The Relationship Between Brand and Consumer Personalities and How They Impact Brand Equity of the Watch Industry
Abdallah Chamssi, 11719753
Bachelor's Thesis and Thesis Seminar Management in the Digital Age Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam
Dr. Antoon Meulemans Thesis Group 7B
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Abdallah Chamssi, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are 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.
Abstract
When focusing on branding an intriguing question that appears is ‘what attracts consumers that are interested in clothing, accessories, and luxury items?’. It has been proven that individual interpretations and opinions play a big part when a consumer is purchasing a product. For a business to decipher the consumer mindset in a more complete way they have to account for personality differences that affect how individuals understand and interpret the world. It is essential to examine the differences in how each unique personality leans towards which brand, and whether it has a significant impact on purchasing or not. Using The Big Five personality method we examine how 1 specific consumer personality, openness to experiences, perceives three different watch brands. Using a random sample we gather data on correspondent’s personalities along with their interpretation of the watch brands image through the brand’s advertising campaigns and social media platforms. Using the data gathered we help clarify whether certain consumer personalities lean towards certain brands. Trying to find significance in brand equity portrayed by individuals who express openness to experiences will help clarify how brands can use their image to gain consumers they would not normally attain.
Table of Contents Statement of Originality...………....1 Abstract....………....2 1 Introduction.………..4 1.1 Research Question……….7 2 Theoretical Framework……….8
3 Research Design and Methodology………17
3.1 Data Collection………17 3.2 Measures………..19 3.3 Analytical plan……….20 4 Results……….22 5 Discussion………...29 6 Conclusion………..32 i Bibliography....………...33 ii Appendix…..………...37
1 Introduction
The world is a complex system that communicates through various factors. Due to different experiences, thoughts, and personalities, the world and what it brings is viewed
differently by each individual person. It is apparent that people view brands differently than one another based on a variety of factors. To fully divulge and understand the relationships between consumers and brands, it is essential to assess how different personalities impact and understand the world. Ultimately, the goal of this research paper is to figure out how different brand
personalities are interpreted by individuals and how individual personalities and interpretations impact the way the brand is perceived in consumer markets.
It is very difficult to fully grasp the complexity and intricacy of personality traits through simple questioning and surveying due to the many layers of human behavior and emotions. Yet, the most frequent way to analyse the differences between personalities is utilizing the NEO Big Five Personality Test created by Robert McCrae and Paul Costa (1985). The Big Five personality factors are distinguished as ‘Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Neuroticism’ and are referred to using the acronym OCEAN. The reason that the Big Five personality traits have become world renowned is because they do not rely on one singular definition for each trait, instead it is an umbrella term that opens a path to similar characteristics and synonyms.
Brand personalities are considered to be different from normal personality traits since businesses are viewed as more of an entity. The five personalities that are typically associated with brands are excitement, sincerity, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness as defined by
Aaker (1997). Brand personalities heavily rely on imagery and values of corporate businesses, for example, it’s stakeholders’ moral values. As a company increases in size, it becomes more difficult to present itself and align the values of all those within it. Furthermore, another layer of complexity that is added is not only how the company views itself, but also how it is viewed by consumers, which plays a big part.
Brands and companies get to express themselves by utilizing their mediums, whether through social media, public relation stunts, celebrity sponsoring or even traditional TV advertising campaigns. Aaker (1997), describes that we define brand personality as the human traits that we associate with a certain brand. Therefore it is important to understand how
different people are able to digest brand identities and how it affects brand image in the long run. According to Sahour & Dragomir (2018), brands can try and mold the way consumers interpret and associate their brand with ‘user imagery’ some define this as, brand equity. Yet again, the connection between a company and consumers also relies on perceived interests, morals, and the impact of products and services offered. This typically indicates that brands should emphasize a clean reputation and a fostering environment in its pursuit of growth. Sahour & Dragomir (2018) reiterate that brands that care about loyalty and association, should create products that transcribe and correlate with values that consumers resonate with in order to boost self expression and identity between products, shareholders, and brands.
Congruence with brand identity illustrates how consumer behavior might correlate with certain branding cues and attributes. Sahour & Dragomir (2018) explain that humans view themselves in certain ways and open up to associations with products and brands that help in accentuating those values and beliefs. Therefore, it is apparent when humans link themselves to
certain gadgets and products, that they do so in hopes of reiterating and emphasizing ideals that better represent them without explicitly mentioning them.
With the access to a variety of brands, humans choose to affiliate themselves with what they perceive to be honoring and dignifying. According to Aaker (1991), it is the brand's job to help elevate and offer products to help modify and mold certain brand images. Aaker (1991) further suggests that how fullfield an individual feels by a given product dictates brand
worthiness and consumers’ content for the brands and their goals. Therefore, it is important to highlight how certain marketing schemes affect existing consumers, future consumers, and lastly the brand itself.
There has been a decent amount of research examining the bidirectional relationship between brands and personalities, but it has always been done on a large scale with no specific concentration on each of the Big Five personality traits. Using the help of a variety of different research papers aims to connect the Big Five personality trait, openness to experiences, with brand equity.
