understanding consumer

TheBigFiveandbrandpersonalityInvestigatingtheimpactofconsumerpersonalityonpreferencestowardsparticularbrandpersonality.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Marketing homework help >understanding consumer

Yelena Tsarenko Department of Marketing, Monash University, S 7.18, Chisholm Tower, 26 Sir John Monash Drive, P.O. Box 197, Caulfi eld East VIC 3145, Australia Tel: + 61 3 9903 2354 Fax: + 61 3 9903 1558 E-mail: yelena.tsarenko@buseco. monash.edu.au

The Big Five and brand personality: Investigating the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards particular brand personality Received (in revised form): 28th March, 2007

RIZA CASIDY MULYANEGARA is currently a PhD researcher in the Department of Marketing at Monash University. He is actively involved in research and teaching activities at the university. His current research topic is in the area of non-profi t services marketing. He is investigating the barriers to and antecedents of consumer participation in non-profi t organisations with churches as the research context.

YELENA TSARENKO graduated from the Kiev International University of Civil Aviation in Ukraine with a Bachelor (Hons) in Economics. After completing a PhD in Economics, she worked as a lecturer and later as an associate professor in the areas of Marketing and International Economics at the Kiev International University of Civil Aviation. She joined Monash University in 2000. She conducts research in the areas of consumer psychology and services marketing, and has published in leading international marketing journals, including The Journal of Marketing Management and The Journal of Services Marketing .

ALASTAIR ANDERSON is a sessional academic in the Department of Marketing at Monash University. In addition to teaching, he is also actively involved in the research activities of the department. He has a particular interest in the area of research methodology and management.

Abstract The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between consumer personality and brand personality as measured by constructs refl ecting The Big Five dimensions in the context of fashion products. The fi ndings of the study show that some dimensions of The Big Five constructs are signifi cantly related to preferences on particular dimensions of brand personality. It was found that consumers who exhibit a Conscientious personality demonstrate preferences towards ‘ Trusted ’ brands. In contrast, those who are Extrovert in nature are motivated by ‘ Sociable ’ brands. Findings related to gender reveal that male and female consumers differ in how they express their personality when it comes to brand personality. Male respondents who are dominant on the Neuroticism dimension prefer ‘ Trusted ’ brand, whereas ‘ Trusted ’ brand is preferred by females who are dominant on the Conscientiousness dimension. The results of this study will inform brand managers about how to tailor specifi c marketing strategies such that brand personalities communicated to consumers are congruent with their personalities. Journal of Brand Management (2009) 16, 234 – 247. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550093 ; published online 8 June 2007

Keywords personality ; brand personality ; the Big Five ; fashion

THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY

INTRODUCTION Personality research as it relates to mar- keting is both an enigma and a thorny area of research for marketing scholars. A perusal of any basic text in psychology shows that personality research has been a cornerstone of psychology since the early 20th century. 1 One of the most widely used approaches to the study of personality traits is The Big Five model. The model ’ s capacity in helping to explain human behaviour has attracted the interest of researchers from other dis- ciplines, including sociology, management and marketing. Management scholars have attempted to link employee personality to job satisfaction and leadership. 2,3 Researchers in marketing have explored the impact of con sumer personality on perception, pre- ferences and behaviour. 4,5 The results of studies have, however, been mixed. Although at tempts to demonstrate the link between consumer personality and behaviour have not yielded many meaningful results, 6 other methods founded on personal values and demographics have been more effi cacious. 7

In recent decades, personality research in marketing has focused on the validity of self-congruity theory in relation to dif- ferent types of purchase behaviour and product contexts. The connection between personality and purchase behaviour was fi rst introduced by Dolich, 8 who sug- gested that consumers prefer to buy prod- ucts and brands that best refl ect their personality. His theory, which lacked empirical support, has generated mixed results in other studies. Some researchers 9,10 support the theory, whereas other researchers 11 – 13 found little empirical evi- dence to confi rm the relationship between personality and behaviour.

Although the validity of self-congruity theory has been extensively researched, there is a dearth of empirical research that addresses the specifi c question of whether there is a signifi cant relationship between

consumer personality and brand person- ality. The research question is therefore, Do consumers exhibit a preference for brands that are congruent with their personality? Shank and Langmeyer 14 stated that most personality research in marketing focuses on the impact of personality on product usage, decision process, brand loyalty, innovative buying behaviour and res- ponsiveness to advertising rather than brand personality per se . Moreover, from a methodological perspective, marketing researchers have been criticised for their tendency to develop their own constructs rather than using established psychological constructs when measuring consumer personality variables. 15

Although some scholars 16,17 have strongly supported the validity of self-con- gruity theory, empirical support for the relationship between personality and product choice in general is required. The aim of this study was to contribute to the knowledge through an investigation of the relationship between the personality of consumers and their preference for brands to which they can relate because of their disposition. Advancing know ledge in this area is of value to marketing academics and practitioners. Research in marketing can uncover new facets of consumer behaviour such that managers can align their brand strategies with the needs of their target market. Understanding that brands possess unique characteristics that can be related to The Big Five is an aid to positioning and advertising strategies.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Consumer personality: ‘ The Big Five ’ Personality can be defi ned as ‘ the intrinsic organisation of an individual ’ s mental world that is stable over time and

