The influence of extroversion on the customer equity of the mobile
phone market
“To what extent does extroversioninfluence the mobile phone market (i.e. Apple, Samsung and
Huawei) in relation to the customer equity mix?”
Author Stijn Bekkers
Assessor
dhr. drs. ing. A.C.J. (Antoon) Meulemans
Academic year 2019 – 2020
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Stijn Bekkers who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 5
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1. Literature overview ... 6
1.2. Managerial and academic contributions ... 7
1.3. Personal motivation ... 8 1.4. Methodology ... 8 2. Theoretical framework ... 9 2.1. Customer equity ... 9 2.1.1. Value equity ... 9 2.1.2. Brand Equity ... 10 2.1.3. Relationship equity ... 10
2.2. The big five personality traits ... 11
2.2.1. Extroversion ... 12 2.2.2. Openness to experience ... 12 2.2.3. Agreeableness ... 12 2.2.4. Conscientiousness ... 12 2.2.5. Neuroticism ... 13 2.3. Three brands ... 13 2.3.1. Apple ... 13 2.3.2. Samsung ... 14 2.3.3. Huawei ... 15 2.4. Hypotheses ... 16 3. Methods ... 17
3.1. Design and procedure ... 17
3.2. Measures ... 17 3.2.1. Personality ... 17 3.2.2. Value equity ... 17 3.2.3. Brand equity ... 18 3.3. Analytical plan ... 18 4. Results ... 19 4.1. Correlations ... 19 4.2. Hypotheses 1 – 4 ... 19
4.3. Hypotheses 5 – 8 ... 21 4.3.1. Hypothesis 5 ... 21 4.3.2. Hypothesis 6 ... 22 4.3.3. Hypothesis 7 ... 23 4.3.4. Hypothesis 8 ... 24 5. Discussion ... 26
5.1. Apple vs Samsung: Effects of extroversion ... 27
5.2. Samsung vs Huawei: Effects of extroversion ... 28
5.3. Study critique ... 28 6. Conclusion ... 29 7. References ... 30 8. Appendix ... 33 8.1. Tables ... 33 8.2. Figures ... 39
Abstract
Since customer equity is one of the most important drivers in companies, it is necessary to understand what influences customer equity. Therefore, in this paper the influence of personality traits on customer equity in the mobile phones market is being investigated. More specifically the effect of extroversion on the customer equity mix of mobile phone brands is investigated. To determine this, three different mobile phone brands have been used (Apple, Samsung and
Huawei) in a survey among 150 participants. Based on literature research several hypotheses were constructed to answer the research question: “To what extent does extroversion influence the mobile phone market (i.e. Apple, Samsung and Huawei) in relation to the customer equity mix?”.
The results of the study firstly indicate that each brand can score significantly different compared to its competitors on the investigated aspects (value- and brand equity) of the customer equity mix. Secondly, it shows that extroversion does have a weak and insignificant influence on brand equity. It does however have a strong and significant relationship with value equity. Moreover, the impact of extroversion varies for each phone brand.
1. Introduction
The global smartphone industry has expanded at an unprecedented rate (O'Dea, 2020), the number of smartphones sold to end-users has grown by ten times from 2008 to 2020 (Statista, 2020). As almost everyone uses a smartphone, it comes naturally that major opportunities have arisen for mobile phone brands. While the popularity of the device is documented extensively, this paper is focused on the implications of customer equity for the following brands Apple, Samsung and Huawei. More specifically, the objective of this research is to deepen our understanding of the mobile phone brand in relation to the customer equity mix (by Rust, Zeithalm, and Lemon ,2004) of mobile phone brands while moderated by personality traits. Customer satisfaction strongly impacts organizations’ success and is often perceived to be an essential factor for good customer relations (Kermani, 2011). In this paper, this model mix will be extended by incorporating the character trait extroversion, to determine whether there is any influence on customer equity from the personality trait extroversion.
1.1. Literature overview
The customer equity model (CEM) is a framework for firms to map where and how value is created for customers. There are three drivers of customer equity: value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity (retention equity). However, understanding how to grow and manage this mix is very complex (Lemon, Rust, and Zeithaml, 2001).
Personality is considered a psychographic variable as well as an important trait in consumer behavior when describing an individual. Using psychographic variables can help marketing managers improve the standard and accountability effectiveness of their campaigns by narrowing down to the most receptive audience, resulting in efficient and effective marketing (Kohli, Khandal, and Gulla, 2020). In this paper the focus is on the personality trait: extroversion. People high in extroversion tend to seek out opportunities for social interaction, where they are often the “life of the party.” They are comfortable with others, are gregarious, and are prone to action rather than contemplation (Lebowitz, 2016a).
Kohli et al., (2020) suggests that with the rapid growth of the smartphone market, innovation should occur according to the consumers’ psychological variables. It is perceived that each brand
has a different “personality'' to which it is associated with. Thus, it can be concluded that it will also be different for mobile phone brands. As an example, while Samsung could be perceived as a brand that inspires competence and practicality, Apple will be associated with sophistication and social status. Past studies have been conducted to study the relationship between an individual’s personality traits and one’s mobile phone brand.
