1
Consumer-brand identification in lifestyles
Are brand associations as important as you think ?
Key words: Lifestyle, brand image, brand associations, consumer-brand identification
Name: Stefanie Welten Student number: 10537759
Date: 28 June 2015 (final draft)
Program: MSc. in Business Administration
Track: Marketing
Institution: Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam First supervisor: Drs. ing. A.C.M. Meulemans
2
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Stefanie Welten who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and
that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have
been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision
of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Table of contents
Pages
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Lifestyles in a changing competitive environment 7
1.2 The problem definition 8
1.3 Contributions 10
1.3.1 Theoretical contributions 10
1.3.2 Managerial contributions 10
1.4 The structure 11
Theoretical Framework – Part I 12
2. Brands within consumer lifestyles 12
2.1 The definition of consumer lifestyles 12
2.1.1 Segmentation approaches 14
2.2 Consumer-based brand equity 15
2.2.1 Brands 16
2.2.2 Functional and symbolic brand utilities 17
2.2.3 Brand equity 19
2.2.4 Brand knowledge 20
Theoretical Framework – Part II 24
3. Consumer-brand identification 24
3.1. The definition of consumer-brand identification 24 3.2. Drivers and benefits of consumer-brand identification 26
3.3 Brand-self similarity 27
4. Hypotheses 29
4.1 Brand image and consumer-brand identification 30
4.2 The role of brand-self similarity 33
5. Methodology 35
5.1 Research design 35
5.2 Procedure and variables 35
4
5.4 Data analysis 41
5.4.1 Reliability check 41
6. Results 43
6.1 Determining the variable brand-self similarity 43
6.1.1 Brand-self similarity Nike 43
6.1.2 Brand-self similarity Tommy Hilfiger 44
6.1.3 Brand-self similarity Unox 45
6.2 Correlations 45
6.3 Testing the hypotheses 48
6.3.1 Regression assumptions 48
6.3.2 Testing the effect of brand associations on
consumer-brand identification 49
6.3.3 Testing the moderation effect 54
7. Discussion 59
7.1 Summary of the findings 59
7.2 Theoretical implications 63
7.3 Managerial implications 64
7.4 Limitations and suggestions for further research 65
7.5 Conclusion 67
References 69
Appendix I: Questionnaire 74
5
List of tables and figures
Pages
Table 1: Reliability check of the variables 42
Table 2: Brand personality – Nike 43
Table 3: Brand personality - Tommy Hilfiger 44
Table 4: Brand personality – Unox 45
Table 5: Means, Standard deviations, Correlations – Nike 46 Table 6: Means, Standard deviations, Correlations - Tommy Hilfiger 47 Table 7: Means, Standard deviations, Correlations – Unox 48 Table 8: Hierarchical multiple regression model – Nike 53 Table 9: Hierarchical multiple regression model - Tommy Hilfiger 53 Table 10: Hierarchical multiple regression model – Unox 54 Table 11: Analysis of the moderation effect of brand-self similarity – Nike 56 Table 12: Analysis of the moderation effect of brand-self similarity –
Tommy Hilfiger 56
Table 13: Analysis of the moderation effect of brand-self similarity – Unox 57
Figure 1: Brand Personality Framework of Aaker (1997) 18
6
ABSTRACT
Preliminary research describes the development of the definition of lifestyle whereby brands became of higher importance within expressing a unique identity. In this research, this development was combined with the increasing importance of brand image in a competitive world and the role of brands within consumer-brand identification. Based upon this, the aim of this research is to gain deeper insights on the role of brand image and brand-self similiary within consumer-brand identification.
By making use of the free associations network, the three antecedents of brand image e.g. the favourability-, strength- and uniqueness of brand associations, were measured. Brand-self similarity was determined with the Brand Personality Scale of Aaker combined with the Big Five personalities. The data was collected with an online survey among Dutch respondents resulting in a total of 129 useful surveys.
Significant support was found for the positive relationship between the favourability of brand associations and consumer-brand identification in this research. No significant results were found for the other two dimensions of brand image. Therefore, the favourability of brand associations can be added as a driver of consumer-brand identification. There was no significant moderation effect found for brand-self similarity.
Despite the statement that a positive brand image arises if favourable, strong and unique brand associations exist, this study has shown that these dimensions function separately in order to determine consumer-brand identification from a personal identification perspective. Further research should investigate if these results also occur if it is discussed from a social identification perspective, if the types of associations are included the analysis and if brand image is not measured with the free associations network but differently.
7
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Lifestyles in a changing competitive environment
Nowadays, we live in a century in which the traditional marketing approach is changing from a transaction and product driven approach to a relation and value driven approach (American Marketing Association, 2008). The relation and value driven marketing approach forces brands to create more than just a necessary and helpful product based upon the product features (Woodruff, 1997). Brands have to meet customer wants and needs to build a customer relationship, whereby adding value to a product forms the base within this relationship. If brands will not meet customer’s needs and wants although an impressive brand strategy is achieved, a brand will be insufficient (Lemon, Rust & Zeithaml, 2001).
The developments in the dynamic and changing world stimulate customers to think about themselves e.g. who they are or who they want to be. Why are customers drinking Heineken beer, wearing H&M clothes or buying Apple products? Is it all about the product features, the brand image or just the fit between the brand and the lifestyle they want to live? Consumers are shaping their lives by creating a combination of products or services to express their individual identity; a narrative of a consumer’s life (Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000). People express this pattern of buying and using all these different products and services in their consumer lifestyle which is defined as ‘patterns of action that differentiate people, lifestyles
therefore help to make sense of what people do, and why they do it, and what doing it means to them and others’ (Chaney, as cited in Vyncke 2002, p. 449). This results in a shift in the
dynamic and changing world whereby companies tried to fulfil these trends by creating distinctive brand images which comprise specific lifestyles. Within lifestyles, consumers want to express their identities related to values which are important to them to fulfil personal needs and priorities. Due to this, consumer lifestyles distinguish people from one another because consumers create their own lifestyle with products and brands they want to be identified with.
