0
HUMANISING
COMPANIES
An exploratory study to examine how the consumer level influences the perception
of company character, influenced by his or her personality
Master Communication Science | Corporate Communication Course: Masterthesis
Supervisor: Dhr. Dr. Rachid Azrout Final Draft Master Thesis Date of submission: 26 June 2015
Student name and student numbers: Bianca Heine | 10754709
1
Abstract
This study contributes to the previous academic literature, as it uses the attribution theory to extend the theoretical boundaries of company personality communication. The present
exploratory research examined the interplay between a consumer’s personality and the effects it has on the perception of a company’s personality. This article presents a case study of two German multinational companies (DP DHL and Adidas) to analyse the differences between service-based and product-based companies. An online-survey was conducted in German to assess the consumer role in the consumer-company relationship. Overall, the findings suggest that the more an individual engages with a company, the more likely a projection of (positive) attributions will occur. In comparison: The less an individual engages, the less likely the process is to occur. Differences in attribution were found between DP DHL and Adidas, as Adidas produced a lot of significant results while DP DHL did not.
2
Table of Content
Introduction ... 3
Theoretical framework ... 4
Underlying concepts ... 4
Perceived company character. ... 4
Consumer attribution – hypothesized model ... 7
Research hypothesis ... 8
Conceptualizing big five personality traits ... 8
Conceptualizing perceived company character ... 9
Conceptualizing consumer levels ... 10
Methods ... 11
Sampling ... 11
Case description ... 12
Measures ... 13
The big five. ... 13
Analysis and results ... 18
Big five and company character traits ... 18
Discussion and conclusion ... 23
Suggestions for future research ... 26
References ... 28
3
Introduction
The personality metaphor has been used for over two decades to assess a company’s reputation (Davies, Chun, da Silva, & Roper, 2004). Davies, et al. (2004) define the personification
metaphor as a more accessible and indirect approach to measure a company’s reputation by using a projective technique. The projective technique states that consumers attribute character traits to a company. This approach can be profitable for businesses, as consumers can more easily
distinguish a company from its competitors and relate themselves emotionally to the brand and products. Moreover, according to Sung & Kim (2010), a company’s character traits affect both the consumers’ trust and affection, which in turn influence brand loyalty. Brand loyalty binds the consumer to the brand for a longer term than other marketing measures (Liu, 2007).
Communicating a company’s constructed personality thus may have many positive outcomes and it is therefore important to conduct further research on this matter. Therefore, this study will use the personality metaphor to more closely examine the consumer’s role in companies’ character building processes. As human character influences perception, attitude and behaviour, it will be used to explain variations in perceived character traits (Higgins, 2000). The goal of this research is to examine, whether individuals’ character traits as perceptions of oneself determine how a company’s personality is perceived.
The Attributional Theory (AT) will be used as a theoretical basis to explain the effects of an individual’s character on the perception of a company. This theory is derived from the
psychological field and states that people have a social feature (invariance) which makes them strive to determine the cause for another person’s behaviour by inferring perceptions, intentions, motives, abilities, sentiments and traits to the counterpart’s character (Heider, 1968; Malle, 2011). These inferences can also be referred to as dispositions. Few studies have considered to use AT as a theoretical basis to explain individual differences in the perception of a company’s
4 character traits. Until now, most studies on AT combined it with an educational motivation, help-giving judgements or crisis communication (Coombs, 2007; Weiner, 1972; Weiner, 1980). Instead, this exploratory study focuses on the connection between consumers’ perceptions of the own self and attributes they relate to a company based on their relationship with the latter.
Moreover two very distinct companies are examined (DP DHL and Adidas), which may lead to a more differentiated perspective on the effects of individual personality on a company’s
personality. These insights may help understand the consumer’s role in building a company’s personality and thereby support companies in comprehending the role a consumer plays in company-consumer communication.
Theoretical framework
The author built a conceptual model, which proposes that consumer attribution is determined by three general factors, them being: the perceived company character, the big five and the consumer level. In the following paragraph those three factors will be explained, leading to the construction of the model.
Underlying concepts
Perceived company character. The first factor consists of a company’s personality
dimensions. A company’s personality can be defined as a set of character traits that describe its character (Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, & Anderson, 2009). When a company promotes a personality, which attracts the attention of consumers, they may develop a preference for the company’s brand and products. This preference may support the intrinsic motivation of a consumer to alter the own purchasing behaviour and turn to this company’s products and services in future. This way, the construction of an attractive personality may help a company attract more consumers.
5 them to their own thinking and behaviour. Essentially the theory suggests that people strive to determine the cause for another person’s behaviour. When a person makes attributions towards another individual or company, conclusions (positive and negative) are drawn that surpass given information (Heider, 1958; Malle, 2011; Weiner, 1988). Transferring this into a more market oriented perspective, the attributional process a consumer undergoes when getting in contact with a company, influences their expectancies, emotions and behaviours (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1973; Martinko, Harvey, & Dasborough, 2011; Weiner 1986).
The big five. As the name indicates, the big five (or Five Factor Model) form a model of
five larger taxonomies, which describe human personality traits (McCrae & Costa, 1996). The first concept, extroversion, refers to the level to which a person displays sociable and talkative behaviour. People who score high on extroversion are often perceived as being warm, gregarious and have the tendency to actively seek for positive emotions (Taggar, 2000). The second concept, agreeableness, describes the extent to which a person is flexible, gentle and cooperative (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Individuals who present high levels of agreeableness appear to be tender minded, modest, trusting and straightforward in nature (Taggar, 2000). Conscientiousness describes the extent to which an individual is self-disciplined and organized. People who carry this trait are often described as being responsible, competent, dutiful, and striving for achievements. The fourth concept, emotional stability, describes individuals who present calm and poised behaviour. Accordingly, emotionally stable people tend to be enthusiastic and secure in their emotions. The last trait - openness to experience - describes the extent to which a person is imaginative and curious. This concept includes facets such as being sensitive, imaginative, and reflective (Taggar, 2000).
