University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business
The relationship between personality
traits and brand loyalty.
An empirical analysis among Greek consumers.
Author: Iliana Tzanaki (10846344) University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc. In Business Administration – Marketing Track Academic Year: 2014-2015
Under the Supervision of: Dr. Antoon Meulemans Second assessor: Dr. J.H.J.P. Tettero
Acknowledgements
This master thesis is submitted as the final requirement of my Masters of Science degree in Business Studies at the Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam.
This master thesis would not have been possible without the support of many people. I would like to acknowledge the advice and guidance of my supervisor Dr. Toon Meulemans, whose constructive feedback and suggestions made possible the exploration and understanding of the constructs of lifestyle branding.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, without whose moral and financial support, the completion of this master thesis and the realization of my aspirations and ambitions would not have been possible.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Iliana Tzanaki who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Contents
Table of Exhibits ... 6
Executive Summary ... 7
1. Introduction ... 8
1.1 Research question... 11
1.2 Structure of the study ... 12
2. Theoretical Framework ... 13
2.1 Traditional and Lifestyle Brands ... 13
2.2 Brand Loyalty ... 17
2.3 Big Five Personality Traits ... 22
2.4 Gender differences ... 27
LOYALTY AND GENDER ... 28
2.5 Hypothesis Development ... 29 2.6 Conceptual Framework. ... 31 3. Research method ... 32 3.1 The Sample ... 32 PRE TESTING ... 34 3.2 The Questionnaire ... 34 TRANSLATION PROCEDURE ... 36 3.3 Measurement of variables ... 36 LIFESTYLE BRANDS... 36 BIG 5PERSONALITY TRAITS ... 37 BRAND LOYALTY ... 39 CONTROL VARIABLES... 39
4. Results & Analysis ... 41
4.1 Factor Analysis ... 41
4.2 Skewness & Kurtosis ... 45
4.3 Reliability ... 46
4.4 Multiple Hierarchical Regressions ... 47
POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON BRAND LOYALTY OF TRADITIONAL BRANDS : ... 47
POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON BRAND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ... 49
MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRAVERSION
AND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ... 51
MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS AND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ... 52
5. Discussion and conclusions ... 54
5.1 Summary of results... 54
5.2 Theoretical and Managerial Implications... 56
5.3 Limitations and Further Research ... 58
5.4 Further Research ... 59 6. REFERENCES ... 60 Appendix ... 65 Questionnaire ... 65 Factor Analysis ... 70 Regressions ... 72
Table of Exhibits
Table 1. Life Style Dimensions (Plummer,1974) ... 14
Table 2: Loyalty Phases (Oliver, 1999) ... 18
Table 3: Model of loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994) ... 19
Table 4: Ten key gendering issues (Alreck, 1994) ... 28
Table 5: Big 5 Personality Traits Items ... 38
Table 6: Loyalty items ... 39
Table 7: Eigenvalues ... 42
Table 8: Pattern Matrix ... 44
Table 9: Skewness and Kurtosis ... 45
Table 10: Means, standard deviations and correlations. ... 47
Table 11: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on Loyalty of Traditional brands. ... 48
Table 12: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on Loyalty of Lifestyle brands. ... 50
Table 13: KMO and Bartlett's Test ... 70
Table 14: Eigenvalues with four components ... 70
Table 15: Skewness and Kurtosis for all items ... 71
Table 16: Regressions for loyalty of traditional brands ... 72
Table 17: ANOVA for loyalty of traditional brands ... 72
Table 18: Coefficients for traditional brands ... 73
Table 19: Regression for lifestyle brands ... 73
Table 20: Anova for lifestyle brands ... 74
Executive Summary
Human personality is an interesting area for marketers attempting to predict consumer behavior. Nowadays, the Big Five is the most common frame to describe personality, which helps marketers categorize consumers into different target groups based on personality traits. Consequently, marketers start to conform their products in order to appeal to the traits of a consumer group and tailor them to increase consumer loyalty. Nevertheless, although research on personality traits and their relation to brand loyalty has been done, research on the connection to loyalty for lifestyle brands is limited. This thesis attempts to cover this gap in literature. The central research question is “Do personality traits influence brand loyalty in the cases of traditional and lifestyle brands?”.
Previous literature supports satisfaction as a main driver in purchase intention and creation of brand loyalty. Furthermore, congruence between consumers’ personality traits and brand’s personality has been shown to increase levels of loyalty. This research is based on both traditional and lifestyle brands and provides feedback for companies on how and under which conditions should consumers’ personality traits be taken into account for long-term relationship creation.
Brand loyalty of lifestyle brands was expected to be higher, when there is congruence between the lifestyle promoted and consumers’ personality traits. Indeed, mean scores between brands differ, with lifestyle brand generating higher levels but not significantly higher. Furthermore, an attempt was made to use gender as moderator of the relationship which did not bare any results. At last, the consciousness personality trait seems to be a predictor of brand loyalty in the case of traditional brands only providing an area of focus for marketers.
1. Introduction
In the era of technology, individualism and fast moving environments people are disconnected with each other and seek for more experiences than physical products. Life is about experience and people always seek for more. Today’s lifestyle brands are trying to deliver bigger, better and more distinct experiences to the consumers. An increasing number and variety of brands in lifestyle flourished, by the time brands realized the impact lifestyle has to consumers’ life.
Polo Ralph Lauren is one of the pioneers of the lifestyle movement, giving us an aspirational representation to work with. Traditional brands are defined as a name, sign, symbol or design or even a combination of them attempting to differentiate their offerings from the competitors according to American Marketing Association Dictionary (AMA). However, lifestyle branding is not only promoting new styles or trends but actually a way of living. In other words, “it is the achievement of the offerings of a brand to form an emotional attachment between the consumer and a specific lifestyle” (Roumeliotis, 2011). Lifestyle brands are symbolic brands with a distinct philosophy, a clearly defined image with a specific set of values, according to my opinion. If marketing is successful, these values are communicated clearly on the consumers’ minds, bringing them closer to the brand. The shift and the promising future of lifestyle brands are moving so fast, that even a recent article at Forbes mentions the freely spending of consumers from emerging markets like Asia and China on them. Consumers from these markets are of high importance since their net wealth is increasing at an accelerated pace, they are emotionally connected to the brands and they are very ambitious (De Marco, 2012). Furthermore, there has been specific research with regards to brands in which brands are treated as if having their own personality. A clear example is the research of Jennifer Aaker and
Susan Fournier (1995) who having realized the magnitude and importance of brands conducted a research studying the brand as a character, partner and person regarding different types of brand personalities. As we expect from our friends to enrich our lives, we have the same expectation from brands.