8 Today, in the hyper-competitive market customers have an extensive choice of numerous brands to create their own lifestyle with. In this competitive world, companies are trying to offer customers extra services by adding distinctive values to their lifestyle brands. A lifestyle brand is defined as a brand which ‘targeted a specific market segment defined by
lifestyle. The brand offers a set of added values that have a symbolic value and meaning for the lifestyles of a specific consumer group’ (Helman & Chernatony, 1999, p. 49). Because of the
distinctive values companies added to their brands, consumers develop several identifications with these multiple brands to compare these brands on their utilitarian and psychological values which are added to the products. As a result, consumers use these multiple brand identifications, also known as consumer-brand identification, in a comparative manner in relation to other brands to make their purchase decision more easy (Lam, Ahearne, Hu & Schillewaert, 2010). A competitive advantage will be achieved if companies develop a distinct lifestyle brand where consumers can strongly identify with, which is of high importance for marketers (Donavan, Janda & Suh, 2006). According to this, brands are forced to build strong relationships with customers including focussing on consumer-brand identification (CBI) as a part of consumers lifestyles. This makes it interesting to gain more insights about the process of CBI as a part of shaping lifestyles.
1.2 The problem definition
As far as I know, the literature has not been enriched with different insights about the process of CBI within lifestyles. A lot of lifestyle research has been focused on building different lifestyles to segment customers by allocating them in a lifestyle group. On the one hand, the greatest focus lies on the values which are important for people during their way of life and the activities or opinions people convey to segment customers (Vyncke, 2002). On the other hand, lifestyles exist of a combination of products and services customers purchase and use to shape
9 their own life and build their unique identity (Taylor, 2002). In my view, the specific (branded) products and services customers use to formalize their lifestyles, will therefore fulfil an important role within building lifestyles. During the process of building an identity in this competitive world, consumers are confronted with several brand impressions and marketing campaigns which will generate positive or negative associations towards the brand. To my knowledge, the existing literature will not focus on the role of brand associations people develop although everybody creates brand associations during the process of building a personal identity in their lifestyles. In fact, I assume that brand associations will be of great importance in creating a pattern of actions to differentiate. Where brand knowledge is seen as an important driver of building customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993), the role of brand knowledge, consisting of among others brand associations, within creating consumer identities is up to now hardly studied. It is important to achieve deeper insights in the process of CBI and the accompanying brand associations consumers develop during creating their own lifestyle. The pattern of actions people undertake within their lifestyles, create a personal image consisting of matching products and services. According to this, the following research question will exist:
‘How does brand-self similarity moderate the suggested relationship between
brand image and consumer-brand identification?’
10
1.3 Contributions
1.3.1 Theoretical contributions
This research helps to gain more insights about the role of brand image as a driver of CBI, mentioned as a direction for future research in the study of Tuskej, Golob & Podnar (2013). This study contributes to the theory on the antecedents of identification. Thereby, personality traits are decisive by creating a consumer identity so this research will examine the moderation effect of brand-self similarity and CBI, related to personality traits. Although, researchers often cite brand image in dimensions of favourability, strength and uniqueness, little empirical research is done with these characteristics separately (Del Rio, Vazquez & Iglesias, 2001). According to this, the research adds to our understanding of CBI as started from the perspective of building an unique lifestyle in a competitive world with a lot of different lifestyle brands where brand image is distinguished in three measurements of brand associations.
1.3.2 Managerial contributions
From a managerial perspective, brand associations are used to position and differentiate brands, resulting in the creation of positive feelings and attitudes towards these brands. Furthermore, brand associations suggest benefits of purchasing and using the brand which is of high relevance to achieve for marketers (Low & Lamb, 2000). Moreover, managers strive for loyal customers and commitment to their brands, which are results of consumer’s identification with brands (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar & Sen, 2012; Tuskej et al., 2013). In today’s competitive world with numerous brands, it is for managers interesting to know which drivers could increase identification with their brands to subsequently increase brand loyalty and brand commitment.
11
1.4 The structure
The structure of this thesis is organized as follows. At first, the thesis starts with a literature overview to provide academic research about lifestyles, brand knowledge and CBI. This results in a research gap on which the theoretical framework is based. Secondly, based upon the theoretical framework the hypotheses will be formulated. After that, the methodology chapter will explain the research design, provide an explanation for the process of data collection, followed by the analyses of the results. Finally this will result in implications of the findings and directions for further research.
12
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - PART I
2. Brands within consumer lifestyles
In chapters 2 and 3 the theoretical framework is discussed. In chapter 2, frist the emergence of the research question will be described and insight will be provided into the development of the definition of ‘consumer lifestyle’, in which brands play an increasingly important role. Following this the theoretical framework continues with customer-based brand equity and the focus on brand equity in this study. Lastly, the definition and benefits of CBI are described in chapter 3, ending with the formation of brand-self similarity.
2.1. The definition of consumer lifestyles
Today’s consumers are shaping their lives by creating a combination of products or services to express their individual identity, a narrative of a consumer’s life (Spaargaren & Van Vliet, 2000). This narrative of a consumer’s life, which correspondent to a lifestyle, refers to an individual’s daily life, which consists of social practices (Spaargaren & Van Vliet, 2000). Moore (cited in Anderson & Golden 1984, p. 406) suggests that the term lifestyle means a ‘patterned way of life into which people fit various products, events or resources. It suggests
that consumer purchasing is an interrelated, patterned phenomenon where products are bought as part of a lifestyle package’. Moore focuses with this definition on the patterns of life whereby
consumers purchase various products to create their lifestyles. Years later, Giddens (cited in Spaargaren & Van Vliet 2000, p. 55) defines a lifestyle as:
‘[…] a more or less integrated set of practices which an individual embraces, not only because such practices fulfil utilitarian needs, but because they give material form to a particular narrative of self-identity. Lifestyles are routine practices, the routines incorporated into habits of dress or eating or encountering others; but the routines followed are reflexively open to change in the light of the mobile nature of self-identity’.
13 Thus Giddens effectively states that consumer lifestyles consist of routine practices that are completed in light of the need for self-identification. Giddens adds a self-identity aspect to the lifestyle definition, compared with the definition of Moore, by arguing that consumers are not only focused on the fulfilment of utilitarian needs but also on the need for self-identification. The definition of consumer lifestyles is still in process, since Taylor (2002) came up with a new movement from ‘ways of life’ to ‘lifestyle’ in societies.
This movement is based upon the vision of Chaney regarding the development of culture. Chaney (cited in Taylor 2002, p.481) argues that culture nowadays is a ‘symbolic repertoire’. A symbolic repertoire refers to the relationship between social actors and how people identify themselves or identify themselves with members of social groups within large societies. Their symbolic performances are built upon social change related to existing economic, demographic and cultural trends, such as urbanisation. These social changes explain the development of different consumer lifestyles. Consumers use these symbolic performances to develop a unique identity while formulating their own lifestyles. Chaney (cited in Vyncke 2002, p. 447) defines lifestyles as ‘patterns of actions that differentiate people and therefore lifestyles help to make
sense of what people do, and why they do it, and what doing it means to them and others’.
