Finding the right match : the influence of congruity between brand personality and product type on willingnessto pay

FINDING THE RIGHT MATCH:

THE INFLUENCE OF CONGRUITY BETWEEN BRAND

PERSONALITY AND PRODUCT TYPE ON

WILLINGNESS TO PAY

Name: Aryana Mohammad Student number: 10667490

Date: 24th of August - Final version

Study: MSc Business Administration - Marketing

Institution: Amsterdam Business School - University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Drs. Ing. A. Meulemans

2

Abstract

Brand personality has been identified to be an important marketing tool as it accounts for numerous benefits. However, the overall combination of product attributes and marketing factors may decrease the positive influence of brand personality, as congruity between these factors is assumed to have an effect on consumers’ attitudes towards the brand. In this research, the effect of congruity between brand personality and product type on willingness to pay is examined. Four dimensions (i.e. competence, sincerity, excitement, sophistication) from the Brand Personality Framework of Aaker (1997) were used in combination with one functional and one symbolic products. The real-life online auction platform Veylinx was used to perform the experiment; 476 members of the Veylinx panel have participated in the auction. Significant results supported that consumers would be willing to pay more for functional products when these products are paired with competent and sincere brand personalities compared to a combination with exciting and sophisticated brand personalizes. The proposition that symbolic products would elicit a higher willingness to pay when paired with exciting and sophisticated brand personalities, compared to the combination with competent and sincere personalities was not reinforced. Additional research concerning these factors is greatly recommended.

Keywords: brand personality, product type, symbolic products, functional products, congruity,

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.2.1 Construct of Brand Personality ... 10

2.2.2 Consequences of Brand Personality ... 111

2.2.3 Willingness to Pay ... 12

2.3 The role of Congruity ... 12

2.3.1 Congruity theory ... 13 2.3.2 Effects of Congruity ... 15 2.4 Product Type ... 16 2.4.1 Functional products ... 17 2.4.2 Symbolic products ... 19 3. METHODOLOGY ... 22 3.1 Research design ... 22 3.2 Pre-test ... 23 3.2.1. Product type ... 233 3.2.2. Brand personality ... 24 3.3 Respondents ... 236 3.4 Measures ... 236 4. RESULTS ... 277 4.1 Manipulation check ... 238 4.2 Hypotheses testing ... 29 5. DISCUSSION ... 311

6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 366

7. CONCLUSION ... 388

REFERENCES ... 39

APPENDIX 1 ... 466

4

1. INTRODUCTION

Would you date someone without a personality? Would you begin a friendship with someone that boring? Having a personality matters for people, but it does also for brands. Being a glamorous, sincere or even a provocative brand will most possibly be superior to being a Plain Jane. A long time ago, functional attributes of a product were the main differentials between market players (Hoeffler & Keller, 2003). However, times have changed and continuing imitation and standardization of goods have made competing on these features only nearly impossible (Hoeffler & Keller, 2003). Consumers need brands that are distinguishing, and without a significant personality brands will be easily overlooked in today’s crowded market place (Freling & Forbes, 2005).

Scholars have identified numerous benefits that are connected to having a strong and positive brand personality (Sirgy, 1982; Keller, 1993; Biel, 1993; Fournier, 1998; Aaker, 1997; Freling & Forbes, 2005; Ang & Lim, 2006). For instance, brand personality is proposed to be positively related to brand loyalty and trust (Fournier, 1998). Also, brand personality may offer a greater sustainable advantage due to the fact that it is enduring and more difficult to imitate than product attributes (Ang & Lim, 2006). Because of these significant contributions to the marketing effort, it has become customary to consider brand personality as a practical and essential strategic tool in both marketing and branding (Freling, Crosno, & Henard, 2011).

Besides a strong brand personality, there are other factors that play a role in the market performance of a product or a brand. One of these factors is congruity, which represents a perceived match between different features or attributes, whereas a mismatch between the attributes accounts for incongruity (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). As it might be an important determinant of product’s success in the market (Kum, Bergkvist, Lee, & Leong,

5

2012), many concepts of congruity have been researched over the years. These concepts represent brand and product features (Sirgy; 1982; Malhotra, 1988), brand extensions (Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991), brand’s spokesperson (Kamins & Gupta, 1994), and product packaging and advertisements (Dahlén, Lange, Sjödin & Törn, 2005; Van Rompay, Pruyn, & Tieke, 2009). However, in the scope of congruity research little attention has been given to the relationship between brand personality and product type. In addition, question has been raised on the value of the various brand personalities in relation to product categories (Keller & Lehmann, 2006).

In the world of consumer products, a brand can represent two types of product categories, namely functional and symbolic (e.g. Woods, 1960; Kempf, 1999; Kum et al., 2012). Next to their practical use, products are also consumed for their symbolic meaning, which provides pleasure and allows people to create a desirable self-image and express themselves to their surroundings (Swaminathan, Stilley, & Ahluwalia, 2009; Chang & Yen, 2013). Since both product types are consumed for different reasons, it has been assumed that they will also differ in their personalities. For instance, Ang and Lim (2006) have investigated the influence of metaphors and product types on consumer attitudes and brand personality perceptions. They found that consumers perceive symbolic products to be more exciting and sophisticated than utilitarian products (Ang & Lim, 2006). In addition, these symbolic products were thought of as less sincere and competent compared to the utilitarian products (Ang & Lim, 2006). Subsequently, another study conducted by Kum et al. (2012) suggests that each of the brand personality dimensions tends to be more or less appropriate for each of the different product types.

The purpose of this study is to investigate what combination of these two factors will generate the strongest positive consumer response. It was decided to focus this research on

6

four out of the five Aaker’s (1997) brand personality dimensions, namely sincerity, competence, excitement, and sophistication. The goal of this study can be summarized in the following research question:

To what extent does congruity between brand personalities dimensions and product type has an effect on consumers’ willingness to pay?

This research strives to present both academic and managerial contributions. Because of the relevance for marketing and branding fields, and the limited remained research, this study aims to contribute to the existing academic literature by examining the effect of a perceived match or mismatch between the two factors. In terms of managerial contribution, this study aims to provide marketing and brand managers with guidelines on how to create the most beneficial combination. Knowing the right match should help avoiding incongruity between these factors which may have a negative effect on consumer responses. Hence, the results of this research may provide directions for a fruitful implementation or extension of a marketing or branding strategy.