Using Sahour and Dragomir’s (2018) analysis of the relationship between brand identity and self image we can go one step further into how self image and perceived personality
characteristics play a role in purchasing and connection to brand identity. In addition, Costa & McCrae (1985, 1996, 2012) and Aaker’s (1991, 1997) papers will also play a large role in distinguishing how personality traits correlate with brand personalities and how this affects the perceived value of a brand overall. It is apparent that there is a missing field when it comes to research, and with a study that will be conducted that assess self image, through the Big Five,
and the perceived relationship to the how brand equity, whether consumers choose to relate to similar brands or if each consumer personality yields a different result.
1.1 Research Question
How do consumers’ interpretation of brand personality impact brand equity, and how is the relationship moderated by openness to experiences, which is one of the Big Five personality traits.
2 Theoretical framework
In the modern world we gain a lot of knowledge and perspectives on brands due to the way they present themselves. Through the digital world, where there are countless ways to set yourself apart from industry leeches and competitors, we put an ever-growing emphasis on brand personality. Aaker (1997) elaborates that this is accomplished through personification and other elements of comparison such as anthropomorphization. Such studies have been constructed in order to provide more details about consumer bases, which is why the art of utilizing human qualities in branding of companies has become an effective technique in intriguing consumers. Through the personification of brand images, it becomes easier for consumers to relate to brands by adding a human side where consumers personify brands as which they can admire and relate to. Aaker (1997) also goes on to highlight that brands can illustrate personality through the key words associated with them and not only using mascots. The traits associated with certain brands, whether brand made or consumer buzz related, give them an extra boost when it comes to portraying certain images and also attracting new consumers.
Interestingly, there has been a lot of assessment and critique about brand personality and whether it is a valid measure in real life or not. By adding different variables and investigating relationships and impacts, researchers have proven that acknowledging brand personality is vital for any brand’s management and marketing teams. Freling, Cronso, & Henard (2011) build on Aeker’s work by discussing how brand personality reinforces brand image and helps make a connection with consumer bases. It has been established that brand personality has positively impacted brands, in most cases, since it is easier to relate to consumers and appeal to the masses by either creating a likeable/relatable trait or an inspiring one. Freling et al. (2011) examines how
brands and managers can use Aaker’s (1997) pre-existing five personality traits; sincerity, competence, ruggedness, sophistication, and excitement, to maintain and speed up consumer involvement and interactions. They use brand personality appeal (BPA) defined by originality, favorability, and clarity to see whether five brands with the five personality traits, respectively, have a positive correlation with BPA. They should also focus on favorability as it has a high correlation with purchase intentions. Their links show how important it is for brand personalities to be favorable and to accomodate to consumers in order to reach the highest potential purchase intentions.
With the increase of discourse about brand and consumer relationships, it has become of great importance to question and build upon previous studies, in order to continue exploring brand personalities. Another important study that helps understand the dynamic relationship between brand personalities and consumers, is the study conducted by Bozbay & Ozkan (2016), who explain the relationship of four brand traits with consumer intention of purchase when they are impacted by a self-expressive brand. The paper explains that sincerity affects purchase intention highly when it is mediated by self expression, while on the other hand, excitement and competence directly impacts purchase intention. This research paper highlights that even though brand personalities impact and sway consumer choices, it is still not the only determinant for whether a product will be bought or not. Additionally, it highlights that brand personalities are vital and in an age where a company does not utilize these traits, it will be even harder in delivering and relating to the relevant consumer group. Bozbay & Ozkan (2016) ends the paper by mentioning how self-expression plays a big role in closing the gap between corporations and consumers. Therefore reiterating and repeating Aaker(1997) point that the personification of a
brand is needed in order to create harmony between customers and companies, and the only way for a brand to stand out is by the distinctiveness, uniqueness, and boldness of their brand image.
In order to understand brand images on multiple levels, we will refer to Ahmad & Thyagaraj (2015) analysis of brand personality with regards to three spectrums in relation to consumer and brand relationships. Firstly, brand personality that is established in hopes of expressing and representing the brands beliefs is analyzed based on whether the brand’s own presentation entices consumers to purchase and relate to the brand through common shared beliefs, admiration, and support, instead of hopes of self expression. This study showed that consumers buy products that enhance and fit in with their ideal ‘self-concept’ instead of their actual self interpretation. Secondly, the study focuses on similarities between brand and
individual personalities, and since self-esteem plays a major role when it comes to gratification, individuals choose brands that they view socially acceptable and ones that fit their ‘ideal’ self image. When it came to congruence with brand personalities the researcher highlighted that societal approval played a bigger part than in the first study, since people wanted to be accepted by society. Finally, Ahmad & Thyagaraj (2015) inspects brand personalities as a means of communication between both parties, consumers and brands. The art of creating a brand personality enables a brand to portray a sense of relationship with the customer, through a communication channel that relies on depth, emotions and perception. Aaker(1997) also shares similar views, by expressing that a good brand personality can function as a friend for
consumers. Blackston (1993) backs up the claims of a relationship and stresses that it is a two-way relationship, where what the brand does, and how it thinks, and treats its consumer, either improves or deteriorates the relationship. Therefore, the study shows that brand identity is
a multi-level complex marketing strategy and it is only as beneficial as what the manager deems it to be with proper utilization.