Taylor (2002) argues that consumers build lifestyles to differentiate themselves and express their identities; therefore lifestyles are used as primary identity markers.
Lifestyles are used as mechanisms to build a personal identity, to understand people’s different reactions towards marketing communication aspects and to explain people’s purchase decisions. Furthermore, a lifestyle influences the consumption pattern of consumers and the way they process the associated marketing communications of brands (Vyncke, 2002). Thus, when a product or service will fulfil the consumers need to accomplish a lifestyle, a repeated consumption pattern will exist (Nam, Ekinci & Whyatt, 2011). A repeated pattern explains ‘why
14 people make purchase choices, what kind of choices they make and what it means to them or other people’ (Chaney, cited in Vyncke 2002, p.448). So, in light of the development of the definition of lifestyle, it is arguable that it has been expanded to include self-identity aspects and the symbolic meanings products or services have within the lifestyles people want to convey (Vyncke, 2002).
2.1.1 Segmentation approaches
Lifestyles have come to be seen in terms of psychographics, a combination of psychology and demographics; therefore lifestyles are used to segment customers (Vyncke, 2002). Two approaches are used to measure this segmentation: the activity, interest and opinion (AIO) approach and the value system approach. Firstly, the AIO approach, developed by Peter and Olson (cited in Vyncke 2002, p. 448), describes lifestyle on the basis of three key words: activities, interests and opinions. The activities are related to actions (e.g. shopping, working and social events), interests are related to people’s interest in occasions or topics and the opinion part is to do with beliefs relating to e.g. social issues, politics and economics. The second approach, ‘value systems’, describes lifestyles on the basis of values, whereby values are seen as lifestyle determinants (Vyncke, 2002). Due to the definition of values as a desirable and trans-situational goal, values serve as guiding beliefs in a consumer’s life. This results in a list of combined values that shape a consumer’s lifestyle. Based upon the value system approach, Kahle (cited in Vynke 2002, p.449) developed the List of Values (LOV), an important instrument to measure these values. The LOV consists of nine values to measure and describe a consumer’s lifecycle and predict a consumer’s behaviour (Lin, 2014). The consumer’s lifecycle is determined by ranking each value.
In light of this, preliminary research focuses on lifestyle as a segmentation variable rather than on the broader sense of the definition that includes identification. Lifestyle
15 segmenting subdivides different lifestyles based on activities, interests, opinions and values important to customers. Although lifestyles consist of products and services people use, the ultimate lifestyle brand that customers want to identify with to contribute to their lifestyle is discussed less in previous research. Lastly, consumers can give meaning to their desired lifestyle through the products and services they purchase and use them to express the life values that are important to them. Therefore, this exposition continues in the next paragraph with the definition and role of branded products within consumers’ lives.
2.2 Customer-based brand equity
Over the last few years, the marketplace has been changing from a product-oriented focus to a customer-oriented focus, in which the new marketing approach puts the customer in the centre by focussing on the strategies that increase customer value in relation to the organisation (Lemon et al., 2001). The increasing competition also forces managers to focus more on long-term strategies by organising marketing efforts around the customers, instead of the short-long-term strategies focused on the product features (Hogan, Lemon & Rust, 2002; Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2004). This results in a higher long-term value for the company. Hence, management is driven more by a customer equity management approach which became of higher importance to marketing managers because of the increasing pressure in the changing marketplace (Hogan et al., 2002). They define customer equity as ‘a comprehensive management approach that
focuses the effort of the firm on increasing the lifetime value of individual customers in a way that maximises customer equity’ (Hogan et al. 2002, p.5).
There are three drivers to determine customer equity: value equity, brand equity and relationship equity (Lemon et al., 2001). Firstly, value equity assesses the customer’s objective perspective regarding the utility of the brand. The key drivers that influence this perspective consists of price, quality and convenience. Price focuses on the aspect of what is given up by
16 the consumer, quality is related to objective physical, and non-physical aspects and convenience refers to consumer actions to decrease time and search costs before doing business with a company. Based upon this, value equity results in a consumer’s perception of what is given up for what is received. The second driver brand equity is related to the image and meaning of the product rather than the objective facets. Here, the focus is on the subjective and intangible assessment of the product with respect to the brand name. In this case, the brand has to fulfil three roles: attract new customers, remind customers of the products and services a firm offers, and create an emotional tie with the firm. The last driver, relationship equity, explains the creation of an emotional connection with the consumer and the brand besides the objective and subjective assessment of the brand. Loyalty- and affinity programmes are examples of building this relationship (Lemon et al., 2001). Because of the high importance of brand equity within marketing (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993), this study will focus only on the brand equity part of customer equity. Therefore, the definition of brands and the role of brand equity will be explained in the next paragraphs.
2.2.1 Brands
As mentioned before, nowadays the traditional marketing approach is changing from a transaction- and product-driven approach to a relation- and value-driven approach (American Marketing Association, 2008). The new marketing approach forces companies to create more than just a necessary and helpful product with worthwhile product features; the brand itself has come to be of high importance (Woodruff, 1997). Kotler (1991, p.442) defines a brand as ‘a
name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them which is intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors’. In the last decades, some researchers improved on this definition by adding
17 focus of products is on offering functional benefits, adding a brand name increases the value of a product beyond its functional value (Orth, McDaniel, Shellhammer & Lopetcharat, 2004). A product, without a brand name or an unknown brand generates associations related to tangible and physical features, whereas a (known) brand generates associations related to intangible features or images through customers’ brand knowledge. These associations can only exist if a product has a brand name.
2.2.2 Functional and symbolic brand utilities
A branded product fulfils two purposes: a functional and a symbolic one. The functional utility is related to satisfying peoples’ physical needs with the product, whereas the symbolic utility will fulfil the consumer’s psychological needs, e.g. to convey their personal identification, self-enhancement or group membership that is derived from the brand (Helman & Chernatony, 1999; Vazquez, del Rio & Iglesias, 2002; Orth et al., 2004).
