“Personality traits in the customer equity model for
perfume brands”
Student: Josine Janssen, 10004673
Study: Master of Business Studies, Marketing Supervisor: Dhr. Drs. Ing. A.C.J. Meulemans Second supervisor: Drs. F. Slisser
Faculty: Faculty of Economics and Business Date: 2nd of February, 2016
2
Abstract
This research investigates in the influence of personality traits on the composition of customer equity. The big five personality scale is used to find out if there is any relation between
personalities and the evaluation of customer equity. The research is conducted in the context of brand personalities in the perfume branch, to see if the composition of customer equity might differ for brand personalities as well. There was no statistical support for the relationship described above.
3
Table of contents:
2 Introduction ... 4 3 Literature review ... 7 3.1 Customer Equity ... 7 3.2 Personality traits ... 11 3.3 Brand Personality ... 14 3.4 Research model ... 17 4 Method ... 18 4.1 Pretest ... 18 4.2 Sample ... 19 4.3 measurement of variables ... 20 4.4 Statistical procedure ... 21 5 Results ... 23 5.1 Demographics of respondents ... 235.2 Factor analysis Big Five ... 25
5.3 Reliability analysis Customer Equity ... 28
5.4 Customer equity drivers in the perfume branch ... 30
5.5 Customer equity drivers per brand personality ... 31
5.6 Customer equity drivers per personality ... 32
6 Conclusion ... 36
7 Strengths and limitations ... 39
8 Reference list: ... 40
9 Appendices ... 42
9.1 Appendix 1: Questionnaire pre-test ... 43
9.2 Appendix 2: NEO-FFI framework ... 46
9.3 Appendix 3: Customer equity framework in questionnaire ... 48
9.4 Appendix 4: Questionnaire ... 49
4
2 Introduction
The domain and theories of marketing are dynamic and changing and expanding over time. It moved from a functional paradigm, to a marketing management paradigm, to the exchange paradigm. The exchange is beyond goods and services, it incorporates the exchange with customers, suppliers and employees. Marketing theories and practices moved from transaction and product driven, to relation and value driven (Achrol & Kotler, 2012). This shift results in a more customer-centred viewpoint. Firms see their customer as more valuable than before and try to improve the relationship with their customers. Correspondingly, in marketing theory this shift is visible as well. For example brand equity, a product-based concept, is challenged by a customer-based concept like customer equity (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2001). The basic idea of customer equity is straightforward, it treats your customers as they are financial assets. Financial assets need to be measured, managed and maximized (Blattberg & Thomas 2001, p. 3). Customer equity provides insights in the value of their customers and maximizes this value based on three drivers. These three drivers are: value equity, brand equity and retention equity (Rust Lemon & Zeithaml 2000, p. 9). These drivers form the basis for the strategy to maximize your customer value by attracting customers, keeping customers and expanding customers. However, the relative importance of each driver differs per
company and/or industry. Prior managerial trends focused on either cost management or revenue growth. Customer equity balances the focus on the latter two. However, customer equity serves more than just a method for calculations, it is a total marketing system which is the reason customer equity became a popular phenomenon. Customer equity could be
implemented in every industry. It could differentiate in importance of the drivers of customer equity for each industry. Using this information, companies can explore on which component they should improve their performance and exploit it. In research about customer equity, the customers are seen as 1 group. Because every customer is different, personality traits might
5 influence customer equity. Goldberg (1993) states that differences in personalities have been studied for decades. These studies tried to classify personalities into personality scales. But even within these personality scales, personality differences exists. It is hard to classify individuals into personality scales. However, the Big Five personality scale is a widely
accepted concept which contains five personality scales. The previously mentioned dynamics, shape the context of this research. This research will combine the concept of Big Five with the customer equity framework to investigate in the relationship between those concepts. The relationship between customer equity and the personality of the customers will be explored on different brand personalities. Perfume brands are chosen to represent different brand
personality. Jennifer Aaker (1997) states that brand personality refers to the set of human characteristics associated with a brand. It is about how the personality of a brand enables the consumer to express his or her own self. The research of Jennifer Aaker (1997) demonstrated a framework of five brand personality dimensions which are made up of 42 personality traits. In this research a shorter version is being used which contains 14 personality traits due to time constrains. This taken together with the previously mentioned dynamics, the research question is as follows: Are personality traits of influence in the customer equity composition for
different brand personalities?
This thesis will start with a literature review about the following themes: customer equity, big five personalities and brand personalities. The literature review shed light on current views about the themes and discuss important research in that area. It ends with the research model of this research. After the literature review the methodology of this research will be discussed, which includes the pre-test, description of the sample and the statistical procedure. The methodology is followed by the result section. In this part of the thesis the results of the research are being discussed, which includes the data analysis approach. The result section answers the research question of the thesis. After the results section, the
6 conclusion and general discussion of this research will be discussed. Finally this thesis ends by mentioning the strengths and implications of this research.
7
3 Literature review
In this chapter relevant findings from current literature, related to this research, is being discussed. Literature related to this research could be divided into three components. The first is the customer equity framework. The second component is personality trait, represented by the Big Five. The third component is about brand personality, represented by Jennifer Aaker’s framework. The relevant findings about these former components state the hypotheses of this research.
3.1 Customer Equity
As suggested by Blattberg & Thomas (2001, p.3) the principle of customer equity is
straightforward, the customer is seen as a financial asset which organizations should measure, manage and maximize just like other assets. Managing customer equity involves a dynamic, integrative marketing system. This dynamic and integrative marketing system uses financial valuation techniques and data about customers in order to optimize the acquisition, retention and selling of additional products to the customers. This process maximizes the value of the company of the customer relationship (Blattberg e.a. 2001, p.3). Marketing functions were used to allocate resources by product line. By adopting a customer orientation, it is the
customer life cycle which determines how managers distribute resources (Blattberg e.a. 2001, p.4). As a conclusion, customer equity refers to the value of the company’s customer
relationships. Customer equity is defined as the total of the discounted lifetime value of the firm’s customers (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2001). It is critical for a firm’s long-term success to get insight in their customer equity. Customer Equity is driven by value equity, brand equity and relationship equity. These drivers work independently and together as well (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2001). Each driver has several key levers see figure 1.
8
V
Figure 1: Driving forces of customer equity (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml 2000, p.85).
Value Equity
Value equity is the objective valuation of the utility of a brand. This is influenced by the following three key levers: quality, price and convenience. Quality can be seen as the
combination of objective physical and nonphysical aspects of the product or service of a firm.
Price is about what the customer is willing to give up to obtain the product or service. Which
is, due to price transparency on the internet, decreasing as a power of a marketing tool.
Convenience consists of everything that makes it more easy to do business with a firm, such
as reduced time costs or search costs (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2001).
