The relation between perceived brand personality traits and consumer behavior: With the moderating effect of perceived gender cues.

The effect of morality versus competence on consumer purchase behavior and evaluation

The relation between perceived

brand personality traits and

consumer behavior.

With the moderating effect of perceived gender cues.

Emma Bruijn

In collaboration with Romee Claassen & Tom van der

Knaap

Master Thesis Psychology, specialization Economic and Consumer Psychology,

Institute of Psychology

Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences – Leiden University Date: 22 July 2020

Student number: S2534525

Abstract

Knowing how perceived brand traits influence consumers could give companies essential insights to improve their strategies and campaigns. Previous research has shown perceived brand personality traits to affect consumer behavior. This study aims to determine the relation between perceived competence and perceived morality on consumer purchase intention and brand evaluation, including a possible moderating role of perceived brand gender cues. An online survey was conducted with 178 participants. The results showed that morality predicted consumer purchase intention as well as brand evaluation. Competence only positively influenced consumer purchase intention. Surprisingly, a contradicting negative interaction was found between competence and morality on consumer purchase intention. Furthermore, competent perceived companies have more purchase intention when they are perceived as masculine. The findings of this study confirm the importance of perceived brand traits and introduce perceived morality, consumer brand evaluation and perceived brand gender cues as new valuable variables in these relations.

Key Words: Perceived competence, Perceived morality, Purchase intention, Brand

Index

Abstract 2

Introduction 4

Theoretical Framework 6

Method 14

▪ Participants and design 14

▪ Measure 14

▪ Procedure 16

Results 17

▪ Data Restructuring 17

▪ Preliminary Results 17

▪ Consumer Purchase Intention 19

▪ Consumer Brand Evaluation 20

▪ The Role of Gender Cues on Purchase Intention 21

▪ The Role of Gender Cues on Brand Evaluation 22

Discussion 24

▪ Theoretical Implications 23

▪ Limitations and Implications for Future Research 27

▪ Conclusion 28

References 29

It is essential for companies to think about what makes their brand successful and what it takes to make their product generate high sales. To do so, they have to take consumer perceptions into account and why consumers choose their brand above other brands. Forming strong connections with consumers seems like a good strategy, because they lead to higher levels of consumer loyalty and increase the company’s financial performance (Park,

MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerichm & Iacobucci, 2010). It is the perception consumers have of a company that pulls them in for a strong connection or keeps them off. The perception of a company is created by how a company comes across to the consumers, known as the brand

personality (Aaker, 1997). Aaker (1997) defines brand personality as “the set of human

characteristics associated with a brand”, meaning a set of personality traits given by

consumers. People relate to brands in the same way they do to other people (Malone & Fiske, 2013). Consumers effortlessly relate to inanimate brand objects when considering human characters. The openness in which consumers accept the company’s attempts to animate brands, shows the consumers’ willingness to captivate brands as important members of a relationship (Fournier, 1998). That explains the importance of brand personality, because it shows that consumers judge a brand’s personality similarly as they judge other people’s personalities. When companies understand how consumers perceive their brand, they can improve their important strategy of making their brand more successful.

There is strong evidence that specific personality trait dimensions are important in the relationship between consumers and brands (Kervyn, Fiske & Malone, 2012). Warmth and competence are specified as the most important dimensions. Warmth regards sincerity and trustworthiness, and competence regards efficiency and skill (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008). According to Aaker (2010), these dimensions originated because people’s perceptions of others mostly fall along those two important dimensions. Warmth and competence are known as split-second evaluations that are hard to control.

In this study, the dimension morality is used instead of warmth, due to several reasons. To start, warmth is an extensive dimension that can be interpreted in different ways, in contrast to the dimension morality. Morality has the most substantial impact on positive in-group

evaluations (Leach, Ellemers & Barreto, 2007). Furthermore, a distinction can be made between two characteristics of warmth: sociability and morality, in which morality has a more defining role in the overall dimension of warmth (Brambilla & Leach, 2014). Therefore, this study will use morality instead of warmth when testing hypotheses.

An interesting addition to the research summarized above is the influence of perceived brand gender on brand personality. Gender is proven to be one of the most compelling demographic characteristics to investigate in previous research (Fugate & Philips, 2010), which also counts for the gender of brands. For example, Dove is considered a feminine brand, whereas Gillette is thought of as masculine, guided singularly by distinct consumer perception. Consumers refer many human personality traits to brands, by relating to those brands as they would to other people. Therefore, it is important to investigate brand’s perceived gender because it is likely to play a role in the brand personality. In this study, different perspective on gender roles in brand perceptions are used, namely gender cues. Gender cues are generally understood to be signals of traditional gender expressions to defy or reinforce a gender identity. For example, gender cues are the logo or packaging of a product and its colours and shapes. These gender cues activate the gender stereotypes of warmth and competence and spill over to the brand (Hess et al., 2016)

This research will examine how consumers weigh morality and competence in their intention to purchase a product of the brand and in the evaluation of the brand. This study will also look at the influence of male and female gender cues of a brand on that relationship. This study is relevant because, in existing literature, there is a knowledge gap about the influence of perceived brand traits and the possible influence of perceived brand gender cues on

consumer behaviour. By studying these influences, this research will contribute to the existing knowledge about the overall influence of different consumer perceptions on brand personality and brand success.

