• No results found

The relationship of consumer personality, brand personality, and brand loyalty : an empirical study of beauty brands

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The relationship of consumer personality, brand personality, and brand loyalty : an empirical study of beauty brands"

Copied!
98
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The Relationship of Consumer Personality, Brand Personality, and Brand Loyalty:

An Empirical Study of Beauty Brands

Author: Paula Kapri Student number: 11374683

Institution: University of Amsterdam

Study Program: MSc Business Administration –Marketing Thesis Supervisor: Dhr. Drs. Ing. A.C.J. Meulemans Date: 22-06-2017

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Paula Kapri who declares to take a 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.

(3)

Abstract

The importance of brand loyalty and long lasting bonds between consumers and brands are increasingly substantial in today’s competitive markets. Personality characteristics and brand personality are seen as powerful tools to predict consumer behavior, and enhance connections between consumers and brands. Therefore, the need to explore the effects of these concepts together on brand loyalty is essential. This study contributes to the prior literature by examining the relationship between consumer personality and brand loyalty, and the influence of brand personality on the relationship in beauty brand context. Using the personality dimensions from the Big Five model, and both purchase and attitudinal dimensions of brand loyalty this study provides new insights on the relationship between consumer personality and brand loyalty. Results of this study show the positive relationship to exist between agreeableness as well as openness personality traits and both dimensions of brand loyalty. However, the study finds, in contrast to what was expected, no statistical support for the relationship between other personality traits and brand loyalty. Moreover, supporting the previous literature, the results of this study indicates brand personality to have a positive effect on the relationships between personality dimensions and brand loyalty.

The research provides both theoretical and practical implications. By providing additional insights in the effects of personality characteristics and brand personality on brand loyalty, the research contributes to the brand management and marketing strategy literature. Moreover, these findings provide a clarification of the importance of consumer personality characteristics, and brand personality as a marketing tool to enhance long-lasting emotional bonds between consumers and brands.

Keywords: Consumer Personality, Brand Personality, Purchase Brand Loyalty, Attitudinal Brand Loyalty

(4)

Table of Content

List of Figures and Tables ... 1

1 Introduction ... 1 1.1 Introduction to Topic ... 1 1.2 Theoretical Contribution... 3 1.3 Managerial Contribution... 4 2 Review of Literature ... 5 2.1 Brand Loyalty ... 5 2.2 Consumer Personality... 8 2.3 Brand Personality ... 11 2.4 Hypotheses Development ... 13

2.4.1 The Relationship Between Consumer Personality and Brand Loyalty ... 13

2.4.2 The Impact of Brand Personality ... 15

2.5 Conceptual Model ... 19 3 Method ... 20 3.1 Pre-Test ... 20 3.1.1 Procedure ... 20 3.1.2 Sample ... 21 3.1.3 Results ... 21 3.2 Measurements ... 22

3.3 Data Collection Procedure and Sample ... 24

4 Results ... 25

4.1 Data Preparation Procedure ... 25

4.1.1 Reliability Analysis ... 25

4.2 Descriptive Statistics ... 27

4.2.1 Respondent Analysis ... 27

4.2.3 Kurtoses and Skewness Test... 27

4.2.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis ... 29

4.2.4 Correlation Analysis ... 31

4.3 Hypotheses Testing ... 33

4.3.1 The Relationship Between Consumer Personality and Brand Loyalty ... 33

4.3.2 The Moderating Effect of Brand Personality... 36

4.3.3 Summary of the Results ... 48

5 Discussion ... 50

5.1 Discussion of the Results ... 50

5.2 Theoretical and Practical Implications ... 57

5.3 Limitations and Future Research ... 58

6 Conclusions ... 60

7 Reference List ... 61

8 Appendix ... 65

8.1 Questionnaire Pre-test ... 65

8.2 Questionnaire Final Survey ... 70

8.3 Measurements of Variables ... 74

8.4 Hierarchical Regression Tables ... 76

8.5 SPSS Output ... 80

8.5.1 Factor Analysis ... 80

(5)