Brand Equity
Brand equity is the subjective valuation of a brand above its objectively perceived value. Brand equity is influenced by the following three levers: brand awareness, brand attitude and corporate ethics. Brand awareness incorporates tools, such as marketing communications, which the firm can use to influence or improve brand awareness (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml,
Value equity Quality Price Convenience Brand awareness Brand attitude Corporate ethics Loyalty programs Affinity programs Community programs Brand equity Retention equity
Customer
Equity
9 2001). Brand attitude is about how the firm can influence the strength of emotional ties of a customer with the brand, for example with direct marketing. The last lever that drives brand equity, corporate ethics, consist of actions that enable the firm to influence customer
perceptions of the organization. For example actions like donations, sponsorships or employee relationships (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2001).
Relationship equity
A sufficient value equity and brand equity is not enough to keep the customers, this shows the importance of the third driver, relationship equity. Relationship equity is about the tendency to stick with the brand beyond customer’s objective and subjective valuation of the brand. Relationship equity is influenced by loyalty programs, affinity programs, community programs and knowledge programs (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2001). Loyalty programs for example reward the repeating purchase behaviour of a customer with several kind of benefits, like saving tokens to be used in a special saving offer. Affinity progroms focus on creating emotional connections. It is important in affinity programs to link the customers relationship with the firm to other aspects of their life, by providing for example discount and other cost saving opportunities. Communicty programs is about connecting a customer to a larger group of customers, creating a community. An example of a the GoPro community, in this
community you can share your movies you made with your GoPro video camera. The last driver of relationship equity is knowledge programs, which focus on learning relationship with the customer. By learning relationships a firm is able to get insight in customer
preferences and result in creating bonds with the customers, which makes the customer less likely to switch and create a relationship with another provider.
10
Previous research on customer equity
Several research is done about customer equity. There is research about the financial
implications of customer equity as well as there is research in exploiting customer equity for marketing purpose. In the next two paragraphs the most important research among customer equity is being discussed.
Impact of customer metrics on financial performance
The importance of customer equity on financial performance is shown by Gupta and Zeithaml (2006), they integrate existing knowledge and research to show the important impact of customer metrics on financial performance. Gupta and Zeithaml (2006) investigate both unobservable metrics and observable metrics. The unobservable metrics consist of customer satisfaction, service quality and loyalty and intentions to purchase. The observable metrics are customer acquisition, customer retention and cross-selling which determine the customer lifetime value (CLV), the long-run profitability of a customer.
Gupta and Zeithaml (2006), provide 2 generalizations of observable metrics and their impact on financial performance.
1: “Marketing decisions based on observed customer metrics, like CLV, improve a firm’s financial performance” (Gupta & Zeithaml, 2006).
2: “Customer metrics, especially CLV and CE, provide a good basis to assess the market value of a firm” (Gupta & Zeithaml, 2006).
These generalizations stress out the importance of customer equity and customer lifetime value. It shows that customer equity and customer lifetime is important to see how you differentiate from your competitor.
11
Customer equity to focus marketing strategy
Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml (2004) present a strategic framework for basing marketing strategy on customer equity and customer lifetime value. This framework enables marketing strategy options to be traded off on the basis of projected financial return and the return on marketing investments (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2004). The return on marketing investments is the change in customer equity relative to the incremental costs necessary to produce this change. This framework for evaluating return on marketing enables marketing to be financially accountable.
With their strategic framework, Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml (2004) make contributions to marketing theory and practice based on customer equity. First of all, they provide a method for measuring the effect of each customer equity driver resulting in a projected return on investment (ROI) per driver. This method makes it possible to make a comparison to see in which driver you have to invest to get the highest ROI. Companies can answers questions like “Should we spend more on advertising, or should we improve service quality?” (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2004). Furthermore, customer equity provides a theoretical framework which enables the company to be customer focused. This theoretical framework is applicable to various industries. Basing marketing spending on the drivers of customer equity is like an outside-in approach (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2004).
3.2 Personality traits
With an increasing focus on customers it becomes more important to truly know your
customers. Since every person is different, it is important to see you customers as individuals with their own personality traits. Many research is done to provide a scientifically convincing classification of personality traits (Goldberg, 1993).
12
History & Development
Golberg (1993) traced the development of the Big Five structure. The roots of this structure lie in the lexical hypothesis of Francis Galton. Sir Galton was one of the first scientists that discovered the fundamental “lexical hypothesis”. The relevance of personality traits can be found in the nature of the language, the words that describe someone’s personality, this is called the lexical hypothesis. This stressed out the importance of the world’s languages, where the most important individual differences are encoded (Goldberg, 1993). Francis Galton estimated the number of personality-descriptive terms by the use of an English dictionary. This was sharpened empirically by later investigators. One of the first of these investigator was L.L. Thurstone, who run a factor analysis on sixty adjectives found by Francis Galton. Thurstone never followed up his analysis, instead he focused on the questionnaire scale by Guilford which led to the development of seven factors (Goldberg, 1993). Cattel imitated the factor analysis ran by Thurstone. Cattel used the personality-descriptive terms collection found by Francis Galton and sharpened by Allport and Odbert. Eventually this resulted in the development of a set of 35 bipolar variables. These variables were used in a variety of studies, in which the correlation were factored using oblique rotational procedures (Goldberg, 1993). As Golberg (1993) states, when Cattel’s variables were analyzed by others, five factors were replicable, resulting in the Big-Five factors. From various factor analyses, five traits emerge. These big five factors are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness.
Extraversion
Extraversion is a well-known personality trait by many people. To most people, extraversion describes a person who is outgoing, social and enjoys being around other people. As Hogan, Johnson and Briggs (1997, p. 767) discussed in the handbook of Psychology, there are also
13 other descriptors of extravert that are less central, but commonly recognized as a personality trait of an extraversion person. Those descriptors include bold, assertive, lively, energetic, enthusiastic and optimistic (Hogan, Johnson & Briggs 1997, p. 767). On the contrary, there is introvert, this personality trait can be discussed as more quiet and reserved. Eysenck’s theory emphasizes on the level of arousal as a cause of differences between extraverts and introverts. He posited that extraverts experience a low level of arousal that leads to seeking external stimulation. In contrast, introverts experience a high level of arousal resulting in avoiding external stimulation (Gray, 1970).
Agreeableness
Compared to the other 4 factors, Agreeableness is unique in its connection to motives for taking care of positive interpersonal relationships (Jensen-Campbel & Graziano, 2001). Individuals develop characteristics that helps them to cooperate with others in a group.
Individuals that are unwilling or unable to cooperate might be excluded from the group which minimizes personal and reproductive awards (Jensen-Campbel & Graziano, 2001). These auteurs discuss how agreeableness may allow individuals to minimize the negative outcome of group living.
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is linked with being organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented and dependable. Conscientiousness is related to an individual’s willingness to achieve, self-motivation and efficaciousness. A high conscientiousness individual tend to be more committed to difficult goals they set for themselves. (Le Pine, Colquitt & Erez, 2000).