One of the main reasons that companies develop this sustainable emotional long-term relationship with their consumers is to increase loyalty as well as to benefit financially with premium prices. Especially, popular and favorable lifestyle brands can also benefit from their existing brand name and brand identity. Several studies reveal how brands indicate means of self-expression as consumers' identify themselves through multiple brand identities and personalities (Chernev, Hamilton & Gal, 2011). Another previous research argues that "the brand may serve as an expressive device by the individual, individuals will therefore prefer brands whose image is closest to their own self-images” (Holman, 1980). Moreover, many companies achieved to become lifestyle brands by associating their products with either a culture or a group of people that shares the same beliefs and interests, such as Harley Davidson, which has also succeeded in creating a strong brand community. A few more examples of lifestyle brands from the existing literature include Gap, Laura Ashley, Benetton and Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Martha Stewart (Chernev et al. 2011). Also, surprisingly in the electronic industries Apple has become successfully a lifestyle brand, with some of its customers being in the point of obsession. Remarkable is the fact that some lifestyle brands have entered also in the luxury market Armani, BMW, Louis Vuitton and Rolex. In my opinion an additional interesting way of building lifestyle brands is by promoting the latest trend of self-branding celebrities. Representatively examples are Gwyneth Paltrow’s lifestyle brand Goop and Jessica Alba’s The Honest Company.
However, after all these discussed above, a question arises: Should we embrace lifestyle branding? In order to give an answer to this question there are multiple aspects and consequences that should be taken into account. Brand loyalty is one of them, providing tangible evidence of the success or failure of a brand and the overall relationships between the consumer and the brand.
Nevertheless, which are the factors that influence the creation and development of brand loyalty? Academics suggest that consumers’ personality play a major role in the brand preferences and consequently in the loyalty levels. In this research focus was given to whether personality traits can indeed influence consumers’ loyalty towards lifestyle brands. Loyalty levels were measured also for traditional brands in order to test possible differences. Given the fact that two (extraversion and consciousness) out of the five personality traits (extraversion, consciousness, openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness) are most important for the content of this study, these two traits were used to predict consumers’ levels of brand loyalty. Especially, we could argue that extroverted and conscious people are expected to have higher levels of loyalty. Taken into consideration the extrovert people, lifestyle branding should embrace their outgoing and sociable nature. Moreover, for people characterized by consciousness reliability in the product offerings should be what matters most.
The importance of having up-to-date studies, which can provide some evidence of how lifestyle brands affect consumers’ loyalty, is higher due to the growing trend of lifestyle branding. Consumers' loyalty of lifestyle brands in Greece maybe can fill the gap in literature in sense of lifestyle topic and its focus area. In this research, consumers’ loyalty in both traditional and lifestyle brands was measured, in order to consumers’ levels of loyalty.
The study was made in the Greek market. Despite the fact that the Greek population is not significantly large, the diversity of Greek consumers' is a promising area. Therefore, there is a high possibility of concluding in unique and contributing findings at the end of my study.
1.1 Research question
The aim of this research is to address the above literature gap mentioned, by identifying and quantitatively testing the extraversion and consciousness personality trait’s influence on consumers’ loyalty levels. Put differently, the impact of those two personality traits on consumers’ decision-making (attitudinal) and purchase (behavioral) behaviors. The objectives of this research are: 1) identifying potential differences between traditional and lifestyle brands’ loyalty levels, 2) to determine the extent to which those two personality traits influence consumers’ decisions to form long term relationships with traditional as well as lifestyle brands (consumers’ brand loyalty), and 3) to examine, whether the gender moderates the relationship between these two personality traits and consumers’ loyalty of lifestyle brands.
The research model is being tested empirically with an online survey study among Greek consumers. The purpose of this study will attempt to enlighten the topic of lifestyle brands. Since, the research in this area has been limited to specific objectives, regarding my knowledge and investigation on the topic, findings with respect to consumers' loyalty towards lifestyle brands will provide more insights. Managerial contributions are likely to guide segmentation, targeting and position marketing strategies. Moreover, branding implications will suggest under which conditions lifestyle branding should be adopted and how consumers' personality traits can influence the levels of loyalty towards lifestyle brands.
1.2 Structure of the study
This research is organized in the following way: in chapter 2 the theoretical framework is being presenting as well as the hypotheses proposed and the conceptual framework. Moreover, the method of the data collection, the sample and the questionnaire that was used for the data collection is presented in chapter 3. The data analysis is presenting in chapter 4 and the discussion regarding the meaning of the results as well as implications and limitations of this study can be found in chapter 5. Therefore, the following chapter contains the previous literature upon the conceptual framework was built in order to address the research question.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Traditional and Lifestyle Brands
Recently, lifestyle brands have received a lot of attention. Both academics and marketers realize that lifestyle branding is an effective strategy in the current dynamic marketplace. In order to understand lifestyle brands; what they are, how they are structured and why they are so successful, the key is to understand the relationships between markets, consumers and the differences between human personality traits.
Nowadays, personal style such as clothing is a way for people to position themselves in a society, and communicate their personal background to others. Brands are commonly used for status signalizing in every day circumstances. Susan Fournier (1998) conducted an empirical work for a better understanding of the relationship between the consumers and their brands. This research enlightens the phenomenon of the consumer-brand relationship in a marketing context, suggesting “consumer-brand relationships are more a matter of perceived goal compatibility than congruence between discreet product attributes and personality trait images” (Fournier, 1998). Furthermore, she states that “ thematic connections operate not just across brands within a category, or within role-related product constellations assembled for the expression of social lifestyles, but across the entire collectivity of disparate brands and categories marshaled in pursuit of a full range of goal-related tasks” (Fournier, 1998). People are consuming brands not only for their basic living needs but also in order to give meaning to their lives. Eventually consumers not only choose brands but more important they choose lives. The main contribution of Fournier’s article for the marketers is to understand that in the construction of brand
relationships what matters the most is what consumers gain from the brands in order to add meaning and value in their lives as Susan Fournier (1998) suggests. The term of “lifestyle” originates from the area of psychology. The relation between lifestyle and consumption is strong since throughout their life people consume in a daily basis any kind of products or services communicating their way of living.
