The effect of brand personality and brand ... - Wiley Online Library

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 195

(Black plate)

Japanese Psychological Research 2001, Volume 43, No. 4, 195–206 Special Issue: Consumer behavior

Invited Paper

The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification CHUNG K. KIM1 School of Business Administration, Sungkyunkwan University, 3-53 Myungnyun-dong, Chongno-ku, Seoul, Korea DONGCHUL HAN School of Business Administration, Seoul Women’s University, 126 Kongnung 2 dong, Nowon-ku, Seoul, Korea SEUNG-BAE PARK School of Business Administration, Sungkyunkwan University, 3-53 Myungnyun-dong, Chongno-ku, Seoul, Korea

Abstract: This study investigated the effect of brand personality on brand asset management by using the concept of consumers’ identification with a brand. The focus was on one important type of high-technology product, the cellular phone. The authors develop a conceptual framework to explain the effect of brand identification on brand loyalty. The important variables of this framework include the attractiveness of the brand personality, the distinctiveness of the brand personality, the self-expressive value of the brand personality, positive wordof-mouth reports of the brand, and brand loyalty. The empirical results indicated that there are positive relationships between attractiveness, distinctiveness, and self-expressive value of brand personality. These relationships had a statistically significant effect on consumers’ identification with a brand. Furthermore, brand identification had a direct effect on word-ofmouth reports and an indirect effect on brand loyalty. The theoretical and managerial implications of the empirical results are presented, and suggestions are made regarding both the limitations of the present study and future directions for research. Key words: brand personality, word-of-mouth reports, brand loyalty, social identification, self-expression.

Research background and objectives Many companies are trying to get target customers’ attention by creating a distinctive brand image for their products. In the United States, promotion of General Motors’ Chevrolet truck emphasized the image of “Like a rock,” and that of Canon’s EOS Rebel

X camera emphasized the image of independence, dynamism, and brilliance through the tennis player Andre Agassi. These kinds of human characteristics associated with a brand are called “brand personality.” The importance of brand personality to consumers’ brand loyalty and repurchasing behavior has not been widely acknowledged.

1 We would like to thank Dr. Heesung Sung, at Seoul Women’s University, and Hong-Seong Kim, at the Global Marketing Research Center of Samsung Electronics, for their general support. We also would like to thank Professor Kojima, Professor Hayashi, and two anonymous reviewers. This study was funded by the Korea Research Foundation.

© 2001 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 196

(Black plate)

196

C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Only a few researchers, such as Plummer (1985) and David Aaker (1996), have pointed out the importance of brand personality in building competitive advantage and brand loyalty. Recently, Jennifer Aaker (1997) presented the empirical results of her research on the measurement of brand personality. In short, the issues of why and how brand personalities affect consumers’ brand loyalty have not been addressed. The study reported here borrowed the methodology developed by Aaker (1997) to measure some dimensions of brand personality. This paper presents a theoretical framework for understanding any effects of brand personality on brand asset management. The paper also specifies consumers’ behaviors in respect of word-of-mouth reports about a brand, and brand loyalty. The specific research objectives of this study were as follows. First, it examined the existence of brand personality in the cellular phone market in Korea. Furthermore, the research showed that the self-expressive value and distinctiveness of the brand influence the attractiveness of a brand personality. When there is a fit between brand personality and a consumer’s self-expression, the consumer may consider a brand as a person, or even a companion. In the real world, we find this kind of relationship between brand and human (Fournier, 1998). Sometimes, the human characteristics attached to a certain brand are used to express one’s own image or personality. Second, this study investigated any possible linkage between brand and consumer through the social identification theory developed in social psychology. The concept of social identification relates to a person’s sense of belonging to a certain group or organization (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Therefore, a consumer’s identification with a certain brand or a certain company makes that consumer differentiate the brand from others. Social identification theory is widely used in social psychology (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Third, this study examined the effect of brand identification on brand loyalty and positive word-of-mouth reports about the © Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

brand. Social identification theory has mainly been applied to organizational identification, in which variables such as organizational prestige, expectation level, length of membership, and contact frequency have been studied (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Some of these concepts are applied to our study in order to examine the role of brand identification. Many people are likely to express themselves and/or enhance themselves by selecting particular brands. The degree to which the brand expresses and enhances their identity is determined by their level of brand identification. The major research subjects of our paper are as follows: 1.