14 Verbeke and Kenhove (2002), discuss conscientiousness as the number of goals an individual sets for himself. High conscientiousness individuals follow less goals in a purposeful way. An individual who scores low on conscientiousness pursues more goals in a spontaneous way.
Neuroticism
Verbeke and Kenhove (2002) link neuroticism to a negative emotionality. It refers to the ability to cope with stress and withstand it. There are individuals who experience very negative emotions and got less satisfaction within life than other individuals. An individual who scores high on neuroticism, is someone who experiences anxiety and worries. The individual allows emotions to affect judgement and focus on the failing ability of things. Being anxious, irritable, temperamental, and moody are linked to neuroticism.
Openness to experience
Being curious, original, intellectual, creative and open to new ideas refer to openness to experience. It defines the degree to which an individual has lots of interests and is able to be creative and willing to consider new ideas. In contrast, people who score low on openness to experience have less interests and are tempted to stick to what they always do.
3.3 Brand Personality
Brand personality is well known by advertising practitioners and many marketing academics and received considerable academic attention. For many years researchers claimed brand personality to be an important topic of study as it can help to differentiate brands and build emotional aspects of a brand (Aaker & Fournier, 1995). Brand personality refers to the set of human characteristics associated with a brand. It is about how the personality of a brand
15 enables the consumer to express his or her own self (Aaker 1997). In research, brand
personality is defined as ‘the specific set of meanings which describe the "inner"
characteristics of a brand. These meanings are constructed by a consumer, based on behaviors exhibited by personified brands’ (Aaker & Fournier, 1995). In a practical way it provides information how to differentiate a brand in a product category as a central driver of consumer preferences. As Aaker (1997) discussed, brand personalities consist of facets and these facets consist of traits. Those facets and traits are specific for each brand personality and classify five brand personalities. Aaker (1997) conducted a framework which categorize brand personalities into five dimensions. These five dimensions are sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness and are represented by the 42-item Brand Personality Scale (figure 2).
16
Sincerity exists when a brand is perceived by the consumer as acting according to legitimate
motives, and thus not being hypocrite. Excitement refers to daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date. Excitement brands excite consumers. Competence consist of reliability,
intelligence and successfulness. Sophistication refers to upper class and charming it is the brand personality that describes refined brands. Ruggedness is the brand personality that describes a strong brand. (Aaker 1997).
Research on Brand Personality
Mulyanegara, Tsarenko & Anderson (2009) aimed to explore a relationship between brand personality and personality traits. The research was in the context of fashion products, and the personality traits in this research were measured by using the big five dimensions. The results of this study show that some personalities are significantly related to preferences of brand personality. For instance, consumers who exhibit a conscientious personality, demonstrate preferences towards trusted brands (Mulyanegara e.a., 2009). The findings of this study related to gender, show a difference in how male and female consumers express their personality in brands.
Machle and Supphellen (2010) focused on how brand personalities are formed. The results of their research showed different sources being relevant for brand personality. These findings on the sources show systematic differences regarding which sources are relevant for building each dimension. Important sources of competence and sincerity are company-level sources, like a company’s moral value, employees and managing directors. Symbolic sources like endorsers, brand users, brand name and logo are more relevant to sophistication and ruggedness (Machle & Supphellen, 2010).
17 3.4 Research model
In order to explore the dynamics of the research question, if personality traits are of influence in the customer equity composition for different brand personalities, following hypotheses are formed. The prior sections of the literature forms the basis of the hypotheses. The first
hypothesis forms the basis of this research and the other hypotheses build on this first hypothesis. This first hypothesis can be seen as the main model which investigates in the composition of customer equity related to brand personalities. It investigates in the
relationship between the composition of customer equity and brand personality. The second hypothesis investigates in the composition of customer equity related to personality traits. This hypothesis finds out about personality traits and there influence on the customer equity composition. The third hypothesis explores the mediation effect of personality traits on the main model. This hypothesis investigates in the influence of personality traits per brand personality, on the composition of customer equity.
H3
H2 H1
H1: The composition of customer equity differs per brand personality H2: The composition of customer equity differs per personality H3: The influence of personality traits differ per brand personality
Brand personality Customer Equity
Value Equity
Brand Equity
Retention Equity Personality traits
18
4 Method
This research can be seen as an explanatory study as well as a descriptive study. It is
explanatory as it investigates in the relationship between brand personality, personality traits and the composition of customer equity. Saunders, Lewis and Tornhill (2012) describe a descriptive study as a study that gains an accurate profile of events, persons or situations. In this research, people are being profiled based on their personality, which is one of the Big Five personality traits. As a conclusion, this research is a combination of an explanatory and descriptive study. This research is done by using a survey. A survey tends to be used in explanatory and descriptive research and answers questions like what? Who? Where? How much? How many? (Saunders ea., 2012). The data of the survey will be in the form of numbers and will be analysed using statistical techniques.
In this section the pre-test, including the results of the pre-test, are being discussed first. Secondly, the sample of the survey is explained. Thirdly, the measurement of the variables will be discussed. Finally a brief description of the statistical approach is given.
4.1 Pretest
In order to ensure different brand personalities were used in the final survey, a pretest was conducted. The aim of the pretest was to explore at least three different brand personalities among perfume brands. In order to measure the dimensions of the pretested brands, the facets of the framework of Jennifer Aaker (1997) was used.
Participants and design
Online survey software Qualtrics was used to distribute the survey among friends and colleagues. In total 91 participants participated in the pre-test, 56% of these 91 respondents were female. The age range was 19-68 with an average age of 39 year (SD=15.58).
19
Procedure
According to the brand personality framework of Jennifer Aaker, every brand personality consists of facets. These facets are specific to each brand personality and these facets are divided into traits. Jennifer Aaker’s framework consist of 42 traits. Due to time constrains, in the pretest fourteen traits were used to classify five different brand personalities. These fourteen traits, which could be classified into the five different brand personalities of Aaker (1997), were ranked on a five-point Likert scale for six brands. This five-point Likert scale consisted of strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neutral, somewhat agree, firmly agree. See Appendix 1 for the questionnaire of the pre-test. The brand personality with the highest score on of the brand personality scales, shows which dimension is the most important for the tested brand. The perfume brands used in the pre-test consisted of Mexx, Hugo Boss, Armani, Puma,
Dior and James Bond. Those six perfume brands were evaluated based on the fourteen traits
of the framework by Aaker (1997). Each trait was ranked on a five point Likert scale. The traits were then classified into five brand personalities. For each brand the average was calculated for each brand personality scale. Per brand, the highest score on one of the five brand personalities indicated the brand personality.
Results
The results of the pre-test shows four brands with a different brand personality. Sincerity is the brand personality of Mexx, competence for Hugo Boss, sophistication for Dior and ruggedness for James Bond. These brands will be used in the final survey for this research.