7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Brands

There was a time when brands were merely identifiers for the products they represented, carrying no particular value (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). A few decades ago, however, this way of viewing brands has changed when marketers started to realize their importance as the firm’s intangible assets (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Whereas firms initially wanted to simply sell products to consumers, with brands they were “actually purchasing positions in the minds of potential consumers” (Kapferer, 2008, p.4). In the present day, branding has become a management imperative of critical importance, which is used to guide various benefits produced by brands (Keller & Lehmann, 2006).

Next to their worth as financial assets, brands are also able to create various advantages that are usually referred to as brand equity. Brand equity can be defined as the value that is added to a product or a service through associations with the brand name (Aaker & Biel, 1993). Brands are able to create such value in many different ways. For example, a particular brand is able to create a whole customer experience through the meaning it carries (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Also, since a brand is able to serve as a shortcut for the product it represents, it goes along with simplifying customers’ decision making, reducing risk, and predicting a certain quality level (Keller, 2013, p. 30). In addition, it is widely acknowledged that the power of the brand reaches further than that of a product, as “it can have dimensions that differentiate it in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same need” (Keller, 2013, p. 31). There are many factors that are accountable for building strong brand equity such as brand awareness, and brand image (Keller, 2013, p.73). Another important

8

building block of brand equity is brand personality, the concept of which will be discussed in the following chapter.

2.2 Brand Personality

The fact that brand personality can play a decisive role in forming consumers’ attitudes and behavior has been known by advertisers and brand managers for some time now (Biel, 1993). During past decades, a paradigm shift in both marketing thought and practice has taken place, which has replaced short-term exchange notions with more long-term relationships between consumers and brands (Fournier, 1998). Due to this shifted emphasis towards customer equity, the concept of brand personality has received a great deal of attention in academic literature (e.g. Biel, 1993; Batra, Lehmann, & Singh, 1993; Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998; Freling & Forbes, 2005; Sung & Kim, 2010, Freling et al., 2011).

Humans can connect to, and start a relationship with not only other humans, but also things, including brands (Plummer, 1985). This remarkable practice can be explained by theories of animism, which suggest a universal human need to anthropomorphize inanimate objects (Fournier, 1998). Consistently assigning qualities to objects and referring to them as persons, enables the process of humanization through which people can interact with the nonmaterial world (Fournier, 1998). During the previously mentioned marketing shift, companies were able to attract this human need of building relationships towards themselves and their brands (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003). Consequently, brands have transformed into meaningful partners with personalities just as other members of the society, what enabled brands to play a more central role in life of consumers (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003).

By defining the subject, various scholars have created an extensive view of the concept of brand personality. According to Plummer (1985), for instance, brand personality is

9

a useful strategic concept as it plays an important role in the ‘for me’ choice during which consumer determines the suitability of a brand. Batra et al. (1993) suggested a direct link with people by stating that brand personality is a way of viewing the brand on dimensions that capture human personality. Fournier (1998) defined brand personality as a set of trait inferences based on repeated behaviors conducted by the brand, proposing with this possibilities for relationships between consumers and brands. Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) went one step further by stating that people view brands in the same manner as they view their friends; they must simply like them next to the various characteristics.

Freling and Forbes (2005), and Freling et al., (2011) showed a different view on the subject by describing brand personality as a non-physical piece of product knowledge and particular brand associations that consumers use in their decision making process. According to these scholars, brand personality concerns one type of brand associations held in consumer memory, which is activated when a need for a particular product arises, and may be used during the decision making process.

Contrary, Ang and Lim (2006) renewed the emotional perspective and suggested that brand personality can grow over time just like human personality. In line with this and previous reasoning, Arora and Stoner (2009) assumed that brand personalities, carrying symbolic meaning just like human personalities, include emotional and attentional elements that increase the likelihood of connecting brands with consumers. Also, according to Sung and Kim (2010), brand personality represents symbolic meaning that brand acquires through human characteristics. In their study, Kum et al. (2012) underline that brand personality is a widely used and important marketing construct.

10

Out of all of the proposed brand personality definitions and measures, the one that is most widely recognized and used belongs to Jennifer Aaker (1997). Describing brand personality as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (p. 347), Aaker (1997) has developed the Brand Personality Scale (BPS), a framework to measure the nature of brand personality. Grounded at the psychological classification of the human personality, the framework contains five key dimensions, namely sincerity, excitement, competence,

sophistication, and ruggedness. Sincere personalities represent brands that are down-to-earth,

honest, and real, whereas an exciting personality is seen as daring, trendy, and cool (Aaker, 1997). Competent brands embody traits such as reliability and successfulness, while class, charm, and glamour characterize sophisticated brands (Aaker, 1997). Rugged personality, in its turn, is seen as tough and masculine (Aaker, 1997). Some authors have criticized the scale by proposing its cultural non-replicability, and the fact that its definition embraces more concepts beyond brand personality (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009). Nonetheless, the scale presently stands as the dominant brand personality measure in the marketing literature as it has been validated, and refined in different cultural context by additional research (Aaker, Benet-Martinéz, & Garolera, 2001; Freling et al., 2011).

2.2.1 Construct of Brand Personality

As a product of consumer’s perception, it is proposed that brand personality traits can be formed and influenced by any direct or indirect contact between the consumer and the brand (Aaker, 1997). Direct sources of brand personality are the people that are associated with a brand such as the CEO, an endorser, or the typical brand user (Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998; Maehle & Supphellen, 2011). In addition, brand personalities can be created over time by the brand’s entire marketing mix, which can be seen as particular ‘behavioral incidents’ (Fournier, 1998). As brands cannot think and act themselves, it can be stated that the symbolism and

11

meaning are not inherent in brand personalities as it is with human personalities, but are rather added through intentional and unintentional communication with consumers (Maehle & Supphellen, 2011).

Taking another perspective in consideration, various authors have identified brand personality as a major component of brand identity, and consequently of brand image (Batra et al., 1993; Kapferer, 2008; Geuens et al., 2009; Louis & Lombart, 2010). Brand identity embodies brand’s meaning as it is presented by the firm to its target group, and concerns all elements that form the existence of a brand (Louis & Lombart, 2010). Whereas brand identity is the message of the sender, brand image is the reception concept formed on the side of the consumer. Brand image is the consumer's perception and interpretation of brand’s identity, including personality of the brand (Freling & Forbes, 2005). Being a subset of brand image, brand personality is seen as one of the many brand associations existing in consumers’ memory that can be referred to when assessing a product or a service (Geuens et al., 2009). Knowing that brand image is an important driver of brand equity (Keller, 2013, p.73), it may be proposed that brand personality is a powerful and useful strategic concept.