A lifestyle brand better fulfils the symbolic function of a brand by offering a set of values with a symbolic meaning that contribute to the desired lifestyle. This symbolic function of brands is served by, among others, brand personality, which is defined as ‘the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand’ (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). This set of human
characteristics can be influenced by indirect and direct contact between the brand and consumer. If associations are linked to typical users of the brand then the user’s personality traits are directly linked to the brand. On the other hand, consumers also create associations in an indirect way through, for example, product category associations, the brand symbol, price and advertising style (Aaker, 1997). These personality features include demographic characteristics such as gender or education level, which are mostly influenced in an indirect way through brand associations referring to the typical brand users. In light of this, Aaker (1997) identified five dimensions of brand personality, each with its own specific characteristics. These five
18 dimensions are sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Each dimension is characterised by several traits, as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Brand Personality Framework of Aaker (1997)
Each brand is characterised by a brand personality, so understanding the associations expressed in human characteristics gives managers a better understanding of consumers’ purchase decisions and behaviour as drivers of consumer preference (Aaker, 1997; Freling, Crosno & Henard, 2010). Furthermore, brand personalities can be used in a competitive way to distinguish the brand within the product category or to market the brand within cultures (Aaker, 1997). Three brand personality dimensions are related to the ‘Big Five human personality dimensions’ through creating an overlap in human traits. These three overlapping personalities are sincerity with agreeableness, excitement with extroversion and competence with conscientiousness. The dimensions of sophistication and ruggedness are not covered by the Big Five, because Aaker (1997) argues that these dimensions do not constitute necessary personality characteristics, as required in the Big Five personalities, but just desired characteristics. Thus these dimensions are excluded from the Big Five.
Because of the increased importance of the value approach to marketing, it is arguable that the distinctive symbolic utilities of lifestyle brands referred to, e.g. brand image, brand value and brand personality, become of high importance apart from the importance of functional
Brand Personality
Excitement
Sincerity Competence Sophistication Ruggedness
- Down-to- earth - Honest - Wholesome - Cheerful - Daring - Spirited - Imaginative - Up-to-date - Reliable - Intelligent - Successful - Upper class - Charming - Outdoorsy - Tough
19 product features. Consumer behaviour towards brands is determined by the brand knowledge consumers have, while brand personality is an important construct within building brand image (Geuens, Weijters, Wulf, 2009). Therefore, the definition of brand equity and the drivers of brand knowledge will be discussed in the next sub paragraph.
2.2.3 Brand equity
Aaker (1991, p. 15) defines brand equity as a ‘set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a
brand that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service’. Within this
definition, Aaker (1991) includes the five dimensions, namely- brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty and proprietary brand assets. Building upon Aaker’s definition, Keller (1993) presents a conceptual model focused only on the individual consumer. This model is presented as customer-based brand equity, what Keller (2003, p. 60) defines as ‘the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the
marketing of that brand’. This means that customer-based brand equity (CBBE) is determined
by the consumer’s reaction to and attitude towards the mix of marketing elements of a product linked with a specific brand name, compared with the same product without this specific brand name. Furthermore, the model explains brand awareness and brand image as components of brand knowledge related to the characteristics and relationships of brand associations arising from the marketing mix. Considered together, it is of high importance to understand brand knowledge as it will influence the consumers’ brand associations when they think about a brand (Keller, 1993).
To sum up, brand equity and CBBE emphasise brand associations as fundamental blocks in building brand equity. Therefore it is highly important for brand managers to understand this consumer-driven approach while attempting to achieve a competitive advantage (Till, Baack & Waterman, 2011).
20 2.2.4 Brand knowledge
The two concepts brand awareness and brand image determine brand knowledge. These two components influence consumer’s reactions to the marketing activities of brands differently because everyone has different brand knowledge. Brand knowledge consists of aspects and degrees that are explained on the basis of brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1993).
Brand awareness
The concept of brand awareness refers to the likelihood of consumers recognising or recalling a specific brand. It is related to the memorised brand nodes and the ability of the consumer to identify with the brand in different situations (Rossiter & Percy, cited in Keller 1993, p. 3). Brand recognition refers to the ability of consumers to make the correct brand distinction because they have seen or heard about it before. According to this concept, brand recognition is of high importance during purchase decisions made in the store. The other aspect, brand recall, is related to the brand characteristics a consumer remembers correctly when he or she is confronted with the product category, resulting from the generation of correct brand nodes in the memory (Keller, 1993).
Brand awareness is of great value during the consumer’s decision-making process for three reasons. Firstly, a high brand awareness increases consideration of purchase, so it is important that your brand comes to mind when thinking about a specific product category Secondly, Keller (1993) states that in low involvement circumstances, the brand consideration process is affected by brand awareness. Thirdly, the creation of brand associations during the decision-making process is influenced by brand awareness. These three reason indicate the influence of brand awareness on consumer behaviour whereby brand awareness increases the probability that a product is considered.
21 Brand image
The second part of brand knowledge, according to Keller (1993) is brand image, which refers to the associations consumers have in their memories about a brand. A marketer strives to communicate a brand image in such a way that consumers will link that brand to a combination of several associations. Brand associations illuminate a brand image from a consumer’s perspective to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of a brand (Krishnan, 1996). This is of high relevance for managers, because it furnishes them with new information to improve their brand equity. Therefore brand associations are a very important consideration when attempting to build positive brand equity (Del Rio, Vazquez & Iglesias, 2001).
Several types of brand associations distinguish the response effect of brand knowledge on brand equity in three dimensions: the favourability, strength and uniqueness of brand associations (Keller, 1993). The several types of brand associations are classified into three categories: attributes, benefits and attitudes. Thus, brand image consists of four aspects: types- (e.g. attributes, benefits and attitudes), favourability-, strength- and the uniqueness of brand associations.
Firstly, the descriptive characteristics of associations are defined as attributes, which are formed through purchasing and consuming the product. Attributes describe product- and non-product-related features of brands, in which the non-product-related attributes describe tangible aspects directly related to the product or service in contrast to the non-product related attributes, which are more related to the purchase or consumption aspects. Secondly, associations related to the extent consumers think the product will offer them personal value are defined as benefits. Park, Jaworski & MacInnes (1986) divide the benefits into three categories based on the underlying function they are related to, which results in functional, symbolic and experiential benefits. Lastly, the attitudes are related to the consumers’ overall evaluations of the brand. Brand attitudes are related to the functional and experiential benefits, of the product-related
22 attributes or to the symbolic non-product-related benefits. Therefore attitudes allow people to express their self-concepts.