Activities
Interests
Opinions
Demographics
Work Family Themselves Age
Hobbies Home Social Issues Education
Social Events Job Politics Income
Vacation Community Business Occupation
Entertainment Recreation Economics Family Size
Membership Fashion Education Dwelling
Community Food Products Geography
Shopping Media Future City size
Sports Achievements Culture Stage in life cycle
Table 1. Life Style Dimensions (Plummer,1974)
According to Plummer lifestyle patterns were defined as a systems concept. “It refers to a distinctive mode of living in its aggregate and broadest sense. It embodies the patterns that develop and emerge from the dynamics of living in a society” (Plummer, 1974). Over the past, various constructs have been developed in order to understand the consumer’s behavior, for example constructs based on
psychographics or demographics. Lifestyle patterns are used to segment consumers providing a combination of the existing constructs mentioned above. A commonly accepted approach to measure lifestyle patterns is the AIO (activities, interests, opinions) rating statements. As Plummer states “the basic premise of life style research is that the more you know and understand about your customers the more effectively you can communicate and market to them’’ (Plummer, 1974). Some of the main benefits of lifestyle segmentation mentioned in his article are a better development of marketing, media strategies, communication and product opportunities.
Lifestyle branding is a topic of scare research and without a clear defined theoretical framework in my opinion. In the existing literature, lifestyle branding is defined as “the tailoring of a retail offer or a portfolio of retail offers closely to the lifestyles of specific market segments” (Chernev et al., 2011). The dimensions of lifestyle brands as mentioned in the introduction are: distinct philosophy, a clearly defined image and a specific set of values. Solomon (1994) suggests in his book that lifestyle products are related to social situations, since people generally are buying and signalizing products associated with a specific lifestyle. According to Solomon “consumers use consumption constellations to define, communicate and perform social roles” (Solomon, 1994, p. 379). In return, the brand is creating more loyal and engaged customers.
People have their own identities, values and beliefs, thus they consume specific branded products as a decision to express themselves though the identity of these brands. Polo Ralf Lauren, Nike, and Apple are currently some of the most common brands related to “lifestyle” notion and the consumers of these brands state that “this brand embodies my lifestyle”. Helman and Chernatony explore in their paper the
development of lifestyle retail brands (LRB). “A lifestyle retail brand (LRB) is a focused retail brand, targeted at a specific market segment defined by lifestyle” (Helman & De Chernatony, 1999). The main contribution of their paper was to provide new insights in retail branding by achieving a better fit between customer’s lifestyle needs and retail brand’s offerings. Helman and Chernatony suggest: “The basic retail proposition is augmented with a set of added values that have symbolic value and meaning for the lifestyles of a specific consumer group” (Helman & De Chernatony, 1999).
In the commercial industry, a study by Solomon and Englis explores “the degree to which consumers’ judgments of the consumption patterns associated with defined lifestyle groups correspond to actual market data” (Englis & Solomon, 1995). Ralph Lauren's advertising campaigns indicate a successful example that achieved to capture the idealized lifestyle of the traditional American world. Despite the fact that only a few participants of the study could actually identify themselves with this suggested way of living, campaign’s images of affluence and sophistication are accepted as real. Clearly, consumers’ product choices are often driven by a desire to identify or even to avoid idealized lifestyles. Thus, creating meaningful social types for the targeted group is one of the key points in lifestyle advertising. A more recent paper by Chernev, et al (2011) is investigating the competition for consumer identity in lifestyle branding. The authors suggest, “consumers’ need for self-expression through brands is finite and can be satiated when consumers are exposed to self-expressive brands” (Chernev et al, 2011). Need satiation is very important on consumer behavior. Moreover, “consumers need for self-expression can be satiated not only by using certain brands but also by other available means of self-expression” (Chernev et al. 2011).
Most of the previous attempts to investigate lifestyle brands have been limited to self-expression theories and approaches used to segment consumers, enlightening our knowledge about their values and beliefs. Nevertheless, not enough research has yet investigated the relationship between lifestyle brands and brand loyalty.
2.2 Brand Loyalty
Considering the rise of relationship marketing and the increasing interest in customer’s loyalty, the brand loyalty concept requires further research. “The shift from the transaction-focused marketing to relationship marketing provides a clear evidence of the passage from traditional brands to lifestyle brands” (Grönroos,
1994). There is a concurrence that loyal consumers are the key for the future of the brands. Having loyal consumers provides better profits, word of mouth and improves the overall image of the brand. Moreover, loyalty offers the basis for competitive advantage, an advantage that can be realized through marketing (Dick and Basu 1994). A research has indicated the causal link between lifestyle brands and consumers loyal behavior in the beer industry. More specifically, Goldberg concluded that “lifestyle has a differential effect on brand loyalty for different consumer segments” Goldberg (1982). Thus, in advertising, lifestyle should be very careful, as it may also cause even negative responses to those who do not support the promoted lifestyle.
One of the oldest and repeatedly used definition of loyalty comes from Jacoby and Kyner, who described loyalty as “a biased behavioral response expressed over time by a decision making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of brands and being a function of psychological processes” (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973). Oliver gives a developed definition by describing loyalty as “a deeply held
commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior” (Oliver, 1999). Oliver’s framework consists of four loyalty phases: cognitive, affective, conative and action loyalty.
Stage Identifying Marker
Cognitive Loyalty to information such as prices, features and so forth.
Affective Loyalty to as liking: “I buy it because I like it”
Conative Loyalty to an intention: “I am committed to buying it”
Action Loyalty to action inertia, coupled with the overcoming of obstacles.