2.

With what kinds of brand personalities do consumers in Korea associate their cellular phones? How does brand personality affect brand loyalty? The latter is broken down into three parts:

1.

Which aspects of brand personalities are connected to a brand’s attractiveness, selfexpressive value, and distinctiveness? 2. Does the attractiveness of brand personality positively affect the level of brand identification? 3. Does brand identification have a positive effect on the level of brand loyalty and word-of-mouth reports? This study will be of interest both to businesses and academically. In the business world, it is expected that the results of studies like the present one will be used to develop strategies for corporate advertising and store design. Furthermore, it will help our understanding of how brand personality may be used to enhance customers’ self-expression and product differentiation. Academically, studies about brand personality have progressed to identifying dimensions of brand personality. Beyond such identification, this study, within the framework of social identification, examines how brand personality affects brand loyalty.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 197

(Black plate)

The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty

In the next section, the literature on two important areas, brand personality and social identification, is selectively reviewed, and some hypotheses are introduced. The theoretical background to this paper is also explained. Then an interdisciplinary study of marketing and social psychology is described. The theoretical and managerial implications of the findings and future research directions are also presented.

197

Studies of brand personality How human personality affects various aspects of consumer behavior has been widely studied, but studies of brand personality began only recently, although in the field of marketing several studies have already been completed and published. For example, Plummer (1985) studied how brand personality affects consumers’ choice of a soft drink with a distinctive brand image in the United States. Aaker (1996) summarized the role of brand personality in building up brand power, and pointed out the importance of and the need for empirical research. Aaker (1997), after realizing the need for further empirical research, developed a new measurement scale for measuring brand personality along five dimensions, extracted from her research. These five dimensions were sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. But these studies have not shown how brand personality affects important marketing variables such as brand loyalty. We need to study how brand personality affects brand loyalty, using a theoretical framework such as social identification.

This phenomenon, which is widely rooted in our social life, is often called social identification. In short, social identification implies the sense of belonging to certain groups or organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg, Hardie, & Reyrolds, 1995). Here, a group includes a reference group; it includes not only a group to which people belong but also a group to which they aspire to belong. Fournier (1998) has studied how consumers identify themselves with brands by using idiographic analysis. Studies of organizational identification may be divided in two. First, there is a group of studies on the antecedents of identification. Such studies have examined: the degree of competition with other organizations (Mael & Ashforth, 1992); organizational prestige (Bhattacharya et al., 1995); and tenure (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970). Second, there is a group of studies on the effect of group identification. For example, Mael and Ashforth (1992) found a positive relationship between identification and alumnis’ contribution to their Alma Mater. Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994) argued that there is a positive relationship between identification and group cooperation. Shamir (1990) proposed that identification has a positive effect on the willingness to contribute to collective work. However, all these studies investigated organizational identification, not brand identification. In the papers cited above, studies of the relationship between consumer and brand (i.e., consumers’ identification with a brand) were suggested as a likely next research topic. Recently, Aaker (1999) offered a concept of brand identification based on her study of brand role in self-expression.

Studies of social identification In social psychology, social identification means that a person identifies him/herself as a member of a society. An expression of identification with an organization is treated as a special type of social identification (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Lau, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). People tend to use various factors to classify themselves as belonging to a specific group.

Research hypotheses This study was designed to test the interrelationships between six constructs. The constructs have been categorized into two groups. The first group (antecedent variables) comprises the self-expressive value and distinctiveness of brand personality. The second group (outcome variables) comprises attractiveness of brand personality, brand identification, positive word-of-mouth reports, and

Literature review and hypotheses

© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 198

(Black plate)

198


Selfexpressive value

Word-of-mouth reports

Attractiveness of brand personality

Distinctiveness of brand personality Brand identification

Figure 1.