2.2.2 Consequences of Brand Personality

As it has been mentioned before, various scholars have proposed various benefits that are connected to a strong, positive brand personality. Firstly, brand personality is said to enhance name transferability to extensions in new product categories (Batra et al., 1993), to elicit consumer emotions (Biel, 1993), and to increase levels of trust and loyalty (Fournier, 1998). In addition, brand personality helps to create a unique identity for the brand, which may provide a basis for differentiation on a level that goes beyond functional attributes (Aaker, 1996). Moreover, since it is more challenging to imitate a personality compared to product

12

attributes, the concept of brand personality becomes a possible source of sustainable competitive advantage that is able to distinguish the brand from its competitors (Ang & Lim, 2006).

2.2.3 Willingness to Pay

For a brand to be selected by the consumer, it needs to be preferred above other brands (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu, 1995). Accordingly, brand preference is closely related to brand choice, which in turn assists the process of consumer decision making, and the activation of brand purchase (Ebrahim, 2013). It has been proposed that brand personality builds brand equity (Keller, 1993), whereas high brand equity may generate greater brand preferences (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995). In addition, results of the research conducted by Freling and Forbes (2005) showed that products with a strong brand personality enjoyed more positive brand evaluations and greater brand preference over products that did not deploy a personality. The unique brand identity, possibly created by brand personality, is proposed to be an antecedent of willingness to pay a premium price in the marketplace (Netemeyer et al., 2004). Willingness to pay represents the maximum price that a person is willing to pay for a good (Wertenbroch & Skiera, 2002). As willingness to pay is proposed to be a driver of brand equity and brand personality is a tactic used to increase brand equity (Keller, 1993), it can be assumed that brand personality may also have an effect on consumers’ willingness to pay (Netemeyer et al., 2004). Hence, it can be proposed that the existing literature reinforces the positive effect of brand personality on willingness to pay.

2.3 The role of Congruity

Achieving the most appealing combination of marketing factors in order to create desirable consumer responses has been the subject of many researchers (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955;

13

Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989; Park et al., 1991; Heckler & Childers, 1992; Kamins & Gupta, 1994; Lee & Mason, 1999; Dahlén et al., 2005; McLaughlin, 2009; Van Rompay et al., 2009). This match is also referred to as congruity and the studies conducted on the matter have helped marketers and advertisers to successfully present brands and products in the marketplace (Van Rompay et al., 2009).

2.3.1 Congruity theory

Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955) were the first ones to formally discuss the congruity principle, which is concerned with how persuasive communication may influence a person’s attitude. In their study on attitude change, the congruity theory assumes that in situations when a single observer needs to make a judgement on two contradicting concepts, he or she will feel pressure to adapt his judgment to one of the sides (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955). Contrary, the observer will not feel any pressure judging two concepts when these concepts are similar or congruent.

In order to clarify the relation between congruity and consumers’ reaction to brand features and advertising, the psychological construct of a schema needs to be explained. Schemas are said to be representations of previous experiences that drive perception, thought, and action of human beings (Mandler, 1982). Every new encounter is evaluated against an existing schema and the congruity or the incongruity between event and schema is the basis for a judgement about the situation (Mandler, 1982). A situation may be described as congruent when the encountered concept or information is coherent with a person’s expectations, based on previous understanding and perceptions (Mandler, 1982). People favor things that are conform their expectations, because it requires less elaboration in processing the information (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). However, as the lack of

14

extensive elaboration also makes congruent concepts not very noteworthy, it will generate a moderate positive response rather than an extreme one (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989).

In an incongruent situation, the information does not match with the pre-established understanding, and the arousal accrued from the new and unexpected situation will lead to a more effortful or elaborative processing in order to resolve the mismatch (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989; Heckler & Childers, 1992). Incongruities that can be successfully resolved by cognitive elaboration are defined as moderate incongruities (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). Contrary, information discrepancies that cannot be resolved without fundamental changes in cognitive structure are described as extreme incongruities (Mandler, 1982). These incongruities are said to evoke more negative responses compared to moderate incongruities as the impossibility to attain a resolution leads to unpleasant feeling of frustration (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989).

Next to the distinguishment between moderate and extreme incongruity, incongruity can also be conceptualized into dimensions of expectancy and relevancy while studied in relation to advertising (Heckler & Childers, 1992; Lee & Mason, 1999). Expectancy is described as the degree to which information or a concept falls into some predetermined pattern or structure elicit by a theme or an ad (Heckler & Childers, 1992; Lee & Mason, 1999). Relevancy, in its turn, refers to the degree to which information contributes to identification of the main message that is portrayed in a theme or an ad (Heckler & Childers, 1992; Lee & Mason, 1999). Consequently, it was found that unexpected information was able to elicit better recall than expected information, while irrelevant information was unable to produce better recall compared to relevant information (Heckler & Childers, 1992; Lee & Mason, 1999).

15

2.3.2 Effects of Congruity

The concept of congruity has been researched in relation to different marketing mix factors (Kum et al., 2012). Additionally, other positive effects of congruity have been identified. For instance, brand extensions that are congruent with the original brand concept and product features are said to receive more favorable consume evaluations (Park et al., 1991). Furthermore, a high level of congruity between brand’s spokesperson and product type may make the spokesperson appear more believable and attractive (Kamins & Gupta, 1994). In addition, it is assumed that such congruity will create a higher positive attitude towards the product (Kamins & Gupta, 1994). Also, congruence among visual and textual elements, such as product packaging and advertisements was found to increase perceptions of brand credibility, and positively affect consumers’ responses (Van Rompay et al., 2009).

Another factor that may play a role in creating congruity is product type. Products from different categories are said to carry different meaning through which consumers are able to satisfy opposed consumption needs (Ang & Lim, 2006). Subsequently, it has been proposed that these product types may also differ in personalities they hold (Ang & Lim, 2006). More specifically, it is assumed that combining each of the brand personality dimensions with different product types will lead to either congruity or incongruity (Ang & Lim, 2006). In this study, congruity and extreme incongruity as described by Mandler (1982) will be taken into account. That is, it was chosen to focus on investigating whether consumers understand the pairing or not. No distinction is made between whether participants can successfully resolve an incongruity.

16

2.4 Product Type

Consumer products can be distinguished based on the role they have or the purpose they are supposed to fulfil (Kum et al., 2012). One distinction in product types has identified convenience goods, shopping goods, specialty goods, and unsought goods (Holton, 1958). Convenience goods have been described as goods that require a minimum amount of time and effort on the behalf of the consumer, whereas shopping goods represent goods for which a consumer would like to make a price and quality comparison among alternative sellers (Holton, 1958). Specialty goods in their turn describe unique or remarkable goods that motivate consumers to put unusual effort in order to attain it, and unsought goods stand for goods that are not actively pursued by the consumer, but are acquired out of need or fear (Holton, 1958).