The three brand personalities that will be focused and assessed in this research paper are sophistication, excitement, and competence. As previously mentioned, these personality traits are those assigned by Aaker (1997) and which were used in all papers mentioned within the current research study, and those examined, relating to brand personalities and traits. Aaker(1997) had created a study examining a number of terms along with numerous brands and came up with the simplification of narrowing it down to just five. Excitement is linked with being daring and up to date, while sophistication relates to the upper classes of society, and competence being defined as intelligent and reliable. Keller (2009) and Tong, Su, & Xu (2017) both built on Aaker’s (1997) work and discussed how high luxury fashion brands utilize brand personalities that are already associated with them such as sophistication, to propel other traits such as excitement and competence. Moreover, they explain how continuously perceived sophistication creates a bond with the consumer solely based on status and admiration, which creates a repurchasing ripple by exploiting and elaborating on the idea of class and brand personality. On the other hand, traits like competence serve as a reassurance for the buyer instead of as a social strata motivated buy. Therefore, where the brand places itself and distinguishes itself within personality traits, heavily dictates which consumer base would want to be associated with it. Keller (2009) explains this phenomenon is due to the different perception held by each individual consumer, and therefore if a brand wants to push out a clear brand identity it should be ingrained in the culture and
displayed by the managers in all branches of the corporation. With sophistication being a class oriented trait for individuals and companies most of the time, and competence being more of a
utility and reliance consumer group, excitement is quite different since it can be applied hand in hand with other traits. A study by Sung, Kim, & Jung (2009) showed that excitement improved opinions on the brand and was not effective in creating trust, unlike competence, which relies mainly on a positive effect on trust. Furthermore, we can see that each individual brand trait will affect a brand, most of the time in a good manner, but the impact might not always be what the managers intend. It is extremely important to choose the right traits to encompass one’s brand or else the positive reception might be useless and insignificant in improving sales and financial terms.
An important aspect of this research study is the use of individual personality traits as a moderator to examine the relationship of consumers with different brand identities like
competence, excitement, or sophistication as their brand personality. The relationship between brand and individual personality traits needs to be examined since there are over a dozen combinations and each one has a unique output. The ‘Big Five’ also referred to as OCEAN, created by McCrae and Costa(1985) is what is going to be used to account for individual personality traits and will be utilized as a moderator in the relationship between brand
personalities and brand equity. McCrae and Costa (1985) explains that the specific traits in the Big Five were derived from Cattell (1945) and studied through empirical survey-based studies and linguistics and using factor analysis to group similar words to form what Goldberg believed to be the five personality traits.
The studies of the Big Five created by McCrae and Costa were used as fundamentals for many studies in the near future, it motivated people to interpret and try understanding why OCEAN has become accepted world-wide as the optimal and reliable personality test that it is
viewed as of today. Costa and McCrae (1996) tested the Big Five once again after their initial creation in order to increase reliability and to help identify clear definitions along with
foundations for studying personality traits. The researchers surveyed a random group of people and followed their self-observed traits along with traits they had observed, and would later on analyse correspondents backgrounds and external links. The study was successful in reaffirming the OCEAN model and it even built up on it by distinguishing that the five traits are only used as umbrella terms. This means that a person is more likely to relate more with the traits associated with one of the ‘Big Five personalities’ rather than the actual assigned personality itself.
Ever since the Big Five personalities have been proven, Costa and McCrae have been working on checking the reliability and consistency of the personality test in real life scenarios. The Big Five being used in a variety of studies around the world the personality test has truly transcended borders. Costa and McCrae(2012) helped add more context to each word by running scenarios to explore each personality. Their studies found that openness to new experiences can be used as an important aspect when assessing a person’s social skills and behaviors. They added that the terms associated with the trait such as ‘novel’, ‘cognitive’, and ‘understanding’, are what people want to see and be referred to as, which highlights the importance of social aspects to openness to experience. Kim, Bonn, Lee & Hahn’s (2018) study supported the findings by Costa and McCrae (2012) and explained that social skills and independence were important factors in openness to new experiences, and with that in mind the idea of trying new things and having a diverse taste in interests is also something very prominent.
In most studies examining the relationship between openness to experiences and brand personalities, researchers try finding if openness to experience either correlates with a single type
of brand quality or if it can be applied to an array of them. Two important studies on the theory of correlation between brand identity and personality are Casidy, Tsarenko, & Alastair (2009) and Huang, Mitchell, & Rosenaum-Elliot (2012) which both studied the relationship and significance of personality. Casidy et al. (2009) examined whether individuals who are open to experiences relate more to exciting brands and if gender changes the results. Their study showed that gender does in fact change interpretations of brands depending on the person’s personality test, but there was no significant link with one brand identity. Therefore, the study showed that you cannot predict a person’s link to brand personality through their own traits and that it is more complex than a simple association. Moreover, Huang et al. (2012) studied the link between personality types and brand characteristics instead of brand identities. The research study found a significant relationship between individuals choosing brands with similar characteristics, for example those with openness to experiences were found to like creative and imaginative brands. Huang et al. (2012) showed that individuals do not view brand personality and instead look at characteristics and small details instead of Aaker’s (1997) brand personality terms. Therefore, companies should perpetuate certain aspects of personalities and not try to sell personalities as a whole. It is important to note that even though the relationship of Huang et al.’s (2012) study was significant, but it had a low correlation, therefore meaning consumer and brand
consciousness played a role, but it was not a definitive relationship. These studies showed that there is no concrete evidence relating between brand and individual personalities, rather it is a connection based on specific traits of both brand and individual personality.