MULYANEGARA, TSARENKO AND ANDERSON

consistent over situations ’ . 18 The history of psychology shows that researchers have attempted to develop a universal and sys- tematic personality framework to explain individual differences. The quest for a sys- tematic approach began in 1884, when Galton attempted to categorise person- ality-related words based on a standard English dictionary. Galton ’ s work was then followed by Thurstone, who conducted a factor analysis of 60 personality terms and came up with fi ve common factors. 19 Although Cattell embraced Thurstone ’ s method, he derived a more complex set

of personality variables, now known as the 16 Cattell Personality Factors . 20 Other researchers, including Fiske and Digman, 21 conducted follow-up studies by analysing Cattell ’ s 16 Factors, and found that only fi ve factors were proven to be replicable across different contexts. Subsequent research has confi rmed the reliability and generalisability of these fi ve factors in dif- ferent cultural and research settings. These fi ndings were embryonic in terms of the evolution of The Big Five Model. Today, The Big Five model of McCrae and Costa 22 (see Table 1 ) is regarded as one of

Table 1 The Big Five model

Traits (low score) Global domain scales Traits (high score)

Neuroticism (N) Calm, relaxed, unemotional, hardy, secure and self-satisfi ed

Assesses adjustment versus emotional instability. Identifi es individuals prone to psychological distress, unrealistic ideas, excessive cravings or urges and maladaptive coping responses.

Worrying, nervous, emotional, insecure, inadequate and hypochondriacal

Extroversion (E) Reserved, sober, aloof, task-oriented, retiring and quiet

Assesses quantity and intensity of interpersonal interaction, activity level, need for stimulation and capacity for joy.

Sociable, active, talkative, person-oriented, optimistic, fun-loving and affectionate

Openness (O) Conventional, down to earth, narrow interests, unartistic and unanalytical

Assesses proactive seeking and appreciation of experience for its own sake; toleration for and exploration of the unfamiliar.

Curious, broad interests, creative, original, imaginative and untraditional

Agreeableness (A) Cynical, rude, suspicious, uncooperative, vengeful, ruthless, irritable and manipulative

Assesses the quality of one’s interpersonal orientation along a continuum from compassion to antagonism in thoughts, feelings and actions.

Soft-hearted, good-natured, trusting, helpful, forgiving, gullible and straightforward

Conscientiousness (C) Aimless, unreliable, lazy, careless, lax, negligent, weak-willed and hedonistic

Assesses the individual’s degree of organisation, persistence and motivation in goal-directed behaviour. Contrasts dependable, fastidious people with those who are lackadaisical and sloppy.

Organised, reliable, hard-working, self-disciplined, punctual, scrupulous, neat, ambitious and persevering

THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY

the primary benchmarks in the trait theory of personality.

As shown in Table 1 , personality is described by emotional, cognitive and behavioural elements that are idiosyn- cratic. Each dimension consists of a set of correlated traits that are represented as bipolar traits (eg worrying-calm, etc). Although individuals can exhibit all fi ve dimensions, they may score quite highly on one or several dimensions and lower on others. 23

In the literature on branding, discus- sions about the application of brand pref- erence constructs across different product categories 24 have been limited to the rela- tionship between consumers and brands, 25 and the stability of brand preference across different categories. 26 Therefore, a gap in the literature was found concerning how consumers in respect of The Big Five per- sonality dimensions exhibit preferences towards brands that refl ect their person- ality. To address this gap, the work of McCrae and Costa 27 was used in the development of the instrument for this study.

Brand personality Brand personality is a set of characteristics that describe a brand. 28 Brand managers are interested in promoting a brand per- sonality that attracts consumers ’ attention such that they may form a preference for a brand. Consumer preferences are a piv- otal concept in marketing, as they underpin customer choice among alternatives. Blackwell 29 defi nes preferences as ‘ atti- tudes toward one object in relation to another ’ . A preference may be transformed into a motivation that ultimately fi nds expression in a specifi c behaviour. Despite the utility of this concept, it should, how- ever, be noted that consumer preferences alone are not the only factor implicated

in a purchase decision. Factors such as price and in-store promotion can mod- erate a purchase decision despite a con- sumer ’ s preference for a particular brand. 30

The premise of the research reported here is that if stability is a characteristic of personality, then likewise the pre- sentation of a consistent brand image with which consumers are comfortable will promote brand preference, and may contribute to brand loyalty so long as instrumental needs are met. This is essen- tially the argument stated by Aaker, 31 who stated that

‘ the greater the congruity between the human characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individual ’ s actual or ideal self and those that describe a brand, the greater the preference for the brand. ’