The research model.

brand loyalty. The main focus in this study was on brand identification. First, self-concept, self-consistency, and selfcontinuity are interrelated. The brand will be perceived as attractive when it helps a person to express him/herself, and when the person identifies with the brand (Belk, 1988). Aaker (1999) argued that a brand is used for selfexpression and to reflect self-concept. When expressed properly, brand personality positively affects a consumer’s attitude to the brand. Based on the literature review, it is expected that the greater are the self-expressive value and the distinctiveness of the brand personality, the more the brand personality will appeal. Therefore, we have the following hypotheses:

organization, the more they agree with its norms and cooperate with it. As indicated above, previous studies have empirically shown that group identification has a positive effect on alumni’s contributions, group cooperation, and willingness to contribute to a collective work (Dutton et al., 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Shamir, 1990). This means that a consumer’s identification with a social object (whether it is a group, an organization, or a brand) leads the person to behave positively toward the group. Therefore, we conclude that brand identification will positively affect brand loyalty and word-of-mouth reports.2 Therefore, we have the following additional hypothesis. 3.

1.

2.

Brand loyalty

The greater the self-expressive value and the distinctiveness of brand personality are, the greater will be the attractiveness of the brand personality. The greater the attractiveness of the brand personality is, the more consumers will identify with that brand.

Second, we expect that the more consumers identify with the brand, the more will be their word-of-mouth reports and brand loyalty. Some research results regarding the outcome variables of identification show that the more an organization’s members identify with the © Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

The more consumers identify with a brand, the more will be the consumers’ word-ofmouth reports and brand loyalty.

The three hypotheses are linked in the research model shown in Figure 1.

2 Bhattacharya et al. (1995) examined the difference between brand identification and brand loyalty. They stated that brand loyalty is a reflection of the functional utility of products and services, whereas brand identification is necessarily related to the goals of the organization and the reasons why it exists. Therefore, brand identification can affect brand loyalty, but brand loyalty does not guarantee identification with the brand or the company.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 199

(Black plate)


Method Sample and data collection Since this research dealt with the effect of brand identification on consumer behavior, any product could be the object of study as long as consumers carried a sense of brand identification in relation to it. The cellular phone was chosen as the target product for this empirical study. When the data were collected in late 1999, five companies were competing for the market of cellular phones in Korea. First, a questionnaire was devised and a short pretest conducted; the questionnaire was then revised based on the results of the pretest. Second, 180 of the revised questionnaires were distributed to university students in Seoul, Korea. Of the 150 that were returned (a response rate of approximately 83%), 130 were entered in the final data analysis (20 incomplete questionnaires were omitted). Measures Most of the major variables in this study were measured using multi-item five-point or sevenpoint scales developed and validated by previous research. The specific items are presented in Table 2. Seven instruments were used to gather the data to test the three research hypotheses. Some appropriate modifications were made to the items. 1

Forty-two dimensions of brand personality were measured with the Brand Personality Scale (BPS), developed by Aaker (1997). The BPS employs a five-point Likert scale (1 being “strongly agree,” 5 “strongly disagree”). 2. Brand identification was measured on a six-item, seven-point Likert scale (1 being “strongly disagree,” 7 “strongly agree”), originally developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). 3. Brand loyalty was measured on a four-item scale developed by Aaker (1996) and Ratchford (1987) and modified by Kim (1998). This scale comprised a seven-point Likert scale (1 being “strongly disagree,” 7 “strongly agree”).

199

4.