4.2 Sample
The sample consisted of 217 Dutch respondents. These respondents were selected by using convenience sampling, which means using participants who are easy/most convenient to
20 reach. Friends, family and colleagues were asked to participate in the online survey
distributed by Qualtrics. Of the 217 respondents, 61.8% were men. The age range was 14-70 with an average of 39 years (SD=14.79). The educational background of the
respondents covered a broad range. Of the 217 respondents, 35.9% completed a secondary education. The remaining 64.1% completed an educational program at University or applied Science specifically.
4.3 measurement of variables
Big Five personality traits
Personality traits were measured by using the Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness Five Factory Inventory (NEO-FFI) format by Hoekstra, Ormel & de Fruyt (1996). This format is a Dutch translation and a short version of NEO-Revised Personality Inventory (PI-R) of Costa and McCrae (1992). NEO-FFI and NEO-PI-R are questionnaires used as an instrument to measures the Big Five personalities based on 60 items. These 60 items represent five personalities, which means that each personality is represented equally by 12 items (see Appendix 1). The factor structure have been tested by Hoekstra, Ormel & Fruyt (1996). Respondents evaluated the 60 items on a five point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (Firmly disagree) to 5 (Firmly agree).
In the 60 items list there are some counter-indicative items. Counter-indicative items are negatively-keyed items, in appendix 2 a sign of (–) indicates a negatively-keyed item . An agreement with this item represents a low level of the construct being measured. These counter-indicative items were recoded into different variables.
21
Customer Equity
The customer equity for each perfume brand was measured by questions based on the questionnaire of Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml (2000, p.326-329). For each driver of customer equity, several questions were being asked, based on the key levers of that driver (Appendix 3). For example, value equity is based on three key levers quality, price and convenience. So for each key lever, a question was being asked. Each question was being answered on a five point Likert-scale. A low answer, for example 1 or 2, represents a low level of the construct being measured. There are no counter-indicative items in this part of the questionnaire, so there is no recoding necessary.
To find out the importance of the drivers of customer equity for perfume brands, respondents were asked to rank the key levers of the drivers on importance for perfume in general.
Brand personality
Due to the pre-test, brand personality was not being tested in the questionnaire. The results of the pre-test showed 4 different perfume brands with each a different brand personality. These results were used in the questionnaire. In the questionnaire, sincerity is represented by Mexx, competence is represented by Hugo Boss, sophistication is represented by Dior and
ruggedness is represented by James Bond.
4.4 Statistical procedure
Online survey software Qualtrics was used to distribute the survey among friends and colleagues. The survey went online on December 10th 2015 and the survey was closed 4 weeks later, on January 7th 2016. Respondents were selected by using convenience sampling, which means using participants who are easy/most convenient to reach. The data will be
22 analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Data screening is the first step to take in analysing data. By looking at the frequencies of the scores of your variables, you see how many times each score occurs in your data. This is helpful to find errors in your data set. In this research no errors occurred in the data set. The next step is to see if there are missing values in your data set. In this research listwise deletion is used for missing data. This results in analysing only the cases without any missing data in any variable. The third step in analysing your data set is to check whether there are counter-indicative items. Counter-counter-indicative items are negatively-keyed items. An agreement with this item represents a low level of the construct being measured. These counter-indicative items were recoded into different variables. The NEO-FFI format, by Hoekstra, Ormel & de Fruyt (1996), consists several counter indicative items. This means that rA4_1, rA4_16, rA4_31, rA4_46, rA4_12, rA4_27, rA4_42, rA4_57, rA4_8, rA4_18, rA4_23, rA4_38, rA4_48, rA4_15, rA4_30, rA4_45, rA4_55, rA4_9, rA4_14, rA4_24, rA4_29, rA4_39, rA4_44, rA4_59 and rA4_54 have been recoded and now represent A4_1, A4_16, A4_31, A4_46, A4_12, A4_27, A4_42, A4_57, A4_8, A4_18, A4_23, A4_38, A4_48, A4_15, A4_30, A4_45, A4_55, A4_9, A4_14, A4_24, A4_29, A4_39, A4_44, A4_59 and A4_54.
After the data analysis a factor analysis is performed to find out the underlying structure of the NEO-FFI framework. Based on this analysis five personality scales will be constructed. The factor loadings of the questions will be taken into account when calculating each personality scale. Then the customer equity part of the questionnaire will be tested on reliability by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. In order to test the hypotheses, an analysis is done on the average score on each value equity driver. These scores will be analysed per brand personality as well as per personality scale of the respondents. The differences in score will be tested by the MANOVA test.
23
5 Results
In this section the results of this research are being discussed. First of all, some demographics of the respondents will be discussed. Secondly, a factor analysis will be conducted for the NEO-FFI framework. Thirdly, the reliability of the customer equity construct will be tested. In the end the hypotheses will be tested by analysing the results, the differences will be tested using a MANOVA test.
5.1 Demographics of respondents
In the questionnaire (Appendix 1), several demographic related questions were asked, such as gender, age and education level.
Gender
The sample consisted of 217 Dutch respondents, 61.8% of the sample were men and 39.2% were women (See figure 5.1). Gender distribution is not equal in this sample. This might be due to the fact that the majority of colleagues, which participated in the survey, are men.
Figure 5.1 Gender distribution
Age
To represent the distribution of age, the age of the respondents is classified into seven categories. The majority of the participants (34.1%) belongs in the age category of 20 to 29
61,80% 38,20%
24 years. The second biggest age category, category of 50 to 59 years, is represented by 22.12% of the participants. 18.43% of the participants belong in the age category of 40 to 49 years. 14.75% of the participants belong in the age category of 30 to 39 years. According to the results of this results, the distribution of age of the respondents is shown in figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 Age distribution
Education
The educational background of the respondents covered a broad range. Of the 217
respondents, 35.9% completed a secondary education specifically VMBO (6.9%), MAVO (13.4%), HAVO (12.4%) and VWO (3.2%). The remaining 64.1% completed an educational program at University or applied Science specifically HBO (44.3%), WO (10.6%) and MBO (9.2%).
Figure 5.3 Education distribution
2,76% 34,10% 14,75% 18,43% 22,12% 7,37% 0,46% 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 7% 13% 12% 3% 9% 44% 11%
VMBO MAVO HAVO VWO
25 5.2 Factor analysis Big Five
After the recoding, a factor analysis is performed in SPSS. Although the factor structure have been tested by Hoekstra, Ormel & Fruyt (1996), a factor analysis is done to test the assumed factor structure. A factor analysis assumes that the observed variables are a linear
combination of an underlying factor or multiple factors (Kim & Mueller 1978, p. 84). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974) indicates the
sampling being useful for the analysis, KMO=0.795. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974), verified the correlations between the variables to be sufficient large to
perform a factor analysis, χ2
(1770)=4621.304, p<0.001. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues. Nineteen components had an eigenvalue higher than 1 and explained 66,06% of the variance. In line with Kaiser’s criterion, analysis of the scree plot revealed a levelling off after the nineteenth factor. Appendix 5 tabel 1, which includes SPSS output, shows the factor loadings. The results of the factor analysis are not in line with NEO-FFI format by Hoekstra, Ormel & de Fruyt (1996). To maintain a reliable format, which measures the Big Five, a factor analysis is being performed per personality. For each personality the most heavy weighted items will be used to compute a personality scale. This scale will incorporate the factor loadings of the items.