Aaker and Fournier 32 argued that a brand can function as a character, partner and person. Thus, the premise of the research is to examine the extent to which con- sumers use brand personality as a vehicle to express their personality. Based on this premise, brand personality scales used in this study have been constructed that are refl ective of The Big Five Model. This is consistent with the research aim, which was to explore the relationship between consumer personality and brand person- ality. An expectation of the research was that each consumer personality dimension would be aligned with at least one brand personality construct. The brand person- ality scale was constructed by identifying descriptors of traits from The Big Five model that could be attributed to brand. It was found that some elements such as ‘ worried ’ and ‘ anxious ’ could not be directly related to brand. Thus, only those descriptors that were transferable were embedded in the scale. Aaker 33 conducted a study to measure the generalisation of

MULYANEGARA, TSARENKO AND ANDERSON

The Big Five model across brand, and resolved fi ve different dimensions, which are Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness. Only three of the brand personality dimensions (Sincerity, Excitement and Competence) were, however, found to correlate directly with the personality dimensions (Agreea- bleness, Extroversion and Conscientious- ness). None of them correlated directly with Neuroticism and Openness to Expe- rience. In the research reported here, some elements of Aaker ’ s brand person- ality dimensions (Friendly, Cool, Reliable) were also used in the construction of the scales used to measure brand personality. Table 2 shows those descriptors that were used to construct the brand personality scale.

It was expected that respondents who were dominant on a particular dimension of The Big Five would prefer a brand per- sonality that refl ects that dimension or is close to it. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H 1a : There is a significant relation ship between consumers who have a high score on Extroversion and \ (i) Exciting Brand (ii) Sociable Brand.

H 1b : There is a signifi cant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Conscientiousness and Trusted Brand.

H 1c : There is a signifi cant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Openness to Experience and (i) Sociable Brand (ii) Exciting Brand (iii) Emotive Brand.

H 1d : There is a signifi cant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Agreeableness and Sincere Brand.

It was expected that those who had a high score on Neuroticism would prefer brands that may reduce their level of anxiety, and hence,

H 1e : There is a signifi cant relationship between consumers who have a high score on Neuroticism and Trusted Brand.

The youth market The research context for the study was the youth market. Because of their age this segment of the population was expected to be motivated to express their person- ality through fashion products, and clothing in particular.

‘ The clothes choices made by young people are closely bound to their self- concept, and are used both as a means of self-expression and as a way of judging the people and situations they face. Evidence was also found that clothing has a function in role fulfi lment, making the wearer more confi dent and capable. Overall, clothing can be viewed as an essential social tool in the lives of teenagers. ’ 34

Weale and Kerr 35 emphasise the impor- tance of fashion for teenagers and young adults despite their socio-economic

Table 2 Hypothesised brand personality constructs

Brand personality

Characteristics Corresponding Big Five dimension

Emotive brand Emotional and Idealistic

Neuroticism

Trusted brand Trustful, Reliable and Persevering

Conscientiousness

Sociable brand Friendly, Creative and Outgoing

Extroversion

Exciting brand Active, Adventurous and Cool

Openness to Experience

Sincere brand Simple, Caring and Helpful

Agreeableness

THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY

circumstances. It is argued that young consumers form their fashion brand preferences between the ages of seven and ten. 36

It has been found that a person ’ s ratings on The Big Five factors can change over time such that Agreeableness and Consci- entiousness increase, whereas Extroversion, Neuroticism and Openness generally decrease as a person ages. 37 This fi nding supported the rationale for recruiting respondents from the same age group for the study.

Gender differences In relation to personality theory, Piacen- tini and Mailer 38 conclude that there are signifi cant differences between genders in their use of fashion brands. Male con- sumers tend to express their personality in their fashion choice, whereas female con- sumers use fashion brand to relate to others. This argument is relevant to our study objective, since brand managers should understand the difference between male and female consumers in expressing their personality when it comes to brand personality.

It seems also that there are differences between males and females such that women tend to show higher scores on Agreeableness and Neuroticism, and that these observed differences are evident in different cultural contexts. 39 These sex dif- ferences, however, do not of themselves demonstrate that the sexes are innately dif- ferent in personality. 40

Given these arguments, a second hypothesis is proposed as follows:

H 2 : There are signifi cant differences bet- ween males and females in respect of the personality – brand personality relationship.

METHODOLOGY

The sample The respondents in the study were 251 undergraduate students (150 females and 101 males) enrolled within the Business School of one of the leading universities in Australia. University students were pur- posefully chosen as the study participants in order to be consistent with the research context (youth market). Most of the par- ticipants were aged between 18 and 20 (67 per cent) and 21 and 23 (23 per cent) years old. There were 168 local and 83 international students, and more than 70 per cent of them had been studying in Australia for at least 24 months. Because of this and the natural curiosity of this age group, it was reasonable to assume that international students were familiar with the Australian setting and with fashion brands in the marketplace. Sixty-two per cent of the respondents were engaged in part-time paid work with an average income of AUD $ 8,000 per annum.