Research by Kohli et al. (2020) is focused on three drivers of customer equity and their
implications on the brand. There has been little research into the influence of personality traits on customer equity. Thus, the goal of this paper is to investigate moderating effects of the
personality trait extroversion on the relationship between customer equity and mobile phone brands. Hence, the central research question of this paper will be: “To what extent does
extroversion influence the mobile phone market (i.e. Apple, Samsung and Huawei) in relation to the customer equity mix?”
1.2. Managerial and academic contributions
According to Lemon et al. (2001), the most important determinant of a firm’s long-term success and value is customer equity. For a firm’s long-term growth, it is crucial to explore how to grow and manage this, as managers are often faced with limited operating resources. To make the most efficient use of resources, marketing managers can make use of psychographic targeting to target their audiences efficiently and effectively. Also, because little research has been done into the psychographic segmentation of customers, it offers new opportunities for marketing managers in the mobile phones market.
1.3. Personal motivation
The subject was chosen because I am personally interested in what differentiates different mobile phone brands. I always expected extrovert people to more likely want to own an Apple iPhone since they are generally more outgoing and sensitive to social status. Thus, I expected them to rate Apple iPhone highest in the customer equity mix. This research will either confirm or deny these long-term suspicions.
1.4. Methodology
The research will follow a quantitative approach to determine the degree of moderation by extroversion. Data will be collected through a survey and the results will be inferred using statistical models. The survey will contain questions to determine the personality and the
customer equity mix for each phone brand. Furthermore, the theoretical framework will provide additional insights and clarification of the introduction above. The framework will elaborate on the CEM and its drivers. Completion of this research should yield practical implications for marketing managers in the mobile phones market.
2. Theoretical framework
In the following section several concepts will be explained, to help understand what ingredients are being used and investigated in this research.
2.1. Customer equity
Customer equity is the total discounted lifetime value of the firm’s customers according to Lemon, Rust, and Zeithaml (2001). Customer equity is made up of three drivers: value equity, brand equity and relationship equity. Each of these drivers impacts the customer equity value. By mapping out each of the equity’s, companies can determine what to focus on to increase their value. Each of the three drivers’ goal is to make a customer as loyal as possible to the brand and the product.
Figure 1. The customer equity framework. Reprinted from eurib.net by Riezebos, R., Beltman, S. and Grinten, J. URL:https://www.eurib.net/customer-equity-framework/
2.1.1. Value equity
“Value equity is defined as the customer’s objective assessment of the utility of a brand, based on perceptions of what is given up for what is received. Three key levers influence value equity: quality, price, and convenience” lemon et al. (2001).
Quality refers to how the customer perceives all aspects the firm can control. This means the (physical) product, the service the company provides for the product, the delivery service and lastly the quality of the showroom (how the product is presented).
Price is a relevant part of value equity when it is used to improve, they company’s
competitiveness. This can be done by offering discounts, marketing showing you are providing best value for money.
Convenience encompasses actions to help reduce all aspects of doing business with the firm. This can be achieved through the product itself and its ease of use and through its availability (how easy it is to acquire the product (e.g. local stores)).
2.1.2. Brand Equity
According to Lemon et al. (2001) brand equity contains the image and the meaning of the company. Brand equity develops by making products that are reliable, superior in quality, recognizable and memorable. Brand equity is the degree to which the brand brings value to the company.
Brand awareness is how well known the company is. This is determined by its marketing communication mix, examples are internet ads, tv ads, paper ads, word of mouth and so on.
The attitude towards the brand entails how people think and talk about the brand. This can be influenced by what the brand associates itself with or special events correlated to your specific brand.
Brand ethics is how well the customer thinks the company deals with ethical issues. This includes the privacy policy, how they treat their employees and their environmental- and durability record.
2.1.3. Relationship equity
Lemon et al. (2001) described retention equity as being focused on ways to make customers be even more loyal, this can be done through several ways.
One such way is a loyalty program; this mainly focusses on perks of continued shopping (e.g. Customer card).
Another program that increases the retention rate is a knowledge building program, this is a database where the brand stores information about their customers. By using this data, they can apply targeted marketing tools to connect with their customers with the goal to influence their behavior and to increase brand loyalty.
Affinity programs focus on building a special bond with the brand. This relationship can be emotional and will help lead to the customer thinking that the brand is superior. Social media is a good way to increase customer affinity as you can send your message directly to the customer which makes it feel more personal.
Through customer community programs customers can get in touch with each other and the brand can offer benefits to their customers via these programs.
Lastly there is special recognition and treatment, here the company offers benefits besides monetary ones. This can include meeting with the developers and early access to new model releases.
2.2. The big five personality traits
A personality is described as what makes you. It includes traits, characteristics and quirks. More extensively described as “the coherent pattern of affect, cognition, and desires (goals) as they lead to behavior” (Revelle & Wilt, 2013).
Personality will be addressed based on the foundation that was laid out by Golberg (1993) about the five factors of personality that exist: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, and openness to experience.
2.2.1. Extroversion
A person with extrovert character traits draws energy from interaction with others. According to Barrick & Mount (1991) extroversion is an indicator of leadership and a great trait for salesman people. Furthermore, according to Soldz & Vaillant (1999) extroversion is positively related to a higher income, being more politically conservative, can cope with challenges and they have social relationships. Introverts are on the other side of the spectrum and they lose energy while interacting with others and they tend to be more quiet, introspective, and reserved.