Finally, we need to examine how brand equity is defined in reference to brand personality and how it is properly studied in academia. Ahmed & Thagaraj (2014) help illustrate the
meaning behind brand equity, by clarifying that it is the added value the consumer derives from a brand’s product. Ahmed & Thagaraj (2014) explain that a lot of consumers are swayed to higher brand equity depending on how much the brand represents a brand identity/personality traits. Moreover, they break down that there is an array of components regarding brand equity, which are covered and referenced most of the time through brand trust, loyalty, preference, and
attachment. For this reason, Ahmad & Thagaraj (2014) believe that brand equity and personality are very inter-woven, since any change or adjustments to brand personality will result in a change in brand equity too, which makes brand equity a dependent variable in most studies. Aaker’s(1997) work on brand personality types was vital for Maehle, Otnes, and Supphellen (2011) study on brand equity, they managed to link ‘competence’ as an personality that is created by the company through previous experiences and encounters, while ‘sophistication’ was created by consumer symbolism and ‘excitement’ was a mix of both, which helped show how the value added depends on how the company handles and directs products and consumer reach. In addition, Maltzer, Bidmon, & Grabner-Krauter (2006) explain that through empirical studies, it is safe to assume and state that individuals with personality traits similar or encompassing those of openness to experience have a positive relationship with brand affect. Those who are open to experiences should be one of the primary focuses of marketers since they respond more to affective social quos and are able to build a relationship and perceive more positive gratitude towards products. It is apparent that brand equity has been questioned and inspected in an array of ways and the relationships between certain brand identities has been looked at, but it is important to assess these theories in present day context and question whether all three variables can impact one another, either through direct or indirect relationships. With individual
personality being a moderator we will be able to see if researchers and marketers have to account for the customer or the brand management when trying to improve brand equity.
3 Research Design and Methodology 3.1 Data collection
A pretest was utilized through questionnaire format to clear out any pre existing biases concerning any brands or scales in order to refine the measurement scales regarding the brands before the actual data collection had taken place. The pre-test was implemented in 2 rounds and was examined on a total of 50 people using a random sample of contacts 5 bachelor students from University of Amsterdam had available communication to.
In the first round of the pre-test 12 various watch brands of different price levels and status (Rolex, Casio,..) were provided, divided into 3 distinct groups being sophistication, excitement, and competence. Each four brands associated with a brand personality and the participants were asked to rate each brand according to each brand personality trait characteristic. It was believed that there might have been pre-existing bias through the first survey since brands were already linked and associated with one of the brand personalities, due to the way the group formatted and divided the questions. Therefore a second round of pre-test was conducted in hopes of
minimizing bias that had been possibly created by dividing the brands to correlate with
personalities. During the second round of the pre-testing watch brands were not associated with any personality and instead they were based on the correspondent’s prior knowledge and images (brand logo, an image of the product on a person, a still image of one of the brand’s products) provided along with the brand names. Participants were asked to rate each individual brand according to the three brand personality trait characteristics. The rating was completed through the use of a 5 point likert scale ranging from not at all to a great deal.
For the final survey that was used to evaluate the study of brand personalities a cross-sectional study was implemented. Relevant data was collected over surveys with
convenience sampling where participants were sampled through contacts of 5 bachelor students from University of Amsterdam in a two weeks period. A total of 958 participated in the survey and 309 were found valid for usage, since some were either incomplete or failing our validity question. The participants ranged from 13 to 65 years old, giving us the ability to defeat bias a particular age group might have. In total there were around 29 % were male while the rest of the 71% identified as female. The large sample was chosen to see the personality differences from different target groups, as the highlight of the study lies on the importance of the association between brand personality and the consumer personality and to help establish whether it impacts brand equity or not.
Participants were first asked to rate the personality trait composed of the pre-made questions by the IPIP NEO personality test. They were asked to rate these traits according to themselves according to the scale ranging from 1 to 5 depending on how much they agreed with statements regarding their personality, the questions helped distinguish openness to experiences was Q5 in the survey (Appendix 6). To control the bias from the order effect the questions of the personality test were provided randomly. After identifying each personality trait, participants were provided to rate the brand equity dimensions according to the brands gathered through the pretest on a 5-point likert scale ranging from 1, completely disagree, to 5, completely agree, questions regarding the brands Rolex, Tag Heuer and Apple Watch can be found under Q6-8 in the survey (Appendix 6). The results from the pre-test gave us access to which brand had the
highest associations to the brand personalities being: sophisticated, competent and excited with the brands Rolex, Tag Heuer, Apple Watch respectively.