The questionnaire Since the research required respondents to disclose information about aspects of self, anonymity was viewed as an important element in the methodology. 41 Thus, an anonymous self-administered question- naire was used for data collection. The questionnaires were distributed to partici- pants in two different lecture sessions. Although participation in the survey was purely voluntary and no incentives were given, there was a high response rate. Two hundred and sixty questionnaires were administered, and 251 were com- pleted in full.

The questionnaire comprised three parts. Part A included The Big Five personality scale adapted from McCrae and Costa ’ s ‘ Big Five Trait Factors and

MULYANEGARA, TSARENKO AND ANDERSON

Illustrative Scales ’ 42 and shown in Table 1 . The respondents were asked to rank them- selves on a seven-point semantic-differen- tial scale containing the adjectives that related to each of The Big Five dimen- sions. Reliability analysis was performed on each personality dimension yielding Cronbach ’ s alpha scores greater than 0.5.

Part B comprised brand preference scales (see Appendix) that were distilled from the elements of The Big Five model shown in Table 2 .

Part C of the questionnaire asked respondents to provide demographic data including age, income, gender and country of origin.

RESULTS

Brand personality construct assessment Initially, exploratory factor analysis was performed on the scales that had been constructed to resolve independent dimen- sions. These dimensions were subjected to a Confi rmatory Factor Analysis. Only items with factor loadings above 0.5 were retained. Subsequently, four dimensions of brand personality were identifi ed. The Emotive dimension was eliminated. A reli- ability analysis was conducted, and it was found that the refi ned scales had Cron- bach ’ s alpha scores in the range 0.5 – 0.8. Consistent with a priori expectations, the resulting factors were strongly refl ective of the elements of The Big Five. Table 3 indi- cates the elements of our refi ned brand personality scale, along with the corre- sponding Big Five dimension.

The refi ned model seemed to suggest two latent factors, that is, Sociable and Exciting Brand had very high covariance (0.81). This required a need to check for the discriminant validity of these two con- structs. A � 2 -difference test was performed

to assess whether � � 2 ( � d.f.) was signifi - cant for unconstrained and constrained models. The unconstrained model had a � 2 = 113.5 and d.f. = 38. The covariance was constrained to 1 (unit) and the model had a � 2 = 128.1 and d.f. = 39. The differ- ences were statistically signifi cant, exceeding the threshold ( � � 2 = 14.6 and � d.f. = 1, p < 0.001). This exceeds the threshold of � 2 >3.84, d.f. = 1, p < 0.05 and thus, the discriminant validity of the brand personality construct was supported.

The four dimensions of brand person- ality that were resolved are shown in Table 4 . This table shows the means, square root of average variance extracted, standard deviations and inter-correlations of the constructs operationalised in this study.

The strength of relationship A regression analysis was conducted to test the relationships between consumer per- sonality and brand personality. In order to test the fi rst hypothesis, the dimensions of The Big Five were used as the independent variables, and each brand personality dimension was used as a dependent vari- able in separate equations to test hypoth- eses H 1a to H 1e inclusive. The results are shown in Table 5 .

Table 3 Brand personality dimensions refi ned

Brand personality

Characteristics Corresponding Big Five dimension

Trusted brand Trustful, Reliable and Persevering

Conscientiousness

Sociable brand Creative, Friendly and Outgoing

Neuroticism, Openness and Agreeableness

Exciting brand Active, Adventurous and Cool

Extroversion

Sincere brand Simple and Caring Agreeableness

THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY

From the results in Table 5 , it can be seen that the personality dimensions of Neuroticism ( p < 0.05) and Conscien- tiousness ( p < 0.01) drive preferences for a Trusted Brand. Thus, support was found for H 1b and H 1e . The relationship between a Conscientious personality and Trusted Brand personality supports the validity of self-congruity theory in the context of brand preference. Consistent with our expectation, respondents who scored high on Neuroticism and thus may be prone to anxiety and worry show a preference for brands with a Trusted personality. That is, consumers prefer brands which are rel- evant to their own personality.

From Table 5 , it can be seen that Extro- version and Openness to Experience infl uence preferences toward Sociable Brand, lending support to hypotheses H 1a and H 1c . It is worth noting that ‘ friendly ’ and ‘ creative ’ are distinctive elements of the Sociable Brand ( Table 4 ). This suggests that respondents who scored high on Extroversion are very sociable and prefer Sociable Brand to express their friendly personality. In contrast, respondents who scored high on Openness to Experience are very open minded and creative and also prefer a Sociable Brand.

The results in Table 5 show that no signifi cant relationship was found between

The Big Five and the Sincere and Exciting brand personality dimensions. Thus, hypothesis H 1d is not supported. The results presented above are, however, strongly supportive of the proposition that consumers are drawn to brands the per- sonality of which are consistent with their own.

