi: 10.18178/joebm.2017.5.10.534

5 7Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. , No. 10, October 201

H1: Brand personality has an impact on brand preferences

H2: Brand experience has an impact on brand personality

Self-congruity theory suggests that favorable brand

attitudes are partially a function of the image congruence

phenomenon for which a mental comparison is made by the

consumers in regards to the similarity or dissimilarity of a

brand’s image and their own self-image [11]. It reflects

brand’s symbolic benefits that affect consumers’ preferences,

purchase intentions and loyalties [12]. Self-congruity

concept is used to predict different facets of consumer

behavior, such as brand preference, brand loyalty, brand

choice [13]. Therefore, self-congruity is assumed an

important driver of consumers’ brand preferences [2].

However, self-congruity effects should be stronger with

greater consumer experience [14]. The brand-based

self-congruity effects should be stronger because brand

stimuli activate brand knowledge, providing a direct path to

brand personality knowledge to apply in self-congruity

evaluation [14]. Therefore, instead of using direct link of

self-congruity to brand preferences, it is proposed that the

effect of self-congruity on brand preferences can be seen

through brand experience. With this respect, following

hypothesis is developed.

H3: Self-congruity has an impact on brand experience.

Traditionally, price is considered as a powerful piece of

information for the consumers [15]. Thus, consumer

perception of price is considered as crucial determinants of

shopping behavior and product choice [16]. Perceived price

positively influences perceived quality, which leads purchase

intention [17]. On the other hand, price sensitivity plays a

great role for consumer behavior. The effect of price on

purchase intention is low when the price sensitivity of

consumer is low. For high tech brand, the price sensitivity is

substantially low, in other words insensitive. Thus,

influencing of pricing would be most probably ineffective

[18]. Apart from direct relationship between perceived price

and brand preferences, price is also considered as consumer

experience creation factor [2]. Consumers may be willing to

pay a premium for the brand experience, but not its cost [2].

Thus, the following two hypotheses are proposed;

H4: Perceived price does not have influence on brand

preference.

H5: Perceived price has an impact on brand experience.

People use the appearance of products as a cue for

evaluating functional attributes at purchase [19]. Similarly,

brand’s aesthetic appeal enhance perception of value of

consumer [2]. Likewise, appearance create differentiation

among all brands [20]. For appearance, designers refer to as

"character of brand" [20]. So, perception of product

appearance enhances self brand connections for consumers

[21]. Consumers prefer the brand that its appearance match

with his or her self-congruity [22]. Consumer senses are

enhanced by the brand design qualities, such as color, shape

[2] and these senses directly link to his or her own self-image.

Thus, appearance can be considered as a symbolic function.

Consequently, there is a close relationship between

appearance and self-congruity, and this relationships lead to

purchase intention and brand preferences [23]. So, the

following two hypotheses are proposed.

H6: Appearance has an impact on brand preferences.

H7: Appearance has an impact on brand self-congruity.

Up till now, seven hypotheses have been proposed. These

hypotheses have been modeled and the related research

model has been illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Research model.

III. METHODOLOGY

A survey method was used for data collection. For the

questionnaire, existing scales seen in the literature were

adopted and 5-point- Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree,

5 = strongly agree) was used. In order to determine the

relationship between the research dimensions depicted in

Figure 1, a questionnaire was developed to survey a sample

of young population in Toronto, Canada. A sample of 200

young consumers was selected randomly. Only 140 of the

200 young consumers participated in the survey. After

discarding 24 of 140 responses that were incomplete, the

remaining 116 responses were included for the analysis.

The scales used to measure this study’s model were

obtained from previous studies. Scale of price, appearance,

self-congruity, and brand preferences were adopted from

Ebrahim et al. [2], and brand experience scale was adapted

from Brakus et al. [5]. Lastly, brand personality scale was

adopted from Aaker [10].

IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was adopted to

validate the instruments for unobserved constructs and test

the research models. Analysis has three stages reliability test,

confirmatory factor analysis (CFM) of both brand experience

and brand personality, and model and hypotheses test with

LISREL.