There are several traits that can be associated with extroversion according to Ackerman (2020). These are a few examples of extrovert traits: socialness, assertiveness, talkativeness, tendency for affection, friendliness, and social confidence.
2.2.2. Openness to experience
As described by Ackerman (2020), openness to experience is related to thinking outside the box (imagination), being able to position yourself to be vulnerable and willingness to try new things. Openness to experience has been linked to knowledge, skills, creativity, and tendency to explore one’s inner self. As described by Ackerman (2020) there are several traits that can be correlated to openness to experience. Some example of common traits are imagination, originality,
daringness, creativity, curiosity and intellect.
2.2.3. Agreeableness
Agreeableness is how well people get along with other. Furthermore, it focuses on how a person interacts with others as described by Ackerman (2020). People with high agreeableness are generally respected, affectionate, feel the needs of others and are liked. Moreover, as described by Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz & Knafo (2002) people that score high on agreeableness value tradition and kindness, while they do not value power and achievement as much. People that score low on agreeableness tend to be less liked and have less trust of others. As according to Ackerman (2020) agreeableness has common traits. A few of these traits include trust,
humbleness, politeness, kindness, helpfulness, and consideration. ‘ 2.2.4. Conscientiousness
John & Srivastava (1999) described conscientiousness as the proneness to act in socially acceptable ways, to control oneself impulses and to have goal driven behavior. Moreover, Ackerman (2020) mentioned that people who score high on conscientiousness are likely to do
well in their career and excel at leadership positions. Furthermore, conscientiousness has common traits, examples are persistence, self-discipline, control, reliability, hard work and planning.
2.2.5. Neuroticism
Neuroticism is being comfortable and confident in your own skin as described by Ackerman (2020). Moreover, people who score high on neuroticism tend to have low motivation and job performance (Judge & Ilies, 2002). Hence, they tend to value achievement less. Common traits of neuroticism include awkwardness, pessimism, jealousy, anxiety, insecurity and fear as described by Ackerman (2020).
2.3. Three brands
In this research three big mobile phone brands are being investigated. Namely, Apple, Samsung, and Huawei. Each of these brands have several aspects that differentiate one from the other. In the following section each of the three brands will be described.
2.3.1. Apple
In the first quarter of 2020 Apple is the third largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world with a 14 percent market share (Counterpoint ,2020). According to Interbrand Apple (2019), Apple has the highest brand value as a company in the world, with a total brand value of 234,241 million dollar in 2019. Brand awareness is one of the main drivers of this high brand value as many people around the globe recognize the brand.
One of Apple’s biggest drives is the ability to deliver innovative products. Furthermore, according to Kenney & Pon (2011) one of the reasons Apple stands out is because it uses a different operating system than Samsung and Huawei. Apple uses the iOS operating system for their products. With the use of this operating system they effectively build an ecosystem that increases brand loyalty. This promotes users to keep buying Apple products, this is done by making the collaboration between products seamless with the use of iCloud, airplay and airdrop.
Furthermore, according to Apple's Branding Strategy (n.d.), Apple tries to convey its brand personality experience to its customers. The brand is targeting a personality and a lifestyle that promotes, imagination, liberty, innovation, passion hopes, dreams, aspirations, and power to people. This brand personality is another reason why many customers join the Apple ecosystem.
Moreover, Apple’s brand personality also promotes simplicity, a people-driven design’, inclusiveness and being humanistic. Many of these factors can be seen in the iOS operating system as it is perceived to be very simple to use, clear and user friendly. According to
Koladeajilore (2016) Apple products are often associated with luxury, as it has a classy look, a relatively high price, are very noticeable and fashionable.
Based on the brand association that Apple has with luxury, being fashionable and inclusive which can all be linked to the extrovert personality, it is expected that extroversion has a positive influence on the customer equity of Apple.
2.3.2. Samsung
In the first quarter of 2020 Samsung is the biggest mobile phone developer in the world with a 20 percent market share (Counterpoint, 2020). According to Interbrand Samsung (2019), Samsung had the sixth largest brand value in the world with a total brand value of 61,096 million dollar in 2019 which was an increase of 2 percent over its previous year. Most of this growth in brand value can be dedicated to the continuation of launches of new and innovative products that suit the customers’ lifestyle, trends and needs (Samsung Electronics Ranks 6th in Interbrand's Best Global Brands 2019, n.d.). Furthermore, the growth can also be explained by the technological innovations (such as 5G) and Samsung being the number one in the semiconductor memory market (Samsung – The Global Asian Brand, 2017).
Unlike Apple, that created its own operating software, Samsung phones use Android as an operating system, which is a free to use license (open source) and selectively open operating system according to Kenney & Pon (2011). Partly because Android is a free to license it is the largest mobile phone operating system in the world with an 72,52% market share according to gs.statcounter.com. Besides being widely used, Android brings other benefits as well such as a universal charger for all android phones, generally more powerful hardware and the google play store has few restrictions which allows many developers to easily distribute their applications.