Theoretical Framework

The brand personality of a company plays a vital role in how consumers perceive companies. Consumers become emotionally connected to brands they like and can feel

horrible about bad-natured brands (Fournier, 2012). They can develop joy from brands, invest emotionally in brands, and even form a life-long relationship with brands (Fournier, 2012). The relationship between a brand and a consumer is created similarly to how relationships between people are created. Even though human and brand personality traits are likely to share a comparable conceptualization, there is a difference in how the relationship can be formed (Aaker, 1997). Brand personality can be formed directly and indirectly. Directly can be formed with a direct association with the brand, such as an association with the CEO or employees of the company or other product consumers. Indirectly can be formed through band name, logo, symbol, advertising, or price.

As mentioned above, previous research has stated that there are two fundamental dimensions by which people categorize brands: warmth and competence. However, in this study, we will use the dimension morality instead of warmth because morality is a much more specific dimension. Morality is a part of warmth, but warmth is a broad definition with

multiple interpretations and, therefore difficult to translate into specific traits (Hess &

Melnyk, 2016). A distinction can be made between two characteristics of warmth: sociability and morality (Brambilla & Leach, 2014). Sociability represents people caring in ways that make people create affectionate relations, whereas morality represents caring about people in ways that make people create correct and principled relations. Brambilla et al. (2014) showed that morality has a primal role in the evaluation people make of groups. Warmth can be

divided into sociability and morality, and these two dimensions play different roles in forming perceptions, due to very different processing. In these different roles, morality trumps warmth and sociability in overall importance. Furthermore, Goodwin, Piazza, and Rozin (2014) find morality more important for impression formation than warmth. The study shows morality to form more reliable global impressions of people. Also, morality has the most substantial impact on positive in-group evaluations (Leach, Ellemers & Barreto, 2007). Leach et al. (2007) focused on the importance of morality (honest, sincere) in positive evaluations in comparison to competence (skillful, intelligent) and sociability (happy, warm). Considering that previous research suggests that people tend to judge brands similarly to people, morality is a better dimension to study. Finally, there is support for the claim that morality is a

counterpart to competence and therefore supports the choice of using morality over warmth (Landy et al., 2016).

Most defining words of competence are related to ability, such as efficiency, intelligence, conscientiousness, and skill (Cuddy et al., 2008). Most defining words of morality are related to perceived intent, such as helpfulness, sincerity, friendliness, and trustworthiness (Cuddy et al., 2008). Morality informs us about a person’s likely intention, whereas competence informs us about a person’s ability to successfully fulfill those intentions (Landy, Piazza & Goodwin, 2016). Furthermore, Hess et al. (2016) elaborated on the different definitions people give to competence and morality, but also stressing an agreement. This agreement entails competence to include traits of ability (intelligence and skill) and morality to include traits of intent (friendliness and trustworthiness) (Cuddy et al., 2008). Earlier work has shown that managing to achieve both morality and competence causes admiration, while not achieving these dimensions causes negative emotions towards a brand. If competence is not achieved, pity is experienced, and if morality is not achieved, envy is felt (Fiske, Cuddy & Glick, 2007). It is essential to recognize that the view of morality and competence are two of

the multiple possible dimensions of brand personality (Aaker, 1997). The importance of these dimensions comes from evolution. Particularly, humans have a deep-rooted need to evaluate morality, as it shows the others’ intentions, and competence, as is shows the others’ ability to act on those intentions (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008). This need stems from the basic

dimensions necessary to survive and strive in a social world, being morality characterising an image that profits others more than the self, insomuch as competence representing self-profitable traits linked to the capability to accomplish desired events (Peeters, 1983). Aaker et al. (1997) studied whether the perception of morality and competence in relationships between people is similar to their perception in the consumer-brand relationship. The fact that these judgments of trait dimensions are proven to be used by people for other things, such as organizations and brands, was just the beginning of more findings (Van Prooijen, Ellemers, 2015).

This study will look at two different outcome variables, namely consumer purchase intention and consumer brand evaluation. Consumer purchase intention is the ability to act on those brand intentions. Whereas consumer brand evaluation represents the consumer’s

intention with the brand (Hess et al., 2019). Different previous studies investigated evaluation and intention as separate outcome variables (Kim, Chun & Ko, 2017; Schmalfuss, Münl & Krems, 2017). For example, Lam and Mukherjee (2005) measured consumer evaluation with bad/good, like/dislike and desirable/undesirable scales. Consumer intentions are measures with not likely at all/most sure to buy and impossible/possible scales. The interpretations of these outcome variables and the general definitions of the trait dimensions give insight into this article’s hypotheses. These insights are that competence has a stronger relationship with consumer purchase intentions, and morality has a stronger relationship with consumer brand evaluation.

In consumer-company interactions, competence is more important than morality; when measuring consumer purchase intentions (Aaker et al., 2010). Hess et al. (2016) argued that competence cues are more diagnostic than morality cues, considering purchase intentions as an outcome variable in their study. Assume that competence cues are missing; this will come across more salient to consumers than when morality cues would be missing (Hess et al. 2016). Recently, most companies promote their competence of the brand, by signals of high quality. This results in consumers being more likely to buy their product from the company highest in perceived competence (Hess et al., 2016). Furthermore, morality-related attributes are not seen as valuable to consumers in regard to buying products, while product or service quality is very valued by everyone (Aaker et al. 2010). Lastly, Aaker et al. (2012) found a significant main effect for competence on purchase intent. So, this study will try to replicate these findings and investigate whether competence is more important than morality when it comes to purchase intention. Therefore, the first hypothesis is constructed:

H1: A brand’s perceived competence is a better predictor of consumer purchase intentions of companies compared to a brand’s perceived morality.