List of Figures and Tables

List of Figures

Figure 1 Brand personality framework by Jennifer Aaker (1997) ... 13

Figure 2 Conceptual Model ... 19

List of Tables Table 1 Means scales pre-test ... 22

Table 2 Reliability Statistics: Personality Traits & Brand Loyalty ... 26

Table 3 Distribution of the sample: Skewness and Kurtosis ... 28

Table 4 Exploratory Factor Analysis for Personality Traits: Rotated component matrix ... 30

Table 5 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities ... 32

Table 6 Hierarchical regression model testing the relationship between personality traits and purchase brand loyalty ... 34

Table 7 Hierarchical regression model testing the relationship between personality traits and attitudinal brand loyalty ... 35

Table 8 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of competence brand personality on the relationship between personality traits and purchase brand loyalty ... 38

Table 9 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of competence brand personality on the relationship between personality traits and attitudinal brand loyalty .... 40

Table 10 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of excitement brand personality on the relationship between personality traits and purchase brand loyalty .... 76

Table 11 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of excitement brand personality on the relationship between personality traits and attitudinal brand loyalty .. 76

Table 12 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of sincerity brand personality on the relationship between personality traits and purchase brand loyalty .... 77

Table 13 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of sincerity brand personality on the relationship between personality traits and attitudinal brand loyalty .. 77

(6)

Table 14 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of sophistication brand personality on the relationship between personality traits and purchase brand loyalty .... 78

Table 15 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of sophistication brand personality on the relationship between personality traits and attitudinal brand loyalty .. 78

Table 16 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of ruggedness brand

personality on the relationship between personality traits and purchase brand loyalty .... 79

Table 17 Hierarchical regression model testing the moderating effect of ruggedness brand

personality on the relationship between personality traits and attitudinal brand loyalty .. 79

(7)

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction to Topic

The highly competitive markets today have forced companies to pursue a sustainable competitive advantage over their competitors. To do so, companies have to make smart choices to create long lasting personal consumer-brand relationships with their customers. This has lead to companies’ marketing tactics becoming increasingly creative since only promoting the attributes, and the functional benefits of products are no longer enough. As a result, companies are searching for ways to create strong emotional brand connections with their customers (Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer and Nyffenegger, 2011). More attached consumers are to a brand, more likely they are to maintain an ongoing relationship with that brand, and so emotional brand connections are seen to lead to a higher level of brand loyalty, and in the long run, increase the financial performance of companies. (Amine, 1998; Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, and Iacobucci, 2010) Moreover, loyalty creates the basis for the competitive advantage that companies are aiming to reach (Dick and Basu, 1994). Brands in the cosmetic sector are rich in meaning and have an important role in consumers’ lives (Papista and Dimitriadis, 2012). Brand managers have control over the personalities and attributes of these brands. By having the understanding of how consumers form brand loyalty for beauty brands, marketing professionals can manage these brands and develop marketing strategies to most efficiently attract consumers.

The previous research shows that consumer personality plays a role for brand choices (Sirgy, 1982; Belk, 1988; Fournier, 1998). Since every person is different, it is crucial for companies to treat consumers as individuals with their own personalities. Brands, on the other hand, have seen to play a central role in consumers decision-making process when purchasing products (Macdonald and Sharp, 2000; Fischer, Völckner and Sattler, 2010). For the development of emotional aspects of brands, the concept of brand personality is widely used among marketing

(8)

2 professionals. Brand personality expresses the human characteristics of the brand (Aaker, 1997). Various studies show that consumers often tend to favor brands they consider congruent with their personality. Therefore, consumers reflect their identity through brands. (Belk, 1988; Malhotra, 1988; Kleine, Kleine, and Kerman, 1993; Govers and Schoormans, 2005) So it is not a surprise that a distinct brand personality is seen to lead to a strong connection between consumer s and brands (Doyle, 1989), offering a valuable asset to companies for differentiat ing themselves from competitors and create brand loyalty. However, consumer preferences for brands usually involve the affection side of brand loyalty, since it does not necessarily develop purchase behaviour (Dyson, Farr and Hollis, 1996). A limited amount of research has examined both dimensions of purchase- and attitudinal brand loyalty simultaneously, and combined research on these two dimensions within concepts of personality traits, and brand personality. (Matzler, K., Bidmon, S., and Grabner-Kräuter, S., 2006; Lin, 2010; Virani, 2013) In order for marketing managers to be able to target consumers in their approach to building brand loyalty, more research of the relationship is needed. This is necessary for marketing professionals since higher brand loyalty among customers is seen to lead to more profitable business outcomes.