Every single individual carries these traits, but in different intensities and variances. McCrae & Terracciano (2005) examined the personality differences of individuals from 50
6 different cultures, based on the big five model. The results confirmed that the big five are
universally applicable. This means that individuals from different cultures all share the same five underlying personality traits. Furthermore, the big five have been proven to be relatively stable throughout a person’s life, thereby being generally independent from situational and time-related aspects (Ardelt, 2000; Caspi et al., 2005; Rantanen, Metsäpelto, Feldt, Pulkkinen, & Kokko, 2007). It should be noted that age does have a consolidating effect on the big five (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000).
According to Hogan (1996), the big five model can be seen as an indicator of an individual’s reputation, as experienced by the individuals and their external surroundings. The traits serve as an indicator for the “inner aspects of self” (p.166). The five taxonomies thereby merely represent an outcome of subconscious, underlying processes (Poropat, 2002). Based on this approach, the constructed model will view the big five as a representation of a consumer’s self-perception. Furthermore, an individual’s personality is an indicator for characteristics attributed to a company (Mulyanegara et al., 2009). Poropat (2002) for instance found that men who score high on the trait extroversion, tend to relate positive attributions to positive events. Therefore, the big five personality traits are used to assess a consumer’s personality and their relationship with attributed company personality characteristics.
Consumer level. The third factor is a consumer’s relationship with a company. It takes
100 milliseconds to form an opinion about someone (Willis & Todorov, 2006). The longer the first judgement takes, the stronger the boost in confidence that this judgement is correct. Based on this judgement positive, negative, or neutral characteristics are inferred to a person’s
personality. However, an exposure over a longer period of time leads to a more differentiated opinion. One can assume that non-consumers have less exposure time to a company and its products than consumers. Consumers actively engage with a company when buying the products
7 and experiencing the services, while non-consumers mostly gather information about a company through their social environment (word-of-mouth, social media, etc.) and when walking through a store that sells the product. Therefore the experiences and judgements of non-consumers might be less differentiated than those of consumers. Being a consumer may therefore lead to more
differentiated and consolidated judgements on a company’s character. This may affect the relationship between an individual’s character and the attribution of traits onto a company.
Moreover, according to Ashforth and Mael (1989) social identity theory suggests that ‘people tend to classify themselves and others into various social categories, such as
organizational membership, religious affiliation, gender, and age cohort’ (p.20). Humans are driven by the internal desire to add characteristics to their own identity. A consumer who identifies him- or herself with a company will be motivated to engage with that company and derive satisfaction from activities which are connected to the perceived company identity (such as purchasing the company’s products and goods). Companies are reduced by consumers to central characteristics are then added to the own identity. Identification thereby helps consumers to reify a company and build trust (which again has an effect on brand loyalty). Individuals who identify themselves as consumers of a company want the company generally to be perceived positively, as this will reflect on their own identity.
Consumer attribution – hypothesized model
This study focuses on the personification metaphor to analyse a company’s imagerial attributes, as it describes a company in terms of personality traits, of which some are reflected in the big five and thus pose a conceptual comparison (Davies et al., 2004). As assumed in Figure 1, the big five influence the consumer’s way in perceiving company character. The constructed model posits that an individual’s character traits influence the attribution of company character traits. This relationship is positively enhanced when the individual is a consumer having the
8 underlying desire to identify with a company in order to broaden the own pool of identity with positive characteristics (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In how far the three parts of the model interact and influence each other will be tested by four hypotheses. The underlying assumptions of these hypotheses will be explained in the next section.
Figure 1 – Consumer attribution: Hypothesized model
Research hypothesis Conceptualizing big five personality traits
This research will examine how individuals attribute characteristics onto a company’s character as it focuses on the consumer’s role in the company-consumer relationship. According to Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, & Anderson (2009), some taxonomies of the big five personality trait construct are related to preferences on specific dimensions of a company’s personality. For instance, people who are more extrovert in nature are more attracted to sociable (creative,
friendly, outgoing) brands. Companies might have the possibility to react to changed demands of their target groups by slightly altering the personality that they communicate. However, a lot of
9 power lies in the consumer’s role. The company’s personality is only attractive to its target group when consumers can relate to the traits it represents.
Conceptualizing perceived company character
The character of humans and companies are not synonymous (Aaker, 1997; Davies et al., 2004; Morgeson & Hoffmann, 1999). This means that not all of big five personality traits which describe a human’s character dimensions, can be used to describe companies’ character
dimensions. A corporate character scale (which measures the company’s personality) covers two dimensions: those that are connected to an innate part of human personality and those that are connected to a dimension, which humans desire, but do not necessarily carry (Aaker, 1997). When people come in contact with a company they may therefore perceive it as something they can relate themselves to on a personal level and something they aspire to be. A fashion brand for instance, may carry a personality trait such as agreeableness (which is also a big five personality trait), but also carry the trait chic (which is less connected to human personality and rather poses a trait someone may desire to reflect to the outside world).
Consequently, a company’s personality as perceived by a consumer is derived from an attributive and projective process the consumer undergoes. Thus, an individual’s personality and desired traits are inferred onto the company’s character. These assumptions lead to the first hypothesis:
H1: An individual’s personality positively influences the way a person attributes company characteristics.
Some of the big five are directly reflected in a company’s personality (agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness). Individuals who score higher on these big five traits, may have the desire to attribute these traits to a company in order to feel as part of the company and add the characteristics it represents to the own identity. This leads to the following hypothesis:
10 H2: The big five character traits which are reflected in the traits of a company’s
personality, will have a stronger effect on their company’s counter-traits than those, which are not.