There are several reasons as to why customers opt to buy a Samsung phone. Samsung phones are available across many different price ranges, unlike apple who only offers luxury/ high-end mobile phones. Furthermore, Samsung is also known for their colorful screens and great
in which their wide variety of products can work seamlessly together, such an ecosystem boosts brand loyalty.
According to Koladeajilore (2016) Samsung is often associated with being trendy, innovative, masculine and a high social status.
Based on the few correlations between the attributes of the Samsung brand and extroversion it is expected that the customer equity mix of Samsung will not be influenced by extroversion.
2.3.3. Huawei
In the first quarter of 2020 Huawei is the second largest mobile phone producer in the world with a 17 percent market share Counterpoint T. (2020). According to Interbrand Huawei (2019) Huawei is ranked seventy fourth with a total brand value of 6,887 million dollar in 2019, which was a decrease of 9 percent compared to its previous year.
Just like Samsung Huawei mainly uses Android as its operating system. However, Huawei has been developing their own operating system called HarmonyOS to reduce their reliance on the Google owned Android software, especially since Huawei got placed on the USA entity list in May 2019 according to Porter (2019).
Huawei is very attractive to many customers due to its lower prices than Samsung and Apple for their top of line phones, that have similar specifications. They also offer cheaper phones in the low or medium specification range. Huawei is also associated with innovation as this was a main point during William (2019).
Due to the lack of information about the brand personality of Huawei, the much lower brand value and Huawei being associated as cheaper phones brand leads to the expectation that Huawei has a less attractive social status and is not as trendy as the other two brands that are being investigated. Based on the few correlations between the attributes of the Huawei brand and extroversion it is expected that the customer equity mix of Huawei will not be influenced or possibly even negatively influenced by extroversion.
2.4. Hypotheses
Based on the literature research conducted, several hypotheses were constructed. (Appendix, Figure 1-4)
H1. “Apple has a significantly higher brand equity than Samsung” H2. “Samsung has a significantly higher brand equity than Huawei” H3. “Apple has a significantly higher value equity than Samsung” H4. “Samsung has a significantly higher value equity than Huawei”
H5. “Higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with brand equity for Apple than for Samsung”
H6. “Higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with brand equity for Samsung than for Huawei”
H7. “Higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with value equity for Apple than for Samsung”
H8. “Higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with value equity for Samsung than for Huawei”
3. Methods
3.1. Design and procedure
For this study, a cross-sectional design was used. The data was collected through surveys. A total of 150 participants completed the survey. The study used convenience sampling: participants were sampled through the personal contact of the researchers that used this data set for their bachelor thesis. To participate the participants had to own a mobile phone. The data was
collected over a period of 3 weeks, using psytoolkit.org. The survey that was distributed was part of a larger study, which meant more variables than needed for this study were examined.
3.2. Measures
The survey consisted of a total of 27 questions. The questions in this survey were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree), there being one exception to determine what brand the participant uses for their mobile phone. All questions can be found in the appendix,figure 5-8.
3.2.1. Personality
The first 15 questions were personality-oriented questions, these questions were aimed towards understanding the users’ personality based on the big 5 personality traits (Appendix, figure 5). For each of the of the 5 traits 3 questions were designed with a view to determine the level of applicability to the participant. For this research three of the initial fifteen questions were used as only the influence of the personality extroversion is being investigated. An example of the question used is: “I see myself as someone who is talkative”. The scale showed sufficient reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha = 0.762 (Appendix, table 7)
Next the participants were asked whether they owned one of the three brands being investigated in this research, with the option to choose “Other”, if they did not own any of the brands being investigated (Appendix, figure 6).
3.2.2. Value equity
The survey continued with 6 questions, aimed to determine how the participant rated the value equity of their respective brand (Appendix, figure 7).An example question is: “My phone brand is innovative”. The scale showed insufficient reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha = 0.581. To
improve the reliability of value equity the second question “My phone brand has a fair price” was deleted as the Cronbach’s alpha increased to 0.641, which is sufficient (Appendix, table 5).
3.2.3. Brand equity
The survey concluded with 5 subsequent questions to determine how the participant rated the brand equity of their respective brand (Appendix, figure 8). An example question is: “I would buy my next phone of the same brand”. The scale showed sufficient reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha = 0.779 (Appendix, table 6).
3.3. Analytical plan
The data sets from the samples were imported in the Statistical Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 25). The data set was then checked for missing values and errors with the usage of frequency checks (Appendix, table 1 – 4). It was not checked on outliers as the Cronbach alpha for each variable was sufficient.
First, a correlation test will be done to see whether there are strong- or weak relations between average survey participants’ extroversion and the average of all brands’ value equity and brand equity. Subsequently, the average of each variable per brand is used to answer the hypotheses.
The first four hypotheses aimed at understanding the brand- and value equity for all three brands, were investigated using the descriptive statistics of each brand followed by a T-Test to determine whether the differences between the brands are significant, and can therefore lead to a rejection or support for the hypotheses.
Linear regression was used to test the remaining four hypotheses, which investigated the moderating effect of extroversion on the value- or brand equity of a brand.