Table 2: Loyalty Phases (Oliver, 1999)
Cognitive loyalty is the first phase and focuses on aspects related to brand performance. Affective loyalty relates to a favorable attitude in consumers mind, cognition and affect contribute to liking the brand. In the third phase, conative loyalty refers to behavioral intention or “a brand-specific commitment to repurchase” (Oliver 1999). However, the true loyalty lies only on the final phase, action loyalty. As obstacles to loyalty, consumer idiosyncrasies and switching incentives are suggested by the author. Moreover, he investigates the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty, proposing that “satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty formation but becomes less significant as loyalty begins to set through other mechanisms’’ (Oliver, 1999), mechanisms such as personal determinism and social
bonding with the brand. For marketers it is very important to achieve both personal determinism (self-isolation) and social bonding (brand communities) in order to achieve the highest level of consumers’ loyalty.
The American Marketing Association extents the existing definition of brand loyalty to “the situation in which a consumer generally buys the same manufacturer- originated product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from multiple suppliers within the category” or “the degree to which a consumer consistently purchases the same brand within a product class” (AMA). Today, brand loyalty is categorized into two major approaches: attitudinal and behavioral both of which have been studied extensively.
Attitudinal loyalty is a systematically favorable expression of preference for the brand (Dick & Basu, 1994). An emotional attachment between the consumers and their brands that creates a commitment to repurchase. The framework suggested in their paper points out social norms and situational factors as moderators of the relationship between attitude and behavior (Dick & Basu, 1994). Dick and Basu’s study identifies search for motivation, resistance to counter-persuasion, and word of mouth as the consequences of loyalty. This type of loyalty represents the long-term impact of loyal consumers to a certain brand.
Repeat Purchase Possibility
High Low
Related Attitude
High True Loyalty Latent Loyalty Low Spurious Loyalty No Loyalty Table 3: Model of loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994)
On the other hand, “behavioral loyalty refers to the consumers tendency to repurchase a brand, where consumers commitment becomes meaningful and profitable for the firm” (Anatolevena Anisimova, 2007). Commonly, behavioral loyalty can be measured by observation of a repeating purchasing behavior. In this paper the author investigates the influence of the corporate brand on attitudinal and behavioral consumer loyalty. According to the findings “corporate values, corporate brand personality and functional consumer benefits are the most critical and consistent predictors of both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty” (Anatolevena Anisimova, 2007). The main contribution of this research was to help marketers develop corporate branding strategies while at the same time build both attitudinal and behavioral consumer loyalty.
At this point, it is important to distinguish loyal purchase behavior from inertia. Repurchasing the same brand may be attributed in two different ways. Either it is a result of brand commitment or inertia of purchase which refers to “a repeated purchasing of the same brand without true motive of this choice’’ (Odin & Valette-Florence, 2001). Regarding consumer-brand identification theories, a fruitful research explores the effects of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty. In general, a lot of theories have been developed in social psychology regarding social identification, suggesting that people identify themselves through certain groups. In an article regarding the cell phone industry, the authors focus on the identification of the consumer and the brand. The study suggests that a “careful management of brand personality helps consumers to develop a favorable image of the company’’ (Kim, Han & Park, 2001). The conceptual framework that authors built consists of the following variables: the attractiveness of the brand personality, the distinctiveness of the brand personality, the self-expressive value of the brand
personality, the positive word of mouth reports of the brand and brand loyalty (Kim et al, 2001).
Positive relationships between distinctiveness, attractiveness and self-expressive value of brand personality are having remarkable effects on consumers’ identification with the brand. Regarding brand loyalty, consumer-brand identification has an indirect effect, contributing in the existing literature. Kim, Han and Park through their study point out how important brand personality is in the consumers’ minds for the generation of brand identification and the long-term benefits of this relationship. Recently, another paper explores the concept of brand experience and provides evidence about its relationship with brand loyalty. The scale of brand experience consists of four dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral, a conclusion reached through six in depth studies. “Brand experience is conceptualized as sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand's design and identity, packaging, communications, and environments” (Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009).
So how does brand experience affect loyalty? There is a direct effect of brand experience on consumer satisfaction and an indirect effect on brand loyalty, through multiple brand personality associations. However, Brakus et al in their study suggest that these effects are only short-term consequences. Specifically, one of the studies from this paper focuses on using brand experience to predict consumer behavior in satisfaction and loyalty. Seems like brand experience can be a strong predictor of actual buying behaviors. The authors suggest “if a brand stimulates the senses, makes the person feel good, and engages the mind and body, a stimulation seeking organism may strive to receive such stimulation again” (Brakus et al, 2009). Despite
the several ways that have been used to explore consumer’s brand loyalty, not enough attention has been given whether consumers’ personality traits have a direct or indirect effect in the formation of loyalty bonds. Oliver (1999) identifies the effect of consumer’s idiosyncrasies on loyalty but did not explore it any further.
2.3 Big Five Personality Traits
Personality traits play a significant role not only on the brand choice but also on the brand loyalty. People, who identify themselves with a certain brand, share the same values and beliefs may be led to greater levels of brand loyalty. In the marketing research, personality traits have been used in order to study a variety of emotional responses such as customers’ satisfaction (Oliver, 1999). The most widely used approach to study the personality traits is The Big Five model. In this research we will focus on two out of five personality traits and the positive or negative effect they have on brand loyalty. Namely the two personality traits tested to predict levels of brand loyalty are extraversion and consciousness. Traditionally, the big five personality traits have been developed to predict behavior. Most of the researches use personality traits to understand and manipulate behaviors regarding health, psychology or social issues.
A recent study investigates the Big Five personality traits and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Especially, using the Big Five personality factors the authors identify numerous consequential relations associated at an individual, interpersonal and social institutional level (Ozer & Benet-Martınez, 2006). At an individual level (happiness, physical and psychological health, spirituality, and identity) extraversion is positively related with happiness and subjective well-being. Regarding the interpersonal level (relationships with peers, family and romantic)
extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness seems to have positive outcomes regarding peer and family relations. Finally, at the social institutional level, interesting outcomes suggest that only extraversion is positively related to occupational choice & performance (social and enterprising interests, satisfaction, commitment), while the other four personality traits have mostly negative outcomes (Ozer & Benet-Martınez, 2006). Through this mechanism the authors identify consequential outcomes related to personality traits and processes. However there is a controversy regarding whether personality stays consistent over time and context.