3.2 Measures
The independent variable brand personality dimensions developed by Aaker’s framework(1997) is tested based on the IPIP NEO personality test with accordance to the participants personality where each brand personality facets connected to itself. IPIP- NEO is one of the most common personality tests used to provide reliable and valid results regarding the personality of the participant. Estimates indicate that IPIP-NEO test executes precisely and provides feedback over 99% of the time. (The IPIP-NEO).
Brand equity is determined by brand equity developed again from Aaker’s framework (1997) of customer-based brand equity. Namely being brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Measures of the brand equity dimensions came from previous research. Brand awareness was measured in 3 items (Tong, Su, and Xu, 2018) to evaluate the strength of the recognition and recall for the specific brand (Aaker, 1991), (Keller, 1993). Brand association measures were tested for the meaningful connection that has been created by the brand towards the consumer in 5 items. Perceived brand quality measures were based on the products by the brand in 3 dimensions and lastly brand loyalty was tested in 5 items to measure the commitment of the consumer to the brand.
The moderator variable Openness to Experiences will be measured through IPIP-NEO personality test to emphasize reliability and cohesion between the survey, personality tests, and successful previous studies that examine connections and relationships between individuals and brands
3.3 Analytical plan
With multiple research papers being conducted about the relationship between brand personality and brand equity, that is in fact significant, it has been made quite clear that the important and pivotal part of our research is how consumer personality affects an already significant relationship. Therefore, a big section of the results will focus heavily on the
relationship between consumer personality and brand equity in order to fully grasp the impact of uniqueness of personality to different parts of businesses. Each brand’s equity will be
represented through averaging the likert scale results of respondents' answers that correlated to each brand and creating a new variable that encapsulated the questions regarding each brand respectively into a new variable.
To test Hypothesis 1, the three brands represented all encapsulate different brand personalities and are perceived as unique from one another. It is believed that none of the three brands have been viewed in the same way by the respondents of the survey. To fully illustrate how they are different is by concluding that each of the means of the three brands, Rolex (Sophistication), Tag Heuer (Competence), and Apple watch (Excitement) are unique and
different. Through the act of comparing means through a paired samples T test to show that there is a difference between the average answers within the same sample.
The second hypothesis will focus on the relationship between the moderator variable, consumer personality and brand equity of two brand personalities. It is presumed that the people who have a strong personality regarding openness to experiences also lean strongly towards brands that are perceived to be either competent or exciting. This will be tested through a linear regression between consumer personality and each brand identity distinctively. Since the data
gathered on each brand through the main experimentation talks about how consumers perceive certain brands, then it will be possible to focus on whether a consumer is able to perceive a brand in a better light and whether their personality identification fuels it or not. The linear regression will be run for each brand’s brand equity separately and will have an independent variable of ‘openness to experiences’ and the dependent variable being ‘competence and
excitement’ respectively.
The third hypothesis focuses on the relationship between openness to experiences and the brand equity of a perceived sophisticated brand, Rolex, in this case it is presumed that people who have strong openness to experiences will have a negative polarising interpretation of sophisticated brands. The relationship between consumer personality and brand equity will be tested through the utilization of linear regression, using openness to experiences as the
4 Results
To fully understand and grasp the relationship and impact between individual personality and brand equity we have to analyze the results of respondents and test whether the relationship is significant or not. Before fully examining the relationship between the moderator and our dependent variable a few precautions have to be examined to see whether our test will be beneficial for future research or not. The Linearity between Openness to experience and each distinctive Brand’s brand equity has to be inspected along with other pre-tests.
The 4 vital factors to dissecting the relationships between consumer personality, openness to experiences, and brand equity of sophisticated, exciting, or competent brands are the mean, standard deviation, correlation, and a linear regression between certain variables. With the given statistics it will be easier to decipher and articulate which relationships are impacted through correlations, followed by whether it is a significant relationship or one that is simply relient on an outside influence/effect.
Table 1: Correlation, Mean, and SD of Variables. (Appendix 4)
Variables Mean SD Corr.
Variable 1 Corr. Variable 2 Corr. Variable 3 Openness To Experiences 3.75 0.63 1 Rolex (Sophistication) 3.24 0.63 .242** 1 Tag Heuer (Competence) 2.70 .70 .139* .494* 1 Apple Watch (Excitement) 3.65 .71 .148** .395* .142*
Table 1 illustrates the mean of each of the variables, the moderating variable being individual consumer personality, which is openness to experiences in this case, along with the dependent variable, the brand equity of 3 different brands. The three different brands portrayed here are those that were aforementioned above, each one represents a brand personality varying from sophistication, competence, and excitement respectively. Table 1 provides us with the correlations between each variable, as well defining the strength of significance, one asterisk (*) represents significance at alpha being 0.05 and a double asterisk (**) defining alpha being at 0.01, illustrating a stronger significance. The relationship between the moderating variable, openness to experiences, proved to be significant with all three brands, proving that there is a correlation between each individual brand and consumer personality. The correlation between the brand, Rolex, that represented the personality of sophistication had the strongest correlation with openness to new experiences, with a moderately positive correlation, which meant when one variable increases the other was likely to increase in the same direction . The other significant relationships with consumer personality, both competence and excitementment, represented by Tag Heuer and Apple watch respectively, had a weak positive correlation, which meant when one increases the other one also increases a miniscule amount. Additionally, it is present that . An important thing to highlight is that correlation does not mean that there was a causation relationship, which means one variable does not cause the other. The correlation means that they just react and move cohesively in the same direction or not or not.