4. Results
4.1. Correlations
Table 1 contains the results of the correlation test across all three brands: Means(M), Standard deviations (SD), Correlations and Cronbach’s alpha (between brackets). There is a strong positive correlation between extroversion and value equity (r = 0.26). Furthermore, there is a strong positive correlation between value equity and brand equity (r = 0.53). There is a weak positive relation between brand equity and extroversion (r = 0.110).
Table 1. Mean, standard deviation and correlation (for correlation scatterplot see Appendix, Figure 9)
Note: N=139 Cronbach’s alpha is reported between brackets. *P <0.05, **P<0.01.
4.2. Hypotheses 1 – 4
To test hypothesis 1-4, descriptive statistics in Table 2 were used, after that for each hypothesis a T-Test was used to determine whether differences between brands are significant.
Variables M SD 1 2
1 Extroversion 4.4508 1.22301 (0.762)
2 Value equity 5.3118 0.65902 0.260** (0.641)
To test hypothesis 1, whether Apple has a significantly higher brand equity than Samsung, the results of the independent T-Test (Appendix, table 10) was be used. Levene’s test showed that p=0.828, as p > 0.05 equal variances can be assumed. The results of the descriptive statistics in table 2 show that Apple scores higher on brand equity than Samsung, this is further confirmed by the results of the T-Test as p = 0.00. Moreover, p < 0.05 which indicates that there is a
significant difference. Therefore, support for hypothesis 1 can be found. This means that Apple has a significantly higher brand equity than Samsung.
To test hypothesis 2, whether Samsung has a significantly higher brand equity than Huawei, the results of the independent T-Test (Appendix, Table 11) can be used. Levene’s test showed that p=0.441, as p > 0.05 equal variances can be assumed. The results of the descriptive statistics in table 2 show that Samsung scores higher on brand equity than Huawei. However, the T-Test resulted in a p = 0.737. Moreover, p > 0.05, this indicates there is no significant difference. Therefore, no support can be found for hypothesis 2. This means Samsung does not have a significant higher brand equity than Huawei.
To test hypothesis 3, whether Apple has a significantly higher value equity than Samsung, the results of the independent T-Test (Appendix, table 8) can be used. Levene’s test showed that p=0.966, as p > 0.05 equal variances can be assumed. The results of the descriptive statistics in table 2 show that Apple scores higher on value equity than Samsung. However, the T-Test
resulted in p = 0.622. Moreover, p > 0.05 indicates that there is a no significant difference. Therefore, no support for hypothesis 3 can be found. This means that Apple does not have a significantly higher value equity than Samsung.
To test hypothesis 4, whether Samsung has a significantly higher value equity than Huawei, the results of the independent T-Test (Appendix, table 9) can be used. Levene’s test showed that p=0.153, as p > 0.05 equal variances can be assumed. The results of the descriptive statistics in table 2 show that Samsung scores higher on value equity than Huawei. However, the T-Test resulted in a p = 0.123. Moreover, p > 0.05 indicates that there is no significant difference. Therefore, no support can be found for hypothesis 4 can be found. This means Samsung does not have a significant higher value equity than Huawei.
4.3. Hypotheses 5 – 8
To test hypotheses 5 to 8 linear regression was used. First the data was checked to determine whether it met the requirements for linear regression. In addition, the data was checked for normality by examining the residuals of the main variables via frequency distribution and P-P plots. Since the histograms were bell shaped and the plots followed the normality line it can be assumed that the data was normally distributed for all variables (Appendix, figure: 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26). Furthermore, the data was checked for homoscedasticity using scatterplots. The plots showed that there was no systematic relationship between the errors and the model predictions, so homoscedasticity could be assumed(Appendix, figure: 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 & 27). Finally, the data was checked to determine if multi-collinearity issues were present. Since the Tolerance was always higher than .2 and VIF (variance inflation factor) was always lower than 5 no multi-collinearity issues were found (Appendix, table 12 - 17). These results showed that the data was indeed fit for linear regression.
4.3.1. Hypothesis 5
To test hypothesis 5, “Higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with brand equity for Apple than for Samsung”, the results of the linear regression tests (Appendix, table 12 & 13) will be used.
The results of the linear regression test for Apple (Appendix, table 12) indicate that the adjusted R2 explains 0.1% (.001) of the variance in the dependent variable extroversion. Furthermore,
when looking at the addition of extroversion to brand equity it was insignificant as shown by Sig. F change P>.05(.306).
The results of the linear regression test for Samsung (Appendix, table 13) indicate that the adjusted R2 explains -2.6% (-.026) of the variance in the dependent variable extroversion. Furthermore, when looking at the addition of extroversion to brand equity it was insignificant as shown by Sig. F change P>.05(.976).
To answer hypothesis 5, the coefficients of Apple’s brand equity and Samsung’s brand equity will be compared. The B (standardized coefficient Beta) of Apple is 0.116, this indicates that an increase of extroversion results in a brand equity increase. This relationship is further supported by T=1.03 with significance P>.05(0.306). The positive T value indicates that brand equity goes up under extroversion compared to a null hypothesis. However, this effect is insignificant. The B (standardized coefficient Beta) of Samsung is -.005, this indicates that an increase of extroversion results in a brand equity reduction. This relationship is further supported by T=-.03 with significance P>.05(.976). The negative T value indicates that brand equity goes down under extroversion compared to a null hypothesis. This effect however is insignificant.