In addition to the three types of associations Keller (1993) mentions, Ng & Houston (2006) refer to two types of brand associations: global beliefs and exemplars. They make a distinction between the brand associations in terms of whether they are abstract or concrete. Associations relatively more related to the brand can be descriptive or evaluative, which results in more abstract thoughts defined as ‘global beliefs’. On the other hand, if the ‘exemplars’ are more related to thoughts about specific product categories, this results in relatively concrete associations. Due to this, global beliefs are more in line with the association types, benefits and attitudes of Keller (1993), while exemplars are more related to attributes (Ng & Houston, 2006). In summary, brand associations are divided into product-related or concrete associations and non-product-related or abstract associations, whereby there is a distinction between functional, symbolic or experiential attributes, benefits and attitudes.
As mentioned above, these different types of brand associations differ in their effect on brand equity due to the favourability, strength and uniqueness of the associations. In contrast to the influence brand awareness has on low involvement considerations, these three dimensions of brand image influence high involvement considerations (Keller, 1993). Firstly, the favourability of brand associations differs in the way consumers develop positive or negative evaluations. Till et al. (2011, p. 94) define the favourability of associations as ‘the degree to which the
association is perceived as a positive or negative feature for the brand’. According to Dacin &
Smith (1994), favourability of brand associations is a driver of brand equity. Therefore, a brand with more positive rather than negative brand associations results in a stronger brand. It is therefore of high importance for marketers to focus on generating favourable associations.
23 Secondly, the strength of associations is expressed by the extent to which the associations are strongly or weakly linked to the brand customers have in their memories, which is also defined as the intensity of the connection (Till et al., 2011). The varying degrees of strength depend on the way customers receive the brand information and how they link it to the brand image. It is about the quantity and quality of processing information. How much a customer thinks about the product information refers to the quantity of processed information, while the way of processing the information refers to the quality (Keller, 2003). With respect to this, it is important to take two things into account: the probability and the speed with which an association comes to mind. The higher the probability and the faster the associations are mentioned, the stronger the associations are.
Lastly, uniqueness refers to the degree an association is shared among brands within the same product category. So, if a brand association is related to only one specific brand then the association is very unique. On the other hand, if associations are shared with a lot of brands within the same product category, then the association is not distinctive and unique for one brand. Thus a brand will not offer the customer a unique selling proposition (Keller, 1993; Till et al., 2011).
To sum up, brand image can be measured in terms of the three dimensions, favourability, strength and uniqueness, to build brand equity due to brand associations. Positive brand equity results in more favourable consumer reactions towards the marketing of the brand, while negative brand equity results in less favourable consumer reactions. This positive effect occurs if consumers are familiar with the brand, i.e. have high brand awareness, combined with strong, unique and favourable memories of the brand (Keller, 1993). Therefore it is important for managers to focus on creating favourable, strong and unique brand associations, resulting in a positive brand image, which will influence brand equity positively.
24
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK – PART II
3. Consumer-brand identification
People naturally develop needs to know themselves, express a unique identity and have good feelings about themselves. In light of this, as mentioned before, consumers build lifestyles to express their unique identities because this fulfils their need for self-expression (Taylor, 2002; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). Brands are mechanisms that enable them to achieve these natural needs because brands help consumers express and communicate their desired identities within lifestyles. In light of this, the concept of CBI has emerged to explain the relationship between consumers and brands (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012).
Preliminary studies citied in Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) have shown that people want to develop their self-concepts by creating a personal identity. Their consumer behaviour, namely what they buy, own and consume, helps them to construct themselves and defines them in the eye of others. Consumers develop a sense of self with own identities. This need for identification is fulfilled by using brands to achieve identity goals. Brands are an important resource for identity formation to style people’s lives. Since brands help consumers to express their identities (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), the concept of CBI explains their connectivity with a brand (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012).
3.1 The definition of consumer-brand identification
Donavan et al. (2006) define the concept of CBI as the way consumers are attached to brands that shape their identities. The most common approaches to define CBI are built upon the social identity theory of Tajfel & Turner (1985) and the consumer-company identification framework of Bhattacharya & Sen (2003). Tajfel & Turner’s (1985) social identity theory captures the cognitive, affective and evaluative aspects to define CBI. On this basis, this concept is defined as ‘a consumer’s psychological state consisting of three elements: perceiving, feeling, and
25
valuing his or her belongingness with a brand’ (Lam et al., 2010, p.130). The first aspect,
‘perceiving’, is related to the cognitive aspect, which relates to the self-awareness of a consumer’s belongingness to an organisation. The second aspect, ‘feeling’, is in line with the affective elements, which relate to the emotional consequences of using the brand. Lastly, the evaluative aspect refers to a valuable sense of psychological oneness with the brand in a social and individual way, which means that brand value is a part of identification. This CBI definition is in contrast to the definition of Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012), who argues that brand value is an antecedent of identification, instead of a part of CBI argued by Lam et al. (2010), by defining CBI as a perceived state of oneness with a brand. Thus the emotional consequences of identification are dealt with separately from the construct of identification.
CBI is divided into two dimensions: personal identification and social identification (Del Rio et al., 2001). If consumers are able to identify themselves with specific brands according to the associated affinity and feelings they have with the brand, then the brand function is related to personal identification. This function refers to the harmony between the consumer’s behaviour, product image and self-image, resulting in an enrichment of self-image through buying and using the brand and its related image.
The function of social identification refers to the degree a brand acts as a communication tool to associate or disassociate with groups within the closest environment. This function is related to the desire to feel accepted or to be part of a specific group (Del Rio et al., 2001). People want to classify themselves as belonging to a particular social group to show their way of life. Therefore, brands could help a consumer to express his or her identity (Belk, 1988). Social identification explains the process of identifying yourself as a member of a society to show your belongings to a community consisting of brand identity and brand identification (He, Li & Harris, 2012). The social identity theory describes the process of self-expression of
26 consumers while developing a relationship with a brand or company (Bhattachary & Sen, 2003).
This research focuses on the function of personal identification within CBI. Due to this, the definition of Tuskej et al. (2013, p.54) is used to define CBI as ‘the perception of sameness
between the brand (signifying an object with symbolic meaning) and the consumer, whereby
brand values are regarded as an antecedent instead of an integral part of the identification construct. If consumers identify with the object on a symbolic level, they perceive the meanings as their own.