For a better understanding, the Big Five personality traits offer a taxonomy by which personality can be consistently measured and defined. Norman described the five factors as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Culture (Norman, 1963). However, there have been some concerns about the meaning of these constructs over the past. For the current study, the scheme that will be used is based on the Big Five taxonomy as defined by McCrae and Costa (1987). More specifically, extraversion defines a person who is “sociable, fun-loving, affectionate, friendly, and talkative”. Openness to experience is associated with being “original, imaginative, broad interests and daring”. Agreeableness is associated with being cooperated, forgiving, good natured and generous. Conscientiousness describes a person who “should be dutiful, scrupulous, and perhaps moralistic”. Some more characteristics could be hardworking, ambitiousness and willingness to achieve. Neuroticism is associated with “negative emotionality, the propensity to experience a variety of negative effects, such as anxiety, depression, anger, and embarrassment” (McCrae and Costa, 1987).
As it was mentioned earlier, for the purpose of this study the focus was given on the extraversion and consciousness personality traits. One more previous and well-known study has investigated the relation of the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. There have been used three job performance criteria: job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data for five occupational groups: professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The results indicate that conscientiousness shows consistent relations with all of the three job performance criteria and for all occupational groups. Furthermore, extraversion and openness to experience seems to be valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion across occupations. In general, the study highlights the benefits that may occur using the five-factor model of personality in order to assemble and communicate strong and valid empirical findings.
Particularly in the branding concept, there’s a study which investigates the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards a brand personality (Mulyanegara, Tsarenko & Anderson, 2009). Using also a five-scale measurement of brand personality the authors categorize brand personality as follows: emotive, trusted, sociable, exciting and sincere. Insights are provided whether indeed there is a relationship between consumers’ personalities and brands personalities. Considering the differences between genders, the authors suggest that “male consumers are more self-expressive in their brand preferences compared to female consumers” (Mulyanegara et al, 2009). Consistency between the results of this study and the previous ones support that indeed consumers use brands to express their personality. For consumers who have been characterized by conscientiousness, reliability seems to be what they are looking for so trusted brands are preferable. On the other hand, sociable brands are preferred by extroverts reflecting their outgoing
nature and by consumers characterized by neuroticism trying to reduce their anxiety. In Taiwan a year later, an empirical study explored the relationship between consumer’s personality traits, brand personality and brand loyalty (Lin, 2010). The study used also the Big Five model to measure human personality and the newly established brand personality scale which consist of the following five dimensions: excitement, competence, peacefulness, sincerity and sophistication.
Referring to brand loyalty, both attitudinal and behavioral have been measured, providing some fruitful findings. There is a “significantly positive relationship between extroversion personality trait and excitement brand personality as well as between agreeableness personality trait and excitement brand personality, sincerity brand personality and competence brand personality” (Lin, 2010). Agreeableness and openness of personality traits, competence and sophistication of brand personality dimensions have a significant positive influence on affective (attitudinal) loyalty. In addition, agreeableness and openness human personality traits as well as competence, peacefulness and sophistication brand personality dimensions proved to have significantly positive influence on action (behavioral) loyalty (Lin, 2010). Extraversion and consciousness did not yield significant results in that research. Since action loyalty measures the actual purchasing behavior, this study contributed academically in the existing literature but more important managerially for the marketers.
Another research provides more insights exploring the relationship among two personality traits (extraversion and openness), hedonic value, brand affect and loyalty (Matzler, Bidmon & Grabner-Kräuter, 2006). The findings propose that these two personality traits are positively related to hedonic product value. Moreover, “personality traits directly (openness) and indirectly (extraversion, via hedonic value)
influence brand affect which in turn drives attitudinal and purchase loyalty” (Matzler et al, 2006). Consequently, people characterized by extraversion and openness tend to respond stronger to affective stimulus. The findings of this study are of high importance for marketers who want to create strong and long-term bonds with their consumers.
Taking all the above into consideration it could be argued that differences in consumers’ personality traits are those who make their relationship with the brands as well as their loyalty more or less strong. To sum up, sociable brands are preferred by extroverts and reliable brands by people characterized by consciousness. Given the fact that this research was made for mainly clothing brands, extraversion and consciousness are considered as the most appropriate traits to test for. Especially in clothing, since people use clothes to express themselves and signalize their style or even their psychological condition through their personal style of clothing. Previous empirical evidence supports that there is a relation between personality traits and loyalty for the traditional brands, indirectly via brand affect (Matzler et al, 2006). Consequently, what might happen when we move from traditional brands to lifestyle brands?
The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence that lifestyle branding can improve brand loyalty taking into account the different types of human personality traits. This leads to the following question: What is the relationship between extraversion and consciousness personality traits and brand loyalty of lifestyle brands?
2.4 Gender differences
Gender as a definition can include a variety of things like stereotypes, differences in abilities and decision-making, and the list goes on. Costa describes genders as “the way members of the two sexes are perceived, evaluated and expected to behave” (Costa, 1994, p. 5). Biological theory argues that differences depend on biological factors and social psychological suggest that gender differences depend on gender roles. In general, gender roles depend on many factors since people are being
affected a lot by their culture.
Greece is a county where the gender roles are well defined and we could argue that women are highly involved in household shopping, as well as shopping for their children and husband. Therefore a lot of attention has been given to female Greek consumers since their involvement is significantly higher than men. In fact, a lot of products can be associated with a specific sex (Costa, 1994). “Gendering a product or brand simply means imbuing it with a masculine or a feminine image and identity” Alreck, (1994). According to Alreck (1994) there are ten key issues that companies should consider when examining the market potential of a gendered product.
1. Basic Gender Attributes Masculine strength, feminine gentleness.
2. Basic Gender Concerns Feminine attachment, masculine freedom.
3. Sex Role Requirements Acting like a lady for women, being strong for men.
4. Sex Role Prohibitions Are only important if the target market is likely to adhere closely to traditional sex roles.
5. Negative Reactions When a gendered product avoids the sex roles prohibitions of the traditional adherences.
they have feminine identity.
7. The Age Threshold The order the buyers, the more likely they are to ascribe to traditional roles.
8. Social Class Effects The social class of the consumers has strong effect on sex role adherence and acceptance of gendered brands.