Conceptualizing consumer levels
AT suggests, that an individual’s expectancies, emotions and behaviours are influenced by the casual inference process they undergo (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1973; Martinko, Harvey, & Dasborough, 2011; Weiner 1986). Transferring this into corporate perspective it could mean that consumer interaction with a company may trigger an internal process of attribution inferral. Depending on the dispositions an individual has towards a company, the consumer infers certain attributes to it (Weiner, 1972; Weiner, 1988). The level of consumer involvement influences consumer behaviour and attitude towards a brand (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985; Park & Young, 1986). Moreover, as previously stated, consumers have the internal desire to identify themselves with a company’s characteristics, in order to add these traits to their own identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). It is thus expected that being a consumer positively enhances the relationship between the big five and characteristics attributed to a company. This concludes the following hypothesis:
H3: If an individual is a consumer of a company, the relationship between an individual’s personality and the perceived company characteristics, will be positively enhanced.
Most of the judgements that non-consumers make about a brand cannot be based on personal experience. A lot of the experience is gathered by information provided through third parties such as the media (TV, social media, reviews, etc.) and people in the closer
communication environment of an individual. Of course, non-consumers can also get in contact with brands, for instance, when walking through a store which sells the product. As the
11 personality metaphor is used to describe a company's character, one can deduce that even though people may be familiar with a brand, they still have a foundation of predispositions which they base their judgements on. Therefore the following hypothesis was concluded:
H4: If an individual is not a consumer of a company, the relationship between an individual’s personality and the perceived company characteristics, will be positively enhanced, but less strongly than when the person is a consumer.
Methods
In order to analyse the above mentioned hypotheses, the author applied a quantitative research approach, using an online-survey. An overview of the sampling, procedure, case and measures is provided in the following paragraphs.
Sampling
The sampling process contains two phases. Convenience sampling (non-probability sampling technique) is used in the first phase. Participants are thus selected based on their accessibility and proximity to the researcher (Marshall, 1996). In the second phase snowball sampling is used by asking participants to further distribute the link of the online-survey to others who also fit into the sampling frame (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). Out of 266 respondents, 183 completed the survey which leads to a drop-out rate of 31%. The respondents are aged between 18 and 80 years, with an average age of 38.76. Furthermore, all respondents included in the analysis are German and familiar with the companies Deutsche Post DHL and Adidas. More women (65%) than men participated in the study.
Procedure
12 and ending on the 14th of May 2015. One week into the fielding process the participants received an e-mail as a reminder to complete the survey. Respondents were informed beforehand that their data would be treated anonymously and that they had the option to withdraw their participation at any time. No incentives were provided for the respondents’ participation. Except for the
demographic questions, all of the scales were randomized in order to avoid a survey bias. As all original scales were in English, they had to be translated into the German language. The
reasoning behind this measure was that all participants were expected to have German citizenship and not all of them were familiar with the English language. During the course of
operationalization, all items were assessed in the original language (English) and both survey versions (German and English) can be found in the appendix.
Case description
In order to generate reliable results, two companies are assessed for their character. Deutsche Post DHL and Adidas. The German multinational corporation Deutsche Post DHL Group (DP DHL) offers global logistics and communication services (“Deutsche Post DHL Group About us,” 2015). DP DHL is the market leader in German mail business and most global logistics activities (Deutsche Post DHL Group Corporate Strategy,” 2015). The German multinational corporation Adidas Group is a sporting goods manufacturer. Since its establishment in 1949 by Adolf Dassler the company has quickly expanded, rising beyond German markets and becoming a global player (“Adidas Group History,” n.d.).
Besides offering completely different services and products, DP DHL and Adidas are two very distinct companies. DP DHL underwent the transformation from being a governmental institution to being a private, profit-oriented global player in a rather conservative industry. The Adidas Group however, is a private business in its origin and has always had to assert itself against strong competitors such as Nike and Under Armour (“Statista Kunden von
13 Sportbekleidungsmarken,” n.d.). As different as they are, the two companies have some aspects in common. First, both are traditional German corporations. Second, they both present strong, valuable brands. Third, both DP DHL and the Adidas Group have expanded and become
profitable global players. Both companies were therefore chosen, as they represent well-known, established German businesses which provide goods and services Germans are familiar with.
Measures
The big five. The big five model is hierarchical in nature, built on five broad, bipolar
factors which represent an individual’s character at the broadest level of abstraction (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). In the past, the big five personality traits model has proven its internal strength, regardless of the theoretical frameworks, research methods, sampling methods, or demographical variables used for assessment (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae 1985; Digman, 1990; Fiske, 1949; Watson, 1989). Norman (1963), labelled the five taxonomies we now call the big five as follows: Extroversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Rantanen et al., 2007).
There are many rating instruments to measure the big five, such as the NEO personal inventory revised, or Yarkoni's 181-item AMBI inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Gosling et al., 2003; Yarkoni, 2010). All of these scales demand a long assessment period, ranging between 181 and 240 items. Consequently, the big five Domain Scale was selected to measure the
personality of respondents as it facilitates the analysis of the big five personality traits for studies with limited assessment time and thereby avoids a cognitive effort bias (Goldberg, 1992; Creyer, 1993).
14 five positively and five negatively keyed statements were rated on a 7-point Likert-Scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This way, both ends (positive and negative) of a factor were measured. Respondents were asked to rate to which extent they believe that the statements reflect their individual personality. As an example, the first trait agreeableness was assessed by statements such as: “Sympathize with others' feelings” and “Insult people”. Moreover, the second taxonomy extroversion was measured by positive statements such as: “Don't mind being the centre of attention”, and negatively keyed statements such as: “Keep in the background”. Furthermore, the third variable emotional stability was measured by statements such as: “Get stressed out easily” and “Am relaxed most of the time”. The fourth construct
conscientiousness was measured by items such as: “Pay attention to details” and “Make a mess of things”. The final personality trait openness to experience was assessed by statements such as: “Believe in the importance of art” and “Avoid philosophical discussions” (Mean, Min, Max and SD of variables can be found in the Appendix).