3.2 Drivers and benefits of consumer-brand identification
The three drivers of CBI consist of cognitive, affective and evaluative aspects. The underlying cognitive driver is people’s need for identification with brands due the fulfilment of self-definitional needs consisting of: knowing yourself, feeling that you are good and feeling that you are unique. Furthermore, the affective driver is the feelings and attitudes consumers have while consuming the brands. These feelings are influenced by the similarity between the brand and the consumer. The evaluative driver considers this identification need in terms of consumption experiences, in which brand value is a construct of valuing the belongingness with the brand (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Lam, Ahearne, Mullins, Hayati & Schillewaert, 2013). These antecedents determine the consideration of consumers to identify with a brand. If the brand fulfils these underlying self-definitional needs, the brand will be part of the consumer’s lifestyle, in which it acts as an aid to expressing an identity.
Tuskej et al. (2013) state that building a relationship with customers will increase the success of a brand in the long term. When positive brand identification exists, the brand obtains a sustainable competitive advantage since consumers consider the brand to be part of a
long-27 term relationship through feeling a connection between the brand and themselves (Kim, Han & Park, 2001). Due to this, brand identification affects the relationship between the customer and the brand in the long term. If a consumer feels a connection with the brand, a positive attitude towards the brand is conveyed, resulting in positive results in terms of loyalty and word of mouth. Due to the positive relationship between the consumer and the brand, consumers are more likely to purchase products more often, i.e. a repeated consumption pattern occurs when consumers are more loyal (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008). These favourable consumer reactions result in an emotional attraction to the brand and this attraction has a positive influence on word of mouth, because consumers recommend the product more often (Tuskej et al., 2013; Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008). On the basis of this research, it can be assumed that building a strong long-term relationship with customers and brands is of high importance with respect to lifestyles. CBI will result in, among other things, brand loyalty and a positive word of mouth, which positively influences the results of a company while it attempts to build a stronger competitive advantage.
3.3 Brand-self similarity
The brand-identification process of consumers is more likely to occur if there is a similarity between the brand and the customer in terms of several definitions of CBI, e.g. ‘belongingness
with a brand’ and ‘sameness between the consumer and the brand’ (Lam et al., 2013; Tuskej
et al., 2013). According to this, brand-self similarity is defined as a similarity between the consumer and brand personality traits in a customer’s perception. Mulyanegara, Tsarenko & Anderson (2009, p. 235) define personality as ‘the intrinsic organisation of an individual’s
mental world that is stable over time and consistent over situations’. The most widely accepted
approach to determine the personality traits of persons is The Big Five model (Mulyanegara et al., 2009). This model is used in marketing to explain consumer behaviour on the basis of
self-28 congruity. According to the Big Five model, a personality is categorised in five dimensions agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, openness to experiences and neuroticism. Each dimension consists of several traits to explain the personality of persons. Although it is possible that a consumer’s personality is a combination of more than one Big Five dimension, they score higher or lower on specific dimensions, meaning that some dimensions stand out from the others. As mentioned in chapter 2, the brand personality traits are defined in terms of the Brand Personality Scale (BPS) of Aaker (1997). Three dimensions of the Big Five are covered in the BPS, namely agreeableness with sincerity, conscientiousness with competence and extroversion with excitement. Therefore, in this study brand-self similarity is defined as the similarity between the Big Five dimensions and the BPS from a consumer perspective.
29
4. HYPOTHESES
In this chapter, the hypotheses that were formed on the basis of a combination of the above-mentioned theory are presented. The aim of this research is to answer the research question by understanding the role of brand image when building CBI and the influence of a similarity between consumers and brands.
To answer the research question: ‘How does brand-self similarity moderate the
suggested relationship between brand image and consumer-brand identification?’, this
research has focused on three important aspects of brand image: the favourability, strength and uniqueness of associations which constitute the power image of a brand. A lifestyle arises from the need to build a unique identity and brands help consumers to express this identity. This choice is based upon the combination of values, opinions and attitudes that form lifestyles and therefore ensures the creation of associations. The type of associations, namely attributes, benefits or attitudes, is disregarded in this study because the focus is on the qualitative interpretation of the associations rather than at quantitative assessment. In addition, a brand needs favourable, strong and unique associations to achieve positive brand equity, therefore the type of associations is not taken into account (Keller, 1993). The criterion for realising successful results with brands, in this case CBI, is first to create a positive brand image. This is produced with the three dimensions of favourability, strength and uniqueness. Because the types of associations do not create a positive brand image, this variable is not taken into account in this conceptual model.
Based upon the suggested driver of brand image, measured in terms of favourability, strength and uniqueness, on CBI and the role of brand-self similarity within this relationship, the following conceptual model will be used (figure 2):
30 Figure 2: The conceptual model
H1(+) H2(+) H3(+) H4a-c(+)
4.1 Brand image and consumer-brand identification
As noted before, consumer-based brand equity will be positive when the consumers react more favourably to the marketing mix of a particular branded product, rather than toward the product without a brand name. This differential response arises from the brand knowledge people have, in which the favourability, strength and uniqueness of brand associations play an important role (Keller, 1993). By focussing on the identification part, the cognitive, affective and evaluative antecedents of CBI were divided into different drivers. While several drivers focus on feelings, others focus on values or attitudes. These feelings, values or attitudes could be expressed in brand associations. Therefore is assumed that the fulfilment of CBI needs is accompanied by the establishment of several brand associations. Therefore it is also supposed that there exists a relationship between brand associations and CBI.
Tuskej et al. (2013) state that consumers with favourable brand perceptions are more likely to commit to a brand, resulting in CBI. Furthermore, positive brand associations are more likely to increase brand equity than negative brand associations. Therefore it is assumed that positive
Brand-self similarity Favourability of brand associations Strength of brand associations Uniqueness of brand associations Consumer-brand identification
31 brand associations increase a consumer’s state of perceiving, feeling and valuing his or her belongingness of a particular brand on a positive way (Lam et al., 2010; Till et al., 2011; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). It is supposed that consumers have favourable brand associations if they are satisfied with the brand. Satisfaction is important in building relationships because satisfaction can be seen as an antecedent of identification whereby a self-definitional need is fulfilled through the brand (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008). Consequently, brands with more favourable brand associations will build stronger partnerships with the customer (James, 2005). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: There is a positive relationship between the favourability of brand associations and consumer-brand identification.