The first stage of the analysis was the reliability test. It was

found that all scales were above the accepted point of 0.7.

Thus, the data are reliable and dimensions can be used to

determine the relationships within the model. The reliability

statistics of dimensions and subdimensions were shown in

Table I.

Experience

Brand

Preference

Appereanc

e

Price

Brand

Personality

Self Congruity

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

H7

332

5 7Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. , No. 10, October 201

The second stage of the analysis was to apply to

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). CFA determines the

effect of each item to its latent variables. CFA was employed

for brand personality and brand experience to see whether the

data were valid for the scale, since those were measured 5 and

4 dimensions, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis was

run for the brand experience twice. In the first run brand

experience was assumed to have one dimension and in the

second run, it was assumed to have four subdimensions.

When the scale was considered having one dimension, CFA

results indicated that one dimension was not sufficient, since

the chi-square and the root mean square error approximation

(RMSEA) (χ2: 316.5 (df: 54, p:0.000) with RMSEA 0.18)

were below the expected values. When experience dimension

run as having four dimensional scale, it was found that the

data were valid for the scale (RMSEA: 0.044; Chi-Square:

61.72 (df: 48, p: 0.088); SRMR: 0.063; GFI: 0.93; CFI:0.96).

Standardize factor loading and t values are sown in Table II

for brand experience.

TABLE I: RELIABILITY STATISTICS

Dimension Cronbach's Alpha (%)

Price 70.2 Appearance 85.6

Self-Congruity 77.7 Brand Personality

Sincerity 74.6

Excitement 75.3

Competence 71.5

Sophistication 72.3

Ruggedness 70.3

Brand Experience Sensory 71.0

Affective 72.8

Behavioral 76.9

Intellectual 74.5

Brand Preferences 90.2

TABLE II: CFA FOR BRAND EXPERIENCE

Dimension Items

Factor

Loading

(t values)

Sensory

This brand makes a strong impression on my

visual sense or other senses.

0.75

(7.85)

I find this brand interesting in a sensory way 0.81

(8.35)

This brand does not appeal to my senses 0.47

(5.27)

Affective

This brand induces feelings and sentiments 0.68

(7.52)

I do not have strong emotions for this brand 0.70

(7.72)

This brand is an emotional brand. 0.68

(7.46)

Behavioral

I engage in physical actions and behaviors when

I use this brand.

0.81

(10.08)

This brand results in bodily experiences. 0.83

(10.37)

This brand is not action oriented. 0.55

(6.58)

Intellectual

I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter

this brand.

0.71

(8.32)

This brand does not make me think. 0.56

(6.48)

This brand stimulates my curiosity and problem

solving

0.83

(9.83)

Similarly, CFA was run for brand the personality scale.

When the brand personality scale was tested, it was found

that all goodness fit statistics of five dimensional scale were

sufficient (RMSEA: 0.063; Chi-Square:125.91 (df: 80, p:

0.000); SRMR: 0.06; GFI: 0.90; CFI: 0.94). The scale was

also tested as having one dimension, but the result was not

satisfactory (RMSEA: 0.12; Chi-Square: 288.44 (df: 90, p:

0.000)). Thus, five dimensional scale was used for this study.

Standardize factor loading and t values are sown in Table III

brand personality.

TABLE III: CFA FOR BRAND PERSONALITY

Dimension Items Factor Loading (t values)

Sincerity

Down-to-earrt

h

0.58

(6.88)

Honest 0.62

(7.50)

Wholesome 079

(10.08)

Cheerful 0.63

(7.62)

Excitement

Daring 0.61

(7.39)

Spirited 0.67

(8.39

Imaginative 0.75

(9.68)

Up-to-date 0.62

(7.50)

Competence

Reliable 0.79

(9.55)

Intelligent 0.57

(6.64)

Successful 0.67

(8.03)

Sophistication

Upper Class 0.70

(7.38)

Charming 0.81

(8.19)

Ruggedness

Outdoorsy 0.75

(6.87)

Tough 0.73

(6.76)

We also looked at the correlations among items in each

dimensions of brand experience and brand personality. Since

correlation of items in each dimension is significant at the

0.01 level, the both scales have convergent validity (Table III

and Table IV).