The results of the coefficient analysis of Apple and Samsung indicate that indeed a high
extroversion leads to higher brand equity for Apple than it does for Samsung. However, for both brands the effects of extroversion were insignificant and thus no statistical support was found for hypothesis 5.
4.3.2. Hypothesis 6
To test hypothesis 6, “Higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with brand equity for Samsung than for Huawei”, the results of the linear regression tests (Appendix, table 13 & 14) will be used.
The results of the linear regression test and coefficients of Samsung were discussed in chapter 4.3.1. Hypothesis 5 is reused here.
The results of the linear regression test of Huawei (Appendix, table 14) indicate that the adjusted R2 explains 4.2% (.042) of the variance in the dependent variable extroversion. Furthermore,
when looking at the addition of extroversion to brand equity it was insignificant as shown by Sig. F change P>.05(.204).
To answer hypothesis 6, the coefficients of Samsung’s brand equity and Huawei’s brand equity will be compared.
The B (standardized coefficient Beta) of Huawei is -.314, this indicates that an increase of extroversion results in a brand equity reduction. This relationship is further supported by T=-1.323 with significance P>.05(.204). The negative T value indicates that brand equity goes down under extroversion compared to a null hypothesis. This effect is however insignificant.
The results of the coefficient analysis of Samsung and Huawei indicate that indeed a high extroversion leads to higher brand equity for Samsung than for Huawei. However, for both brands the effects of extroversion were insignificant and thus no statistical support was found for hypothesis 6.
4.3.3. Hypothesis 7
To test hypothesis 7, “Higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with value equity for Apple than for Samsung”, the results of the linear regression tests (Appendix, table 15 & 16) will be used.’
The results of the linear regression test of Apple (Appendix, table 15) indicate that the adjusted R2 explains 7.4% (.074) of the variance in the dependent variable extroversion. Furthermore, when looking at the addition of extroversion to value equity it was significant as shown by Sig. F change P<.05(.009).
The results of the linear regression test of Samsung (Appendix, table 16) indicate that the adjusted R2 explains 3.6% (.036) of the variance in the dependent variable extroversion.
Furthermore, when looking at the addition of extroversion to value equity it was insignificant as shown by Sig. F change P>.05(.122).
To answer hypothesis 7, the coefficients of Apple’s value equity and Samsung’s value equity will be compared. The B (standardized coefficient Beta) of Apple is 0.292, this indicates that an increase of extroversion results in a value equity increase. This relationship is further supported
by T=2.698 with significance P<.05(.009) the positive T value indicates that value equity goes up under extroversion compared to a null hypothesis, this effect is significant.
The B (standardized coefficient Beta) of Samsung is 0.245, this indicates that an increase of extroversion results in a value equity increase. This relationship is further supported by T=1.580 with significance P>.05(.122) the positive T value indicates that value equity goes up under extroversion compared to a null hypothesis, this effect is however insignificant.
The results of the coefficient analysis of Apple and Samsung indicate that indeed a high
extroversion leads to higher value equity for Apple than for Samsung. Moreover, for Apple the effect of extroversion was significant, and the effect was insignificant for Samsung. With the use of this statistical evidence hypothesis 7 was accepted.
4.3.4. Hypothesis 8
To test hypothesis 8, “Higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with value equity for Samsung than for Huawei”, the results of the linear regression tests (Appendix, table 16 &17) will be used.
The results of the linear regression test and coefficients of Samsung were discussed in chapter 4.3.3 Hypothesis 7 is reused here.
The results of the linear regression test of Huawei (Appendix, table 17) indicate that the R2 explains -5.9% (-.059) of the variance in the dependent variable extroversion. Furthermore, when looking at the addition of extroversion to value equity it was insignificant as shown by Sig. F change P>0.05(.829).
To answer hypothesis 8, the coefficients of Samsung’s value equity and Huawei’s value equity will be compared. The B (standardized coefficient Beta) of Huawei is -.055, this indicates that an increase of extroversion results in a value equity reduction. This relationship is further supported by T=-0.220 with significance P>.05(.829) the negative T value indicates that value equity goes down under extroversion compared to a null hypothesis this effect is however insignificant. The results of the coefficient analysis of Samsung and Huawei indicate that indeed a high extroversion leads to higher value equity for Samsung than for Huawei. However, even though
Samsung showed a much more positive relation between extroversion and value equity neither relationship was significant and thus no statistical support was found for hypothesis 8.
5. Discussion
This research examined the effect of extroversion on customer equity of mobile phone brands. The relationship was tested using several hypotheses to answer the research question: “To what
extent does extroversioninfluence the mobile phone market (i.e. Apple, Samsung and Huawei) in
relation to the customer equity mix?”
The results did find support for hypothesis 1, which states that Apple has a significantly higher brand equity than Samsung. This effect was expected based on the literature research that was conducted. This indicated that Apple has a high brand equity. While Samsung also was expected to score high on brand equity its value was expected to be lower since it has a much lower brand value globally.
Moreover, the results did not find support for hypothesis 2, which states that Samsung has a significantly higher brand equity than Huawei. Based on the literature research it was expected that Samsung would have a significantly higher brand equity than Huawei, because Samsung has a much higher brand value globally and they have developed their Samsung ecosystem.