Another classification of consumer products is the division into functional and symbolic categories, which has been recognized by many scholars (e.g. Woods, 1960; Kempf, 1999; Kum et al., 2012). Functional products possess tangible features that are the primary determinants of their value to consumers, and have little cultural or social meaning (Woods, 1960). The consumption of functional products is said to be mainly driven by their practical and cognitive-oriented benefits (Ang & Lim, 2006; Lim & Ang, 2008). In contrary, various scholars have recognized symbolic products as carriers of valuable social meaning, which is used by consumers to enhance their self-image in social contexts (Sirgy, 1982; Belk, 1988; Aaker, 1999). Next to their sensory and affective content, symbolic products are proposed to be mainly consumed for their aesthetic and enjoyment-related benefits (Kempf, 1999; Ang & Lim, 2006).

17

In academic literature, functional products are also known as utilitarian products, while symbolic products carry other similar names such value-expressive, and hedonic products (Lim & Ang, 2008). This research will focus on the terms of functional and symbolic products, as these categories are the most used and widely recognized among scholars (e.g. Kempf, 1999; Joji & Ashwin, 2012). Product types that are not included in this study are recommended to be considered in future research.

2.4.1 Functional products

As it has been mentioned before, functional products are mainly consumed for their practical, and cognitive-oriented benefits (Lim & Ang, 2008; Joji & Ashwin, 2012). The main factor that drives the selection of functional products is their ability to successfully and thoroughly perform a certain task (Ligas, 2000). Since functional products are not typically used for self-expression, these products will more likely have different personality traits compared to symbolic products (Lim & Ang, 2008). Considering the Brand Personality Framework (Aaker, 1997), two brand personalities seem to match with the nature of functional products, namely the dimensions of sincerity, and competence.

The sincerity dimension is perceived to be down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, and real (Aaker, 1997). In addition, relationships with sincere brands seem to deepen over time (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004). The competence dimension is characterized as reliable, and represents the ability to solve consumers’ problems (Aaker, 1997). It has been proposed that both of these personality dimensions represent traits that functional products are expected to possess in order to satisfy consumers’ practical needs (Ang & Lim, 2006). Additionally, functional products are said to have little freedom to adopt different personalities as these personalities are believed to be bounded by the product type (Kum et al., 2012). More

18

specifically, the incongruence between product type and personality may make the consumer unable to categorize the brand, which will damage brand’s positioning (e.g. a bank adopting an exciting personality, failing to communicate competence) (Kum et al., 2012).

Considering prior congruity research (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955; Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989), it can be proposed that sincerity and competence dimension will elicit a positive consumer response when matched with functional products. As the traits of these brand personality dimensions resemble characteristics of functional products, it may be assumed that the consumer will be able to easily establish a connection what will lead to a feeling of fulfilment (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). The positive feeling of being able to resolve the linkage will most probably in its turn augment the positive effect of brand personality on consumers’ willingness to pay. Contrary, it is assumed that when matched with symbolic products, the created link with the sincerity and competence dimensions will lead to frustration followed by a negative response, as the consumer will not be able to match brand personality and product by means of established psychological schemas (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989; Heckler & Childers, 1992). Therefore, building upon this reasoning the following hypotheses can be proposed:

H1. Sincere brands are expected to create greater willingness to pay when matched with functional products rather than with symbolic products due to the congruity of the match.

H2. Competent brands are expected to create greater willingness to pay when matched with functional products rather than with symbolic products due to the congruity of the match.

19

2.4.2 Symbolic products

Compared to functional products, symbolic products are used to fulfil completely different consumers’ needs. These needs can be related to the social context of consumption (Sirgy, 1982; Kempf, 1999; Ligas, 2000). People use symbolic products in order to express who they are to themselves and to the world (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1999). Consequently, consumers use symbolic products to enhance their self-image as they get the chance to display brand’s personality as their own (Sirgy, 1982; Fournier, 1999). Furthermore, symbolic products are focused on pleasure and may be consumed out of desire for sensory experience, fantasy, and fun (Chang & Yen, 2013). In line with this reasoning, the dimensions excitement, sophistication and ruggedness from the Brand Personality Framework (Aaker, 1997) embody the traits that are expected to correlate with symbolic products.

The excitement dimension portrays a daring and exciting personality, which stands for young, spirited, and cool (Aaker, 1997). These characteristics are assumed to correlate with the enjoyment and pleasure-focused use of symbolic products. The dimension of sophistication is described as charming and represents glamour and upper class, whereas the ruggedness dimension is characterized by traits such as strong, though, and outdoorsy (Aaker, 1997). Although it was grounded at the psychological classification of the human personality, two dimensions of the Brand Personality Framework could not be related to the ‘Big Five’ human personality dimensions, namely sophistication and ruggedness (Aaker, 1997). This can be explained by the fact that these dimensions represent personality traits, which individuals desire, but do not necessarily possess (Aaker, 1997).

Taking into account established congruity research (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955; Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989), the dimensions of excitement, sophistication,

20

and ruggedness are most likely to evoke positive feelings when matched with symbolic products. The characteristics of these brand personality dimensions are closely related to the self-expression facilities and the affective aspect of symbolic products (Sung & Kim, 2010). Accordingly, consumers will possibly be able to make sense of this pairing what will lead to a sense of contentment (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989; Heckler & Childers, 1992). In its turn, the positive feeling of being able to identify the connection may result in an extension of the positive brand personality effect on consumers’ willingness to pay (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989; Heckler & Childers, 1992). Contrary, when matched with functional products, the association with these dimensions will presumably lead to dissatisfaction followed by a negative response, as the consumer will not be able to resolve the connection through established psychological schemas (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989; Heckler & Childers, 1992). Concluding from this reasoning, the following hypotheses can be proposed:

H3. Exciting brands are expected to create greater willingness to pay when

matched with symbolic products rather than with functional products due to the congruity of the match.

H4. Sophisticated brands are expected to create greater willingness to pay when matched with symbolic products rather than with functional products due to the congruity of the match.