TABLE III: CORRELATION FOR BRAND EXPERIENCE

1 2 4 5 7 8 10 11

2 ,606

3 ,362 ,384

5 ,493

6 ,434 ,485

8 ,667

9 ,452 ,457

11 ,435

12 ,569 ,470

TABLE IV: CORRELATION FOR BRAND PERSONALITY

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 12 14

2 ,488

3 ,427 ,500

4 ,320 ,320 ,507

6 ,429

7 ,523 ,511

8 ,340 ,346 ,456

10 ,470

11 ,520 ,379

13 ,566

15 ,544

333

5 7Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. , No. 10, October 201

The third stage of the analysis was to test the proposed

model and the hypotheses by using LISREL 8 [24]. The

structural equation modeling technique [24] was applied to

test our research model and hypotheses. Based on the model

fit measures, chi-square statistic of the proposed research

model was 235.65 (df: 181, p: 0.004). For a goodness of

model fit, the ratio χ2/df should be as small as possible. A

ratio between 2 and 3 is indicative of a good or acceptable

data-model fit [25]. The ratio in the study is 1.3. Moreover, as

the χ2 statistic is sensitive to sample size, we looked at

RMSEA. RMSEA is relatively independent of sample size

and thus performs well as indices of practical fit. Most of the

commonly used incremental fit indices exhibit relative

independence from sample size and thus are useful indices of

practical fit [26]. RMSEA values lower than .10 indicate a

good fit to the data, and mentioned that RMSEA values ≤ .05

can be considered as a good fit, values between .05 and .08 as

an adequate fit, and values between .08 and .10 as a mediocre

fit, whereas values > .10 are not acceptable [25]. The

RMSEA of our model is .0051 which is well within the

acceptable range. Additionally, SRMR should be smaller

than .10 may be interpreted as acceptable [25]. Since SRMR

of the model is .083, our model is acceptable. Regarding the

other goodness fit statistics, CFI value is 0.92, which is above

the expected value of 0.90. However, GFI is below the

expected value of 0.90 (GFI: 0.84). Since, all other values

indicate the model is sufficient, we can ignore the last fit

statistic.

The test results of the research hypotheses were illustrated

in Table V with maximum likelihood parameter estimates

(standardized solutions). Similar to related literature, it was

found that brand personality has a positive impact on brand

preferences (H1: beta: 0.24, t: 2.20, p<0,05). Thus, there was

a very strong relationship between self-congruity and

experience (H3: beta: 0.84, t: 4.05, p<0.001). It was also

found that brand experience had influences on brand

personality (H2: beta: 0.24, t: 3.39, p<0.01). However,

surprisingly, the effect of price on brand preferences was not

supported (H4: beta0.01, t: 0.09, p>0.05). While price did not

have impact on brand preferences, price had a positive impact

on brand experience (H5: beta: 0.27; t: 2.04, p<0.05).

Regarding the effect of appearance, it was found that

appearance had impact on both self-congruity (H7: beta: 0.49,

t:4.09, p<0.001) and brand preferences (H6: beta: 0.35, t:

0.35, p<0.001). Thus, our all hypotheses were supported.

TABLE V: HYPOTHESES TEST RESULTS

Hypotheses Beta

(t-value) Result

H1 Brand Personality ->

Brand Preference

0.24

(2.20*) Supported

H2 Experience ->

Brand Personality

0.56

(3.39**) Supported

H3 Self-Congruity-> Experience 0.84

(4.05***) Supported

H4 Price -> Brand Preference 0.01

(0.09) Supported

H5 Price -> Experience 0.27

(2.04*) Supported

H6 Appearance ->

Brand Preference

0.35

(3.46***) Supported

H7 Appearance ->

Self-Congruity

0.49

(4.09***) Supported

NOTES: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001

V. CONCLUSION

The study enhance our understanding on which features of

brand are important for brand preferences. It was found that

the symbolic features of brand were more effective for brand

preferences. On the other hand, at first seen, contradictory

results were found for physical features of brand. While the

appearance had impact on brand preferences, price did not.