Research Gap

As aforementioned, more research is needed on the relationship between personality traits, brand personality and both dimensions of purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty. Furthermore, additional research needs to be conducted to gain knowledge in the area of consumer behavior and cosmetics. Regardless of ongoing increasing demand for beauty brands and cosmetic products, the academic research lack of knowledge of how consumer personality and brand personality influence perceptions and brand loyalty of the beauty brands. (Guthrie, Kim, and Jung, 2008)

(9)

3 To address the research gap presented, this study seeks to contribute to the previous literature and develop a better understanding of the relat ionships between these factors. Furthermore, the aim is to link the theory and practice of these concepts in beauty brand context. This study provides additional knowledge of the effects of personality characteristics and brand personality on brand loyalty. Moreover, these findings contribute toward clarification of the importance of insights of consumer personality characteristics, and brand personality as a marketing tool to enhance long-lasting emotional bonds between consumers and brands.

Build upon the aforementioned the research question is formed as follow: To what

extent different brand personalities are of influence on the relationship between personality traits and brand loyalty? To provide an answer to this research question, the review of literature will

provide answers to the following sub-question:

- What is brand loyalty and how the dimensions of purchase and attitudinal loyalty are defined? - What is consumer personality and how does it influence brand loyalty?

- What is brand personality and how does it influence brand loyalty?

- What kind of relationship exists between consumer personality and brand personality?

1.2 Theoretical Contribution

This study aims to contribute to the existing literature by providing deeper insights on the effects of consumer personality and brand personality on brand loyalty in beauty brand context. Building on the importance of brand loyalty in today’s increasingly competitive markets, the research gap presented will be addressed by providing an understanding of the relationships between the concepts, which contributes to the literature on brand management and marketing strategy. Ultimately, adding to the prior literature, by providing additional research on the effects of personality traits and brand personality dimensions on brand loyalty. As argued, personality

(10)

4 characteristics and brand personality are powerful tools to predict consumer behavior, and so they can be used to enhance brand loyalty, which in turn is seen to lead towards better business outcomes.

1.3 Managerial Contribution

As mentioned before, increased competition in markets today have made companies to pursue sustainable competitive advantages over their competitors. Loyalty creates the basis for the desired competitive advantage (Dick and Basu, 1994). And so, as emotional bonds and attachment to brands is seen to lead higher levels of brand loyalty (Amine, 1998; MacInnis et al., 2010) the knowledge of how to enhance these ongoing relationships with consumers is increasingly important for marketing professionals today. The results of this study offer managerial level additional insights on the importance and effects of consumer characteristics, and the brand personality on the brand loyalty in the beauty industry. Therefore, this study seeks to develop a better understanding of how these factors influence brand loyalty in beauty brand context. Moreover, providing knowledge for companies to understand their customers, differentiate and manage their brands, target consumers and, create marketing strategies.

(11)

5

2 Review of Literature

In this chapter, academic literature related to this study is discussed. The review of literature chapter consists of five themes; Brand Loyalty, Consumer Personality, Brand Personality, Hypotheses development, and Conceptual Model of this study.