However, the statistical analysis found no support for this prediction. This means that although there is a big difference between Samsung and Huawei in brand value the customers do not value Samsung’s brand equity significantly higher than Huawei.
Furthermore, the results also did not grant support for hypothesis 3 and 4, which stated that (H3) Apple has a significantly higher value equity than Samsung and that (H4) Samsung has a
significantly higher value equity than Huawei. The result to hypothesis 4 could have been predicted since both Samsung and Huawei sell comparable phones for roughly the same price. However, Apple phones are relatively more expensive for their specification but were rated higher on value equity than Samsung and Huawei phones. The price difference between Apple on the one hand and Samsung and Huawei on the other can be explained by their difference in brand equity.
The results of the first four hypotheses indicate that there can be a significant difference between brands and specific aspects of its customer equity mix. In this case Apple scored significantly higher than Samsung and consequently significantly higher than Huawei on brand equity. This
means that people consider Apple to be superior based on brand specific details such as brand awareness, brand memorability and brand ethics.
5.1. Apple vs Samsung: Effects of extroversion
Hypothesis 5 predicted that a higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with brand equity for Apple than it has for Samsung. This prediction was based on literature research, which indicated that Apple has many brand traits that are similar to extrovert traits. Samsung on the other hand has fewer common traits with extroversion and it was therefore expected that no significant relationship between Samsung and extroversion would be found. The statistical analysis indicated that the brand equity of Apple does indeed have a stronger positive
relationship with extroversion than Samsung. Meaning that when extroversion increases brand equity would increase more for Apple than for Samsung. However, the analysis indicated that the relationship of both Apple and Samsung with extroversion were insignificant. This means no statistical support for hypothesis 5.
Furthermore, the results did find support for hypothesis 7, that predicted higher extroversion to have a more significant relationship with value equity for Apple than for Samsung. Meaning that when extroversion increases value equity would increase more for Apple than for Samsung. This result was expected based on the literature research that indicated Apple has common traits with extroversion. While Samsung only had a few common traits. The result of this hypothesis is further supported by the correlations test. This indicated a strong correlation between high extroversion and high value equity. The significance of hypothesis 1 meant that Apple has a significantly higher brand equity than Samsung, this could explain the willingness to pay the higher premium price for Apple products by higher extrovert customers.
Additionally, as mentioned the insignificance of hypothesis 5 was unexpected, especially since hypothesis 1 found support for Apple having a higher brand equity than Samsung. Based on this result it would have been expected that hypothesis 5 would have found support as well, which was not the case. It is therefore suggested to further research the gap between the effect of extroversion on brand- and value equity for Apple.
5.2. Samsung vs Huawei: Effects of extroversion
Moreover, the results of the analysis did not find support for hypothesis 6 and 8, which predicted that (H6) higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with brand equity for Samsung than for Huawei and (H8) higher extroversion has a more significant relationship with value equity for Samsung than for Huawei. The results could have been predicted based on the literature research that was conducted. This indicated that both Samsung and Huawei had few common traits with extroversion. Therefore, it was expected that higher extroversion did not lead to a significantly higher brand- and value equity for both Samsung and Huawei.
5.3. Study critique
The results involving Huawei are based on a small sample as relatively only a few participants owned a Huawei mobile phone. This small sample could have impacted the results compared to what the results would have been if there was a bigger sample size for Huawei. However, this small sample, resulting from the 150 survey participants, is likely to be representative for the market share of Huawei phones in the Netherlands as a whole. Therefore, to prevent a small sample size for Huawei a much larger total number of participants would be needed.
6. Conclusion
This research was aimed to identify the influence of extroversion on the mobile phone customer equity mix.
The literature- and statistical research both indicated that there are differences between each phone brand and how their customer equity mix is rated. This was shown by hypothesis 1 as Apple scores significantly better than both Samsung and Huawei on brand equity.
The correlation test indicated that overall, there was a strong relation between extroversion and value equity. Additionally, the results found support for hypothesis 7, this indicated that Apple has a significantly stronger relationship between extroversion and value equity than both Samsung and Huawei.
The correlation test did however find a weak relationship between extroversion and brand equity. This was further supported by the rejection of hypothesis 5 and 6. This indicates that
extroversion did not have a significant effect on brand equity.
In short to answer the research question extroversion does have a weak and insignificant
influence on brand equity. It does however have a strong and significant relationship with value equity. Moreover, the impact of extroversion varies for each phone brand.
7. References
Ackerman, C. E. (2020, March 5). Big Five Personality Traits: The OCEAN Model Explained. Retrieved from https://positivepsychology.com/big-five-personality-theory/
Apple's Branding Strategy. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.marketingminds.com.au/apple_branding_strategy.html#apple-customer-experience
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44, 1-26.
Counterpoint T. (2020, June 05). Global Smartphone Market Share: By Quarter. Retrieved from https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share/
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
psychologist, 48(1), 26.