However, we consider appearance as a symbolic feature of

brand instead of physical features. Ebrahim [2] also indicated

that there was a close relationship between appearance and

experience. Thus, the results in this study showed that the

main effect of brand preferences was symbolic features. Price

was not in a preference choice. Considering the mobile phone,

the results supported similar researches [27], [28]. Alamro

and Rowley [28] found that price was the less effective factor

for mobile phone brand preferences. Regarding brand

personality, findings of study and Alamro and Rowley [28]’s

finding were similar. Brand personality had impact on brand

preferences. As Brakus et al [5] stated that brand personality

enhanced the impact of brand experience. Our results also

supported this finding.

According to finding, mobile phone firms should be focus

on experience, self-congruity, and appearance, instead of

price.

Main limitations of this study were the sample size and

profile. Results might be different if the survey conducted to

more people and different age group. For the future research,

same construct should be tested in different countries and

different age groups to generalize the results.

REFERENCES

334

[1] A. Alamro and J. Rowley, “Antecedents of brand preference for

mobile telecommunications services,” Journal of Product & Brand

Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 475-486, 2011.

[2] R. Ebrahim, A. Ghoneim, Z. Irani, and Y. Fan, “A brand preference

and repurchase intention model: The role of consumer experience,”

Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 32, no. 13-14, pp. 1230-1259,

2016.

[3] L. Petruzzellis, “Mobile phone choice: Technology versus

marketing,” The Brand Effect in the Italian Market, European Journal

of marketing, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 610-634, 2010.

[4] F. Liu, J. Li, D. Mizerski, and H. Soh, “Self-congruity, brand attitude,

and brand loyalty: A study on luxury brands,” European Journal of

Marketing, vol. 46, no. 7/8, pp. 922-937, 2012.

[5] J. J. Brakus, B. H. Schmitt, and L. Zarantonello, “Brand experience:

What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?” Journal of

Marketing, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 52-68, 2009.

[6] H. A. Taute, J. Peterson, and J. J. Sierra, “Perceived needs and

emotional responses to brands: A dual-process view,” Journal of

Brand Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 23-42, 2014.

[7] A. Jamal and M. M. Goode, “Consumers and brands: A study of the

impact of self-image congruence on brand preference and

satisfaction,” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 19, no. 7, pp.

482-492, 2001.

[8] L. Zarantonello and B. H. Schmitt, “Using the brand experience scale

to profile consumers and predict consumer behaviour,” Journal of

Brand Management, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 532-540, 2010.

[9] B. Ramaseshan and A. Stein, “Connecting the dots between brand

experience and brand loyalty: The mediating role of brand personality

and brand relationships,” Journal of Brand Management, vol. 21, no.

7-8, pp. 664-683, 2014.

[10] J. L. Aaker, “Dimensions of brand personality,” Journal of Marketing

Research, pp. 347-356, 1997.

[11] P. L. Chang and M. H. Chieng, “Building consumer-brand

relationship: A cross‐cultural experiential view,” Psychology &

Marketing, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 927-959, 2006.

5 7Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. , No. 10, October 201

[13] M. J. Sirgy, D. Grewal, T. F. Mangleburg, J. O. Park, K. S. Chon, C. B.

Claiborne, J. S. Johar, and H. Berkman, “Assessing the predictive

validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence,”

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 25, no. 3, pp.

229-241, 1997.

[14] A. Aguirre-Rodriguez, M. Bosnjak, and M. J. Sirgy, “Moderators of

the self-congruity effect on consumer decision-making: A

meta-analysis,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 65, no. 8, pp.

1179-1188, 2012.

[15] J. Jacoby, J. C. Olson, and R. A. Haddock, “Price, brand name, and

product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived

quality,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 55, no. 6, p. 570, 1971.

[16] V. A. Zeithaml, “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A

means-end model and synthesis of evidence,” The Journal of

Marketing, pp. 2-22, 1988.