It was decided to exclude the ruggedness dimension from this study. From the three dimensions that are hypothesized to be positively congruent with symbolic product type, the dimension of excitement clearly differs from the dimensions of sophistication and ruggedness. The dimensions of sophistication and ruggedness distinctly correspond with each other as they represent personality traits which individuals desire, but do not necessarily possess (Aaker, 1997). In addition, it was found that sophistication is interrelated with femininity,

21

while ruggedness is interrelated with masculinity, what suggests that these dimensions may be a representation of gender (Maehle, Otnes, & Supphellen, 2011). For this study, the sophistication dimension was chosen to be included as it is appears to be more widely used in previous research compared to the ruggedness dimension (Aaker et al., 2004; Ang & Lim, 2006). The conceptual model presented in Figure 1 summarizes all of the proposed hypotheses.

22

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

To ensure the best willingness to pay measurement and to answer this study’s research questions, an experiment in the form of an online auction system was conducted. Experimental auctions are considered to be a an highly valuable market research tool due to their ability to reveal consumers’ true preferences compared to hypothetical questions and surveys where consumers’ responses are inconsequential and do not provide any incentive to secure truthful answers (Chakravarti et al., 2002; Lusk & Shogren, 2007; Lusk, Alexander, & Rousu, 2007). Also, an experimental auction offers the possibility to measure whether alterations such as adding, removing or changing different elements affect consumers’ willingness to pay (Lusk & Shogren, 2007).

The platform of the experiment is the online auction system Veylinx, which is connected to the University of Amsterdam. The platform is a non-profit organization that was designed to conduct market research in order to get insights in consumers’ willingness to pay. Veylinx operates with the second-price-sealed-bid auction type. During this type of auction, the participants are not aware of the bids of other participants and the winner of the auction will eventually pay the amount of the second highest bid (Vickrey, 1961). The platform offers the possibility to test up to four different conditions of how the auctioned product is presented. According to the design of the auction, the aforementioned hypotheses are modelled in a 2x4 matrix.

Every willing participant can subscribe him or herself on the Veylinx website after which he or she will be placed in the system’s database. The subscribed users received an invitation by e-mail to partake in the auction. During the auction, the partakers were presented

23

with a visualization and a descriptive text of the product. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Throughout the process of subscribing and the actual participation, it is clearly communicated to the participants that Veylinx is a legitimate auction system and that the placed bids are legally binding. After placing a bid, participants encountered a selected number of questions that helped to interpret the data and to better understand the motives of the respondents.

3.2 Pre-test

For this study, two auctions were performed to test four conditions for both functional and symbolic product types. The main manipulation between the conditions is the representation of different brand personalities. There were several stages of pretesting necessary to develop the stimulus material in form of an advertisement. First, a pretest was conducted to select a functional and a symbolic product that would be perceived as such. Second, it was needed to test whether the brand personality manipulations were depicted as intended. 33 respondents have participated in the online pre-test, representing 14 men and 19 women, ranging in age from 20 years to 59 years, and with different educational levels.

3.2.1. Product type

In order to select appropriate products that represent functional and symbolic product types, past literature has been reviewed. Additionally, the designer of the Veylinx auction platform has been consulted as the products also had to be attractive enough to pursue the subscribers to take part in the auction. Following upon this deliberation, a total of eight products was selected, four for each of the product types.

In order to measure the functional and symbolic dimensions of each product, the HED/UT scale developed by Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003) was adopted. The

24

HED/UT scale (Voss et al., 2003) comprises ten semantic differential response items, five of which measure the hedonic dimension of consumer attitudes, while the other five refer to the utilitarian dimension. The participants of the pre-test were asked to rate the products on a 7-point Likert scale. The categorization of the products into either functional or symbolic type was done by analyzing the differences between the scores of each product. The appropriate symbolic product needed to score high on the hedonic dimension, while simultaneously low on the utilitarian dimension. The functional product, in its turn, needed to score high on the utilitarian dimension, while low on the hedonic dimension. With regard to these criteria, the products Stack the Bones, which is a wooden block game, and Powercube, which is a rewirable USB power socket, were considered to be the most suitable (see Table 1). The products can be found in Appendix 1.

Table 1

HED/UT value per product

Product Utilitarian Hedonic

Souvenir Memory Box 3.481 3.845

Diffuser Set 4.246 4.644

Stack the Bones 3.488 4.902

CK One 4.720 5.088

Powercube 5.958 4.164

Speaker Boom Box 5.026 5.196

Solar Charger 5.432 4.484

Ostrich Pillow 4.114 3.84

3.2.2. Brand personality

The representation of brand personality dimensions was manipulated through two brand identity elements, namely imagery and tagline. Based on earlier research (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2004; Swaminathan et al., 2009), four images for each of the four brand personality

25

dimensions were selected. The images for the sincerity dimension featured individuals interacting with friends and family, while the competence dimension images portrayed people booking success in the work, sport, and leisure environment. For the excitement dimension, the images featured individuals partying, visiting festivals, and engaging in extreme sport activities such as bungee jumping. The sophistication dimension images, in their turn, presented glamorous couples, as well as classy and well-dressed individuals.

Taking into account that Veylinx is a Dutch platform, it was decided to present the taglines in Dutch. Based on previous studies (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2004; Swaminathan et al., 2009), the following taglines were constructed. The tagline in the sincerity condition was “Gives your life warmth” (Geeft je leven warmte), whereas in the competence condition it was “Gives your life success” (Geeft je leven succes). The tagline in the excitement condition was “Gives your life thrill” (Geeft je leven spanning), and in the sophistication condition it was “Gives your life flair” (Geeft je leven stijl). The taglines were combined with each of the selected images and presented to the participants of the pre-test. Brand personality of each combination was measured using the Brand Personality Scale (Aaker, 1997). The scale consists out of 15 facets that measure each of the five dimensions. As the ruggedness dimension was excluded, only 13 facets were presented in the pre-test. Respondents were asked to indicate how they perceived each of the tagline-image combinations as having one of the brand personality facets using a 7-point Likert scale. In order to determine the appropriate representation of each brand personality, mean scores and standard deviations were calculated. The combinations with the best scores, together with each of the products were merged into eight different advertisements. In order to perform a final check, 30 new respondents compared the eight advertisements with two ads without a visible brand personality. This sample consisted of 13 men and 17 women ranging in age from 20 to 47 years, and with

26

different educational levels. The check was successful, as all ads with brand personalities were recognized as such. These advertisements are used in the final Veylinx auction and can be found in Appendix 2.

3.3 Respondents

Participants of this study are subscribers of the Veylinx auction platform, as only members of the database receive an invitation to partake in the auction. Veylinx offers students the possibility to collaborate and thus perform their experiment on the platform; in return the students have to attract a certain amount of new members. Considering such an agreement, the sample of respondents is expected to be varied and representative for the Dutch population. For this study, an auction invitation was sent out to 977 members of the database, who then were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.