Strong brand associations will increase the consumer’s ability to link associations more strongly and easily with a specific brand. Strong brand associations exist if consumers actively consider product- or service information. This will increase the likelihood of recalling the product information easily and correctly (Keller, 1993; Till et al., 2011). If consumers easily recall (new) brand information, the link between these (new) associations and the existing brand has become easier. In this way, the associations are less easily changed by competitive actions. Hence, strong associations will influence brand evaluations and thereby generate stronger attitudes and feelings with the brand. These stronger attitudes and feelings will increase the brand recall and therefore the brand image (Keller, 1993). Strong associations increase brand equity and strengthen brands (James, 2005). Consumers have strong associations with strong brands, resulting in stronger alliances between the consumers and the brand. Consequently, it is assumed that if consumers generate strong associations due to actively considering the product information, they feel a stronger connection with the brand and therefore feel more
32 strongly aligned to the brand, resulting in identification with the brand. According to this, hypothesis 2 is developed:
H2: There is a positive relationship between the strength of brand associations and consumer-brand identification.
Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) state that there are several drivers of CBI to reach our motivation of self-definitional needs. One of these self-definitional needs is to feel relatively unique. People are therefore likely to feel a relationship with a brand, when they perceive a brand as unique or distinctive. Therefore, Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) tested the relationship between brand distinctiveness and CBI. Based upon their research, they state that the consumers’ need to identify with brands is higher when they perceive the brand as distinctive. Additionally, some associations are perceived as more unique than others, and this depends on the degree to which the associations are shared with competing brands or other product categories (Till et al., 2011). The more associations are shared with other brands and products, the less unique the associations are perceived to be. Consumers will quickly classify brands in the correct product category if the brands share large numbers of associations. Thus the only way to stand out from the competition within a product category is to facilitate unique associations that are not shared by numerous brands (Krishnan, 1996). Therefore, purchasing products with fewer unique associations will not fulfil a consumer’s need to express a relatively unique identity because these products share several associations with other brands (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). According to this, it is assumed that if consumers evaluate brands as to be distinctive, they also develop unique associations. These unique associations therefore contribute to the concept of building lifestyles that reflect the need of consumers to be unique. This leads to the third hypothesis:
33
H3: There is a positive relationship between the uniqueness of brand associations and consumer-brand identification.
4.2 The role of brand-self similarity
Based upon the Big Five items and socio-demographic characteristics, Aaker constructed the Brand Personality Scale (BPS) (Geuens et al., 2009). As cited in Geuens et al. (2009), other researchers excluded socio-demographic characteristics making Aaker’s BPS a mix of different items referring to a more personified brand image instead of a brand personality (Huang, Mitchell & Rosenaum-Elliot, 2012). Therefore, an overlap between the three BPS items and three Big Five personalities exist as mentioned before. Referring to the definition of brand-self similarity, brand personality has to be linked to a Big Five personality to get an overview of the sameness between consumer and brand.
Tuskej et al. (2013) state that consumers consider brands to be more attractive when the identity of a brand matches the consumer’s own identity. In order to explain this, Tuskej et al. (2013, p. 54) based this statement on the self-congruity theory, which defines consumer behaviour ‘as partly determined by the congruence resulting from a psychological comparison
involving the product user or brand image and the consumer self-concept’. If a consumer’s
sense of self matches the brand image, a high brand-self congruity will exist. Moreover, they found support for the notion that the congruity between brand values and consumer values positively influence CBI. Furthermore, brands with high self-brand congruity are used by consumers more frequently to express themselves resulting in a positive CBI, according to Lam et al. (2013). Consumers consider purchasing brands if the consumer’s self-expression fits the brand personality, making the brand more attractive (Kim et al., 2001). Furthermore, it is stated that the more attractive a brand personality is, the more consumers will identify with that brand because this brand personality positively influences the attitude of the consumer towards the
34 brand. A more attractive brand personality is therefore defined as a brand that expresses a person’s identity. Thus CBI is influenced by the overlap between the brand personality and the consumer’s personality, according to the Big Five model.
Likewise, it is expected that if consumers possess this overlap, the suggested relationship between brand image and CBI will be stronger. Therefore, brand-self similarity functions as a moderator for several reasons. Firstly, Graeff (1996) argues, in line with the ‘Image Congruence Hypothesis’, that consumers develop positive attitudes towards brands that are similar to their self-image, as opposed to the development of less positive attitudes to brands that are not perceived to be similar to their self-image. Thus the more congruence there is between brand and consumer, the stronger the positive attitudes towards the brand will be. Therefore it is expected that the effects of the drivers on CBI are stronger due to these positive attitudes, for which brand-self similarity functions as a moderator. Secondly, this research assumed that if there is a similarity between brand and consumer, the related associations will result in a more positive brand image which will reinforce the fulfilment of the underlying identification needs. If one takes this into account, it can be seen that the variable brand-self similarity functions as a moderator. This results in the following hypothesis:
H4: The positive relationship between (a) favourable brand associations and consumer-brand identification, (b) strong brand associations and consumer-brand identification and (c) unique brand associations and consumer-brand identification, will be stronger for consumers with a brand-self similarity.
35
5. METHODOLOGY
5.1 The research design
The aim of this research is to discover a relationship between brand associations and CBI in a deductive manner. The deductive research approach is typified by testing theory against hypotheses and measurements, resulting in a conclusion. In order to test the hypothesis and answer the research question, a quantitative research design has been used in the form of a survey. An overview of the whole survey is shown in Appendix I.
5.2 Procedure and variables
The survey was an online questionnaire developed using the Qualtrics Survey Software tool, which feeds the results directly into SPSS to analyse the data. A link to the survey was shared on my social media accounts (e.g. Facebook and LinkedIn), with a question request for people to fill in and share my survey.
The survey started with an introduction to the topic and questions people could expect. Furthermore, an estimation of the time it would take to fill in the survey was mentioned, and it was emphasised that there were no wrong answers and that anonymity was guaranteed. The questionnaire was divided into several sections consisting of three brand blocks. First, respondents were asked if they were familiar with the brand Nike, e.g. answering the question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If they were not familiar with the brand Nike, then they continued with the second brand Tommy Hilfiger. If respondents answer ‘yes’, then they had to write down the first five associations that came to mind regarding the brand Nike. Then these mentioned brand associations were used to measure the brand image using the three dimensions, favourable, strong and unique associations, followed by questions about the degree of CBI. Finally, the brand personality of Nike was determined. Thereafter, this was repeated for the brands Tommy Hilfiger and Unox. After these three brand blocks, the respondent’s personality was determined
36 on the basis of 20 questions. The last section paid attention to the demographic variables, such as the gender, age and level of education of the respondents.