Gender differences To test the second hypothesis, the data fi le was split according to gender. Regression analysis was then conducted on each type of brand personality again with The Big Five dimensions as the independent vari- ables. Whereas previous analysis indicated that a signifi cant relationship existed only among personality, Sociable Brand and Trusted Brand, the gender-based analysis generated broader results. The relationship between personality and brand personality was found to be signifi cant across all brand personality scales. Tables 6a and b sum- marise the results of the analysis.

Consistent with the previous results, the adjusted R 2 values demonstrate the weak predictive capability of the fi tted equa- tions. There are, however, differences in terms of the corresponding Big Five dimension in this gender-split analysis. As can be seen in Tables 6a and b , each brand

Table 4 Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations

Trusted brand Sociable brand Exciting brand Sincere brand

Trusted brand 0.67 Sociable brand 0.333* 0.51 Exciting brand 0.390* 0.398* 0.55 Sincere brand 0.328* 0.172* 0.252* 0.71 M 4.55 4.64 4.20 4.11 SD 1.10 0.96 1.18 1.19

Figures in the diagonal (in italics) are square root of AVE. * p < 0.01. Correlation is signifi cant at the 0.01 level.

MULYANEGARA, TSARENKO AND ANDERSON

personality dimension has signifi cant rela- tionship to at least one Big Five dimen- sion, whereas previous analysis showed that signifi cant relationship only exists in respect of Sociable and Trusted Brand preferences.

Table 6b summarises the results of regression analysis for female respondents.

This table shows that there are differ- ences in terms of the corresponding Big Five dimensions between male and female respondents. These differences are summa- rised in Table 7 .

The fi ndings above support Piacentini and Mailer ’ s 43 argument that males and females are different in the way in which they express their personality through fashion brand personality. The results sug- gest that male consumers express Extro- version through Sociable and Exciting brands. On the other hand, females do not adequately express their personality in their brand preferences, since Openness to Experience and Extroversion personality traits do not match the personality ele- ments of Sincere and Sociable Brands.

Table 5 Regression analysis on brand personality and personality dimensions

Dependent variables

Independent variables

� F R 2 (adj) F sig T

Trusted brand Big Five (Constant) 2.989 21.930 0.046 3.413 0.000 Neuroticism 0.157 5.968 0.015* Extroversion 0.086 1.628 0.203 Openness to Experience

− 0.106 2.631 0.106

Agreeableness − 0.035 0.266 0.607 Conscientiousness 0.207 9.205 0.003**

Sociable brand Big Five (Constant) 2.785 25.180 0.063 4.349 0.000 Neuroticism 0.036 0.321 0.571 Extroversion 0.208 9.709 0.002** Openness to Experience

0.128 3.924 0.049*

Agreeableness − 0.005 0.005 0.942 Conscientiousness 0.033 0.235 0.628

Exciting brand Big Five (Constant) 4.241 36.578 0.003 1.153 0.000 Neuroticism − 0.116 3.144 0.077 Extroversion 0.083 1.438 0.232 Openness to Experience

0.065 0.939 0.333

Agreeableness − 0.015 0.049 0.825 Conscientiousness − 0.042 0.361 0.548

Sincere brand Big Five (Constant) 3.479 24.691 0.010 1.480 0.000 Neuroticism 0.063 0.920 0.339 Extroversion − 0.117 2.890 0.090 Openness to Experience

0.088 1.740 0.188

Agreeableness 0.131 3.576 0.060 Conscientiousness − 0.051 0.531 0.467

* p < 0.05. Relationship is signifi cant at the 0.05 level. ** p < 0.01. Relationship is signifi cant at the 0.01 level.

THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY

Table 6 Regression analysis on consumer personality and brand personality dimensions across gender