Word-of-mouth report behavior was measured on a three-item, seven-point Likert scale, based on that used in the study by File, Judd, and Prince (1992). 5. The scale for the self-expressive value of brand personality was based on previous studies by the authors. It comprised three items rated on a seven-point scale: “The brand helps me to express myself,” “The brand reflects my personality,” and “The brand enhances myself.” 6. The scale for attractiveness of brand personality was also based on the authors’ previous studies and comprised three items rated on a seven-point scale: “It is attractive,” “It is favorable,” and “It is distinctive.” 7. The distinctiveness of the brand personality was measured by another group of three items which compared different products on a seven-point scale: closely related vs. not related; completely similar vs. different; and many common features vs. few common features.

Results In order to test the hypotheses, the structural modeling method called LISREL was used. We found several interesting and important results in relation to the hypotheses. Before we present the main results, however, we show an initial analysis procedure and some findings regarding the dimensions of brand personality. We also present the reliability and validity of the measures used in the main analysis.

Analyzing the dimensions of brand personality An exploratory factor analysis was done on the 42 items of brand personality with a varimax rotation. During the factor analysis, six variables that were not related to any factor (i.e., down-to-earth, family-oriented, real, independent, cool, cheerful) were excluded, and a total of five factors were extracted from remaining 36 items. The factors were named “Sincerity,” “Excitement,” “Competence,” © Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 200

(Black plate)

200


“Sophistication,” and “Ruggedness,” in accordance with their respective factor loadings (Table 1).

Reliability and validity of the measures First, the Cronbach’s alphas were determined in order to test the reliability of the variables. The results (Table 2) indicated that the measures of the key variables were generally reliable. Second, in order to test the validity of the measures, the data were analyzed using LISREL VIII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). A confirmatory factor analysis was performed according to the method of Bagozzi (1980). As shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, the validity of outcome variables and antecedent variables was tested in order. The result of the confirmatory factor analysis for 13 outcome variables is shown in Table 3. The overall match for the measurement model regarding the attractiveness of brand personality, brand identification, word-of-mouth reports, and brand loyalty was within acceptable levels (χ2 = 102.59, p = .05). The following indices were found to be appropriate: root mean square residual (RMSR) (.05), goodness-of-fit index (GFI) (.91), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) (.86), normed fit index (NFI) (.89), and comparative fit index (CFI) (.97). The result of the confirmatory factor analysis for five measures of the two antecedent constructs is shown in Table 4. The overall fit for the measurement model according to the self-expressive value of brand personality and the distinctiveness of brand personality was also within acceptable levels (χ2 = 28.02, p = .05). The indices were found to be appropriate: RMSR (.06), GFI (.95), AGFI (.89), NFI (.95), and CFI (.98). Thus the measures used for the main analysis were valid. Results of hypothesis testing and implications The test result of the measurement model for this study was positive. The correlation analysis was done on the data in order to identify the directions of relationships among the variables © Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

measured. For this empirical testing, mean scores on the measures were utilized. The results are shown in Table 5. Before hypothesis testing, a separate test was done to identify whether the selfexpressive value of brand personality and the distinctiveness of brand personality were related to the level of brand identification without the attractiveness of brand personality (alternative model). Indices for the overall fit for this alternative model were GFI (.83), AGFI (.77), RMSR (.08), NFI (.81), CFI (.89); χ2 = 262.38, df = 125, p = .00. The various indices for the overall fit of the research model (shown in Figure 1) were GFI (.82), AGFI (.76), RMSR (.89), NFI (.80), CFI (.88); χ2 = 275.04, df = 127, p = .00. The difference between the research model and the alternative model was not significant (χ2 = 12.66, df = 2). The relationships between variables and path coefficients of the structural model are presented in Table 6. The self-expressive value of the brand personality had a significant effect on the attractiveness of the brand personality (γ11 = .84, t = 6.17). The distinctiveness of the brand personality had a significant effect on the attractiveness of the brand personality (γ21 = .21, t = 2.31), but the effect was weaker than that of self-expressive value. Therefore, these results support hypothesis 1 (the higher the self-expressive value of the brand personality and the higher the distinctiveness of the brand personality are, the more attractive will be the brand personality). Furthermore, the attractiveness of the brand personality had a significant effect on the level of brand identification (β21 = .56, t = 4.61). Therefore, hypothesis 2 (the more attractive the brand personality is, the higher the level of brand identification will be) is also supported. The degree of brand identification positively affected word-of-mouth reports (β32 = .38, t = 3.00), but it did not significantly affect the level of brand loyalty (β42 = –.11. t = –0.88). Therefore, hypothesis 3 (the higher the consumers’ identification with brand is, the higher the consumers’ word-of-mouth reports and brand loyalty will be) is only partly supported.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 201