Using the information gathered through pre-tests and the cross sectional survey we decided that a fairly accurate representation for sophistication. Therefore we took the results of the main cross-sectional survey at interpreted corrospondent’s opinion about Rolex to interpret
the relationship between consumer’s personality and brand equity of a sophisticated brand, Rolex. We had to test the linearity of the relationship (Appendixing 1A) , normality of residual plots (1B), and homoscedasticity plots (1C) before examining the regression. The assumptions, present in appendix 1, were all met comfortably meaning that that regression can go ahead without substantial doubt in causation or correlation.
In addition we use the same assumptions and test to examine the validity of both competence and excitement as well. Illustrating an exciting brand is Tag Heuer, the linearity, homoscedasticity, and normal plot of residuals. The test assumptions for Tag Heuer appear under appendix 2, where it is clearly portrayed that there is a positive linear relationship, while both other plots also meet the required test assumptions. Meanwhile, for competence represented by Apple, found under appendix 3, a positive linear relationship is present on the graph, in addition the residual plot looks approximately normally distributed but divirges a bit midway through the accumulated predicted observations, other than that everything surpasses the test assumptions quite comfortably.
With all the assumptions being met it is possible to go on and test the forthcoming hypothesis’ and fully dissect the impact of each
Table 2: Paired Samples t-test. (Appendix 5)
Pairs Mean Std. Dev. T score df Significance
Rolex - Tag Heuer .54 .67 14.1 305 .000*
Rolex - Apple Watch -.4 .74 -9.427 303 .000*
For the first hypothesis a paired t-test will be utilized where the aim is to investigate if there is a difference in means between each distinctive brand personality. Running it through SPSS in a paired samples test model the results are proven to be significaneficant for all the 3 pairs, since the significance level is below 0.01. The model is in fact significant and we can assume that there is a difference between the three brand personalities. Given the significance level we are able to distinguish how each brand equates and represents a different brand personality. Additionally, table 2 illustrates the difference between each brand personality and how it's interpreted differently by each correspondent in the sample. To fully grasp the meaning behind each relationship, we use table 2 since it highlights how on average Rolex was rated .54 better than its counterpart Tag Hueur, Moreover the Apple watch on average was perceived and rated higher than both Rolex and Tag Heuer, by .4 and .94 respectively. With all three relationships being significant we can see the difference in how each brand personality was interpreted by respondents on the survey and how it impacted each brand’s equity in a different way. Since it has been proven that each brand represents a different brand personality we can go on to prove how each consumer's interpretation can affect how the brand is marketed and talked about on the global sphere differently.
Linear Regression Between Openness to Experiences and Brand Equity of Tag Heuer(Table 3&4) /Apple Watch Table (5&6)
For the second hypothesis a linear regression model will be utilized where the aim is to investigate if there is a positive relationship between openness to new experiences and both competent and exciting brands, Tag Heuer and Apple Watch. Running the relationship between consumer personality and Tag Heuer through SPSS in a linear regression model, table 3 & 4 illustrate a significance level that is below 0.02 and an R Squared value of 1.9%. The model is in fact significant and we can assume that there is a positive relationship between our independent variable, openness to experiences, and the dependent variable, the brand equity of a competent
brand, Tag heuer. The R Squared value, 1.9%, explains the amount of variance in the dependent variable that is explained by the model. In addition, it is evident that the brand equity of competent brand’s an average increase of 0.154 with every 1 unit increase in perceived consumer personality of openness to experiences, this is shown by the unstandardized beta.
Another linear regression will take place to highlight the relationship between openness to experiences and the equity of brand’s that are perceived as exciting, Apple Watch, which are present in table 5 &6. The relationship is proven to be significant on an α=0.01 and with an R-Squared value of 2.2%. With the regression meeting the threshold for significance we can conclude that openness to experience does in fact impact the brand equity of Apple Watch, and most probably other brands that are labeled as exciting by consumer groups. The R Squared value, present in table 5, it is clear that the value is 2.2%, explains the amount of variance in apple watch responses that are explained by the model, therefore we have to account that even though personality impacts brand equity there are quite clearly other significant factors too. Using the unstandardized Beta we can tell that every time a person identifies a 1 unit more with openness to experiences it will most likely increase the brand equity of Apple Watch/ Exciting brands by .17.