Dependent variables

Independent variables � F R 2 (adj) F sig T

(a) Male respondents Trusted brand Big Five (Constant) 2.746 9.169 0.048 2.003 0.003 Neuroticism 0.277 7.377 0.008** Extroversion 0.121 1.457 0.230 Openness to Experience − 0.08 0.634 0.428 Agreeableness − 0.034 0.099 0.754 Conscientiousness 0.133 1.501 0.224 Sociable brand Big Five (Constant) 2.377 6.376 0.032 1.668 0.013 Neuroticism 0.049 0.228 0.634 Extroversion 0.237 5.466 0.021* Openness to Experience 0.031 0.093 0.761 Agreeableness − 0.018 0.029 0.867 Conscientiousness 0.123 1.252 0.266 Exciting brand Big Five (Constant) 4.044 15.524 0.005 1.101 0.000 Neuroticism − 0.009 0.007 0.935 Extroversion 0.217 4.465 0.037* Openness to Experience 0.046 0.197 0.658 Agreeableness − 0.128 1.329 0.252 Conscientiousness − 0.038 0.118 0.733 Sincere brand Big Five (Constant) 2.223 4.911 0.056 2.192 0.029 Neuroticism 0.114 1.263 0.264 Extroversion 0.067 0.445 0.507 Openness to Experience 0.246 5.954 0.017* Agreeableness 0.112 1.071 0.303 Conscientiousness − 0.162 2.232 0.139 (b) Female respondents Trusted brand Big Five (Constant) 3.135 11.082 0.032 1.975 0.001 Neuroticism 0.088 1.080 0.300 Extroversion 0.063 0.450 0.503 Openness to Experience − 0.12 1.801 0.182 Agreeableness − 0.028 0.101 0.751 Conscientiousness 0.244 7.629 0.006** Sociable brand Big Five (Constant) 3.675 26.523 0.065 3.065 0.000 Neuroticism − 0.024 0.084 0.773 Extroversion 0.135 2.146 0.145 Openness to Experience 0.247 7.924 0.006** Agreeableness − 0.034 0.154 0.695 Conscientiousness − 0.059 0.460 0.499 Exciting brand Big Five (Constant) 3.377 11.628 0.007 1.211 0.001 Neuroticism − 0.117 1.839 0.177 Extroversion 0 0.000 0.999 Openness to Experience 0.082 0.814 0.369 Agreeableness 0.099 1.225 0.270 Conscientiousness 0.009 0.010 0.922 Sincere brand Big Five (Constant) 4.318 18.438 0.017 1.502 0.000 Neuroticism 0.013 0.023 0.878 Extroversion − 0.235 6.185 0.014* Openness to Experience 0.036 0.161 0.689 Agreeableness 0.142 2.503 0.116 Conscientiousness 0.01 0.011 0.915

* p < 0.05. Relationship is signifi cant at the 0.05 level. ** p < 0.01. Relationship is signifi cant at the 0.01 level.

MULYANEGARA, TSARENKO AND ANDERSON

However when it comes to Trusted Brand, however, it is worth noting that female consumers express their Conscientious- ness characteristics, whereas male con- sumers who are scored high on Neuroticism prefer Trusted Brand to reduce their anxiety. This result indicates that both males and females prefer brands that refl ect some aspects of their person- ality, although there are differences in the extent of relationship between dimensions of The Big Five for each brand personality dimension. The fi ndings here support the second hypothesis.

DISCUSSION Although past research has addressed the way in which personality affects prefer- ences in different product categories, little effort has been devoted to examining the signifi cance of personality in affecting pref- erences for particular brand personalities. Many researchers have argued that con- sumers use brands as a conduit to express their personality, but there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the proposi- tion. This study contributes to this research gap by assessing whether a signifi cant rela- tionship exists between consumer person- ality and brand personality dimensions. That is, whether consumers who are dom- inant on particular dimensions of The Big Five have preferences for brands that are congruent with their own personality.

Although the results indicate the weak predictive power of consumer personality on brand preferences, which supports Shank and Langmeyer ’ s 44 argument, this study found some signifi cant relationships between some of The Big Five dimensions and brand preference type. First, the results are con- sistent with Belk ’ s 45 fi ndings that consumers use brands to express their actual personality. It was found that those who are Conscien- tious prefer Trusted Brands to refl ect their reliable characteristics, and Extroverts prefer Sociable Brand to refl ect their outgoing nature. Secondly, it was found that those who score high on Neuroticism have pref- erences towards Trusted Brands. It is sug- gested that such people use Trusted Brands to reduce their anxiety. Thirdly, consistent with Piacentini and Mailer ’ s 46 argument, the study found that males and females are dif- ferent in terms of their personality – brand personality relationship. The results suggest that male consumers are more self-expres- sive in their brand preferences compared to female consumers. These fi ndings provide useful insights for brand managers in pro- moting brand personalities that are relevant to their target audience.

RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Theoretical and managerial implications This study has extended the scope of per- sonality research in marketing by using psychological theory to understand the relationship between consumer person- ality and brand personality. The fi ndings indicate that personality variables are not strong enough to be reliable predictors of brand preferences. Signifi cant fi ndings on the relationship between specifi c person- ality traits and brand preference, however, offer useful insights for managers. Person-

Table 7 Gender differences in brand personality

Brand personality

Corresponding Big Five personality

Male Female

Trusted brand Neuroticism Conscientiousness Sociable brand Extroversion Openness to

Experience Exciting brand Extroversion None Sincere brand Openness to

Experience Extroversion

THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY

ality-based segmentation can be imple- mented by devising and promoting different types of brand personalities to target different customers. For example, positioning a company ’ s brand as a Trusted Brand (trustful, reliable and persevering) may attract people with Neurotic tenden- cies. On the other hand, positioning a brand as a Sociable Brand (emotional, creative and friendly) may attract people who are Extrovert in nature. Those positioning their brand as a Sociable Brand, thus tar- geting Extrovert consumers, could use an outgoing sales person or customer service assistant to offer new products or services. This may be effective, since individuals who are dominant on Extroversion are people-oriented and highly sociable. 47 Brand managers should also implement advertising strategies that emphasise the personality of their brands. This type of advertising will enable target consumers to see the congruence between their own personality and that of the brand that is in line with their personality traits.