Neuroticism
Respectively, another factor analysis was performed on the twelve items representing neuroticism. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy indicates the sampling being useful for the analysis, KMO=0.868. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, verified the correlations between the variables to be sufficient large to perform a factor analysis, χ2
26 45.83% of the variance. Two factors were retained and rotated with an Oblimin with Kaizer normalization rotation. Appendix 5 table 2, shows the factor loadings after rotation. Small coefficients were suppressed, which lead to no factor loading for item 56. A negative factor loading is observed for item 51, this indicates component two has the characteristic
“opposite” of whatever observable item 51 measures. All items with a factor loading > 0.70 are chosen to measure the scale neuroticism.
Extraversion
On the twelve items, representing extraversion, another factor analysis was ran. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy indicates the sampling being useful for the analysis, KMO=0.853. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, verified the correlations between the variables to be sufficient large to perform a factor analysis, χ2
(66)=610.058, p<0.001. Three components had an eigenvalue greater than 1 and explained 51,186% of the variance. Three factors were retained and rotated with an Oblimin with Kaizer normalization rotation. Appendix 5 table 3, shows the factor loadings after rotation. A negative factor loading is observed for item 47, whatever item 47 measures, it is the opposite of what component 2 is representing. All items with a factor loading > 0.70 are chosen to measure the scale
extraversion
Openness to experience
A factor analysis was performed on the twelve items representing openness to experience. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy indicates the sampling being useful for the analysis, KMO=0.690. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, verified the correlations between the variables to be sufficient large to perform a factor analysis, χ2
(66)=236.932, p<0.001. Four components had an eigenvalue greater than 1 and explained 50,123% of the variance. Four
27 factors were retained and rotated with an Oblimin with Kaizer normalization rotation.
Appendix 5 table 4, shows the factor loadings after rotation. Two negative factor loadings are observed, both for item 8 and item 18. All items with a factor loading > 0.70 are chosen to measure the scale openness to experience.
Conscientiousness
A factor analysis was performed on the twelve items representing conscientiousness. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy indicates the sampling being useful for the analysis, KMO=0.858. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, verified the correlations between the variables to be sufficient large to perform a factor analysis, χ2
(66)=681.872, p<0.001. Three components had an eigenvalue greater than 1 and explained 54,457% of the variance. Three factors were retained and rotated with an Oblimin with Kaizer normalization rotation. Appendix 5 table 5, shows the factor loadings after rotation. A negative factor loading is observed for item 15 for component 2, for component 1 it has a positive factor loading. Item 20 measures both components 1 and 2. All items with a factor loading > 0.70 are chosen to measure the scale openness to experience.
Agreeableness
A factor analysis was performed on the twelve items representing conscientiousness. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy indicates the sampling being useful for the analysis, KMO=0.743. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, verified the correlations between the variables to be sufficient large to perform a factor analysis, χ2(66)=338.294, p<0.001. Four components had an eigenvalue greater than 1 and explained 52.922% of the variance. Four factors were retained and rotated with an Oblimin with Kaizer normalization rotation.
28 are being observed for items 9, 25 and 25. All items with a factor loading > 0.70 are chosen to measure the scale agreeableness.
Personality scale
Personality scales are conducted based on the factor loadings resulting from the factor analysis per personality. For every personality a weighted average is calculated. Based on these weighted average, the highest score on the five personality indicates the personality of the respondent.
5.3 Reliability analysis Customer Equity
Before we can analyse the results of the customer equity composition, the observed variables of customer equity have to be tested on reliability. Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill (2009, p. 156) argue that reliability is the extent to which data collection techniques or analysis procedures yield consistent findings. For example, by computing Cronbach’s Alpha for the questions representing value equity, we investigate if indeed all those questions measure value equity (Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill 2009, p. 374). The reliability analysis is done by computing Cronbach’s alpha, a Cronbach’s alpha of >0.70 indicates a good scale. The corrected Item-Total correlation indicates a good item if >0.3. The Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted, represents a good item if the difference between the Cronbach’s alpha and the Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted is < 0.1 (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).
The reliability for customer equity is good for each brand, which means that the Cronbach’s Alpha is >0.7, Mexx α=0.828, Dior α=0.801, Hugo Boss α=0.819 and James Bond α=0.854 (Table 1). Customer equity represents the sum of value equity, brand equity and retention equity, so it is assumed that those levers represent a good measure of customer equity, resulting in a reliable customer equity scale.
29
Perfume brand Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's alpha Based on Standerdized items N of items
Mexx 0,828 0,826 13
Dior 0,801 0,798 13
Hugo Boss 0,819 0,815 13
James Bond 0,854 0,852 13
Table 1: Reliability statistics, Customer equity
Value, Brand and Retention equity
The Cronbach’s Alpha for value equity are α=0.518, α=0.431, α=0.542 and α=0.440 (Table 2). All values are <0.7 which demonstrate a non-reliable scale. The fact that value equity is based on 3 items should be taken into account. Whenever there are little items representing a scale, the scale is not fully reliable. The Cronbach’s Alpha for brand equity are α=0.707, α=0.664, α=0.683 and α=0.742, which demonstrate a reliable scale (Table 3). Brand equity is based on 5 items, so even it is represented by little items, the scale is reliable. The Cronbach’s Alpha for retention equity are α=0.801, α=0.733, α=0.770 and α=0.845 (Table 4). Retention equity is based on 5 items, so even it is represented by little items, the scale is fully reliable.
Perfume brand Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's alpha Based on Standerdized items N of items
Mexx 0,828 0,826 13
Dior 0,801 0,798 13
Hugo Boss 0,819 0,815 13
James Bond 0,854 0,852 13
Table 2: Reliability statistics, value equity
Perfume brand Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's alpha Based on Standerdized items N of items
Mexx 0,828 0,826 13
Dior 0,801 0,798 13
Hugo Boss 0,819 0,815 13
James Bond 0,854 0,852 13
30 0,00% 5,00% 10,00% 15,00% 20,00% 25,00% 30,00% 35,00% 40,00% 45,00%
Value equity Brand equity Retention equity
Customer equity drivers
Perfume brand Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's alpha Based on Standerdized items N of items
Mexx 0,801 0,809 5
Dior 0,733 0,735 5
Hugo Boss 0,77 0,772 5
James Bond 0,845 0,848 5
Table 4: Reliability statistics, retention equity
5.4 Customer equity drivers in the perfume branch
Results in the composition of customer equity differs per branch. In the perfume branch, the results of this research show that value equity is the most important driver for customer equity followed by brand equity and retention equity. The results are shown below in graph 1.