(Black plate)


201

Table 1. Factor analysis results – brand personality Factor item Intelligent Successful Leader Upper class Secure Technical Corporate Reliable Hardworking Confident

Factor 1: sincerity a

Factor 2: excitement

Factor 3: competence

Factor 4: sophistication

Factor 5: ruggedness

Communality

.79 .72a .66a .66a .66a .65a .65a .63a .63a .60a

.12 .26 .07 .11 .15 .34 –.01 –.01 .17 .30

.17 .17 .05 .36 .24 .14 .36 .37 .34 .14

.10 –.07 .06 –.13 .24 .14 .36 .37 .34 .14

–.02 .24 .40 .27 .10 .27 .09 .12 .03 .19

.6737 .6754 .6088 .6717 .5811 .6512 .5677 .6256 .5587 .5218

Trendy Young Contemporary Unique Up-to-date Spirited Western Outdoorsy

.04 –.01 .41 .21 .35 .04 .30 .15

.79a .70a .71a .68a .65a .64a .58a .50a

.18 .15 –.05 .28 .21 .24 .11 .18

–.12 .14 .02 .06 –.20 .29 .01 .12

–.11 –.05 –.08 .17 –.09 .03 .41 .45

.6924 .6412 .6758 .6125 .6348 .5556 .6069 .5263

Charming Sentimental Smooth Feminine Good-looking Glamorous Imaginative Daring Exciting

.30 .20 .20 –.06 .17 .35 .13 .33 .25

.27 –.10 .06 .28 .25 .20 .32 .22 .39

.70a .69a .67a .66a .65a .64a .54a .54a .53a

.26 .24 .38 .09 .27 .25 .12 –.13 –.14

.14 –.03 .16 .12 .19 .10 .08 .32 –.10

.7488 .5829 .6603 .5399 .6285 .6432 .4420 .5624

Wholesome Honest Small-town Sincere Friendly Original

.13 .29 –.06 .19 .13 .32

.05 –.01 –.08 .03 .39 .16

.11 .02 .16 .25 .24 .17

.74a .69a .63a .62a .50a .50a

.02 .19 .11 .25 .06 .09

.5778 .5962 .4420 .5462 .4783 .4134

.16 .29 .44

–.12 –.13 .15

.13 .15 .16

.24 .28 .21

.80a .75a .60a

.7623 .7626 .6449

4.4836 2.5413 .8825

3.6345 1.6902 .7768

2.7770 1.4824 .8373

Tough Masculine Rugged Explained by factors Eigenvalue Cronbach’s α a

5.9736 12.2277 .9110

4.7723 3.6994 .8702

Factor loading ù .5.


04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 202

(Black plate)

202


Table 2. Reliability of items Original number Final number Cronbach’s of items of items α

Construct

Item

Attractiveness of brand personality

1. Attractive 2. Favorable 3. Distinctive

3

3

.89

Self-expressive value of brand personality

1. The brand helps me to express myself 2. The brand reflects my personality 3. The brand enhances myself

3

3

.92

Distinctiveness of brand personality

1. The brand was not related to other brands (vs. closely related) 2. The brand is completely different from other brandsa (vs. completely similar) 3. The brand has few features in common with other brands (vs. many features)

3

2

.50

Brand identification

1. This brand’s successes are my successes 2. I am interested in what others think about this brand 3. When someone praises this brand, it feels like a personal complimenta 4. When I talk about this brand, I usually say “we” rather than “they” 5. If a story in the media criticized the brand, I would feel embarrassed 6. When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like a personal insult

6

5

.82


1. Recommend to other people that the brand should be theirs as soon as possiblea 2. Recommend the brand to other people 3. Talk directly about your experience with them

3

2

.78

Brand loyalty

1. I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand 2. I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals 3. I would buy additional products and service in this branda 4. I prefer the brand to others

4

3

.81

a

Those items which were not reliable and loading low on the corresponding constructs were excluded from further analysis.