3.4 Measures

Main dependent variable of this research is willingness to pay, as it represents the real price participants are willing to spend in order to obtain the auctioned products. Also, this variable allows to determine the appropriateness of the different pairings. At the time of subscribing to the platform’s database, the participants were asked to fill in their year of birth and gender. Also, a manipulation check was performed by asking the participants whether they were familiar with the brand and the price of the auctioned products.

27

4. RESULTS

As the positive effect of brand personality on willingness to pay was found to be sufficiently supported by previous literature, it was decided to not include a base treatment without any significant cues in this study. An invitation to partake in the auction was sent to 977 member of Veylinx database out of which 476 actually placed a bid. These 476 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four different conditions for each of the products, making that eight conditions in total. Of the participants, 52% are male and 48% female. 39% of the participants is educated at the HBO and WO level, and 12% indicated to be a student at the moment of the auction. The average age of the participants is 41 years (SD = 14.6).

As the bid amount indicated by the participants was the only item that measured willingness to pay, no test of reliability is performed. In order to help normalize the distribution of the bids, the natural logarithm of the variable bid amount was used to create new variable ln bid amount, which was used in the analysis. Also, considering great number of €0,00 bids, it was decided to use the top 50 percentile of the dataset for the factorial between subject ANOVA analysis. The division of the participants into different treatments and the means of the ln bid amounts per treatment are shown in table 2.

4.1 Manipulation check

The participants were asked whether they were familiar with the brand of the auctioned product. The majority of the sample (94%) said not to be familiar with the chosen brands, by which it can be proposed that the absence of foreknowledge regarding these brands may not affect the willingness to pay. Subsequently, an independent samples t-test showed that there was no significant difference between the bid amounts of participants who are not familiar with the brand (M = 6.22; SD = 1.11) and participants who are familiar with the brand (M =

28

6.11; SD = 0.89), t(423) = 0.47, p > 0.05. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is no difference in bid amounts for both groups.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for consumers’ willingness to pay

Treatment N M SD Functional product 237 6.724 0.61 ● Competence 54 6.858 0.63 ● Excitement 60 6.559 0.60 ● Sincerity 71 6.677 0.61 ● Sophistication 52 6.839 0.57 Symbolic product 239 5.713 1.19 ● Competence 55 5.886 0.90 ● Excitement 54 5.462 1.42 ● Sincerity 72 5.631 0.97 ● Sophistication 58 5.713 1.42 Note. N = 476

The participants were also asked whether they were familiar with the retail price of the auctioned products. Again, the majority of the sample (95%) said not to be familiar with the retail price of the products. Subsequently, an independent t-test indicated that there was no significant difference between participants who did not knew the retail price (M = 6.20; SD = 1.12) and participants that knew the retail price of the auctioned products (M = 6.43; SD = 0.84), t(423) = 0.98, p > 0.05. Accordingly, it can be proposed that there was no difference in bid amount between the groups with different knowledge of the retail price.

Furthermore, it was looked into whether gender and age of the participants may had an influence on their willingness to pay. An independent samples t-test showed that there was no significant difference between men (M = 6.23; SD = 1.04) and women (M = 6.20; SD = 1.12),

29

t(474) = 0.34, p > 0.05. Also, no significant correlation was found between age of the

participants and their willingness to pay, r (476) = 0.05, p > 0.05.

4.2 Hypotheses testing

A factorial between subjects ANOVA was performed in order to compare the main effects of product type and brand personality, and their interaction effect on willingness to pay, and to test the four hypotheses of this research. The first factor represented product type that included two levels, namely functional and symbolic. Second factor represented brand personality types that consisted out of four levels, namely competence, sincerity, excitement, and sophistication.

The main effect for product type yielded an F ratio of F(1, 468) = 139.53, p < 0.001, indicating a significant difference between functional product (M = 6.73; SEM = 0.06) and symbolic product (M =5.70; SEM = 0.06). The main effect for brand personality yielded an F ratio of F(3, 468) = 2.88, p < 0.05, indicating a significant difference between the four different brand personalities. However, post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction indicated that only the competence brand personality (M = 6.37; SEM = 0.09) was significantly different from the excitement brand personality (M = 6.01; SEM = 0.09). The sincerity condition (M = 6.26; SEM = 0.08), and the sophistication condition (M = 6.24; SEM = 0.09) did not significantly differ from the other brand personality dimensions. The interaction effect between product type and brand personality on consumers’ willingness to pay was found to be not significant, F(3, 468) = 0.87, p > 0.05. Taken together, these results suggest that consumers are willing to pay more for functional products than for symbolic products. Also, consumers are willing to pay more for competent brand personalities compared to exciting brand personalities. Sincere and sophisticated brand personalities have shown to generate a similar consumers’ willingness to pay. The results also suggest that all of

30

the combinations of product type and brand personalities have a similar effect on consumers’ willingness to pay.

Another post-hoc test was performed in order to examine the combination effect of product type and brand personality more closely. These results (see table 2) showed a significant difference for all of the product type - brand personality pairings (p < 0.001), with functional products having a higher willingness to pay in combination with all brand personalities. This outcome confirms the presumption that functional products will generate a higher consumers’ willingness to pay when matched with competent and sincere brand personalities. Hence, H1 and H2 can be accepted. The presumption that the match between symbolic products and exciting, and sophisticated brand personalities will lead to a higher willingness to pay, is, however not supported by these results. Hence, H3 and H4 cannot be accepted. The results will be discussed in further detail in the next section.

31

5. DISCUSSION

The main focus of this research was on investigating the effect of congruity between product type and brand personality dimensions on consumers’ willingness to pay. H1 and H2 proposed that consumers would be willing to pay more for functional products when these products are paired with competent and sincere brand personalities, compared to a combination with exciting and sophisticated brand personalizes. Significant results were found to support these two hypotheses. The proposition that symbolic products would elicit a higher willingness to pay when paired with exciting and sophisticated brand personalities, compared to the combination with competent and sincere personalities (H3 and H4) was not reinforced by the outcome of this study.