9. Subtle Gender Symbols Contradictions between the phrases and words that a gender product should avoid.
10. Gender Credibility Whether a brand has the ability to convince the consumer that the re is feminine or masculine identity about the brand.
Table 4: Ten key gendering issues (Alreck, 1994)
LOYALTY AND GENDER
Especially in marketing, high focus is given on these two segments, men and women. During the last years there have been not a lot of research regarding gender differences in brand loyalty. Ndubisi (2006) in his study investigates the role of gender in the relationship between four marketing underpinnings and customer loyalty for the banking services in Malaysia. The four underpinnings of relationship marketing are: “trust, commitment, communication and conflict handling” Ndubisi (2006). The findings showed that all of the four underpinnings of relationship marketing indeed do contribute significantly to customer loyalty. Trust, commitment, communication and conflict handling together, predict 29% of the variance in customer loyalty. “Significant gender difference exists in the trust-loyalty relationship”, according to Ndubisi (2006). One of the most important findings of this research was that women are more loyal then men for higher levels of trust towards the bank. Gender moderates the relationship between trust and customer loyalty,
while there is no supporting evidence that gender moderates the relationship between the rest three underpinnings and customer loyalty.
Another previous research focused on gender differences, tried to explore whether women are more loyal customers than men. More specifically, the authors based their research on differences in self-construal (Melnyk, Osselaer & Bijmolt, 2009). Specifically they argue that “the difference between genders’ self-construal is not in terms of dependent versus interdependent”, like previous research has shown (Melnyk et all, 2009). However, the difference between the self-construal of genders is in terms of relational versus collective interdependence. The authors suggest: “female consumers tend to develop and maintain loyalty to individuals, whereas male consumers tend to be more loyal to groups” (Melnyk et all, 2009). Consequently, women are more loyal to individual service providers while men are more loyal to companies. However, due to changes in our society, the traditional gender stereotypes have changed the past years and new gender roles have emerged. As Alreck states, “from these changes new consumers have surfaced and it is vital for companies to understand the new consumers so that advertising and brands are adjusted to appeal to the modern consumer” (Alreck, 1994).
2.5 Hypothesis Development
This study was designed to test the relationship between extraversion and consciousness personality traits and brand loyalty, regarding both traditional and lifestyle brands. A brand can be perceived as a lifestyle if is attractive and at the same time helps the consumer to express himself. Thus, the more clear and distinct a lifestyle brand philosophy and consequently personality is, the more consumers can find themselves identified with the brand. However, a lifestyle has different
effects considering different consumer segments Goldberg (1982). Nevertheless, congruence between a human personality trait and a brand personality is not enough to achieve brand loyalty. Considering the variability of consumers’ idiosyncrasies, the relationship between extraversion and consciousness personality trait and brand loyalty maybe be weaker or stronger for both type of brands (traditional & lifestyle). In terms of brand loyalty Matzler, et al said “personality traits directly and indirectly influence brand affect which in turn drives attitudinal and purchase loyalty” (Matzler et al, 2006). Taking into consideration the review of the literature, further empirical research needs to be done in this topic. Therefore, the hypotheses of this study can be developed as follows:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and loyalty of traditional brands.
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality trait and loyalty of traditional brands.
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands.
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands.
Nevertheless, gender differences play also important role on the formation of either short term or long-term relationships between the consumer and the brand. Previous research has shown that gender plays an important role in the relationship between trust and loyalty (Ndubisi, 2006). But what is the role of gender on the relationship between personality traits and brand loyalty? The statements that arise based on gender differences could be summed up as follows:
Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for male than for female consumers.
Hypothesis 6: The positive relationship between consciousness personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for male than for female consumers.
2.6 Conceptual Framework. Extraversion Brand Loyalty Gender H1,3 H2,4 H6 H5 Consciousness
3. Research method
So as to test the six hypotheses mentioned above, a positivism research philosophy was adopted. The use of a questionnaire was considered as the most appropriate decision for the purpose of this study. The main advantage of this method is its ability to gather a large amount of data. Nevertheless, one of the main disadvantages of this method is the lack of answer flexibility, which may drive forced answers. In the last chapter this disadvantage will be discussed on the limitation section. The sample, the questionnaire that was developed and the measurement of the variables are presented below.
3.1 The Sample
A non-probability, convenience sampling technique was used to select participants. This technique could be susceptible to biased selection, although, this choice was made for practical constraints. The sample of the study was drawn from the area of Athens, Greece. The age range of the participants varies among 20-35 years. The sample consists of 147 Greek consumers, 50% males and females in order to maximize the validity of the results. Specifically, from the 147 participants, 74 were males and 73 females. Moreover, the sample comprises a broad range of educational backgrounds of the respondents. Specifically, there was diversity among the different levels of educational background within the respondents. Most of them (N=91) hold a university degree, while there is a significant number of participants (N=42) that hold a master degree. Only few participants have completed high school (N=5) and IEK (technical school in Greece) (N=9) concluding that most of the participants were highly educated.
The objective of this research was to test the effect of consumers’ extraversion and consciousness personality trait on their loyalty towards traditional and lifestyle brands. Consequently, by recruiting respondents aged from 20 to 35, it was ensured that all the participants were familiar especially with the concept of lifestyle brands and were consumers of these clothing brands. Almost half of the sample (N=75) was between 20-25 years old, with the rest (N=54), aged between 25-30. Only a few were above 30 years old, suggesting that the sample was a good representative of the youth Greek consumers. In this way, the representativeness of the sample was guaranteed. Greece’s geographical location makes it a very interesting case study. Greek has a mix market, which consists of a variety of consumers with diverse levels of perceptions and behaviors. In general, Greeks are highly affected by remarks made from friends and relatives (Barbonis & Laspita, 2005). Historically they are characterized by high levels of fashion consciousness and style. Therefore, the new fashion and lifestyle trends are being adopted quickly in such a market. This factor makes the research even more interesting within the Greek market as fruitful results are expected regarding lifestyle brands.