As five positively and five negatively keyed items were used to measure one big five taxonomy the variables were recoded, so that all of the items were positively keyed. In order to ensure internal validity, Cronbach’s reliability test was performed on all of the big five. All five factors appeared to have good internal consistency using a Cronbach’s of more than .7 (see Appendix).
Corporate character. The Corporate Character Scale (Davies et al., 2004) was used to
assess the different dimensions a respondent attributes to a company. The scale consists of the following seven character dimensions: Agreeableness, enterprise, competence, chic, ruthlessness, informality and machismo. Each of these dimensions include different facets and items which are summed up in the final dimension (see Table 1).
15
Table 1: The Corporate Character Scale: Dimensions, Facets and Items
Dimension Facet Item
Agreeableness
Warmth Empathy Integrity
Friendly, pleasant, open straightforward Concerned, reassuring, supportive, agreeable Honest, sincere, trustworthy, socially responsible
Enterprise
Modernity Adventure Boldness
Cool, trendy, young
Imaginative, up-to-date, exciting, innovative Extrovert, daring
Competence
Conscientiousness Drive
Technocracy
Reliable, secure, hardworking
Ambitious, achievement oriented, leading Technical, corporate
Chic
Elegance Prestige Snobby
Charming, stylish, elegant Prestigious, exclusive, refined Snobby, elitist
Ruthlessness
Egotism Dominance
Arrogant, aggressive, selfish
Inward-looking, authoritarian, controlling
Informality None Casual, simple, easy-going
Machismo None Masculine, tough, rugged
Source: (Davies et al., 2004)
Subsequently to the fundamental assessment of the big five taxonomies, the focus of analysis was shifted onto computing companies’ character traits. The analysis was centred on positive character traits, as special emphasis was laid on the consumer variable and the expectation that customers were more likely to project positive traits to a company when they used the services of the company. Three negative character traits (chic, ruthlessness and
16 machismo) were therefore excluded from analysis. Chic was depicted as negative, because two items measured the terms: Elitist and snobby. The remaining four taxonomies (agreeableness, enterprise, competence and informality) were separately assessed for DP DHL and Adidas by means of Likert-Scales, which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As mentioned before, sub-dimensional facets were listed within the survey, followed by the underlying items in brackets. The first trait, agreeableness was measured by the three facets warmth, empathy and integrity which were all subsumed by items such as friendly, concerned and honest, thereby describing the facets more specifically. The trait enterprise was measured by the facets modernity, adventure, and boldness, followed by items such as cool, imaginative and extrovert. Furthermore, competence was assessed by the facets conscientiousness, drive, and technocracy, which were followed by items such as reliable, ambitious and technical. As
mentioned before, informality is the only one of the four dimensions which is not subsumed by a facet. The trait was therefore listed with the underlying items casual, simple and easy going in brackets. As the traits were measured separately for DP DHL and Adidas, the individual
company’s character traits were computed to measure the overlying mean score of the different facets (Mean, Min, Max and SD of variables can be found in the Appendix). A Cronbach’s validity test was executed for both DP DHL and Adidas character traits to ensure internal
consistency. Informality consisted of one item and thus did not have to undergo a reliability test. Both, DP DHL and Adidas produced reliable results using a Cronbach’s of more than .7 (see Appendix).
Similar to the big five model the corporate character scale is hierarchical. The seven broader dimensions are subsumed by various facets. The facets themselves are explained by different items. Regarding this study, the corporate character scale will form the foundation of analysis and all items are kept. In order to avoid cognitive effort bias and misunderstandings, the
17 questionnaire includes associated items of the broader dimensions in brackets. Agreeableness for instance, was measured by asking respondents to rate the facet warmth, with the items friendly, pleasant, open, and straightforward, in brackets. The same applied for the facets empathy and integrity, which both further add to agreeableness as a character trait. Informality, as the only trait which is not made up of a sub-dimension, was listed in the survey with its subsuming traits in brackets.
Consumer level. Four different levels of consumers were assessed within this research: 1.
Being a member of the company 2. Being a consumer of the company 3. Not being a consumer 4. None of the above. The levels were introduced by the statement: “Please state your relationship to the companies DP DHL and Adidas” followed by two (single answer) multiple choice scales – one for DP DHL and one for Adidas.
In order to assess the impact on the relationship between the big five and company character traits, variables for the two companies had to be recoded to measure the effects for the company in question. Being a consumer was changed to measure being a consumer of DP DHL and being a consumer of Adidas. Subsequently, dummy variables were created, so the sub-group consumer could be assessed as an interaction variable in the later steps of analysis. Accordingly, a dummy variable for not being a consumer had to be created as some people may be non-consumers of both companies at the same time. Consumer and non-consumer thus are not opposite of each other and have to be measured separately. The consumer level employee and former employee were dropped, as only one respondent was an employee of DP DHL and none were employees of Adidas. In order to avoid survey bias the levels concerning employees were thus not further considered for analysis (Mean, SD, etc can be found in the Appendix).
Control variables. Poropat (2002) found that men and women differ in their character
18 more optimistic outlook on events, whereas women with a higher score on extroversion tended to be less positive and more critical. Therefore, the variable gender was included in the analysis. The results showed that the variable was not equally distributed within the sample, as women scored 65.4% and men 34.6%. Additionally, age was included in the analysis, as with increasing age character traits become more consolidated (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). As mentioned previously, the age of respondents ranged between 18 and 80 years and was equally distributed, with an average of 38.89 (SD = 14.45 years).
Analysis and results
The theoretical framework of the AT guided the analysis of the data. The first section covers the main effects of the big five on a company’s character traits. The second focuses on the nature of the relationship between the big five and a company’s character traits, when moderated by consumer levels.