Finally, hypothesis 3 will also be conducted through optimizing the linear regression model, the independent variable will be identified as consumer personality, brand equity will be the dependent variable once again. The only difference is in the expected relationship, we are testing to see if openness to experience creates a negative relationship with brand’s associated with sophistication. The SPSS output for the linear regression model illustrates that there is a significance level that is below 0.01 and an R Squared value of 5.8%, shown in table 7. Therefore the relationship between sophisticated brands and the personality trait openness to experiences have a significant impact on one another and through the R Squared value we can tell that 5.8% of the variance in the rolex answers were explained by the relationship. Using the unstandardized beta we also get a glimpse of how openness to experiences impacts the brand equity of Rolex, a sophisticated brand, where every 1 unit increase in openness to experiences equates to an increase of .242 in brand equity of Rolex, meaning they have a positive linear relationship.
5 Discussion
The aim of this study was to highlight how the interactions between brand personalities and brand equity can be amplified and impacted by consumer personality. By establishing how individual consumers interpret themselves differently and have different expectations for each brand identity, it becomes easier to fully grasp how certain brands would want to position themselves accordingly.
The results section helped clarify how certain personality traits respond to brand
personality cues and references that they might particularly resonate with, along with how brand equity reacts to consumer personality. The first hypothesis turned out to be significant, it proved how different brand personalities are interpreted differently by consumers, it was evident when consumers were asked how likely they would purchase or identify with one of the brands. The way a consumer views the brand and imagines the reward of participating/supporting the brand can be defined as perceived brand equity. The second hypothesis expanded on the first
hypothesis’ findings by questioning the impact of consumer personality. Results supported the second hypothesis by indicating that openness to experiences does have a positive relationship with brands that are identified as competent and exciting. This suggests that as one relates more to openness to experiences then they are more likely to gravitate more towards competent and exciting brands as well. The third hypothesis which presumed that openness to experience would have a negative relationship with brand equity for sophistication was not supported. Analysis for this hypothesis revealed opposing results as openness to experiences had the highest impact on
brand equity regarding sophistication as opposed to any other brand personality tested in this study.
Our findings have both reaffirmed what has been studied previously in the field of personality behavior and also contradicted some studies regarding self portrayal through
alignment with certain brands and products. With the data and research we have gathered we can add to the data and reaffirm the teachings of Freling et al. (2011), which focused and identified the connection between brand personality and how different personalities are portrayed through media, along with how consumers impact the outcome of brand equity through their perceptions of advertisements and social media pages, highlighting how each person had their own unique interpretations of media. Our research supported Blackston’s (1993) research by demonstrating that consumers only interpret as much as the brand communicates, meaning that consumers gain an image of the brand through what is provided and illustrated through AD campaigns and social media platforms. On the other hand, another important paper that was used is Sahour &
Dragomir (2018), we let correspondents identify their own personality traits through the survey and we tested whether they would lean towards brands with similar traits. Contrary to what Sahour & Dragomir (2018) had observed, participants swayed the most towards sophistication, which is not normally associated with openness to new experiences, therefore our research leads us to question whether consumers look for brands with similar identities or not. Furthermore, the research aimed to highlight how distinct consumer personalities are attracted to non-conventional brand personalities/equity. The findings from this study indicated that not all consumers tend to
relate to brands that share the same ideals explicitly. By adding more information about
consumer personality as a moderator, we provide depth to the relationship of brand personality and equity, while highlighting vital factors that impact the relationship. Lastly our research has shown that each consumer personality reacts differently to brand personality, and most of the time it works in unexpected ways. To fully grasp the connection between each consumer and a given brand, the relationship between the two, the industry, and the type of product had to be examined. For example, within the watch industry, the greater the person’s personality identified with openness to experiences, the greater the preference they had towards a sophisticated brand. These findings therefore demonstrate the importance of examining how each personality reacts to market cues.
A major limitation of this study is that we do not know if the data compiled for the watch industry applies to all clothing and accessory based industries or if it is an exclusive phenomenon regarding the watch industry. Another limitation lies in the generalizability of these findings provided that a large number of participants did not complete the survey and thus limited the sample size used in analysis. is that the number of people who did not fully complete the survey which in essence limits the scope of the sample size and information extracted from it.
Additionally, to affirm the relationship between openness to experiences and brand equity a research project should examine it’s relationship with the remaining two brand personalities, in order to distinguish which brand personality openness to experiences has more of an impact on.
6 Conclusion
Previous research that hoped to reveal why consumers prefer certain brands over others mainly failed to address and distinguish the differences in human interpretation and instead focused on the one dimensional factor of brand identity. Therefore, our study helped build on previous research, with the aim to examine the impact of different unique consumer personalities on how brand’s express themselves, along with how brand equity is influenced by consumers’
characteristics. The results gathered through the research study clarified that consumer
personality does infact impact the way a brand is perceived depending on how the brand portrays itself. This suggests that those higher in openness to experiences, like any other personality trait, prefer certain brand personalities like sophistication, which in essence highlights how brands can use their personalities to appeal to certain types of consumers. Moreover, consumers prefer certain brands who present a personality they appeal to rather than brands whose personalities are not as alluring. Finally, The goal of the research paper was to distinguish how brands have to account for consumers’ personalities and ways of interpretations when advertising and
portraying their brand identity in order to yield positive brand equity, especially when trying to attract new market segments while also trying to strengthen the bond with pre-existing
i Bibliography
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of A Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, 34(3), 347-356.