[17] T. Z. Chang and A. R. Wildt, “Price, product information, and

purchase intention: An empirical study,” Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 16-27, 1994.

[18] J. Munnukka, “Dynamics of price sensitivity among mobile service

customers,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 14, no. 1,

pp. 65-73, 2005.

[19] R. Mugge, “The effect of a business-like personality on the perceived

performance quality of products,” International Journal of Design,

vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 67-76, 2011.

[20] P. C. Govers and J. P. Schoormans, “Product personality and its

influence on consumer preference,” Journal of Consumer Marketing,

vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 189-197, 2005.

[21] J. E. Escalas and J. R. Bettman, “Self-construal, reference groups, and

brand meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 32, no. 3, pp.

378-389, 2005.

[22] M. J. Sirgy, D. Grewal, T. F. Mangleburg, J. O. Park, K. S. Chon, C. B.

Claiborne, et al., “Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of

measuring self-image congruence,” Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 229-241, 1997.

[23] F. Kressmann, M. J. Sirgy, A. Herrmann, F. Huber, S. Huber, and D. J.

Lee, “Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand

loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 955-964,

2006.

[24] K. Joreskog and D. Sorbom, LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide,

Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc., 1996.

[25] K. Schermelleh-Engel and H. Moosbrugger, “Evaluating the fit of

structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive

goodness-of-fit measures,” Methods of Psychological Research

Online, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 23-74, 2003.

[26] K. F. Widaman and J. S. Thompson, “On specifying the null model for

incremental fit indices in structural equation modeling,”

Psychological Methods, vol. 8, pp. 16-37, 2003.

[27] L. Petruzzellis, “Mobile phone choice: Technology versus

marketing,” European Journal of Marketing, vol. 44, no. 5, pp.

610-634, 2010.

[28] A. Alamro and J. Rowley, “Antecedents of brand preference for

mobile telecommunications services,” Journal of Product & Brand

Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 475-486, 2011.

Akin Kocak is a professor of marketing at the Faculty

of Political Sciences at Ankara University. He teaches

marketing management, consumer behavior,

marketing research, introduction to entrepreneurship

and entrepreneurial marketing. His research interests

are the interface between marketing and

entrepreneurship, marketing strategies for small and

medium sized enterprises, strategic marketing

management, market and entrepreneurship orientation,

and innovation. He is a former Fulbright Scholar (Syracuse University, USA,

2005-2006). He was a visiting scholar at Ryerson University in Canada. He is

co-editor of Marketing and Market Research Journal. He has published in the

Journal of Small Business Management, International Marketing Review,

International Business Review, Management Decision, Journal of Marketing

Management, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, and International Journal

of Entrepreneurship Behavior and Research. His works have also been

presented and published in various conference proceedings.

Nursel Selver Ruzgar

is working in the Department

of Mathematics and Business Administration at

Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada. She holds a

Ph.D in quantitative methods from Istanbul

University, 1998, an Ms in mathematics engineering

from Istanbul Technical University, 1989, and a Bs

(Hon.) in mathematics from Marmara University,

1983. Before joining Ryerson University in August

2010, she was an associative professor at Marmara

University, Istanbul, Turkey, and she coordinated and developed curriculums

for all science courses and taught variety of undergraduate and graduate level

courses in mathematics and statistics, then she retired in 2009. During her

teaching experience at Ryerson University, she taught and coordinated wide

variety of courses several

times in Mathematics

Department and Business

Administration. She also taught mathematics and statistics courses at York

University, Toronto. She has four books, an author of more than 20 papers in

refereed journals and more than 50 papers in conference proceedings. Her

research interests are mathematical modeling, system simulation, and

distance education. She is a Member of Mathematics Association of Turkey,

Member of Operation Research Society of Turkey, Member of Informatics

Association of Turkey and Member of Association of Econometrics,

Member of Statistics Association of Turkey and Member of Data Science

Laboratory at Ryerson University.

335

[12] B. T. Parker, “A comparison of brand personality and brand

user-imagery congruence,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 26,

no. 3, pp. 175-184, 2009.

5 7Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. , No. 10, October 201