Big five and company character traits
Two linear regression analyses are conducted to test all of the hypotheses : One to measure the effects of the big five on company character traits of DP DHL and the other to measure the effects on Adidas. Both regressions include the variables being a consumer (of DP DHL and Adidas) and not being a consumer (of DP DHL and Adidas) which are added as a moderating interaction variable. Age and gender is included as controlling variables. All the results are assessed one-tailed, as the hypotheses indicate a direction. The relationship between the big five and the companies’ character traits are indicated by an arrow to ensure a simple overview.
The results indicate weak to non-existent main effects of the big five on both DP DHL and Adidas. The only significant model for DP DHL is: Big five trait extroversion company
19 character trait agreeableness (see Appendix). Adidas generated more significant relationships (see Table 2). Hypothesis 1 posits that an individual’s personality positively influences the way a person projects company characteristics. As the results present a low level of significant
relationships which is mostly connected to the big five trait agreeableness and Adidas, we did not find support for hypothesis 1.
Table 2 Main Effects Big Five on Adidas One-Tailed Dependent
variables
Independent variables
Standardized Path Coefficient
Big Five Corporate character β T P-value one -tailed R F DF Agreeableness Agreeableness .202 2.617 .012 .218 2.956 3,177 Enterprise .150 1.959 .031 .243 3.704 Informality .160 2.055 .024 .198 2.413 Competence .052 .660 .262 .065 .253 Conscientiousne ss Agreeableness .056 .705 .241 .117 .487 Enterprise .141 1.811 .040 .237 .072 Informality .050 .632 .261 .136 1.118 Competence -.027 -.337 .450 .050 .145 Emotional Stability Agreeableness .035 .429 .334 .109 .709 Enterprise -.020 -.252 .400 .198 2.409 Informality .006 .069 .473 .128 .984 Competence -.088 -1.092 .138 .092 .505 Extroversion Agreeableness .047 .633 .264 .114 .782 Enterprise .112 1.521 .065 .226 3.189 Informality .104 1.401 .081 .165 1.647 Competence .116 1.547 .062 .123 .907 Openness to Experience Agreeableness .088 1.123 .131 .134 1.072 Enterprise .135 1.772 .047 .236 3.476 Informality 0.000 .003 .499 .128 .982
20
Competence 0.48 .609 .271 .062 .231
Sub-hypothesis H1.1 partially applies, as the results for Adidas show a slightly stronger effect of the big five trait agreeableness on the company character trait agreeableness than on the other company character traits (see Table 2). DP DHL however presents no significant results for this hypothesis (see Appendix). Sub-hypothesis 1.2 had to be rejected. Extroversion does not appear to have a stronger effect on the company character trait enterprise than on the other character traits for both DP DHL and Adidas (see Table 2 and Appendix). Thus, none of the results support the hypothesis. The third sub-hypothesis also is rejected, as conscientiousness does not have a stronger effect on competence than on other company character traits. DP DHL showed weak and non-significant results for all relationships and Adidas paints a similar picture (see Table 2 and Appendix).
Consumer level moderation analysis
The second hypothesis states that, if an individual is a consumer of a company, the relationship between the big five and company character traits is positively enhanced. The analysis generates only a few significant interaction effects for DP DHL, but significant results for all Adidas interactions (see Table 3 and Appendix).
21
Table 3 Interaction Effect Consumer on Big Five and Adidas One-Tailed Dependent
variables
Independent variables
Standardized Path Coefficient
Big Five Corporate character β T P-value one -tailed R F DF Agreeableness Agreeableness .201 2.686 .004 .292 4.099 4,176 Enterprise .137 1.820 .046 .276 3.642 Informality .184 2.440 .016 .266 3.348 Competence .264 3.482 .000 .262 3.232 Conscientiousne ss Agreeableness .232 3.088 .001 .254 3.024 Enterprise .140 1.867 .032 .273 3.552 Informality .148 1.939 .030 .198 1.791 Competence .289 3.881 .000 .285 3.882 Emotional Stability Agreeableness .269 3.579 .000 .281 3.770 Enterprise .140 1.840 .035 .239 2.677 Informality .179 2.347 .010 .215 2.134 Competence .253 3.345 .000 .260 3.198 Extroversion Agreeableness .231 3.058 .001 .251 2.952 Enterprise .151 2.013 .023 .269 3.446 Informality .174 2.575 .018 .235 2.575 Competence .267 3.559 .000 .285 3.892 Openness to Experience Agreeableness .227 3.031 .001 .258 3.138 Enterprise .142 1.904 .039 .273 3.553 Informality .155 2.042 .022 .198 2.793 Competence .276 3.700 .000 .275 3.608
Thus, the second hypothesis applies for Adidas, but not for DP DHL. It is therefore partially supported. Based on the AT, the third hypothesis states that being a non-consumer could also generate a positive, but weaker effect on the relationship between the big five and corporate character traits than being a consumer. DP DHL presents only one significant and negative
22 model: Extroversion agreeableness (see Appendix). Adidas presents overall significant results and negative interaction effects (see Table 4). The third hypothesis has to be rejected, as a
significant effect can be found, but it negatively enhances the relationship between the big five and corporate character traits.