Perfume is not a visible good, which might be the reason why brand equity is less important in perfume branch than value equity. However, it is “visible” in the sense you can smell a perfume and recognize the brand committed to the fragrance, which might be the reason it is not the lowest driver of customer equity. The relatively low importance of retention equity in the perfume branch might be explained by the reason of perfume branch as a transaction-oriented branch. For example in a car industry, a long-lasting relationship with a client is a profitable aspect. In the perfume branch, which is more transaction-oriented, this durable
relationship is not that important.
31 5.5 Customer equity drivers per brand personality
Results of this research implicate, regardless of brand personality, that on average all brand personalities score uppermost on value equity next on brand equity and score relatively low on retention equity (table 5). Which is in line with the prior results of the importance of customer equity drivers for the perfume branch. The differences of the score on equity drivers are small for the four brand personalities. Overall, Hugo Boss which is related to the brand personality competence, scores uppermost for all customer equity drivers. The brand
personality competence consist of reliability, intelligence and successfulness (Aaker, 1997). A possible explanation for the score might be the strong and successful character of this brand personality. This “character” is possibly transferred to the user of this fragrance, which makes this perfume prevalent.
Mean score
Customer equity driver Mexx Dior Hugo Boss James Bond
Value equity 3,0783 3,5561 3,6068 2,9662
Brand equity 2,7677 3,2756 3,4479 2,7465
Retention equity 1,9438 2,3622 2,5272 1,8829 Table 5: Score customer equity driver per brand personality
32 0,00% 5,00% 10,00% 15,00% 20,00% 25,00% 30,00% 35,00% 40,00% 45,00%
Mexx Dior Hugo Boss James Bond Value equity Brand equity Retention equity
Graph 2: Composition of Customer Equity per brand personality
5.6 Customer equity drivers per personality
The ranking of customer equity drivers for the perfume branch is the generally the same for each personality. Every personality ranked value equity as most important than brand equity and finally retention equity (Table 6). If the results are evaluated per equity driver, it is observed that agreeableness scores uppermost on value equity. Price, quality and
convenience are perceived as the most important aspects of a perfume. Individuals who score high on agreeableness evaluate price, quality and convenience the highest. The MANOVA test showed that there are no significant differences among the importance of customer equity driver value equity (Magreeableness=3.8125, SD=.92485, Mconscientiousness=3.9121, SD=.86814, Mextraversion=4 ,SD=.7566, Mneuroticism=3.9444, SD=.49065, MOpenness=4.0175, SD=.69809) when compared with individual personality scales F (4,212)= 2.068, p=0.086. The MANOVA test showed that there is no significant differences among the importance of customer equity drivers when compared with individual personality scales F (9,207)= 2.44, p=0.012.
33 Table 6: Customer equity composition per personality
Brand personality sincerity
The brand personality sincerity is represented by the fragrance brand Mexx. The composition in general of customer equity for brand personality sincerity, differs for the personality neuroticism (Table 7). Neuroticism scores uppermost for brand equity in contract with the other personalities which score uppermost for value equity. However, the MANOVA test showed that there is no significant difference among the valuation of customer equity drivers when compared with individual personality scales F (12,204)= 2.06, p=0.021.
Customer
equity driver Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness
N=48 N=110 N=34 N=6 N=19 Value equity 39,71% 38,29% 39,17% 32,60% 36,58% Brand equity 35,06% 35,53% 31,65% 34,96% 32,72% retention equity 25,23% 25,56% 20,71% 23,72% 20,90%
Table 7: Customer equity composition Mexx
Brand personality sophistication
The brand personality sophistication is represented by Dior. The results of the composition of customer equity for this brand personality are generally the same (Table 8). For each
personality scale, value equity scores uppermost, than brand equity and retention equity. There are differences in which personality scores uppermost for each customer equity driver. However, the MANOVA test showed that there is no significant difference among the
Driver Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness
N=48 N=110 N=34 N=6 N=19 Value equity 42,82% 40,98% 41,55% 41,04% 42,57% Brand equity 29,64% 29,14% 29,53% 30,64% 30,48% retention equity 27,54% 29,87% 28,92% 28,32% 26,95%
34 valuation of customer equity drivers when compared with individual personality scales F (13,203)= 2.06, p=0.05.
Customer
equity driver Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness
N=48 N=110 N=34 N=6 N=19 Value equity 38,81% 38,21% 39,49% 40,53% 39,13% Brand equity 36,39% 35,43% 35,70% 32,86% 35,73% retention equity 24,80% 26,36% 24,80% 26,62% 25,14%
Table 8: Customer equity composition Dior
Brand personality competence
The brand personality competence is represented by Hugo Boss. The composition of the customer equity drivers are in general the same for each personality scale (Table 9). Value equity scores uppermost for each personality scale, than brand equity followed by retention equity. There are minor differences in the composition of the equity drivers for each
personality scale. However, the MANOVA test showed that there is no significant difference among the valuation of customer equity drivers when compared with individual personality scales F (13,203)= 2.228, p=0.01.
Customer
equity driver Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness
N=48 N=110 N=34 N=6 N=19
Value equity 39,57% 36,88% 38,29% 38,75% 38,89%
Brand equity 36,95% 36,05% 35,97% 35,19% 36,14%
retention
equity 26,31% 27,12% 25,74% 26,08% 24,98%
Table 9: Customer equity composition Hugo Boss
Brand personality ruggedness
The brand personality ruggedness is represented by fragrance brand James Bond. For each personality scale, the composition of customer equity is generally the same (Table 10). Value
35 equity scores uppermost, than brand equity which is followed by retention equity. There are minor differences in the composition of customer equity per personality scale. However, the MANOVA test showed that there is no significant difference among the valuation of customer equity drivers when compared with individual personality scales F (13,203)= 1.834, p=0.051.
Customer
equity driver Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness
N=48 N=110 N=34 N=6 N=19
Value equity 39,30% 38,51% 40,39% 36,59% 40,26%
Brand equity 35,20% 36,46% 36,03% 37,80% 36,46%
retention
equity 25,50% 25,03% 23,58% 25,61% 23,28%
36
6 Conclusion
This study investigated in the composition of customer equity, specifically in the influence of personality traits on the customer equity composition. It was hypothesized that the customer equity composition would differ per personality scale. Which means that the personality of the individual influences the valuation of customer equity drivers. For example, an individual who scores high on extraversion might evaluate brand equity as more important than an individual who cores high on neuroticism. This research was conducted on different brand personalities in the perfume branch. It was hypothesized that the composition of customer equity differs per brand personality. In the pre-test of this study, the following brands were selected based on their score, to represent different brand personalities: Mexx for the brand personality sincerity, Hugo Boss for competence, Dior for sophistication and James Bond for ruggedness. A survey was conducted to collect all information needed to test the hypotheses. The first part of the questionnaire represented the NEO-FFI (big five personality) framework. The second part of the questionnaire represented questions related to the customer equity framework.