According to a previous research, Greeks prefer and purchase imported high fashion apparel over local designers. “Better aesthetics, better lines and better quality compared to the domestic ones is the cause of this phenomenon” (Kamenidou, Mylonakis & Nikolouli, 2007). The large number of appeal, fashion and lifestyle brands available in the Greek market gives many options to the consumers. As a consequence, higher signals of loyalty towards lifestyle brands are expected regarding Greeks’ consumer behavior.
PRE TESTING
A pre testing, before the final distribution of the questionnaire, was conducted for two main reasons. The first reason was to ensure the validity of the questions in order to avoid any misunderstanding in answering them. After the completion of the questionnaire respondents were asked two additional questions. At first, they were asked to name five traditional and five lifestyle brands of their own choice. Later, the participants were asked to justify their selection of these brands by shortly explaining what does lifestyle means to them regarding the choice they made and consequently give their own dimensions to the concept of lifestyle brands. Using these two additional questions the validity of the appropriate selection of both traditional and lifestyle brands used in questionnaire was ensured and the second reason of the pre testing was achieved.
3.2 The Questionnaire
To answer the research question of the current paper quantitative method was employed. An online survey was designed for the measurement of the variables presented in the conceptual framework. The data was collected with an online questionnaire, which was sent to the participant’s email address. Originally the form of the questionnaire was in English but it was translated to Greek in order to avoid misconceptions since the sample consist of Greek respondents. The meaning and the structure of the questions were clearly and carefully constructed. The purpose was to provide an easy method for the respondent while answering and at the same time to avoid forced responses. Divided into three sections the questionnaire at first collected respondents’ demographics. Specifically, age, gender and educational background were asked. Subsequently, the second section consisted of 30 questions regarding personality traits in a five-point scale (1 being “strongly
disagree”, 5 being “strongly agree”). The Big Five personality trait is the most commonly used model of personality in psychology and its validity has been proven in the past. The third and last section of the questionnaire form measured the levels of participants’ loyalty towards suggested brands.
For maximizing the theoretical and managerial contribution of this study, loyalty was measured towards both non-lifestyle (traditional) and lifestyle brands. Specifically, the aim of this research was to provide empirical evidence whether lifestyle brands are able to achieve higher levels of loyalty. Participants after choosing one of the suggested non-lifestyle (traditional) brands were asked to answer four additional questions regarding their loyalty towards them in a seven-point scale (1 being “strongly disagree”, 7 being “strongly agree”). Afterwards, the same procedure was followed by choosing a suggested lifestyle brand. As mentioned above a pre-test was made to ensure the appropriateness of the selection of the two types of brands used in the questionnaire.
The results of the pre-test were consistent with the dimensions of the lifestyle brands that have been developed in the previous sections (chapter 1 and 2). As lifestyle the participants have chosen the brands with a distinct philosophy and values that are promoting a certain lifestyle. Participants who consume lifestyle brands not only become loyal towards them but also share the same values and follow the promoted lifestyle those brands promote in all the aspects of their life. Therefore, lifestyle brands were expected to have higher levels of brand loyalty than the traditional brands.
TRANSLATION PROCEDURE
Since the sample of this research was drawn from the area of Athens a translation of the original questionnaire from English to Greek was needed. The originality of the measurements that were used was in English; therefore the English version was developed first. Two Greek native speakers, graduates of English Philology translated the questionnaire from English to Greek, ensuring that the questionnaire is well structured and understood.
3.3 Measurement of variables
Existing measurement scales developed by previous research and taken from the literature were used to test the hypotheses, maximizing the validity of the constructs.
LIFESTYLE BRANDS
The aim of this research was to measure consumers’ loyalty of traditional as well as lifestyle brands. Therefore, both traditional and lifestyle brands that was chosen are referring to the same industry, clothing. The reason that those 10 (traditional + lifestyle) brands have been chosen, as mentioned above was due to the pre-test. Especially, regarding the lifestyle brands, it should be clear that each one of them represented a different lifestyle. In chapter 2, dimensions for a lifestyle brand have been given (symbolic brand with a distinct philosophy, clearly defined image, specific set of values). Tommy Hilfiger, Gap, Levi’s, Benneton, Polo Ralf Lauren were chosen regarding lifestyle brands and Zara, H&M, Topshop, Oxford Company, Esprit regarding traditional. The traditional brands are big corporations except Oxford Company, which is a famous Greek brand. Zara, Topshop, etc. are representing the mass clothing production with medium price and quality. However, those lifestyle brands represent a medium price with high quality. The price range is relatively the
same between the two types of brands (traditional and lifestyle) in order to have equality in the questionnaire and to avoid any biased answers. Tommy Hilfiger and Polo Ralf Lauren are two of the most widely spread clothing brands in Greece for a casual and chic style. Benneton, Gap and Levi’s are more sportive and casual brands, being supported by youth and younger ages in general. At last, most of the brands used in the questionnaire (Gap and Benneton for instance) are based on previous literature (Helman and De Chernatony, 1999).
BIG 5 PERSONALITY TRAITS
This study used the Big Five personality model to measure respondents’ personality traits as proposed by Costa and McCrae (1987,1992). Participants were asked to answer 30 questions regarding their beliefs, values and psychological state developed by an online test (Loner Wolf, 2014) (1 being “strongly disagree”, 5 being “strongly agree”), originally developed by McCrae&Costa (1992). The decision of using this online test was made for minimizing the length of the questionnaire. Several additional tests are available online as well as on the literature but the majority consists of 50 question, length that was considered too long for the structure of this questionnaire. The aim was to avoid effects that could influence participants’ answers and consequently the validity of the results, since the vast majority would be unpleased to spend more than 10-15 minutes in the procedure. An example item was “I believe that others have good intentions”. Table 5 is presenting the total items of the Big five personality traits. The 12 items used for the regression analysis for the measurement of extraversion and consciousness are highlighted.
Big 5 Personality Traits
⎯ I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities.
⎯ I love to help others.
⎯ I’m very self-disciplined.
⎯ I complete tasks successfully.
⎯ I often feel blue.
⎯ I have a vivid imagination.
⎯ I go on a lot of binges.
⎯ I prefer variety to routine.
⎯ I love large parties.
⎯ I panic easily.
⎯ I like to tidy up.
⎯ I often lack energy and have difficulty initiating activities.