Table 4 Interaction Effect Non-Consumer on Big Five and Adidas One-Tailed Dependent
variables
Independent variables
Standardized Path Coefficient
Big Five Corporate character β T P-value one -tailed R F DF Agreeableness Agreeableness -.198 -2.686 .004 .292 4.009 4,176 Enterprise -.135 -1.820 .046 .276 3.642 Informality -.182 -2.440 .008 .266 3.348 Competence -.260 -3.482 .007 .262 3.232 Conscientiousne ss Agreeableness -.225 -2.978 .001 .247 2.856 Enterprise -.131 -1.750 .041 .269 3.440 Informality -.161 -2.115 .018 .207 1.972 Competence -.256 -3.401 .000 .253 3.008 Emotional Stability Agreeableness -.271 -3.579 .000 .281 3.770 Enterprise -.141 -1.840 .036 .239 2.667 Informality -.181 -2.347 .010 .215 2.134 Competence -.255 -3.345 .000 .260 3.198 Extroversion Agreeableness -.234 -3.058 .001 .251 2.952 Enterprise -.153 -2.013 .023 .269 3.446 Informality -.176 -2.289 .012 .235 2.575 Competence -.269 -3.559 .000 .285 3.892 Openness to Experience Agreeableness .227 3.031 .001 .258 3.138 Enterprise .142 1.904 .031 .273 3.553 Informality .155 2.042 .024 .198 1.793 Competence .276 3.700 .004 .275 3.608
23
Discussion and conclusion
This study aims to answer the central research question: What impact does a consumer’s
personality have on the perceived characteristics of a company, taking into account the consumer level? Several studies have successfully related the big five to a company’s personality
(Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, & Anderson, 2009). Those findings, however, are not reflected in this research. Much rather, the results suggest a more complex relationship between an individual’s personality and that of a company.
The first hypothesis focused on the main effects between the big five and a company’s character. It states that the big five would have a positive effect on attributed company character traits. This hypothesis is rejected, as only a few models (mostly centred on the big five trait agreeableness) are significant. Adidas presents more significant results than DP DHL. As three of the big five are reflected in the company personality traits, it is expected that these have a
stronger effect on the attributed characteristics than the other remaining two. This assumption cannot be supported by the findings. Only one big five trait appears to have a stronger influence on the company’s character: Agreeableness. It should be mentioned that this effect is found in only one of the two companies that were included in the analysis, namely Adidas. Agreeableness thus is attributed to Adidas’ personality to a greater degree, but not applicable to DP DHL’s. The other two big five traits extroversion and conscientiousness do not show a stronger effect. This could be due to the fact that Adidas is a sports equipment manufacturer and sports are generally related to sociable events. According to Mulyanegara, Tsarenko and Anderson (2009), a
company’s personality trait agreeableness is often attributed to sociable brands by consumers. The second hypothesis is centred on understanding the influence consumers have on the attribution of character traits onto a company’s personality. The results reveal that being a consumer indeed strengthens the relationship between the big five and company character traits.
24 This applies especially for Adidas, even though DP DHL also produces significant models. This result is significant as it means: When you are a consumer, you are more likely to project positive attributions onto a company than when you are not a consumer. Social identity theory suggests that consumers engage with a company, with the intention of adding a characteristic to their own identity. Adding positive attributes to the identity is probably more satisfying than adding
negative traits. This might be the reason, why being a consumer has a strengthening effect on the positive attribution of character traits.
As previously mentioned, the AT states that individuals attribute characteristics to another person, even though they do not know them well. It suggests that individuals refer their positive, neutral, or negative feelings towards the other person and use these to evaluate which character traits the person carries (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1988). Following this line of thought, the third hypothesis suggests that not being a consumer would also strengthen the relationship between the big five and company character traits. This however, cannot be supported by the findings. Much rather, not being a consumer of the product or service provided appears to have a weakening effect on the relationship between the big five and company character traits. This means that, when you are not a consumer, you are less likely to project positive attributions onto a company. This is not in line with the AT.
When combining the first, second and third hypotheses, the results show that in general no effect is found between the personality of an individual and their habit to project attributes onto a company. However, when a consumer level is added there appears to be an interrelation between the individual’s personality and company’s personality and the effect appears to be heightened. Adding the non-consumer variable into the picture, it appears to weaken the
interrelation between the big five and a company’s personality. This could mean that consumers engage in different degrees of involvement with a company. The more a consumer engages with
25 the company (ie. buys their products, uses their services, goes to a store, uses the product
regularly, etc.), the more likely a projection of attributions will occur. The less the involvement, the less likely an attributional process is to occur. This phenomenon can be explained with the social identity theory, as individuals have the desire to add a company’s characteristics to their own identity. This leads to more engagement and involvement with the company and its
products, as consumers want to be identified with the characteristics of a company. This may lead to a stronger attribution of traits on a company. In other words, consumers are keen on
identifying themselves with a certain company because of the characteristics it represents. Therefore they infer certain characteristics onto this company in the hope that other individuals will perceive these traits when evaluating your own identity. Again this applies more to Adidas than DP DHL, as the global postal service company only presented one significant interaction, whereas all interactions for Adidas were significant.
As mentioned before, the results are generally more significant for Adidas than for DP DHL. This may be due to the fact that DHL is a pure service company with a more conservative approach to advertising than Adidas, which sells products and bases most of its advertisement on emotions and feelings. According to Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer (1999) the emotional approach to advertising supports the consumer’s identificational process with a company. Again, social identity theory comes into play, as the identity individuals want to create for themselves, reflects on their desires for certain characteristics on the companies’ side. Adidas’ attributed personality traits may be more desirable for consumers to add to their identity than DP DHL’s. During the course of the fielding process, Adidas also launched a new marketing campaign that was larger than any marketing campaign the company has ever made (McCarthy, 2015). Adidas may have thus been more dominantly represented in the media, as DP DHL has a less pushing approach to marketing measures. This could lead to a stronger set of dispositions consumers and
non-26 consumers could found their attributions on.
This study has some limitations. First, the sample size is relatively low (n=183), which may lead to a sample bias. Second, the gender distribution is quite unequal with women scoring 65%. Third, in order to avoid cognitive bias, the company character traits could not be assessed by measuring all items of the sub-dimensions separately. This may have an effect on the validity of items. Fourth, as the questions regarding an individual’s personality and values could have been viewed as questions that protrude into the own personal sphere and subsequently may have led to socially desirable answers.