There was no significant evidence for all of the hypotheses. Personality traits did not influenced the composition of customer equity. This was neither the case for the composition for the perfume branch as a whole nor the composition per brand personality. A possible explanation might be the NEO-FFI framework which was used in this research. As the factor analysis of this research showed, 18 factors were extracted from this framework. The original NEO-FFI framework represents 5 factors, the big five. So in this research the personality scale might not have been represented well. Another explanation about the results could be classifying the sample into the big five personality scales. Every person scores a bit on every scale, no one is only extravert without having a bit of other scales as well. So it is doubtful to group individuals into five personalities. Besides that, there is a risk in reliable answering in a
37 questionnaire about personality traits, filling in traits you would like to have and ignoring traits you don’t want to have.
The hypothesis that the composition of customer equity would differ per brand personality was not supported as well. Due to time constrains not the full framework of Jennifer Aaker (1997) was used in the pre-test. This might be of influence in the results in this research. It might be that the brand personalities were not represented well. Minor differences in the composition of customer equity were visible in the results. Based on the MANOVA test, these differences were too small to be significant. This was the case for all brand personalities. A remarkable result is that based on the price classification of the perfume brands, a difference in value equity was expected. Of the four perfume brands, James Bond and Mexx are less expensive compared to the other brands. So it is expected that these brands will score higher on the value equity component. The results show no significant difference in the value equity of the four brands. The customer equity of every brand personality is
generally the same for all brands. It seems that every perfume is evaluated the same. Which is remarkable because it is a different product and a different price class. It might be that for a perfume, the brand is more important than what is reported in this research. The strength of a brand for a perfume might be an undetectable factor in composition of customer equity. Because perfume is a “visible” good in a way that people smell the perfume, it is expected that value equity is of high importance. However, if you consider the question what perfume do you wear, it could be that a more favourable brand is preferable to tell. I this way a
perfume brand can be used as a status, which implicate a high importance of brand equity. To find out more about this influence the questions about brand equity should be amended into more in-depth questions about a brand of a perfume. Further research is needed to conclude about undetectable factors which influence the composition of customer equity for the
38 perfume branch.
39
7 Strengths and limitations
It is the first research that combines the Big Five personality traits with the composition of customer equity for brand personalities, which can be seen as a strength of the research. A limitation could be, by using a questionnaire, there is always a chance of non-reliable answers, for example filling in personality traits you want to have. With securing the respondent’s anonymity I attempted to maintain reliable answers. Another limitation is by using convenience sampling, there is a chance that for example friends or family know about the research, which will bias the results. Besides that, by using convenience sampling, the sample you take from the population is not a qualitative reliable sample. In this research brand personalities are being used. Which products you choose for brand personalities might be of influence for the research. If the context of this research was on brand personalities of cars, the results might have differ. Another limitation is grouping people based on their personality into five personality scales. Every person has a score on every personality scale. Someone who scores uppermost on extraversion is grouped as extravert. But this individual might have score quit high on agreeableness as well, which makes it doubtful to group this individual into extraversion. This is the case for all personalities. A last limitation of this research is by using convenience sampling, the sample you take from the population is not a qualitative reliable sample, so it should be mentioned that further research is needed to generalize results back to the population.
40
8 Reference list:
Aaker, JL 1997, ‘Dimensions of Brand Personality’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 347-356.
Aaker, JL & Fournier, S 1995, ‘A Brand as a Character, A Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality’, Advances in consumer research,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 391-195.
Achrol, RS & Kotler, P 2012, ‘Frontiers of the marketing paradigm in the third millennium’,
Journal of the academy of marketing science, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 35-52.
Blattberg, RC, Getz, G & Thomas, JS 2001, Customer Equity: Building and Managing
Relationships as Valuable Assets, Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Costa, PT & McCrae, RR 1992, ‘Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory’, Psychological Assessment, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5-13. Dziuban, CD & Shirkey EC 1974, ‘When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor
analysis?’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 358-361.
Gliem, JA & Gliem, RR 2003, ‘Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales’, paper presented at the Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Colombus 8-10 October.
Goldberg, LR 1993, ‘The structure of phenotypic personality traits’, American Psychologist, vol. 48, pp. 26-34.
Gray, JA 1970, ‘The psychophysical basis of introversion-extraversion’, Elsevier, vol. 8. no. 3, pp 249-266.
Gupta, S, Zeithaml, VA 2006, ‘Customer metrics and their impact on financial performance’, Marketing science, vol. 25, no. 6.
Hoekstra, HA, Ormel, J & de Fruyt, F 1996, Handleiding NEO
41 Hogan, R, Johnson, J & Briggs, S 1997, Handbook of personality psychology, Academic
Press, San Diego
Jensen-Campbell, LA, Graziano, WG 2001, ‘Agreeableness as a moderator of Interpersonal conflict’, Journal of Personality, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 323-362.
Kim, J & Mueller, CW 1978, Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues, Sage publications, Beverly Hills.
Le Pine, JA, Colquitt, JA, Erez, A 2000, ‘Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 563-593.
Machle, N & Supphellen, M 2010 ‘In search of the sources of brand personality’, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 53. no 1, pp. 95-114.
Mulyanegara, RC, Tsarenko, Y, Anderson, A 2009 ‘The Big Five and brand personality: Investigating the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards particular brand personality’ Journal of Brand Management, vol. 16, pp. 234-247.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N. & Zeithaml, V.A. 2000, ‘Driving customer equity: How customer
lifetime value is reshaping corporate strategy’, The Free Press, New York.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N. & Zeithaml, V.A. 2001, ‘What drives customer equity’, Marketing
management, vol. 10, pp. 20-25.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N. & Zeithaml, V.A. 2004, ‘Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy’, Journal of marketing, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 109-127. Saunders, M, Lewis, P & Tornhill, A 2012, Research Methods for business students, 6th
edition, Pearson Education, Essex.