However, as stated above, morality is a crucial aspect of consumer brand evaluation, especially in recent years. This can be explained by the rising awareness of pressing

problems, such as climate change, child labor, and extreme poverty (Choi & Ng, 2011; Galbreth & Ghosh, 2013). The relationship between morality and consumer brand evaluation started with articles suggesting morality to be the most important dimension when evaluating people and groups (Brambilla & Leach, 2014; Leach et al., 2007). Leach et al.’s (2007) results show morality to be more important than competence when it comes to positive in-group evaluating. Competence was even found to be least important to the individuals of the study.

The same statements come from the results of Brambilla et al.’s (2014) article. In addition, this article emphasizes the importance of morality in the self-concept of an individual. From these articles, we can stress another argument for the positive relationship between morality and consumer brand evaluation. People associate themselves with brands related to their self-concept. Meaning, when a consumer’s self-concept is high in morality, consumers will positively evaluate high morality brands (Brambilla et al., 2014). Also, Kervyn et al. (2012) demonstrate a brand’s intention (morality) to be a strong independent predictor for purchase intent and brand loyalty, besides the brand’s competence predictor. Consumers’ sensitivity to the intentions of others, therefore, plays a significant role in brand behavior. Brand loyalty is stemmed from positive evaluations of consumers (Kervyn et al., 2012). Lastly, Landy et al. (2016) found evidence supporting these arguments. They stated when evaluating, moral people were always evaluated positively regardless of all other traits. In contrast to competent and sociable people, who were only evaluated positively when also having morality traits. Therefore, we expect our second hypothesis:

H2: A brand’s perceived morality is a better predictor of consumer brand evaluations compared to a brands’ perceived competence.

Furthermore, Hess et al. (2016) established that once competence is related to a brand, the value of morality is likely to increase. This is supported by the accessible-diagnosticity framework of Feldman and Leach (1988). The framework explains that, when making inferences, a reliable predictor can serve as a basis for other predictors. Meaning that once competence in a brand is confirmed, other competence cues will be unnecessary. However, other diagnostic cues, such as morality, will more likely be elaborated by the consumers (Hess et al., 2016). When looking at purchase intention, competence cues are more salient and

diagnostic and make other cues less important. However, if the competence cues are confirmed, other cues, like morality cues, are likely to increase. Furthermore, Aaker et al. (2012) found a positive interaction effect between morality and competence, suggesting that when brands achieve high morality and high competence, the brands get an extra boost that is greater than the individual effect both dimensions bring individually. This article will try to replicate this finding, but with a morality dimension instead of a warmth dimension and see if the interaction influences consumer brand evaluation and purchase intention. Therefore, the third hypothesis is constructed:

H3a: The interaction between perceived competence and perceived morality positively influences consumer purchase intentions.

H3b: The interaction between perceived competence and perceived morality positively influences consumer brand evaluations.

The addition of brand gender to this study is because perceived gender of brands plays an important role when investigating brand personality (Fugate & Philips, 2010). Another reason why it is important to investigate the role of brand gender is that consumers have the need to communicate their gender traits through brand choice and consumption (Grohmann, 2009). This can be explained with the notion that brand gender is part of a consumer’s self-concept. Gender traits are divided into masculine traits, such as dominance and unemotionality and feminine traits, such as nurturing and empathetic (Fugate et al., 2010). Consumers are

interested in gender traits in brands to heighten their own degree of femininity or masculinity (self-expressive purposes) (Fugate et al., 2010). They confirm this explanation by stating that several decades of research in psychology and marketing support the conception that

images, consumers purchase products that have gender identities consistent with their own. Lastly, feminine and masculine traits are easily accessible to people. This means that consumers will associate gender traits with brand personality, just as other personality traits (competence and morality). Companies use this accessibility by implementing gender traits in their marketing to create more success (Fugate et al., 2010).

In this study, we choose to look at brand gender cues because they offer a new interesting perspective on the influence of gender. As mentioned above, gender cues are generally understood to be signals of traditional gender expressions in order to either defy or reinforce a gender identity. These cues can be activated in different ways. For instance, masculine cues can be blue colours in the logo or packaging of the product, in contrast to pink colours for feminine cues (Hess & Melnyk, 2016). Also, other studies show pink and yellow perceived as feminine cues and blue and green perceived as masculine cues (Picariello, Greenberg & Pillemer, 1990; Zellner, McGarrt, Mattern-McClory & Abreu, 2008).

Previous research confirmed that morality and competence are central to triggering stereotypes, namely the two-dimensional approach (Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt &

Kashima, 2005). They mention this two-dimensional approach for group stereotypes (morality and competence) can also be enforced in gender stereotyping. Traditional gender cues can automatically trigger gender stereotypes. Thereby, female cues trigger morality aspects, and male cues trigger competence aspects (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Previous research confirmed that a stereotypical woman is perceived as kind, concerned, warm-hearted, expressive, and warm. In contrast to a stereotypical man, perceived as forceful, independent, rational,

instrumental, and competent (Rudman & Glick, 2008). Taken together, these mentioned traits mirror the underlying central consistent labels; competence as masculine stereotypes and morality as feminine stereotypes (Rudman & Glick, 2008).