Ahmad, Anees & Thyagaraj, K.S.. (2014). Brand personality and brand equity research: Past developments and future directions. The IUP Journal of Brand Management. 11. 19-56.
Ahmad, Anees & Thyagaraj, K.. (2015). Understanding the Influence of Brand Personality on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Advanced Management Science. 38-43.
10.12720/joams.3.1.38-43.
Blackston, M., (1993). Beyond brand personality: building brand relationships. In: Aaker, D.A., Biel, A.L. (Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp.113–124.
Bozbay, Zehra & Özkan, Erdem. (2016). The Effect of Brand Personality on Consumers’ Brand Preference: The Mediating Role of Self-Expressive Value of Brand.
Casidy, Riza & Tsarenko, Yelena & Anderson, Alastair. (2009). The Big Five and Brand
Personality: Investigating the Impact of Consumer Personality on Preferences Towards Particular Brand Personality. Journal of Brand Management. 16. 234-247. 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550093.
Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: principles and findings in a factor analysis.
The American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417576
Costa, Paul & McCrae, Robert. (2012). The Five-Factor Model, Five-Factor Theory, and Interpersonal Psychology. Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology: Theory, Research, Assessment, and Therapeutic Interventions. 91-104. 10.1002/9781118001868.ch6.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
D. A. Aaker, Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., & Henard, D. H. (2011). Brand personality appeal:
conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 392-406.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
Huang, Hazel & Mitchell, Vincent-Wayne & Rosenaum-Elliott, Richard. (2012). Are Consumer and Brand Personalities the Same?. Psychology & Marketing. 29. 10.1002/mar.20525.
Keller, K. L.,(2009) Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment, Journal of Marketing Communications, 15:2-3, 139-155, DOI:
10.1080/13527260902757530
Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22. doi:10.2307/1252054
Kim, J., Bonn, M., Lee C. K., & Hahn, S. (2018): Effects of personality traits on visitors attending an exposition: the moderating role of anxiety attachment, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research
Maehle, Natalia & Otnes, Cele & Supphellen, Magne. (2011). Consumers' perceptions of the dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 10. 10.1002/cb.355.
Matzler, Kurt & Bidmon, Sonja & Grabner-Kräuter, Sonja. (2006). Individual determinants of brand affect: The role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience. Journal of Product and Band Management. 15. 427-494. 10.1108/10610420610712801.
McCrae, Robert & Costa, Paul. (1996). The five factor model of personality: Theoretical Perspective.
Sahour, S.A., & Dragomir, A. (2018). THE IMPACT OF THE CONGRUENCE BETWEEN BRAND PERSONALITY AND SELF-IMAGE ON CONSUMERS’ BEHAVIORAL
RESPONSES: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK.
Tong X., Su J., & Xu Y., (2018) Brand personality and its impact on brand trust and brand
commitment: an empirical study of luxury fashion brands, International Journal of Fashion
Design, Technology and Education, 11:2, 196-209, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2017.1378732
Sung, Y., Kim, J., & Jung, J., H., (2009) The Predictive Roles of Brand Personality on Brand Trust and Brand Affect: A Study of Korean Consumers, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 22:1, 5-17, DOI: 10.1080/08961530902844907
ii Appendix
1: Assumptions regarding Rolex (Brand Personality and Equity regarding Sophistication) 1A) Linearity test between Rolex and Openness to Experiences
1B) Normality (Rolex and Openness to Experiences)
2) Assumptions for Tag Heuer relationship with Consumer Personality 2A) Linearity
2B) Normality of Residuals
3) Assumptions regarding relationship between Apple watch and Openness to Experiences 3A)Linearity
3B)Normality
4) Correlation, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Brand’s Brand Equity along With Consumer Personality Trait
6) Complete Survey Start of Block: IntroductionQ14
Welcome to our survey about the "Influence of Brand Personalities on Consumer Behaviour".
The survey consists of 2 main parts.
1. You will answer the questions that will allow us to rate your overall personality.
2. You will answer questions related to several brands from the watch industry under a condition of completely disregarding your current financial situation.
Use the photographs provided as well as your past experience and knowledge to answer the questions.
Please note that there are no right or wrong answers.
The results will be kept anonymous and will be solely used for the purposes of this specific study.
We greatly appreciate your help!
By clicking the arrow to the next page, you consent to participate in this 10 minute survey. End of Block: IntroductionStart of Block: Personality
Q3 To what extent do you agree with the following statements about yourself?
Q4 To what extent do you agree with the following statements about yourself.
End of Block: PersonalityStart of Block: Validity question
Q14 This is a question to test the validity of your answers. Please select the following answer.
End of Block: Validity questionStart of Block: Brand equity Q6 Website
Instagram Profile.
Q7 Website
Instagram Profile
Q8 Website
Instagram Profile:
Apple doesn't post any photographs of their products on Instagram, but rather shares user-generated content created with their products.
End of Block: Brand equity
Start of Block: End of the survey questionsQ14 Thank you for participating in our survey!
Before closing this page, please answer the following questions:
What is your gender?
Male (1) Female (2) Other (3)
Q12 What is your age?________________________________________________________________ Q13 What is your nationality?