Verbeke, W & van Kenhove, P 2002, ‘Impact of emotional stability and attitude on
consumption decisions under risk: the Coca-Cola crisis in Belgium’. Journal of Health
42
9 Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire pre-test Appendix 2: NEO-FFI Framework Appendix 3: Customer equity construct Appendix 4: Questionnaire
43 9.1 Appendix 1: Questionnaire pre-test
Geachte deelnemer,
Bedankt voor het deelnemen aan deze vragenlijst. Het is de bedoeling dat u invult in welke mate de gegeven eigenschappen overeenkomen met de volgende 6 parfum merken:
Hugo Boss Dior Mexx James Bond Giorgio Armani Puma
met vriendelijke groet, Josine Janssen
Voor vragen kunt u mailen naar: josinejanssen@ymail.com
Hugo Boss
Mee oneens Gedeeltelijk mee oneens Neutraal Gedeeltelijk mee eens Mee eens
Realistisch Eerlijk Authentiek Opgewekt Gedurfd Geïnspireerd
Mee met de tijd
Betrouwbaar
Intelligent
Succesvol
Voor de betere kringen
Charmant
Outdoor
Stoer
Dior
Mee oneens Gedeeltelijk mee oneens Neutraal Gedeeltelijk mee eens Mee eens
Realistisch Eerlijk Authentiek Opgewekt Gedurfd Geïnspireerd
Mee met de tijd
44
Intelligent
Succesvol
Voor de betere kringen
Charmant
Outdoor
Stoer
Mexx
Mee oneens Gedeeltelijk mee oneens Neutraal Gedeeltelijk mee eens Mee eens
Realistisch Eerlijk Authentiek Opgewekt Gedurfd Geïnspireerd
Mee met de tijd
Betrouwbaar
Intelligent
Succesvol
Voor de betere kringen
Charmant
Outdoor
Stoer
James Bond
Mee oneens Gedeeltelijk mee oneens Neutraal Gedeeltelijk mee eens Mee eens
Realistisch Eerlijk Authentiek Opgewekt Gedurfd Geïnspireerd
Mee met de tijd
Betrouwbaar
Intelligent
Succesvol
Voor de betere kringen
Charmant
Outdoor
45
Giorgio Armani
Mee oneens Gedeeltelijk mee oneens Neutraal Gedeeltelijk mee eens Mee eens
Realistisch Eerlijk Authentiek Opgewekt Gedurfd Geïnspireerd
Mee met de tijd
Betrouwbaar
Intelligent
Succesvol
Voor de betere kringen
Charmant
Outdoor
Stoer
Puma
Mee oneens Gedeeltelijk mee oneens Neutraal Gedeeltelijk mee eens Mee eens
Realistisch Eerlijk Authentiek Opgewekt Gedurfd Geïnspireerd
Mee met de tijd
Betrouwbaar
Intelligent
Succesvol
Voor de betere kringen
Charmant
Outdoor
Stoer
Vul uw geslacht in: Man
Vrouw
Vul uw leeftijd in:
46 9.2 Appendix 2: NEO-FFI framework
Scale Items
Neuroticism 1. Ik ben geen tobber. (-)
6. Ik voel me vaak de mindere van anderen.
11. Wanneer ik onder grote spanning sta, heb ik soms het gevoel dat ik er aan onderdoor ga.
16. Ik voel me zelden eenzaam of triest (-)
21. Ik voel me vaak gespannen en zenuwachtig.
26. Soms voel ik me volkomen waardeloos.
31. Ik voel me zelden angstig of zorgelijk. (-)
36. Ik word vaak kwaad om de manier waarop mensen me behandelen.
41. Wanneer dingen mis gaan, raak ik maar al te vaak ontmoedigd en heb ik zin om het op te geven.
46. Ik ben zelden verdrietig of depressief. (-)
51. Ik voel me vaak hulpeloos en wil dan graag dat iemand anders mijn problemen oplost.
56. Soms schaam ik me zo dat ik wel door de grond wil zakken.
Extraversion 2. Ik houd ervan veel mensen om me heen te hebben. 7. Ik lach gemakkelijk.
12. Ik zie mezelf niet echt als een vrolijk en opgewekt persoon. (-)
17. Ik vind het echt leuk om met mensen te praten.
22. Ik ben graag daar waar wat te beleven valt.
27. Ik geef er meestal de voorkeur aan om dingen alleen te doen. (-)
32. Ik voel me vaak alsof ik barst van de energie.
37. Ik ben een vrolijk en levendig iemand.
42. Ik ben geen vrolijke optimist. (-)
47. Ik heb een jachtig leven.
52. Ik ben een heel actief persoon.
57. Ik ga liever mijn eigen gang dan dat ik leiding geef aan anderen. (-)
Openness to
experience 3. Ik hou er niet van mijn tijd te verdoen met dagdromen.
8. Als ik eenmaal de goede manier om iets te doen gevonden heb, dan blijf ik daarbij. (-)
13. Ik ben geïntrigeerd door de patronen die ik vind in de kunst en de natuur.
18. Ik vind dat leerlingen alleen maar in verwarring worden gebracht door ze te laten luisteren naar sprekers met afwijkende ideeën. (-)
23. Poëzie doet mij weinig tot niets. (-)
28. Ik probeer vaak nieuwe en buitenlandse gerechten.
33. Ik merk zelden de stemmingen of gevoelens op, die verschillende omgevingen oproepen. (-)
38. Ik vind dat we beslissingen in morele zaken van onze religieuze leiders mogen verwachten. (-)
43. Wanneer ik een gedicht lees of naar een kunstwerk kijk, voel ik soms een koude rilling of een golf van opwinding.
48. Ik ben niet erg geïnteresseerd in het speculeren over het wezen van het universum of van de mens. (-)
47
58. Ik heb vaak plezier in het spelen met theorieën of abstracte ideeën.
Conscientiou
sness 5. Ik houd mijn spullen netjes en schoon.
10. Ik kan mijzelf vrij goed oppeppen om dingen op tijd af te krijgen.
15. Ik ben niet erg systematisch. (-)
20. Ik probeer alle aan mij opgedragen taken gewetensvol uit te voeren.
25. Ik heb duidelijke doelen voor ogen en werk daar op een systematische manier naartoe.
30. Ik verknoei veel tijd voordat ik echt aan het werk ga. (-)
35. Ik werk hard om mijn doelen te bereiken.
40. Als ik iets beloof, kan men erop rekenen dat ik die belofte nakom.
45. Soms ben ik niet zo betrouwbaar als ik zou moeten zijn. (-)
50. Ik ben een productief mens die een klus altijd voor elkaar krijgt.
55. Het lijkt mij maar niet te lukken om de dingen goed op orde te hebben. (-)
60. Ik streef ernaar uit te blinken in alles wat ik doe.
Agreeablenes
s 4. Ik probeer hoffelijk te zijn tegen iedereen die ik ontmoet.
9. Ik verzeil vaak in meningsverschillen met mijn familie en collega's. (-)
14. Sommige mensen vinden mij zelfzuchtig en egoïstisch. (-)
19. Ik werk liever met anderen samen dan met ze te wedijveren.
24. Ik ben vaak cynisch en sceptisch over de bedoelingen van anderen. (-)
29. Ik denk dat de meeste mensen je zullen gebruiken als je ze de kans geeft. (-)
34. De meeste mensen die ik ken mogen mij graag.
39. Sommige mensen vinden mij koel en berekenend. (-)
44. Ik ben zakelijk en onsentimenteel in mijn opvattingen. (-)
59 Als het nodig is ben ik bereid om mensen te manipuleren om te krijgen wat ik wil. (-)
49. Over het algemeen probeer ik attent en zorgzaam te zijn.