There is some indication that gender cues in advertisement affect the perceived gender identity meaning of the product. According to Hess and Melnyk (2016), gender cues, involved in marketing, can present like competent/moral cues and thereby influence brand perception. Their study investigated the impact of gender cues with morality and competence cues in a consumer environment on brand perception and purchase likelihood. By conducting an empirical study, Hess et al.’s (2016) results showed a moderating effect of competence cues. For example, in the presence of high competence cues, feminine cues increased the morality of a brand, leading to more consumer purchases. In contrast to brands with low competence cues, masculine cues increased competence perceptions of the brand and lead to more consumer purchases. Hess et al. (2016) tried to make it more transparent under which conditions gender cues can hurt or help brand perceptions because sometimes the stereotype female/morality and male/competent could backfire on a brand. This further supports this study’s relevance by investigating the uncertain influence of the stereotypes on brand perception. Hess et al. (2016) looked solely at purchase intention and the levels of competence. For this study, the effect of gender cues on the relationship between the

perceived company morality and brand evaluation is also included. This is because, similar to the other hypotheses, this study further investigates the influence of morality on brand

evaluation in these relations. Hess et al. (2016) looked at the effect of competence cues on gender cues. This study will replicate the relationship and test if perceived brand gender cues have a moderating effect on the relationship between competence/morality on consumer purchase intention and evaluation of a brand. As a result, our last hypothesis is constructed:

H4: Perceived brand gender cues moderate the relationship between perceived brand traits and consumer purchase intentions and brand evaluations.

H4a: The more a brand is perceived as masculine, the stronger the relation between company competence and consumer purchase intention, without influencing the relation between perceived brand morality and consumer purchase intention.

H4b: The more a brand is perceived as feminine, the stronger the relation between company morality and consumer brand evaluation, without influencing the relation between perceived brand competence and consumer brand evaluation.

To test these hypotheses, a survey was conducted, whereby participants had to fill in a questionnaire.

Method Participants and Design

To determine the number of participants, a G*power analysis was conducted with a 95% confidence interval. This led to the conclusion that there should be 107 people in the sample size to have enough power. In total, 217 participants took part in the survey, but 39 of them were left out due to incompletion. This resulted in 178 participants, of whom 56.2% female (100 participants) and 43.8% (78 participants) male. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 74, with an average age of 34 and a standard deviation of 13.85. All participants were recruited by sharing a link to the questionnaire online through emails or different social media platforms. Each participant evaluated the same six brands in random order on

perceived competence, perceived morality, general brand evaluation, purchase intention and perceived gender cues.

Measures

The questionnaire involves six brands: Nintendo, HP, Pink Lady, Mars, WWF, and Red Cross. The name and logo of the brands were shown before the questions. The brands were intentionally chosen to represent different businesses, and to create some differentiation in perceived gender cues. Some brands could be seen as more feminine and some as more

masculine. Nintendo, Pink lady, and WWF had a logo that contained more female gender cues, such as round shapes and female colours (pink and white). HP, Mars, and Red Cross contained more male gender cues, such as angular shapes and male colours (blue and red). According to Hess et al. (2016), shapes and colours are seen as signals of traditional gender expressions. Furthermore, Lieven, Grohmann, Herrmann, Landwehr and Van Tilburg (2015) found the shape of a brand’s logo to have a significant effect on a brand’s feminine and masculine perception. The results showed round, slender shapes to increase feminine brand perceptions and angular, bold shapes to increase masculine brand perceptions. Furthermore, pink and yellow are perceived as feminine cues and blue and green as masculine cues (Zellner et al., 2008).

Perceived morality and competence were measured with six items based on Leach et al. (2007). Participants were asked to rate each brand on six traits, following the questions: “How descriptive are the following traits for this brand?”. They could answer on a 7-point Linkert scale ranging from 1 (not very descriptive) to 7 (very descriptive). Perceived morality was assessed with the traits: “honesty”, “sincere”, and “trustworthy”. These traits are firstly averaged per brand with a Cronbach’s alpha range of α = .87 - .93, showing that the scale is reliable for every brand. Afterwards the traits are combined to one scale for morality. Perceived competence was assessed with: “competent”, “intelligent”, and “skilled”. These traits are firstly averaged and combined per brand with a Cronbach’s alpha range of α = .87 - .93, showing that the scale is reliable for every brand. Afterwards the traits are combined to one scale for competence. A factor analysis for all variables confirms that perceived morality and competence are two separate dimensions (Appendix 1).

The first dependent variable, consumer purchase intention, was measured with five items derived from the questionnaire from Lee, Shi, Cheung, Lim, and Sia (2011). This study chose to use three from the five items, because the other two related to boycott intentions and

are not relevant for the current study. Whereas the chosen three items represent consumer purchase intention, namely: “I am very likely to buy a product, service, or donate from/to this brand”, “I would seriously contemplate buying a product, service, or donate from/to this brand” and “It is likely that I am going to buy a product, service, or donate from/to this brand”. All measures were taken on a 7-point Linkert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 =

strongly agree). The questions had a Cronbach’s alpha range of α = .91 - .95, therefore the

reliability of the scales is high enough to proceed.

Consumer Brand evaluation was measured with the questionnaire from Kim, Park, and Jeong (2014). The questionnaire measured three dimensions of consumer brand evaluation with three questions: “This brand is my first choice when buying related products”, “My love for this brand is incomparable to the other brand” and “This brand is very appealing to me”. The questions were again measured on a 7-point Linkert scale (1 = totally disagree; to 7 =

totally agree). The questions had a Cronbach’s alpha range of α = .76 - .86, therefore the

reliability of the scales is high enough to proceed.