Interbrand Apple. (2019). Brand strength Apple. Retrieved from
https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2019/ranking/apple/ Interbrand Huawei. (2019). Brand strength Huawei. Retrieved from
https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2019/ranking/huawei/ Interbrand Samsung. (2019). Brand strength Samsung. Retrieved from
https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2019/ranking/Samsung/
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797
Kenney, M., & Pon, B. (2011). Structuring the smartphone industry: is the mobile internet OS platform the key?. Journal of industry, competition and trade, 11(3), 239-261.
Kermani, Z. Z. (2011). The relationship between the ``Big Five`` personality traits and customer satisfaction: A case study of Melli Bank Kerman, Iran. Journal of Business and Retail
Management Research (JBRMR), 6(1). Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7068/5dbe8fce876cc2b77523e4aeb285baf092a9.pdf?_ga=2.205 532179.1482615003.1584111819-289330918.1584111819
Kohli, H. S., Khandal, S., & Gulla, A. (2020). Smartphone Operating System Preference Based On Different Personality & Lifestyle Traits Of The Consumer. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH , 9(2). Retrieved from
http://www.ijstr.org/final- print/feb2020/Smartphone-Operating-System-Preference-Based-On-Different-Personality-Lifestyle-Traits-Of-The-Consumer.pdf
Koladeajilore, M. S. A. (2016). Smartphone Brand Personality as a Predictor of Brand Value among Undergraduates of Babcock University. Global Journal of Management And Business
Research.
Lebowitz, S. (2016a). The ‘Big 5’ personality traits could predict who will and won’t become a leader. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/big-five-personality-traits-predict-leadership-2016-12
Lemon, K. N., Rust, R. T., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2001). What Drives Customer Equity. Retrieved from Markenlexikon:
http://www.markenlexikon.com/d_texte/customer_equity_drivers_2001.pdf
Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
O'Dea, S. (2020). Number of smartphones sold to end users worldwide from 2007 to 2020. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263437/global-smartphone-sales-to-end-users- since-2007/, retrieved 05 – 03 – 2020.
Porter, J. (2019, August 09). Huawei's new operating system is called HarmonyOS. Retrieved from https://consumer.huawei.com/en/press/media-coverage/2019/huawei-new-operating-system-harmonyos/#:~:text=Huawei has officially announced HarmonyOS,will be known as Hongmeng.
Revelle, W. & Wilt, J. (2013). The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal of research in personality, 47(5), 493-504.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 109–127,
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.109.24030.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 789-801.
doi:10.1177/0146167202289008
Samsung – The Global Asian Brand. (2017, November 21). Retrieved from https://martinroll.com/resources/articles/marketing/samsung-global-asian-brand/
Samsung Electronics Ranks 6th in Interbrand's Best Global Brands 2019. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-ranks-6th-in-interbrands-best-global-brands-2019
Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A 45-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 208-232. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2243 William Xu (2019). From innovation to invention: With the world, for the world. Retrieved from
https://www.huawei.com/en/events/has2019/speech-by-williamxu-at-the-has2019#:~:text=Of%20course%2C%20innovation%20in%20mobile,new%20benchmark%20fo r%20phone%20photography.&text=Huawei%20was%20also%20the%20first,launch%20an%20 AI%2Dpowered%20phone.
8. Appendix 8.1. Tables
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (all data combined)
Table 2. Descriptive statistics Apple
Table 3. Descriptive statistics Samsung
Table 5. Reliability value equity
Table 7. Reliability extroversion
Table 8. T-Test Apple compared to Samsung (value equity)
Table 9. T-Test Samsung compared to Huawei (value equity)
Table 11. T-Test Samsung compared to Huawei (brand equity)
Table 12. Model summary & ANOVA, linear regression & coefficients (Extroversion Apple and brand equity Apple)
Table 13. Model summary & ANOVA, linear regression & coefficients (Extroversion Samsung and brand equity Samsung)
Table 14. Model summary & ANOVA, linear regression & coefficients (Extroversion Huawei and brand equity Huawei)
Table 15. Model summary & ANOVA, linear regression & coefficients (Extroversion Apple and value equity Apple)
Table 16. Model summary & ANOVA, linear regression & coefficients (Extroversion Samsung and value equity Samsung)
Table 17. Model summary & ANOVA, linear regression & coefficients (Extroversion Huawei and value equity Huawei)
8.2. Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Model Hypothesis 1 & 2
Figure 2. Conceptual Model Hypothesis 3 & 4
Figure 4. Conceptual Model Hypothesis 7 & 8
Figure 6. participant brand question
Figure 7. Value equity questions
Figure 9. Correlation (linear regression)
Figure 10, 11 & 12. Normality test, P-P plot & scatterplot (Extroversion Apple and brand equity Apple)
Figure 13, 14 & 15. Normality test, P-P plot & scatterplot (Extroversion Samsung and brand equity Samsung)
Figure 16, 17 & 18. Normality test, P-P plot & scatterplot (Extroversion Huawei and brand equity Huawei)
Figure 19, 20 & 21. Normality test, P-P plot & scatterplot (Extroversion Apple and value equity Apple)
Figure 22, 23 & 24. Normality test, P-P plot & scatterplot (Extroversion Samsung and value equity Samsung)
Figure 25, 26 & 27. Normality test, P-P plot & scatterplot (Extroversion Huawei and value equity Huawei)