Gender differences, particularly in respect to Trusted Brands, also have sig- nifi cant implications for brand managers. Female consumers prefer a Trusted Brand to express their Conscientious (reliable) personality. Thus, brand managers targeting female consumers should position their brand as a Trusted Brand to enable con- sumers to refl ect their reliable character- istics through the use or consumption of the products that belong to that brand. On the other hand, for male consumers who prefer a Trusted Brand to reduce their anxiety, brand managers can emphasise how their brand can assist consumers to minimise risks and reduce tension.

Limitations of the study and future research direction The fi ndings presented in this paper are constrained by a number of limitations.

One limitation is the use of a self-report instrument to measure a respondent ’ s personality. Pervin and John 48 argue that self-report instruments in personality measurement have weaknesses, since res- pondents tend to report positively about themselves. Although the survey was anonymous, respondents may have scored themselves high on all dimensions con- ventionally perceived as ‘ desirable charac- teristics ’ . Future research could employ triangulation by asking signifi cant others to report on individuals in concert with self-reports by respondents.

The second limitation of this study is the development of brand personality scale based on The Big Five scale, which was originally created to understand the human personality. We intentionally developed our own brand personality scale rather than adopting the existing one in order to ensure consistency between the brand personality and consumer per- sonality constructs. The issue of consist- ency is fundamental to this study, as we wanted to examine the strength of the relationship between the two constructs. Although the discussion in the results sec- tion has documented the validity of the scale, this newly derived brand personality scale needs further validation and applica- tion in other product contexts. This is an avenue for future research.

Finally, the use of undergraduate stu- dents as the study sample is another limi- tation of this research. The group was relatively homogeneous and their incomes were low. Those on higher incomes might have different perceptions and place more importance on evaluating their brand preferences. Older consumers might have stronger brand loyalty or consider other factors when it comes to brand prefer- ences due to their previous experience. Consequently, future research should rep- licate this study using a heterogeneous

MULYANEGARA, TSARENKO AND ANDERSON

sample. Future research could investigate whether socio-economic factors moderate the relationship between personality and brand personality. Other factors such as marketing variables, emotional appeal, buyer motives and cultural infl uences should also be considered in measuring the relationship between the two constructs.

References ( 1 ) Monte , C . F . ( 1999 ) ‘ Beneath the Mask: An

Introduction to Theories of Personality , 6th edn, Harcourt, Fort Worth .

( 2 ) Heller , D . , Judge , T . A . and Watson , D . ( 2002 ) ‘ The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction ’ , Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 23 , No. 7 , p. 815 .

( 3 ) Smith , M . A . and Canger , J . M . ( 2004 ) ‘ Effects of supervisor Big Five personality on subordinate attitudes ’ , Journal of Business and Psychology , Vol. 18 , No. 4 , p. 465 .

( 4 ) Westfall , R . ( 1962 ) ‘ Psychological factors in pre- dicting product choice ’ , Journal of Marketing , Vol. 26 , No. 2 , p. 34 .

( 5 ) Sirgy , M . J . ( 1985 ) ‘ Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation ’ , Journal of Business Research , Vol. 13 , No. 3 , pp. 195 – 206 .

( 6 ) Jacoby , J . ( 1971 ) ‘ Personality and innovation proneness ’ , Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 8 , No. 2 , p. 244 .

( 7 ) Blackwell , R . D . , Miniard , P . W . and Engel , J . F . ( 2001 ) ‘ Consumer Behavior , 9th edn, Harcourt, Fort Worth .

( 8 ) Dolich , I . J . ( 1969 ) ‘ Congruence relationships between self-images and product brands ’ , Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 6 , No. 1 , p. 80 .

( 9 ) Helgeson , J . G . and Supphellen , M . ( 2004 ) ‘ A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity and brand personality ’ , Inter national Journal of Market Research , Vol. 46 , No. 2 , pp. 205 – 233 .

( 10 ) Birdwell , A . E . ( 1968 ) ‘ A study of the infl uence of image congruence on consumer choice ’ , Journal of Business , Vol. 41 , No. 1 , p. 76 .

( 11 ) Shank , M . D . and Langmeyer , L . ( 1994 ) ‘ Does personality infl uence brand image? ’ Journal of Psychology , Vol. 128 , No. 2 , p. 157 .

( 12 ) Brody , R . P . and Cunningham , S . M . ( 1968 ) ‘ Personality variables and the consumer decision process ’ , Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 5 , No. 1 , p. 50 .

( 13 ) Rice , B . ( 1988 ) ‘ The selling of lifestyles ’ , Psychology Today , March, p. 46 .

( 14 ) Shank and Langemeyer, ref. 11 above . ( 15 ) Baumgartner , H . ( 2002 ) ‘ Toward a personology

of the consumer ’ , Journal of Consumer Research , Vol. 29 , No. 2 , p. 286 .

( 16 ) Aaker , J . and Fournier , S . ( 1995 ) ‘ A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three perspectives on the question of brand ’ , Advances in Consumer Research , Vol. 22 , No. 1 , p. 391 .