The gender cues were measured, after showing the brand’s logo, with two statements: “the brand is” and “The logo of the brand is”. The participants rated the statements on a 7-point Linkert scale with 1 (very masculine) to 7 (very feminine). The questions had a

Cronbach’s alpha range of α = .52 - .73, therefore the reliability of the scales is high enough to proceed.

Procedure

This study was conducted after approval by the Psychology Research Ethics

Committee of Leiden University. All data was retrieved in April 2020, it was part of a larger study which measured the impact of brand characteristics on consumer responses. Other variables were included in the questionnaire, such as the use of social media and hedonic versus utilitarian products. The data from these variables were not enclosed in this study.

Before filling out the questionnaire, participants read an informed consent form and signed to their data being used when they agreed. Six companies were analysed by means of the

questions mentioned above, meaning every participant filled in the same questions six times. The questions and brands were shown in random order. The questionnaire ended with questions about the participants’ gender and age and a short debriefing about the goal of the study.

Results

All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). First, a correlation analysis was conducted for the variables, to examine the relations between the variables. To test the hypotheses, multiple regressions were conducted for all variables with consumer purchase intention and consumer brand evaluation. These

regressions showed the main relation between competence and consumer purchase intention and the main relation of morality and consumer brand evaluation. Also, the interaction effect was measured. For the moderating effects of female and male gender cues, two separate regression were conducted for consumer purchase intention and consumer brand evaluation. Data Restructuring

Because the brand’s perceived gender cues needed to be analysed as a possible

moderator, the data had to be restructured because the participants filled in the same questions for every six companies. A wide format would not show every observation separately, while this was needed for analysing the hypotheses. By restructuring the data into a long format, every participant will be divided into six cases divided per company. This resulted in 1068 cases (6 x 178 participants).

Preliminary Analysis

For all multiple hierarchical regression analyses, certain assumptions had to be met. In Appendix 2-5, the plots for normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity are shown for the

regression of the independent variables on the dependent variables. The plots show that the assumptions were met. Also, the independent variables all have VIF scores < 10, proving there is no multicollinearity.

To get a first look at the relation between all the variables, correlation analyses were performed. The results are shown in Table 1. All main variables correlated as expected. For example, there was a high correlation between competence and consumer purchase intention and a high correlation between morality and consumer brand evaluation. Furthermore, participant’s gender and age are added to the correlation matrix as control variables. The variables gender and age of the participants related both significantly to consumer purchase intention, although not very strongly. Also, for consumer brand evaluation the variable age is significant. This means females have a higher consumer purchase intention and brand evaluation than males. Furthermore, older people have a lower consumer purchase intention, brand evaluation and perceived morality. These results indicate that gender and age should be included in the analysis as covariates.

Table 1. Correlation Matrix

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01*

Consumer Purchase Intention

It was predicted that a brand’s perceived competence would be a better predictor of consumer purchase intentions compared to a brand’s perceived morality (Hypothesis 1). A multiple hierarchical regression was conducted to predict purchase intention based on

perceived morality and perceived competence. In the first model, age and gender were added Purchase

Intention Evaluation Morality Competence

Participant Gender Purchase Intention Evaluation .52** Morality .39** .46** Competence .42** .15** .28** Participant gender .07* .04 .13** .06 Participant age -.08* -.08* -.06* .01 -.23**

as covariates. A significant model was found F(2,1065) = 4.75, p = .009. As Table 2 shows, the second model added a significant amount of explained variance, F(4, 1063) = 94.73, p < .001. Both morality and competence predicted purchase intention significantly. This means that when a company has high morality or high competence, the consumer purchase intention of a company is higher. However, this does not confirm the hypothesis because the

unstandardized coefficients did not differ from each other.

The third model tests the hypothesis 3a: The interaction between perceived

competence and perceived morality positively influences consumer purchase intentions. First, an interaction was computed after centralizing perceived morality and competence. The third model in Table 2 shows the interaction between morality and competence on the dependent variable consumer purchase intention. As shown in Table 2, the third model was significant,

F(5,1062) = 77.13, p < .001. The interaction effect added minimal explained variance with R2

= .27. The multiple hierarchical regression in Table 2 shows that the interaction between morality and competence significantly predicted consumer purchase intention, however with a negative coefficient. This indicated that the independent variables reduce each other’s effect, rather than amplifying it. This hypothesis was therefore not confirmed.

Table 2. Results multiple hierarchical regression; consumer purchase intention

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable β β β Participant Gender .06 -.00 -.00 Participant Age -.06* -.06* -.06* Morality .29** .30** Competence .34** .33** Competence X Morality -.06* R2 .01** .26** .26* R .01** .25** .00*

Dependent variable: Consumer Purchase Intention Note: independent variables were centered at their means. *p < .05, **p < .01

Consumer Brand Evaluation

It was predicted that a brand’s perceived morality is a better predictor of consumer brand evaluations compared to a brands’ perceived competence (H2). A multiple hierarchical regression was conducted to predict brand evaluation based on perceived morality and perceived competence. In the first model, age and gender were added as covariates. A significant model was found F(2,1065) = 3.445, p = .032. As Table 3 shows, the second model added a significant amount of explained variance, F(4,1063) = 73.26, p < .001. There was a significant positive relation between morality and perceived consumer brand

evaluation. This means that when a company is perceived as relatively high on morality, the consumer brand evaluation of a company is higher. In contrast, competence was unrelated to consumer brand evaluation. Thereby the hypothesis H2 was confirmed.