2.1 Brand Loyalty

Brand Loyalty has gained a growing interest among both marketing academics and professionals ever since the concept emerged decades ago. Brand loyalty concept has also received a lot of attention in the field of business. (Dick and Basu, 1994; Aaker, 1997; Oliver, 1999) Most of the early studies define the concept of brand loyalty as repeated purchase behavior, and so approach brand loyalty as a behavioral construct (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). However, the concept has evolved ever since, and the conceptualization of brand loyalty has shifted greatly. Nowadays brand loyalty can be seen as a multi-dimensional concept including both a purchase and an attitudinal side of brand loyalty, instead of only as a behavioral construct. (Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver 1999; Baldinger and Rubinson, 1996)

Today companies see brand loyalty as a valued intangible asset and a central aspect of brand management (Amine, 1998; Park et. al., 2010). While markets are getting increasingly competitive, new brands are created faster than ever, and development in technology empowers consumers, it is hard to keep the old customers and engage new ones. Building brand loyalty has become an important aspect for companies to overcome these difficulties in the today’s markets. Therefore, many companies are looking ways to build brand loyalty with their consumers to create commitment and willingness to repurchase the brand again. (Park et. al., 2010) Furthermore, prior research indicates that retaining existing customers is a lot less expensive than attracting new ones, and so the profitability of old customers is greater than new customers (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Fornell and Wernerfelt, 1987). Moreover, even small reductions in customer defection can indicate

(12)

6 to a significant increase in company’s profits. Loyal customers buy more, are less price sensitive, and less expensive to service. When brand loyalty is achieved, the loyal customers pay less attention to competitors advertising and so are also more likely to spread positive word-of-mouth to other customers. (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990)

Conceptualization of Brand Loyalty

The development of brand loyalty concept from behavioral construct to the multi-dimensional concept through past decades is widely recognized within researchers (Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999; Baldinger and Rubinson, 1996). Various definitions and dimensions have been developed throughout the evolution period of the concept.

As aforementioned, the early studies defined brand loyalty as a purchase behavior and the general approach to the concept was a behavioral construct (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). The focus then was strictly in the repeated purchase context and used purchase procedure as the primary element in brand loyalty research. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) defined six necessary conditions for brand loyalty: (1) brand loyalty is nonrandom, (2) behavioral response, and (3) expressed over time, (4) by some decision making unit, (5) with knowledge of alternative brands, and so (6) part of the decision making process (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). Over time the concept has evolved, and the view has shifted to seeing brand loyalty as a multi-dimensional concept (Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). One of the most currently used and remarkable definitions of brand loyalty is proposed by Oliver (1999). He defines brand loyalty as “Brand

loyalty is 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 behaviors”.(Oliver, 1990) This definition shows the development of the concept by adding the

(13)

7 to emerge. Even though the concept has evolved considerably from Jacoby’s and Kyner’s (1973) definition, current research still supports components from the original framework. In line with Jacoby’s and Kyner’s framework (1973), the existence of multi-brand loyalty is still acknowledged within present researchers, supporting that individuals can be loyal to more than one brand. The presence of alternative brands shows the true brand loyalty, and so the purchase behavior is a result of a decision-making process. (Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999)

Dimensions of Brand Loyalty

One of the leading frameworks in the field that combines both consumers’ attitudes and repeated purchase behavior to determine the strength of a brand loyalty was proposed by Dick and Basu (1994). This framework divides brand loyalty into four dimensions consisting of true brand loyalty, spurious brand loyalty, latent brand loyalty and no brand loyalty. True brand loyalty indicate high related attitude and high repeat purchase, whereas spurious brand loyalty indicate low related attitude, but high repeated purchase behavior. Latent loyalty indicates to high related attitudes, but low repeat purchase, and no loyalty for low relative attitude as well as low repeat purchase behavior. The true brand loyalty is the desired state of these four conditions. (Dick and Basu, 1994) According to this framework, Day (1996) also identified two indicators that divided brand loyalty into true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty. In spurious brand loyalty, consumers repurchase the brand only because it is the only choice in the stores when true brand loyalty consumers show both psychological and affective commitments to the brand in addition to repurchasing consistency. (Day, 1996) Furthermore, the framework by Olliver (1999) is one of the most applied in brand loyalty studies (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). This framework divided brand loyalty into four loyalty phases: (1) cognitive loyalty, (2) affective loyalty, (3) conation loyalty and (4) action loyalty. Cognitive loyalty is seen as the first phase of brand loyalty and focuses on aspects related to brand performance. Affective loyalty, also called attitudinal brand loyalty, refers to the consumers’

(14)