The three brands, Nike, Tommy Hilfiger and Unox were chosen for various reasons. Firstly, they target specific market segments with different lifestyles (e.g. Nike is a sporty lifestyle brand, Tommy Hilfiger is an affordable luxury lifestyle brand according to Rhall (2015) and Unox is a typical Dutch family brand), all of which satisfy the definition of a lifestyle brand (Helman & Chernatony, 1999). Moreover, because no distinction was made in this research between men and women, the brands had to be attractive to both sexes. Thirdly, the brand Nike was the world’s most valued apparel brand in the Brandz™ Apparel Top 10 in 2015 and Tommy Hilfiger was the fastest riser in the Brandz™ Apparel Top 10 in 2015 and held the 10th place on the list (Rhall, 2015). This means that the brands are popular, well known and high valued. Thus is could be assumed that a lot of associations could be gathered. Because the influence of product categories was not taken into account, a third known brand from another product category was added, namely the lifestyle brand Unox. This brand held 69th place on the
list of Top 100 strongest brands of The Netherlands in 2014 (Kruk, Bakker & Kremers, 2014). In short, these three brands possess high values, represent different lifestyles and are attractive to both sexes, which made them useful brands to take into account in this research.
Brand image was measured in terms of three dimensions: favourability, strength and uniqueness
of the brand associations. The aim of this research was to measure whether the associations consumers had with a brand would influence the degree of identification with that brand. Danes, Hess, Story & Vorst (2012) state that provoking free associations from customers will give deeper insights and powerful information beyond a survey. This technique is very popular because it focuses on conscious verbal associations from the associative memory (Koll, Wallpach & Kreuzer, 2010). By using this technique, it was therefore possible to easily collect
37 brand associations. Due to this, the questionnaire started by asking the respondents to identify free associations on the basis of the question: ‘Which five brand associations come to mind when you think of the brand’ (Danes et al., 2012). However, the aim of this research is not to compare the specific associations with each other but to measure the meaning of these associations in light of the customers’ on the basis of the three dimensions of brand image. Therefore, it was necessary to transform the associations into numerical variables by rating each association on the degree of favourability, strength and uniqueness. In order to do so, the respondent had to rate each association for every brand image dimension using the seven-point Likert scale (Till et al., 2011). Because this measurement is a combination of two studies and was not pre-tested before, three backup questions were added to the questionnaire which can be used if ranking the free associations has failed. The three questions are based upon the research of Yoo & Donthu (2001) to measure brand associations (α = 0.80). These three questions were: ‘Some characteristics of this brand came to mind easily’, ‘I recognize this brand quickly’ and ‘I have difficulty imagining this brand’, measure with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 7 (=strongly agree).
Favourability. To measure favourability the following question was asked: ‘Please indicate if you experience the associations as positive or negative’, measured with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (= extremely negative) to 7 (= extremely positive).
Strength. The dimension strength was measured in the same way as favourability, using the question: ‘Please indicate whether you agree with the following statement: I experience this association strongly with the brand’, measured with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree).
38 Uniqueness. The last dimension, uniqueness, was measured with a similar question; the respondent had to rate each association: ‘Please indicate whether you agree with the following statement: This association really belongs to this brand’, measured with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree).
Consumer-brand identification. The variable CBI was measured with a scale derived from Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) (α = 0.94). This scale consisted of five items: ‘I feel a strong sense of belonging to this brand’, ‘I identify strongly with this brand’, ‘This brand embodies what I believe in’, ‘This brand is like a part of me’ and ‘This brand has a great deal of personal meaning for me’. All these questions were measured with a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree).
Brand-self similarity. The variable brand-self similarity was measured in three steps. The first step determined the brand personality using Aaker’s (1997) Brand Personality Scale. The five brand personalities consist of 15 facets, in which the dimensions sincerity, excitement and competence consisted of three facets each and the dimensions sophistication and ruggedness consisted of two facets each. The question ‘this word describes the brand’ was rated for every facet on a seven-point Likert scale (α = 0.94) with a range from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree) (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). In this way, the brand personality of the specific brand could be determined. In addition, the text ‘Unox, het echte oer-Hollandse merk wat houdt
van (h)eerlijk Hollands eten. Typerend voor Unox is het oprechte, authentieke en nuchtere karakter wat het met zich meedraagt’, was added before respondents continue with the brand
box Unox. In this way, the brand personality ‘Sincerity’ was suggested previously. After answering the question ‘To what extent do you agree with this text?’, measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree), the respondents
39 continued the survey. In this way, it was possible to determine if the outcome of this question was similar to the outcome of the BPS measured with the 15 facets.
The second step was determining the participant’s personality using the Mini International Personality Item Pool (Mini-IPIP) scale (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird & Lucas, 2006). This scale is a short version of the 50-item IPIP of Goldberg (1999) as citied in Donnellan et al., (2006). The Mini-IPIP scale was tested across five studies, and the Cronbach’s alpha scored above 0.60 in all the five studies. Therefore, the internal consistency of this finding is guaranteed. The Mini-IPIP scale consists of four items per Big Five trait, resulting in a total of 20 items. Due to the length of the survey, which should not be too long in order to ensure that the survey is completed, the Mini-IPIP scale was used to determine the respondents’ personalities. All the items answered the question: ‘To what extent will the following statements describe your personality’, by measuring each item with the five-point Likert scale from 1 (= very bad) to 5 (= very good).
The last step was to formalise the variable brand-self similarity. According to the theory of Aaker (1997), there is an overlap between three brand personalities and the consumer personalities. So after discovering the brand personality, the corresponding Big Five personality could be determined. Due to this, the respondents who scored on average above three on the five-point Likert scale on the useful personality were included in the analysis of the moderator.
Control variables. The control variables used in this research were gender, age and education level. These variables were used to check whether the outcome of the dependent variable was explained by one of these variables. These demographic variables were included in order to obtain more insight into the respondents. Gender was a dichotomous variable with the values ‘male’ and ‘female’. Age was a continuous variable and education was a continuous variable with the values ‘MAVO’, ‘HAVO’, ‘VWO’, ‘MBO’, ‘HBO’, ‘WO’ and ‘other’.