The first significant results showed that consumers are willing to pay more for functional products that for symbolic products. This outcome may be explained by the relative mature age of the sample (M = 41; SD 14.6), and the nature of the auctioned products. Considering that the Powercube, a rewirable USB power socket, was chosen as the functional product and Stack the Bones, a wooden block game, represented the symbolic product, it may be assumed that the relatively mature participants were more interested in a piece of domestic electronics rather than in a wooden game as the former could be used more often. It may also be the case that, while the products do represent their product categories, they may not have the same status of desirability within these categories. It can be argued that a wooden game may not have the same value as a rewirable power socket. This may have caused the products to evoke different levels of participants’ interest and, thus, also different willingness to pay for them. It may be valuable to consider product's’ level of desirability in its product category in further research.

32

In addition, the effect of different brand personality dimensions on consumers’ willingness to pay was examined. The results showed that participants had a higher willingness to pay for both product categories when the product was represented by a competent brand personality. The results also indicate that competent and exciting brand personalities are the only ones that actually differ from each in terms of willingness to pay. More specifically, consumers are willing to pay more for products that are represented by a competent brand personality compared to products that show an exciting brand personality. This difference may be explained by the fact that these brand personalities are truly opposed to each other as they represent completely different traits. Competent brands embody characteristics such as reliability and successfulness, and are able to offer the consumer a sense of security (Aaker, 1997). Contrary to competent brands, an exciting brand personality is seen as daring, trendy, and cool, and is often linked to hip and youthful products (Aaker, 1997). In addition, earlier research has suggested that an exciting brand personality is more likely to elicit a higher brand affect than a higher level of brand trust (Ang & Lim, 2006). When again keeping in mind the relatively mature age of this study’s sample, this may imply that participants were more convinced to spend their money on a product that is represented by an image of reliability and security instead of adventure and coolness.

As stated earlier, it was expected that the combination of functional product with competent and sincere brand personalities would elicit a higher willingness to pay than the combination of symbolic product with these brand personalities. Also, the combination of symbolic product with exciting and sophisticated brand personalities were expected to generate a higher willingness to pay compared to combinations of functional product with these brand personalities. The findings of the study indicate that there was no interaction effect between product type and brand personality, implying that participants’ willingness to

33

pay was not influenced by the combination of the two factors. These findings are not consistent with previous literature (Ang & Lim, 2006; Kum et al., 2012), and the counterintuitive presumptions based on congruity theory. One of the possible explanations for this outcome is the fact that different samples were used for the pre-test and the eventual auction. While the participants of the pre-test have supported that all advertisements depicted a brand personality, participants of the auction may have failed to identify this brand element. If participants only viewed the product without detecting a brand personality, than it is assumable that they were unaffected by the possible congruity effect between the two factors. Subsequently several aspects could be proposed that may have accounted to participants not noticing the brand personality. Firstly, participants had to finish the auction within the time limit of six minutes. This restricted amount of time may be considered rather short to fully grasp all brand elements. Also, the limited space and amount of words that were allowed in the advertisement hindered an extensive representation of the brand; perhaps more brand elements should have been included in the advertisement to sufficiently represent a brand personality. Finally, the visuals used in this study were created by the author herself. The fact that she is not a professional may also have attributed to the quality of the advertisements and visibility of brand personalities.

A closer look at the bid amounts of both product types seemed yet to show reinforcement for the first two hypotheses. These results show that the participants did spend more on the functional product when paired with competent and sincere brand personalities, compared to this pairing of these brand personalities with the symbolic product. However, it may be argued whether these results actually support the made assumptions. As participants were overall willing to pay more for the functional product in all conditions compared to the symbolic product, it is not a surprise that the combinations with the competent and sincere

34

brand personalities received higher bid amounts. For this reason, it may be proposed that the eventual differences in participants’ willingness to pay were caused by the nature of the auctioned products and possibly not the combination of factors.

Keeping in mind absent significant proof of the congruity effect between the factors, it was decided to look at the results for both product types separately. Nonetheless, no coherence in the expected congruity was found. When paired with functional product, competent brand personality indeed received a higher willingness to pay compared to other brand personalities. According to earlier made presumptions, the pairing with sincere brand personality should generate the same or the second highest willingness to pay. However, this is clearly not the case. In fact, participants were willing to pay the second highest amount for the sophisticated brand personality, followed by competent and exciting brand personalities, respectively. What can explain the fact that participants were willing to pay more for sophisticated brand personality is that the pairing may have been considered to be an intended mismatch. When people are forced to extensively elaborate on, for example, an advertisement, than this will be considered to be very noteworthy and will be most likely remembered (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). However, in order to rule out unpleasant feelings or sense of frustration, people also need to be able to resolve such an incongruity (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). As a power socket and a glamorous couple can be considered two truly opposing things that have nothing to do with each other, this illogical combination may have been thought of as clever joke, which the participants may have thought to have figured out. If this would have been the case, than it may have been considered as the result of a moderate incongruity. While the focus of this study was only on congruity and extreme incongruity, future research may include this level of congruity in order to present a more elaborate view on the matter.

35

Another interesting result showed that the combination of the symbolic product and the exciting brand personality received the lowest bid amount of all four conditions, which is counterintuitive to previous findings. Symbolic products are known to be used for enhancing self-image and providing sensory pleasure (Sirgy, 1982; Fournier, 1999; Chang & Yen, 2013). However, it may be assumed that the participants were not able to fully recognize these attributes in the wooden game, what may have resulted in a mismatch between the product and brand personality.

Considering the outcome of this study, it creates a certain challenge to translate the results into practice. It was assumed that certain combinations of product type and brand personality would generate a higher willingness to pay. The results did show that the pairing of functional product with competent and sincere brand personalities received higher bid amount compared to this pairing with symbolic product. However, one may argue the reliability of these results. Taken into account previous studies, the outcome of this research may be considered quite a surprising one, as previous literature did propose a possible interaction effect between product type and brand personality. Nevertheless, the concept of congruity remains an important factor that should be taken into account by operating marketing managers. Even though this study has failed to prove the interaction effect between the two factors, previous research has identified congruity to be an important influencer of a brand’s success (Park et al., 1991; Van Rompay et al., 2009; Kum et al., 2012). Therefore, managers are greatly advised to keep providing an interesting and accessible mix of various marketing factors when executing the implementation of a new, or an extension of an existing marketing strategy.

36

6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although this research has attempted to contribute to existing marketing literature by detecting the best pairings of product type and brand personality, several limitations and possibilities for future research can be suggested. The first issue that can be addressed concerns the sample of respondents that participate in the Veylinx auctions. As recruiting new members for the platform happens mainly through convenience sampling carried out by the students that have started a collaboration with Veylinx, it may be argued that the sample fails to rightfully represent the Dutch population. For this study, the convenience sampling method has generated a panel of members that is highly educated and that has a relatively mature age, what may lead to some concerns in terms of sample bias. In addition, the design of the research only represents a snapshot in time, taken into account the limited participation time and limited space to display the elements that represent brand personalities. It may be assumed that people needed either more time or more elements in order to actually see and comprehend the displayed brand personality. Also, as the time and the product of the auction are not communicated beforehand, the unexpected confrontation with the auctioned product may be experienced by the participants as an impulse purchase. Therefore, a more longitudinal study to investigate the effect of congruity translated by the means of advertisement may be considered in future research.