8 preference and affinity for a specific brand, but the actual purchase behavior is not developed yet. The third phase, conation loyalty, refers to behavioral intention. Finally, the true loyalty lies on the final phase of action loyalty, also called as purchase brand loyalty. In this phase the actual repeated purchasing of the brand is conducted. (Oliver, 1999)

Subsequently, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) categorized brand loyalty into two main approaches; (1) attitudinal loyalty and (2) behavioral loyalty. The attitudinal loyalty dimension consists of consumers’ beliefs, feelings, and intentions towards a brand, and is a systematically favorable expression of preference for the brand. The attitudinal loyalty represents the long-term impact of loyal consumers to a certain brand. On the other hand, the behavioral, or purchase loyalty, is shown by the actual purchase behavior conducted by consumers for a particular brand, and so consist of repeated purchases of the brand. The researchers emphasize the importance of measuring these two dimensions simultaneously to identify consumers’ real brand loyalty towards a brand. (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).

2.2 Consumer Personality

Consumer personality characteristics have been studied to learn and predict their emotional responses for decades (Oliver, 1999). The term “personality” refers to unique psychological characteristics that lead to relatively consistent responses to consumers own environment (McAdams and Olson, 2010). Another definition comes from Mulyanegara, Tsarenko and Anderson (2009) they define personality as “the intrinsic organization of an individual’s mental

world that is stable over time and consistent over situations.” In other words, human personality

indicates on the foundation of one’s behavior, thoughts, and beliefs (Park, 1986). Personality characteristics have an impact not only on the brand choice but also on brand loyalty; identification with a specific brand may lead to greater brand loyalty. The personality characteristics are the primary determinants of behavior and so link personality to purchase behavior and loyalty. (Conner

(15)

9 and Abraham, 2001) To explain the structure, process, and development of human behavior, many personality theories have developed over the years. From these theories, the Big Five Model has gained a great emphasis on exploring the structures of human personality and therefore is widely used in personality research.

The Big Five Model

Over decades’ researchers have attempted to develop a universal and systematic framework to explain personality differences. The beginning of the formation of the Big Five model began in 1884 when Sir Galton attempted to categorize personality-related words in order to study individual differences. (Mulyanegara et al., 2009) The approach is based on the lexical hypothesis; emphasizing the relevance of the nature of language, and the importance of the individual differences that are encoded within worlds languages. The impact of lexical hypothesis can be seen in the big five model by how words describe one’s personality. (Goldberg, 1993) Ever since the approached is reshaped by further investigation of researchers over decades, and today personality researchers agree upon five basic dimensions of personality. These Big Five factors are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. Each dimension consists of a set of correlated traits that are represented as bipolar traits. Moreover, individuals can exhibit all five dimension, they may score high on one or several dimensions, but lower on others. (Goldberg, 1993)

Extraversion

Extraversion describes an individual who is considered to be social, talkative, active, affectionate and friendly. (Barrick and Mount, 1991; McCrae and Costa, 1987) The extraversion personality dimensions evaluate individuals’ quantity and intensity of interpersonal interactions and the comfort level of relationships with others (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Goldberg, 1990). A highly extravert

(16)

10 individual prefers social interactions and are predisposed toward positive affect (Matzler et al., 2006). The opposite traits for extraversion are reserved, sober, task-oriented and quiet. A person who scores low in extraversion personality dimensions, and therefore possesses these opposite personality characteristics is called an introvert. (Mulyanegara et al., 2009)

Agreeableness

Like extraversion personality trait, also agreeableness personality trait deals with social interactions. Whereas extraversion is seen to address social impact, the agreeableness trait concentrates on the motives for maintaining and taking care of positive relationships with others. (Jensen-Campbel and Graziano, 2001) Agreeableness describes an individual who is forgiving, generous, cooperative and good-natured. People who score high in the agreeableness personality trait are trusting, helpful, naive and straightforward. (McCrae and Costa, 1987) Hirsh and Dolderman (2007) also noted that agreeableness relates to one’s level of empathy and concern for others. Also, individuals who score high in this dimension are more likely to be focused on material needs. (Hirsh and Doldeman, 2007)