The third model (F(5,1062) = 58.76, p < .001) tested hypothesis 3b: The interaction between high competence and high morality positively influence consumer brand evaluations in companies. Again, the interaction between centralized perceived morality and competence on brand evaluation was added. As Table 3 shows, this interaction was not significant. This hypothesis was therefore not confirmed.

Table 3. Results multiple hierarchical regression; consumer brand evaluation

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable β β β Participant Gender .03 -.03 -.03 Participant Age -.07* -.05 -.05 Morality .46** .46** Competence .02 .02 Competence X Morality -.03 R2 .01* .23** .23** R .01* .24** .00**

Dependent variable: Consumer Brand Evaluation

Note: independent variables were centered at their means. *p < .05, **p < .01

The Role of Gender Cues on Purchase Intention

To test the moderating effect of gender cues on purchase intention a separate multiple hierarchal regression was conducted (Table 4). In the first model, age and gender were added as covariates, F(2,1065) = 4.75, p = .009, the second model includes the main effects on morality, competence and gender cues on purchase intention, F(5,1062) = 79.72, p < .001. The third model (F(7,1060) = 59.192, p < .001) tests the hypothesis 4a, namely: The more a brand is perceived as masculine, the stronger the relation between perceived competence and consumer purchase intention, without influencing the relation between perceived morality and consumer purchase intention. The interaction effect between competence and gender cues is significant and has a negative standardized coefficient (Table 4). These results indicate that companies perceived as masculine amplify the relation between competence and purchase intention. To get a better look at this interaction a simple slope analysis was conducted (Table 5). The results show that for one standard deviation above (High) and one standard deviation below (Low) the mean of gender cues the interaction is significant. This means that the relation between perceived brand competence and consumer purchase intention is strongest when a company is masculine (high), less when a company is average (moderate) and least strong when the company is feminine (low). The interaction between morality and gender cues was not significant, as expected. Consequently, Hypothesis 4a is confirmed.

Table 4. Gender cues on purchase intention.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable β β β Participant Gender .06 -.02 .01 Participant Age -.06* -.01* -.06* Morality .25** .26** Competence .37** .37** Gender Cues .11** .10**

Morality X Gender Cues .01

Competence X Gender Cues -.09**

R2 .01* .27** .28

R .01* .27** .01

Dependent variable: Consumer Purchase intention Note: independent variables were centered at their means. *p < .05, **p < .01

Table 5. Simple slope analysis.

Purchase intention

Gender cues B Confidence level of 95% for

confidence intervals

Low (-1.38) .58** .50 to .66

Moderate (.17) .50** .44 to .56

High (1.62) .43** .34 to .51

Note: 1000 bootstrap samples

*p < .05, **p < .01

The Role of Gender Cues on Brand Evaluation

To test the moderating effect of gender cues on consumer brand evaluation a separate multiple hierarchal regression was conducted (Table 5). In the first model, age and gender were added as covariates, F(2,1065) = 3.445, p = .032. The second model includes the main effects on morality, competence and gender cues on brand evalaution, F(5,1062) = 64.91, p < .001. The third model (F(7,1060) = 46.53, p < .001) tests the hypothesis 4b, namely: The more a brand is perceived as feminine, the stronger the relation between company morality and consumer brand evaluation, without influencing the relation between perceived brand competence and consumer brand evaluation. The interaction effect between morality and gender cues is not significant (table 5). These results indicate that there is no moderating

the interaction effect between competence and gender cues is not significant. Thereby, hypothesis 4b cannot be confirmed.

Table 5. Gender cues on brand evaluation.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable β β β Participant Gender .03 -.03 -.03 Participant Age -.07* -.05 -.05 Morality .41** .40** Competence .06* .06* Gender Cues .15** .15**

Morality X Gender Cues -.03

Competence X Gender Cues .02

R2 .01* .23** .23

R .01* .23** .00

Dependent variable: Consumer Brand Evaluation

Note: independent variables were centered at their means. *p < .05, **p < .01

Discussion

The goal of this study was to fill in the gap of knowledge and investigate the current suggestions about the influence of perceived brand competence and morality on consumer purchase intention and brand evaluation. Secondly, the study examined the moderating role of brand gender cues in these relations. The results of this study confirm, contradict and propose new relevant insight in the relation between perceived brand traits and consumer behaviour. Theoretical and Practical Implications

To start, the results of this study demonstrated that perceived competence and morality both predicted consumer purchase intention to an equal extent. Meaning perceived

competence is not a better predictor, thereby not confirming Hypothesis 1. Primarily, it extends the literature on the role of perceived brand traits in purchase intention, by showing perceived brand competence to be an important predictor for consumer purchase intention. Thereby confirming many previous researchers that suggested competence to be an essential predictor for consumer purchase intention (Aaker et al., 2010; Hess et al. 2016). However, the results also contribute to research by introducing a new relevant trait, namely perceived brand morality. This finding presents relevant support for the influence of perceived morality on consumer behaviour. This study contradicts certain previous studies, by determining perceived morality an equally important influence for consumer purchase intention. The results have implications for brands, providing evidence that companies should strive to be perceived as moral or as competent for higher consumer purchase intention.