Moreover, it is believed that the choice of auctioned products is something that also could be improved. As Veylinx is a real auction platform, the products used for this research needed to be attractive enough for the panel members to bid on. Therefore, the selection of the products happened in close consultation with the designer of the platform, considering his expertise on this matter. After several products were identified to be appropriate for the auction, the HED/UT scale of Voss et al. (2003) was used in order to identify the most

37

functional and symbolic products. However, it can be argued that this classification is not a complete one as the products were compared only to each other and not within their product category or product type. A more suitable way of ranking could involve a base against which products can be measured, what will lead to a more underpinned categorization. Also, it may be sensible to look into the status of the chosen product within its product category. The fact that the participants were willing to spend overall more money on the functional rather than symbolic product may be explained by a possible higher desirability of the rewirable power socket compared to the wooden game. Therefore, future research should focus on studying products that have a similar status and appeal within their category. Furthermore, it is believed that including more product categories could be favorable for the generalizability of the findings, hence, this may also be taken into account regarding future research.

Furthermore, this research has focused on only four out of five brand personalities from the Aaker’s (1997) brand personality framework. This was done mainly because of the restrictions concerning the design of the Veylinx platform. It may be interesting to also include and compare the dimension of ruggedness in future research in order to achieve a more extensive representation of the congruity effect between product type and brand personality. Also, while this study has focused on brand personality dimensions as proposed by Aaker (1997), future research may also consider to adopt other product types and brand personality dimensions in order to create an all-round understanding of the interaction effect between these two factors. Moreover, it was decided to focus this study on two types of congruity, namely congruity and extreme incongruity (Mandler, 1982). It might be interesting to include the third type, moderate incongruity, in future research as it distinguishes between the levels of understanding consumers have concerning messages sent by brands.

38

7. CONCLUSION

Brand personality is and will remain to be an important strategic tool within a marketing and branding strategy. As a source of sustainable competitive advantage, a strong brand personality allows a brand to differentiate itself in the marketplace, while also creating possibility to start an enduring relationship with the consumer. However, just having a strong brand personality may not be enough. In order to appear attractive enough to grab consumers’ attention, all attributes and brand elements need to match together into a coherent and interesting combination. Once the mix of said elements is annoyingly unclear for the consumer, chance is that the brand will encounter a negative response. This study made an attempt to contribute to existing literature by investigating how the match between brand personality and product type affects consumers’ willingness to pay. Despite partially significant results, this research was unable to confirm that certain pairings between the two factors would generate a higher willingness to pay than other combinations. This is a surprising outcome, which is not in line with findings presented in earlier research (e.g. Ang & Lim, 2006; Kum, et al., 2012). It is believed, that various factors may have influenced the outcome of this study and thus may be considered as issues for future research. Considering the limited amount of literature written on congruity effect between various attributes and brand elements, and especially product type and brand personality, it is greatly advised to continue extending scientific knowledge of this important and interesting subject.

39

REFERENCES

Aaker, D.A., & Biel, A.L. (1993). Brand equity and advertising: an overview. In D.A. Aaker & A.L. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity and advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong

brands (p.83–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California

Management Review, 38(3), 102–120.

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

Aaker, J.L. (1999). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion. Journal of

Marketing Research (JMR), 36(1), 45-57.

Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinéz, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492–508.

Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When Good Brands Go Bad. Journal of

Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16.

Ang, S.H., & Lim, E.A.C. (2006). The Influence of Metaphors and Product Type on Brand Personality Perceptions and Attitude. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39–53.

Arora, R., & Stoner, C. (2009). A Mixed Method Approach to Understanding Brand Personality. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(4), 272–283.

Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. (2003). Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand Personality? Brand Management, 11(2), 143–155.

40

Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R., & Singh, D. (1993). The brand personality component of brand goodwill: Some antecedents and consequences. In D.A. Aaker and A.L. Biel (Eds.), Brand

equity and advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands (p.83–95). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-167.

Biel, A.L. (1993). Converting image into equity. In D.A. Aaker and A.L. Biel (Eds.), Brand

equity and advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands (67–82). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble C. A., & Donthu N. (1995) Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising 24(3), 25–40.

Chakravarti, D., Greenleaf, E., Sinha, A., Cheema, A., Cox, J. C., Friedman, D., Ho, T. H., Isaak, R.M., Mitchell, A.A., Rapoport, A., Rothkopf, M.H., Srivastava, J., & Zwick, R. (2002). Auctions: Research opportunities in marketing. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 281–296.

Chang, C.T, & Yen, C.T. (2013). Missing Ingredients in Metaphor Advertising: The Right Formula of Metaphor Type, Product Type, and Need for Cognition. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 80–94.

Dahlén, M., Lange, F., Sjödin, H., & Törn, F. (2005). Effects of Ad-Brand Incongruency.

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27(2), 1-12.

Ebrahim, R. (2013). A Study of Brand Preference: An Experiential View (Doctoral dissertation, Brunel Business School). Retrieved from:

41

Freling, T.H., & Forbes, L.P. (2005). An Empirical Analysis of Brand Personality Effect.

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404–413.

Freling, T.H., Crosno, J.L., & Henard, D.H. (2011). Brand Personality Appeal:

Conceptualization and Empirical Validation. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (3), 392–406.

Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–370.

Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A New Measure of Brand Personality.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26 (2), 97–107.

Heckler, S.E., & Childers T.L. (1992). The role of Expectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What is Incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 475–492.

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong brands. Journal of

Brand Management, 10(6), 421–445 .

Holton, R.H. (1958). The Distinction between Convenience Goods, Shopping Goods, and Specialty Goods. Journal of Marketing, 23(1), p. 53–56.

Joji, A.N., & Ashwin, J. (2012). Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Values: The Relative Importance of Real and Ideal Self to Brand Personality and Its Influence on Emotional Brand

Attachment. The XIMB Journal of Management, 9(2), 77–90.

Kamins, M.A., & Gupta, K. (1994). Congruence between Spokesperson and Product Type: A Matchup Hypothesis Perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 11(6), 569–586.