Finally, the attractiveness of the brand personality significantly affected positive wordof-mouth reports, but it did not significantly affect brand loyalty (β31 = .33, t = 2.64, β41 = .14, t = 1.16). © Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

Discussion and conclusion Summary of results Most of the hypotheses were supported by the test results. The confirmation of the first

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 203

(Black plate)


203

Table 3. Factor loadings (t values) from the confirmatory factor analysis of outcome variables Factor itemsa

Attractiveness of brand personality Item 1 Item 2 Item 3

Attractiveness

Brand identification


Brand loyalty

.86 (7.52) .86 (7.54) .84 (7.40)

Brand identification Item 1 Item 2 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6

.75 (8.78) .54 (5.95) .76 (8.98) .80 (8.76) .55 (6.08)

Word-of-mouth reports Item 2 Item 3

.84 (8.76) .77 (8.45)

Brand loyalty Item 1 Item 2 Item 3

.73 (6.60) .74 (6.66) .79 (6.91)

GFI = .91, AGFI = .86, RMSR = .05, NFI = .89, CFI = .97; χ2 = 102.59, df = 80, p = .05. a See Table 2 for the numbered items.

hypothesis (the higher the self-expressive value of the brand personality and the higher the distinctiveness of brand personality, the higher consumers will evaluate the attractiveness of the brand personality) shows that there is a positive relationship between customer and brand. Second, it turns out that the brand identification has a positive effect on word-of-mouth reports, but it does not have a significant direct effect on brand loyalty. But, since word-ofmouth reports significantly affect brand loyalty and since brand identification significantly affects word-of-mouth reports, it can be said that brand identification has an indirect effect on brand loyalty through positive word-ofmouth reports. Similarly, the attractiveness of the brand personality directly affects positive word-ofmouth reports and indirectly affects brand loyalty. Unlike previous studies which argued that the strength of five dimensions of brand personalities affect brand asset, the instrument

Table 4. Factor loadings (t values) from the confirmatory factor analysis of antecedent variables Self-expressive value

Factorsa Self-expressive value 1 2 3 Distinctiveness 1 3

Distinctiveness

.91 (13.10) .91 (13.06) .81 (10.84) .71 (3.53) .53 (3.29)

GFI = .95, AGFI = .89, RMSR = .06, NFI = .95, CFI = .98; χ2 = 28.02, df = 17, p = .05. a See Table 2 for the numbered items.

measuring attractiveness in this study had three dimensions – attractiveness, distinctiveness, and favorableness – and these were shown to affect brand loyalty and word-ofmouth reports. © Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 204

(Black plate)

204


Table 5. Correlation matrix of research constructs

1. Self-expressive value 2. Distinctiveness 3. Attractiveness 4. Brand identification 5. Word-of-mouth reports 6. Brand loyalty

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.58 4.41 3.96 3.20 3.42 3.87

1.49 1.12 1.28 1.30 1.53 1.50

1.000 –.156* .760* .378* .445* .323*

1.000 –.021 –.151* –.109 .047

1.000 .326* .386* .424*

1.000 .411* .299*

1.000 .588*

1.000

This table shows the correlation matrix used for the LISREL analysis. Those who would like to replicate our analysis could use the correlation matrix rather than the full data set. *p , .1.