Suggestions for future research
Despite those limitations, this research provides scientific and managerial implications. The findings suggest that brand characteristics are not a controllable, one-directional asset, but also depend on a consumer’s character. Companies should focus on engaging their consumers as much as possible, thereby creating an experience around the brand and related products or services. This may help create brand loyalty, as a desirable characteristic is created which consumers can then add to their identity and in turn motivates a stronger engagement with the brand. Future research should therefore focus on studying the strength of connection a consumer has with a brand. This way different nuances of strength in effects could be assessed between a consumer’s personality and characteristics attributed to a company. Other consumer related motivational aspects such as culture, income, emotional appeal, etc., could also be examined in future studies.
27
ReferencesError! Reference source not found.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, 347-356 Ardelt, M. (2000). Still stable after all these years? Personality stability
theory revisited. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 392–405.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1), 20-39.
Aviv Shoham, Moshe Davidow, and Maja Makovec Brencic (2003) ,"Measuring Values’ Importance: the Use of Different Scales to Measure the Lov", in E - European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 6, eds. Darach Turley and Stephen Brown, Provo, UT :
Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 154-161.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 27(2), 184-206.
Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate reputation review, 9(1), 26-38.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Beatty, Sharon E., Lynn R. Kahle, Pamela Homer, and Shekhar Misra (1985),
“Alternative Measurement Approaches to Consumer Values: The List of Values and the Rokeach Value Survey,” Psychology & Marketing, 2 (Fall), 181–200.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of marketing, 67(2), 76-88.
28 Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain
referral sampling. Sociological methods & research, 10(2), 141-163. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W. & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development:
Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.
Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multi-trait-multimethod-multioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1266-1282. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Attribution theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research.
Public Relations Review, 33(2), 135-139.
Deutsche Post DHL Group. Corporate Strategy. Retrieved on 25 June 2015 from http://www.dpdhl.com/en/investors/the_group/corporate_strategy.html
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory: Manual, form S and form R. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Creyer, E. (1993). Hindsight bias and inferences in choice: The mediating effect of cognitive effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 61-77.
Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125-146.
Deutsche Post DHL Group - at a Glance. Deutsche Post DHL Group. N.p., n.d. Retrieved on 25 June 2015 from http://www.dpdhl.com/en/about_us/at_a_glance.html
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology, 41(1), 417-440.
29 Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of
psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological assessment, 4(1), 26.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, 37(6), 504-528.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ Higgins, E. T. (2000). Does personality provide unique explanations for behaviour? Personality as cross-person variability in general principles. European Journal of Personality, 14(5), 391-406.
Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of personality: theoretical perspectives (pp. 163–179). New York: Guilford Press.
Kahle, L. R. (1983), Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America, New York: Praeger.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American psychologist, 28(2), 107. Koepping, K.P. (1983). Adolf Bastian and the psychic unity of mankind: The foundations of
anthropology in nineteenth century Germany. St.Lucia, Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.
Deutsche Post DHL Group. Kredit-Ratings. N.p., n.d. Retrieved on 25 June 2015 from http://www.dpdhl.com/de/investoren/creditor_relations/kredit-ratings.html
De.statista.com. Themenseite: Kunden Von Sportbekleidungs-Marken. N.p., n.d. Retrieved on 25 June 2015 form
http://de.statista.com/themen/2339/kunden-von-sportbekleidungs-30 marken/).
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, 37(6), 504-528.
History. Adidas Group -. N.p., n.d. Retrieved on 25 June 2015 from http://www.adidas-group.com/en/group/history/
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of marketing research, 41-53.
Liu, Y. (2007). The long-term impact of loyalty programs on consumer purchase behavior and loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 19-35.
Malle, B. F. (2011). Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. Theories in social psychology, 72-95.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011). Attribution theory in the
organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 144-149.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist, 52(5), 509.
McCarthy. "Ad of the Day: Adidas Comes Out Swinging in Big New Brand Campaign." AdWeek. N.p., n.d. Retrieved on 25 June 2015 from
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/ad-day-adidas-comes-out-swinging-big-new-brand-campaign-162944
31 Morgeson, F. P., & Hoffman, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs:
Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 249–265.
Mulyanegara, R. C., Tsarenko, Y., & Anderson, A. (2009). The Big Five and brand personality: Investigating the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards particular brand personality. Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 234-247.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574.
Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1986). Consumer response to television commercials: The impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. Journal of marketing research, 11-24.
Poropat, A. (2002). The relationship between attributional style, gender and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Personality and individual differences, 33(7), 1185-1201.
Rantanen, J., Metsäpelto R. L., Feldt, T., Pulkkinen, L. E. A., & Kokko, K. (2007). Long‐term stability in the Big Five personality traits in adulthood. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 48(6), 511-518.
Roberts, B. W., & Del Vecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological bulletin, 126(1), 3.
Robertson, T. S., & Rossiter, J. R. (1974). Children and commercial persuasion: An attribution theory analysis. Journal of Consumer research, 13-20.
32 http://www.adidas-group.com/en/group/strategy-overview
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639-661.
Taggar, S. (2000). Personality, cognitive ability and behaviour: The antecedents of effective autonomous work teams (Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Information & Learning). Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process.
Review of educational research, 203-215.
Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(2), 186.
Weiner, B. (1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, 1, 281-312.
Weiner, B. (1988). Attribution theory and attributional therapy: Some theoretical observations and suggestions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27(1), 99-104.
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological science, 17(7), 592-598.
Yarkoni, T. (2010). The abbreviation of personality, or how to measure 200 personality scales with 200 items. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(2), 180-198.