Secondly, this study found perceived morality to be a significantly influence for consumer brand evaluation, thereby confirming Hypothesis 2. This finding presents relevant contribution to the current knowledge on consumer brand evaluation. Foremost, because it shows brand evaluation to be an interesting outcome variable. Also, the influence of

Leach et al., 2007). Kervyn et al. (2012) shows that this relation is also relevant to company brands. This could be explained by the rising awareness of pressing problems and how

companies handle these problems (Choi & Ng, 2011; Galbreth & Ghosh, 2013). Or the strong relation between perceived morality and consumer brand evaluation could indeed be created similar to how people evaluate groups. The importance of perceived morality on consumer purchase intention and brand evaluation, suggest more research needs to be done on the influence of this trait.

Next to the theoretical contributions of the study, the findings are important for practical reasons. The results of this study show competence to be an important predictor for purchase intention. This gives companies reason to increase their competence and

communicate this to their consumers. An example would be for a company to increase their competence by improving the delivery service and making this an important advertising message for consumers. Furthermore, the results of this study prove morality to be a significant predictor of consumer purchase intention and brand evaluation. It is therefore important for companies to display morality to their consumers, thereby increasing the

consumers purchase intention and brand evaluation. Perceived morality within companies can be increased by creating openness both internally and externally, for example the visibility or accountability of behaviour (Kaptein, 1998).

Furthermore, some previous research has shown that perceived competence and morality have an interaction effect on purchase intention (Aaker et al., 2010; Feldman & Leach,1988; Hess et al. 2016). This was also tested in the current study, but the results showed an inverse, negative interaction between morality and competence on consumer purchase intention. This means that the presence of morality and competence combined reduce each other considering the consumers purchase intention. This finding is surprising because perceived competence and perceived morality independently positively influence

consumer purchase intention. However, this negative interaction suggests companies to not strive for both high perceived morality and high perceived competence. These findings contradict substantial previous research (Aaker et al., 2010; Aaker et al., 2012; Feldman & Leach,1988; Hess et al. 2016). There is no current research explaining this negative

interaction. The lack of explanation for this effect suggests more research needs to be done on the interaction between perceived brand traits. Future research could investigate other

perceived brand trait combinations or add a third brand trait to understand this negative interaction better.

Lastly, this study showed new insights into the brand gender cues’ role in the relation between competence and morality on purchase intention and brand evaluation. The study showed that masculine gender cues have a significant influence on the relation between perceived competence and consumer purchase intention. This means the more a brand is seen as masculine, the stronger the relation between perceived brand competence and consumer purchase intention, thereby confirming Hypothesis 4a. First, it extends the literature on the role of brand personality in purchase intention, by showing that the role of competence differs for masculine versus feminine perceived brands. This means that the current study extends Hess et al.’s (2016) research by showing that male brand gender cues have a positive moderating effect on the relation between perceived brand competence and purchase intention. This also has certain implications for brands that are rather masculine. These companies should strive to be perceived as competent, thereby increasing their consumer purchase intention. Being perceived as more competent can be achieved by improving the competence in a company and increasing the communication it better. Whereas competent companies should steer away from being perceived as feminine, because this only creates a weaker relation on consumer purchase intention. Second, no relation was found between perceived gender cues and consumer brand evaluation. These outcomes give solid reason to

further investigate the influence of perceived brand gender cues the relation between

perceived brand traits and consumer behavior, for example how feminine brands can increase their purchase intention.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This study has certain limitations. To start, the data for this research was conducted through an online survey. The survey brings multiple limitation with it, such as participants not feeling encouraged to answer accurately or being distracted when answering (Coughlan, Cronin & Ryan, 2009). With a survey, the environment of the participants cannot be

controlled. For example, some participants could be very distracted and other very focused, resulting in response bias. Future research can solve these limitations by doing an

experimental study. This can be done by controlling the environment, through testing the participants in the same place every time. Also, Researchers can make sure the participants are focused and provide help when needed during the experiment(McLeod, 2012).

Secondly, this study measures consumer purchase intentions as good predictors of actual behavior, however intention might differ from actual behavior. Gathering data from a survey about consumer purchase intentions and translating those into consumer behavior, is a known two-stage procedure (Chandon, Morwitz, Reinartz, 2005). Chandon et al. (2005) suggest this two-stage procedure is entirely mediated by self-generated validity. Self-generated validity strengthens the relationship between intentions and behavior based on measurements of intentions (Feldman & Lynch, 1988). Hence, future research should replicate these findings with actual consumer behavior measurements, such as purchasing data.

The last limitation involves the six chosen brands for the current research. The brands were specifically picked to create generalization for the study. However, the data was

questions. Regarding the perceived gender cues, Pink Lady, WWF, and Nintendo were chosen as brands with relatively more female gender cues, but only Pink Lady and WWF clearly represent female gender cues. Nintendo was needed for another study and had round features known as a female gender cue. The ambiguity between these brands on the male-female spectrum can be seen as a limitation. Furthermore, the types of brands were manipulated beforehand for the larger study, such as non-profit versus for-profit companies and brands with hedonic versus utilitarian products. These manipulations could have created biases, like confirmation bias. Future research should focus on finding better representing brands for male and female gender cues, by focusing only on the data needed for a study.