Table 6. Results of model and hypotheses Hypothesis γ11 γ21 β21 β31 β41 β32 β42 β43

Self-expressive value → Attractiveness Distinctiveness → Attractiveness Attractiveness → Identification Attractiveness → Word-of-mouth reports Attractiveness → Brand loyalty Identification → Word-of-mouth reports Identification → Brand loyalty Word-of-mouth reports → Brand loyalty

Coefficient value .84 .21 .56 .33 .14 .38 –.11 .74

t value 6.17** 2.31** 4.61** 2.64** 1.16 3.00** 0.88 4.08**

GFI = .82, AGFI = .76, RMSR = .89, NFI = .80, CFI=.88; χ2 = 275.04, df = 127, p = .00. **p , .05.

Implications for marketing strategies Some strategic implications of this empirical study are as follows. First, it is necessary for firms to develop efficient communication methods in order to launch a distinctive and attractive brand personality. Communication plays a vital role in creating and maintaining brand personality. Unlike foreign examples, there are few Korean cases in which brand personality is consistently created. This requires not only communication strategies but also other activities such as the firm’s community service and consumer support activities. However, many companies fail because they emphasize and focus only on short-term goals by responding ad hoc or emulating other companies’ strategies. Therefore, the effective use of brand personality (uniquely and in such a way that the brand helps people enhance their self-expression) can increase brand © Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

loyalty and word-of-mouth reports. Usually, brand personality is created by various activities such as marketing communication, sales promotion, social contribution, and public relations. Therefore, brand personality is not easily created, but once created it tends to have a long life. The results of this study have an important theoretical implication, concerning the relationship between brand and consumer. Recently, with the increasing number of Internet users, more businesses have been focusing on customer relationship management (CRM). The development of brand identification affects the building of a relationship between brand and consumer. In other words, when brand personality seems attractive, brand identification is created. If brand identification increases, then online consumers will not so readily click away from the brand’s website. Brand personality would also

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 205

(Black plate)


help a website powerfully differentiate itself from competing sites, although they are necessarily similar to each other, physically and functionally. In short, developing and maintaining brand identification through brand personality helps consumers consider the brand as their long-term companion. This kind of long-term relationship with customers is the main objective of CRM. Academically, this study has the following theoretical implications. Unlike previous research, this study tested possible relationships between the self-expressive value of brand personality, distinctiveness of brand personality, and attractiveness of brand personality. Most of these relationships are supported by the current data. In short, careful management of brand personality helps consumers to develop a favorable image of the company.

Limitations and future research directions This study makes an important theoretical contribution to connect the concept of brand personality with the theory of social identification. Nevertheless, it has some limitations. First, this study focuses only on cellular phones, and many other products categories could have been tested for the same purpose. One of the interesting future areas is to examine the issue of brand identification in relation to sports marketing, brand extension, Internet marketing, and so on. For example, a consumer’s identification with the brand of a company (or simply brand identification) would be significantly affected by the consumer’s identification with the sports team or a star player sponsored by the company. Second, this study tested the relationship between brand identification and brand loyalty/ word-of-mouth reports, but additional theoretical relationships could be tested within the same framework. For example, repurchasing behavior or intention offline (or revisit behavior or intention online) could be included in a future study.3

3 We would like to thank one of the reviewers who suggested this idea to us.

205

References Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press. Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356. Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: the role of selfexpression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 45–57. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. Bagozzi, R. (1980). Causal models in marketing. Boston: John Wiley & Sons. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139–168. Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: an investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 46–57. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. File, K., Judd, B., & Prince, R. (1992). Interactive marketing: the influence of participation on positive word-of-mouth and referrals. Journal of Service Marketing, 6(4), 5–14. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373. Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176–190. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge. Hogg, M. A., Hardie, E. A., & Reyrolds, K. J. (1995). Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: a perspective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 159–177. Karl, G. J., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Science Software International. Kim, C. (1998). Brand personality and advertising strategy: an empirical study of mobile-phone services. Korean Journal of Advertising, 9, 37–52. Lau, R. (1989). Individual and contextual influences on group identification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 220–231. © Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 206

(Black plate)

206


Mael, F. B., & Ashforth, E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(6), 27–31.


Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4), 34–38. Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: the sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313–332. (Received Jan. 17, 2001; accepted May 13, 2001)