33
Appendix Tables
Table Big Five Cronbach’s Reliability Test
Big Five Sig Mean SD Min Max
Agreeableness .78 4.64 .76 3.4 7
Conscientiousness .77 5.1 .8 2.5 7
Emotional Stab. .78 4.5 .96 1.7 7
Extroversion .84 4.64 .93 2.1 6.8
Openness .83 4.3 .72 2.1 5.9
Table DP DHL and Adidas Corporate Character Cronbach’s Reliability Test Company
Character
Sig Mean SD Min Max
DP DHL Agreeableness .77 2.58 .74 1 4.67 Enterprise .76 2.16 .87 1 5 Competence .68 3.47 .84 1 5 Informality n/a 3.42 1.19 1 5 Adidas Agreeableness .79 2.81 .86 1 5 Enterprise .83 3.44 1.00 1 5 Competence .66 3.19 .79 1 5 Informality n/a 2.37 1.06 1 5
Table Consumer Dummy Overview
Consumer Level Mean SD Min Max
DP DHL Being a member .02 .13 0 1 Being a consumer .83 .38 0 1 Not being a consumer .16 .37 0 1 Adidas Being a member 0 0 0 0
34
Being a consumer .57 .50 0 1
Not being a consumer
.43 .50 0 1
Table 2 Main Effects Big Five on DP DHL One-Tailed Dependent
variables
Independent variables
Standardized Path Coefficient
Big Five Corporate character β T P-value one -tailed R F DF Agreeableness Agreeableness .050 .635 .263 .117 .818 3,177 Enterprise -.085 -1.083 .140 .108 .702 Informality .077 .977 .165 .101 .612 Competence .059 .395 .346 .059 .203 Conscientious-ness Agreeableness .118 1.484 .140 .154 1.425 Enterprise -.003 -.032 .487 .072 .309 Informality .016 .203 .420 .072 .306 Competence -.030 -.381 .352 .058 .199 Emotional Stability Agreeableness -.072 -.897 .186 .126 .954 Enterprise -.088 -1.090 .138 .109 .707 Informality .081 1.002 .158 .629 .103 Competence .001 .015 .494 .051 .151 Extroversion Agreeableness -.201 -2.739 .004 .227 3.212 Enterprise -.115 -2.539 .063 .135 1.103 Informality .031 .416 .339 .077 .350 Competence -.012 -.163 .446 .052 .160 Openness to Experience Agreeableness -.156 -2.016 .023 .183 2.053 Enterprise -.080 -1.019 .155 .105 .657 Informality -.048 -.617 .269 .084 .420 Competence .006 .073 .471 .051 .153
35
Table Interaction Effect Consumer on Big Five and DP DHL One-Tailed Dependent
variables
Independent variables
Standardized Path Coefficient
Big Five Corporate character β T P-value one -tailed R F DF Agreeableness Agreeableness .135 1.705 .045 .172 1.347 3,177 Enterprise .116 1.467 .076 .154 1.068 Informality .085 1.066 .144 .129 .744 Competence .003 .038 .485 .059 .152 Conscientious-ness Agreeableness .129 1.700 .046 .172 1.343 Enterprise .098 1.292 .099 .145 .945 Informality .077 1.009 .158 .126 .714 Competence -.004 -.055 .478 .059 .152 Emotional Stability Agreeableness .147 1.855 .033 .186 1.585 Enterprise .109 1.370 .081 .149 1.002 Informality .098 1.226 .111 .138 .849 Competence .032 .396 .346 .059 .152 Extroversion Agreeableness .135 1.741 .042 .260 3.194 Enterprise .090 1.139 .131 .160 1.153 Informality .094 1.186 .121 .117 .615 Competence .024 .302 .381 .057 .142 Openness to Experience Agreeableness .094 1.227 .111 .205 1.921 Enterprise .114 1.480 .071 .152 1.043 Informality .071 .910 .182 .108 .522 Competence .024 .305 .381 .056 .137 German Online-Survey
44
English Version Survey Demographics Age Gender Place of Residence Marital Status - Married - Divorced - Widowed - Single
¼ Of the survey is done! Next part of the survey covers your self-evaluation regarding your own personality. It is important that the questions are answered truthfully. Thank you!
Please read the following statements and chose the category that applies to you.
Big Five
Factor I (Extraversion)
10-item scale (Alpha = .87)
+ keyed Am the life of the party.
Feel comfortable around people. Start conversations.
45
Don't mind being the center of attention.
– keyed Don't talk a lot.
Keep in the background. Have little to say.
Don't like to draw attention to myself. Am quiet around strangers.
Factor II (Agreeableness)
10-item scale (Alpha = .82)
+ keyed Am interested in people.
Sympathize with others' feelings. Have a soft heart.
Take time out for others. Feel others' emotions. Make people feel at ease.
– keyed Am not really interested in others. Insult people.
Am not interested in other people's problems. Feel little concern for others.
Factor III (Conscientiousness)
10-item scale (Alpha = .79)
+ keyed Am always prepared. Pay attention to details. Get chores done right away.
Like order.
Follow a schedule. Am exacting in my work.
– keyed Leave my belongings around. Make a mess of things.
Often forget to put things back in their proper place. Shirk my duties.
Factor IV (Emotional Stability)
10-item scale (Alpha = .86)
46 Seldom feel blue.
– keyed Get stressed out easily. Worry about things. Am easily disturbed. Get upset easily.
Change my mood a lot. Have frequent mood swings. Get irritated easily.
Often feel blue.
Factor V (Openness to experience)
10-item scale (Alpha = .82)
+ keyed Believe in the importance of art. Have a vivid imagination.
Tend to vote for liberal political candidates. Carry the conversation to a higher level. Enjoy hearing new ideas.
– keyed Am not interested in abstract ideas. Do not like art.
Avoid philosophical discussions. Do not enjoy going to art museums. Tend to vote for conservative political
candidates.
Consumer Level
Now questions regarding your relationship with two different companies will follow. Please state in what way you use the services of the companies.
Please state what kind of relationship you have with the company DP DHL Consumer
Employee Not a consumer None of the above
47 Please state what kind of relationship you have with the company Adidas
Consumer Employee Not a consumer None of the above
Company Character Traits
You are almost done! Please imagine DP DHL and Adidas came to life as a person and state how you would evaluate their personality.
48 Thank you for participating in this study. Your answers will be handled confidentially. If you have any questions or suggestions, I am available under the following mail address.