⎯ I forgive people easily.
⎯ I worry about things.
⎯ I love to read challenging material.
⎯ I enjoy challenging authority.
⎯ I am always prepared.
⎯ I believe in the importance of art.
⎯ I radiate joy.
⎯ I long to explore the world and travel.
⎯ I trust others.
⎯ I’m usually very thoughtful with others.
⎯ I make friends easily.
⎯ I take my time and am cautious when making decisions.
⎯ I like to take charge.
⎯ I live a fast-paced, busy life.
⎯ I keep my promises.
⎯ I believe that others have good intentions.
⎯ I’m modest and don’t like taking credit for my work.
⎯ I get angry easily.
Adapted from an
online personality traits
test (Loner Wolf, 2014)
Original developed by McCrae & Costa (1992).
BRAND LOYALTY
In the literature two groups measuring brand loyalty have been developed: attitudinal and behavioral measures, since the aim was to measure consumers’ preferences for traditional and lifestyle brands (attitudinal loyalty) as well as consumers’ purchasing behavior (behavioral loyalty). Therefore brand loyalty was measured with four questions on a seven-point scale based on a method modified by Kim (1998), which according to her was originally developed simultaneously by Aaker (1996) and Ratchford (1987) (1 being “strongly disagree”, 7 being “strongly agree”) (Kim et al, 2001). An example item is “I would buy additional products and service of this
brand”.
Brand Loyalty
⎯ I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand
⎯ I will use this brand in spite of competitors’deals
⎯ I would buy additional products and service in this brand
⎯ I prefer the brand to others
Adapted from Kim et al (2001)
Table 6: Loyalty items
CONTROL VARIABLES
The first three questions of the questionnaire asked participants to indicate their gender, age and educational level. Since the gender variable was used as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and consciousness personality trait and brand loyalty, the sample was controlled for the age and education variables. Recapitulating, the questionnaire consisted of 43 questions in total. In the
beginning, there were 3 questions regarding participants’ demographics. Additionally, the questionnaire contained 30 rating questions ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree) about big 5 personality traits and 10 rating questions ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) about loyalty. A detailed overview of the questionnaire can be seen in the appendix.
4. Results & Analysis
In the first steps, the frequencies of the variables were tested, crosschecking if there were any missing values or coding errors. Three questionnaires were totally empty and were excluded from the data set and after that, there were no missing values. After conducting the missing values analysis, excluding the three empty questionnaires, the sample was 147, three participants less than the original sample (N=150). Moreover, the data file tested whether there are counter indicative items. No counter indicative items were spotted, therefore no item was recorded.
4.1 Factor Analysis
The next step was to examine the factorability of the 12 items regarding the two independent variables (6 items for extraversion and six items for consciousness). Firstly, the correlations among the 12 items were tested, with 4 of the 12 items correlated at least .3 sphericity (2 (66) = 193.412, p < .05) (Table 13: KMO and Bartlett's Test). Secondly, all the diagonals of the anti-image rest around .2. Moreover, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .67, which is above the sufficient value of .6. Significant was the Bartlett’s test of correlation matrix were over .5, which supports the inclusion of the items in the factor analysis. Lastly, all the communalities were above .30 except one item “I keep my promises”. Overall, after all these indicators the factor analysis was conducted with the original 12 items. At first, a principle components analysis was used since the aim was to reduce the large set of variables into a smaller (called principle components).
Eigenvalues
The first factor explained 19% of the variance, the second factor 14% of the variance and the third explained 10% of the variance, as the initial eigenvalues showed. The
fourth factor had eigenvalue just above one, explained 9% of the variance. Together, the four factors explained 53.643 of the variance. Three and two factor solutions examined by using oblimin rotations and varimax option, with the two-factor solution being preferred. There was not significant difference between oblimin rotations and the varimax. Therefore, before deciding an oblimin rotation for the final solution, both of them were examined. Consequently, a principle components analysis of the 12 items was conducted, using oblimin rotation, with the two factors together explaining 33% of the variance.
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total 1 2.369 19.740 19.740 2.369 19.740 19.740 2.289 2 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.808 3 1.280 10.663 44.514 4 1.096 9.129 53.643 5 .959 7.996 61.639 6 .869 7.242 68.881 7 .768 6.403 75.285 8 .673 5.607 80.892 9 .652 5.435 86.327 10 .626 5.213 91.539 11 .535 4.461 96.001 12 .480 3.999 100.000 Table 7: Eigenvalues Oblimin Rotation
The oblimin rotation method was the best defined structure for factor analysis. During several steps, two items (“I keep my promises”, “I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities”) did not meet the criteria of having a factor loading .04 or above, which after the factor analysis did not excluded. The decision of not excluded
these two items was made for reliability reasons, which will be discussed later in the reliability analysis. Therefore, all the six items was kept for the measurement of the two personality traits. In the pattern matrix below all of the items with their loadings are presented.
Pattern Matrix
In the first component, three items are loading high, above .5. The item “I am always prepared” item is loading above .5, specifically .592 and the item “I am very self-disciplined”, item with the highest loading (.65). These two items are referring to the consciousness personality trait, with the third item loading high in the first component referring to the extraversion personality trait. This item is the “I like to take charge” and is loading with .50. In the second component two are the items that load highest for the extraversion personality trait. The item “I radiate joy” is loading with .65 and the item “I make friends easily” is loading with .79, almost .80, indicating that this item is of high importance. The reason of this correspondence between those two personality traits, extraversion and consciousness could be explained based on previous literature and theory. Concluding, two out of six items are highly important for the consciousness personality trait and three out of six items are highly important for the extraversion personality trait. Therefore, those items are the most important questions that we should take into account in order to determine how extraverted and conscious the participant is. The factor loading matrix (or pattern matrix) is presented in Table 5.
Component
1 2
I’m very self-disciplined .652
I am always prepared. .592
I like to take charge. .502
I like to tidy up. .491
I complete tasks successfully.
.483
I live a fast-paced, busy life.
.459
I take my time and am cautious when making decisions.
.457
I keep my promises. .385
I make friends easily. .798
I radiate joy. .651
I love large parties. .487
I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities.
.357
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Table 8: Pattern Matrix