( 17 ) Phau , I . and Lau , K . C . ( 2001 ) ‘ Brand personality and consumer self-expression: Single or dual car- riageway? ’ Brand Management , Vol. 8 , No. 6 , p. 428 .

( 18 ) Piedmont , R . L . ( 1998 ) ‘ The Revised Neo Personality Inventory: Clinical and Research Applications ’ , Plenum Press, New York .

( 19 ) Shrout , P . E . and Fiske , S . T . ( 1995 ) ‘ Personality Research, Methods, and Theory: A Festschrift Honoring Donald W. Fiske ’ , Erlbaum Associ- ates, New Jersey .

( 20 ) Goldberg , L . R . ( 1990 ) ‘ An alternative ‘ Descrip- tion of Personality ’ : The big-fi ve factor structure [Personality Processes and Individual Differ- ences] ’ , Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 59 , No. 6 , p. 1216 .

( 21 ) Fiske , D . W . ( 1971 ) ‘ Measuring the Concepts of Personality ’ , Aldine, Chicago .

( 22 ) McCrae , R . R . and Costa , P . T . ( 1990 ) ‘ Personality in Adulthood ’ , Guildford Press, New York .

( 23 ) McCrae and Costa, ref. 22 above . ( 24 ) Austin , J . R . , Siguaw , J . A . and Mattila , A . S .

( 2003 ) ‘ A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework ’ , Journal of Strategic Marketing , Vol. 11 , No. 2 , p. 77 .

( 25 ) Fournier , S . ( 1998 ) ‘ Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research ’ , Journal of Consumer Research , Vol. 24 , No. 4 , p. 343 .

( 26 ) Tsu Wee , T . T . ( 2004 ) ‘ Extending human per- sonality to brands: The stability factor ’ , Brand Management , Vol. 11 , No. 4 , p. 317 .

( 27 ) McCrae and Costa, ref. 22 above . ( 28 ) Aaker , J . L . ( 1997 ) ‘ Dimensions of brand person-

ality ’ , Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 34 , No. 3 , p. 347 .

( 29 ) Blackwell , R . D . , Miniard , P . W . and Engel , J . F . ( 2001 ) ‘ Consumer Behavior 9th edn, Harcourt, Fort Worth .

( 30 ) Grimm , P . E . ( 2005 ) ‘ Components impact on brand preferences ’ , Journal of Business Research , Vol. 58 , No. 4 , p. 508 .

( 31 ) Aaker, ref. 28 above . ( 32 ) Aaker and Fournier, ref. 16 above . ( 33 ) Aaker, ref. 28 above . ( 34 ) Piacentini , M . M . P . L . A . U . and Mailer , G . ( 2004 )

‘ Symbolic consumption in teenagers ’ clothing choices ’ , Journal of Consumer Behaviour , Vol. 3 , No. 3 , p. 251 .

THE BIG FIVE AND BRAND PERSONALITY

( 35 ) Weale , W . B . and Kerr , J . R . ( 1969 ) ‘ Brand choices of teen-age ‘ In-Group ’ versus ‘ Out-Group ’ ’ , Journal of Retailing , Vol. 45 , No. 4 , p. 30 .

( 36 ) Hogg , M . K . , Bruce , M . and Hill , A . J . ( 1998 ) ‘ Fashion brand preferences among young consumers ’ , International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , Vol. 26 , No. 8 , p. 293 .

( 37 ) McCrae and Costa, ref. 22 above . ( 38 ) Piacentini and Mailer, ref. 31 above . ( 39 ) McCrae and Costa, ref. 22 above . ( 40 ) McCrae and Costa, ref. 22 above . ( 41 ) Cooper , D . R . and Schindler , P . S . ( 2006 )

‘ Marketing Research ’ , McGraw-Hill, Boston . ( 42 ) McCrae and Costa, ref. 22 above . ( 43 ) Piacentini and Mailer, ref. 34 above . ( 44 ) Shank and Langemeyer, ref. 11 above . ( 45 ) Belk , R . W . ( 1988 ) ‘ Possessions and the extended

self ’ , Journal of Consumer Research , Vol. 2 , September, p. 139 .

( 46 ) Piacentini and Mailer, ref. 34 above . ( 47 ) McCrae and Costa, ref. 22 above . ( 48 ) Pervin , L . A . and John , O . P . ( 1997 ) ‘ Personality:

Theory and Research ’ , Wiley and Sons, New York .

APPENDIX

Refi ned Brand Preference Scale

Measures Factor loadings

Trusted brand (n=3, � =0.70) Reliable brand 0.78 Trustful brand 0.69 Persevering brand 0.62 Sociable brand (n=3, � =0.51) Creative brand 0.70 Friendly brand 0.63 Outgoing brand 0.58 Exciting brand (n=3, � =0.58) Adventurous brand 0.87 Cool brand 0.58 Active brand 0.50 Sincere brand (n=2, � =0.65) Simple brand 0.87 Caring brand 0.77