Conclusion

It is important for companies to know what makes their brand successful and makes their products sell. This study displays that perceived morality plays an important role in the relation between perceived brand traits and consumer behavior. Also, the role of perceived competence is still seen as an important predictor when considering consumer purchase intention. Furthermore, consumer purchase evaluation seems to be a relevant new outcome variable when investigating consumer behavior. Surprisingly, this study shows a negative interaction relation between perceived competence and morality on consumer purchase intention, suggesting more research needed to understand this relation further. Lastly, the extension of knowledge about the influence of perceived gender cues, shows this research to be of value to current academic literature. These results are worth communicating to

companies, so they can use the information to enhance their brands success and increase their products sales.

References

Aaker, D. A., Stayman, D. M., & Hagerty, M. R. (1986). Warmth in advertising:

Measurement, impact, and sequence effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 365-381.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356

Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of

Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16.

Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer

Research, 37(2), 224-237.

Aaker, J. L., Garbinsky, E. N., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth, competence, and landing in the “golden quadrant”. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 22(2), 191-194.

Bennett, A. M., & Hill, R. P. (2012). The universality of warmth and competence: A response to brands as intentional agents. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 199-204.

Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32(4), 397-408.

Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 1-14. Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and

price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 269-282. Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2009). Survey research: Process and limitations.

Cuddy, A.J., Fiske, S.T. and Glick, P. (2008), Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map,

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.

Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,

31, 73-98.

De Waal, F. (1996). Good natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other

Animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 73(3), 421.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007), “Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence,” Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(February), 77–83. Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship partners: Warmth, competence,

and in-between. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 177-185.

Fugate, D. L., & Phillips, J. (2010). Product gender perceptions and antecedents of product gender congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(3), 251-261. Galbreth, M. R., & Ghosh, B. (2013). Competition and Sustainability: The impact of

consumer awareness. Decision Sciences, 44(1), 127-159.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies:

Differentiating Paternalistic and Envious Prejudice. The Psychology of Legitimacy.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 148.

Grohmann, B. (2009), Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing

Research, 46,105–119.

Hess, A. C., & Melnyk, V. (2016). Pink or blue? The impact of gender cues on brand perceptions. European Journal of Marketing, 50(9), 1550-1574.

Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). “Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899-913.

Kaptein, M. (1998). The ethics thermometer: An audit-tool for improving the corporate moral reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 2(1), 10-15.

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 22(2), 166-176.

Kim, N., Chun, E., & Ko, E. (2017). Country of origin effects on brand image, brand evaluation, and purchase intention. International Marketing Review.

Lam, S. Y., & Mukherjee, A. (2005). The effects of merchandise coordination and

juxtaposition on consumers’ product evaluation and purchase intention in store-based retailing. Journal of Retailing, 81(3), 231-250.

Landy, J. F., Piazza, J., & Goodwin, G. P. (2016). When it’s bad to be friendly and smart: The desirability of sociability and competence depends on morality. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1272-1290.

Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of ingroups.

Lee, M. K., Shi, N., Cheung, C. M., Lim, K. H., & Sia, C. L. (2011). Consumer's decision to shop online: The moderating role of positive informational social influence.

Information & Management, 48(6), 185-191.

Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J. R., & Van Tilburg, M. (2015). The effect of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. European

Journal of Marketing.

Magin, S., Algesheimer, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (2003). The impact of brand personality and customer satisfaction on customer's loyalty: theoretical approach and findings of a causal analytical study in the sector of Internet service providers.

Electronic Markets, 13(4), 294-308.

Malone, C., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). The human brand: How we relate to people, products, and companies. John Wiley & Sons.

Mark, M., Pearson, C. S. (2001). The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands

Through the Power of Archetypes. New York NY: McGraw-Hill.

McLeod, S. (2012). Experimental Method. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/experimental-method.html

Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of marketing, 74(6), 1-17.

Peeters, G. (1983). Relational and informational pattern in social cognition. Current

Issues in European Social Psychology, 201–237.

Picariello, M. L., Greenberg, D. N., & Pillemer, D. B. (1990). Children's sex‐related stereotyping of colors. Child Development, 61(5), 1453-1460.

Rudman, L.A. and Glick, P. (2008). The Social Psychology of Gender: How Power and

Schmalfuß, F., Mühl, K., & Krems, J. F. (2017). Direct experience with battery electric vehicles (BEVs) matters when evaluating vehicle attributes, attitude and purchase intention. Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46, 47-69.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (25). New York: Academic Press.

Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.

Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639-661.

Van Prooijen, A. M., & Ellemers, N. (2015). Does it pay to be moral? How indicators of morality and competence enhance organizational and work team

attractiveness. British Journal of Management, 26(2), 225-236

Viktoria Rampl, L., & Kenning, P. (2014). Employer brand trust and affect: linking brand personality to employer brand attractiveness. European Journal of Marketing,

48(1/2), 218-236.

Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., and Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

24(12),1245-1257.

Wojciszke, B., & Abele, A. E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1139-1147. Zellner, D. A., McGarry, A., Mattern-McClory, R., & Abreu, D. (2008).

Masculinity/femininity of fine fragrances affects color–odor correspondences: A case for cognitions influencing cross-modal correspondences. Chemical Senses, 33(2), 211-222.

Appendix 1 Factor analysis on all variables.

Component 1 2 3 4 5 PI3 .954 PI2 .921 PI1 .911 Comp2 -.930 Comp1 -.921 Comp3 -.900 Mor1 .945 Mor2 .927 Mor3 .923 Gen2 .921 Gen1 .910 Eva2 .910 Eva1 .847 Eva3 .782

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a

Appendix 2

Appendix 2

Appendix 4

Appendix 5