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness describes an individual who possesses characteristics such as organized, dependable, consistent, efficient, and achievement-oriented. (Goldberg, 1990; Barrick and Mount, 1991) The conscientiousness personality trait measures the level of organization, persistence and goal-directed behavior. An individual who scores high in this personality dimension is hardworking, ambitious, and moralistic. (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Goldberg, 1990) Conner and Abraham (2001) noted that from all the big five personality traits, conscientiousness associates mostly in caution-related behaviors such as carefulness, and responsibility. This tendency leads to long-term planning and attention on future aspects. (Conner and Abraham, 2001) The opposite traits for conscientiousness are unreliable, lazy, and aimless. (Mulyanegara et al., 2009)

(17)

11

Neuroticism

Neuroticism personality trait is associated with a negative emotionality and describes an individual who is anxious, bad-tempered, and moody. This personality trait measures the level of coping responses, psychological distress, unrealistic ideas, and unreasonable desires. (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Goldberg, 1990) People who score high in neuroticism personality trait tend to be nervous, worried, and emotional. (McCrae and Costa, 1987) Neuroticism person tends to be concerned about negative outcomes in life. The opposite traits for neuroticism are relaxed, stable, and calm. (Mulyanegara et al., 2009)

Openness

Openness describes an individual who is considered to be curious, original, creative, daring, and imaginative. (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Goldberg, 1990; Barrick and Mount, 1991) The openness personality trait measures the level of imagination, creativity, and openness to ideas (Hirsh and Dolderman, 2007), and so determine individuals proactive and appreciation for experience and need of discovering the unfamiliar (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Furthermore, openness personality trait associates with characteristics such as having an active imagination, independent judgments, and a preference for variety (McCrae and Costa, 1987). The opposite traits for openness are down-to-earth, narrow interest, and being un-analytical. (Mulyanegara et al. 2009)

2.3 Brand Personality

Brand personality concept is widely acknowledged and used by marketing professionals. Defined by Aaker (1997) brand personality expresses the human characteristics of a brand. The humanization of brands enables consumers to relate to a brand easily (Fournier, 1998), and express their self through a brand (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1997). In this sense, brand personality enhances a

(18)

12 strong connection between consumers and the brand (Doyle, 1989), and so by building the emotional side of the brand provides competitive advantages (Aaker and Fournier, 1995).

Brand personality is built over time, and its identity relies on both the direct and the indirect contact consumers have with the brand (Batra, Homer, Lehmann and Singh, 1993). The formation of Brand personality can emerge from three different sources: (1) association consumers have with the brand, (2) image created by the company and (3) product attributes (Keller, 1993). Prior research widely agrees on that brand personality is a specific set of meanings that are created in consumers’ minds. Furthermore, these meanings are based on the characteristics of humanized brands. (Aaker and Fournier, 1995) Consumers have the tendency to favor brands that match their personality (Belk, 1988; Malhotra, 1988; Kleine et al., 1993; Govers and Schoormans, 2005; Matzler et al., 2006). This tendency makes brand personality a useful tool for marketing professionals to predict and guide consumers’ choices of brand, and differentiate a brand based on consumer preferences. (Keller, 1993)

Dimensions of Brand Personality

The theoretical framework of the brand personality construct was created by Jennifer Aaker in 1997. This framework is widely accepted and recognized within research. The framework identifies five distinct brand personality dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. These dimensions are represented by facets that consist of 42-traits. The facets and traits are specific for each brand personality dimension and together combine the 42-item brand personality scale (Figure 1.). (Aaker, 1997)

(19)

13 Sincerity represents characteristics such as honest, cheerful, down-to-earth and wholesome. It exists when a brand is perceived within these features, but not seen as a hypocrite. Excitement consists of characteristics of daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date. Competence refers to reliable, intelligent and successful characteristics. Sophistication represents upper class and charming features and therefore describes refined brands. Ruggedness consist of characteristics of outdoorsy and tough, it represents strong, masculine brands. (Aaker, 1997)

2.4 Hypotheses Development

2.4.1 The Relationship Between Consumer Personality and Brand Loyalty

Various studies have examined the relationship between consumer personality and brand loyalty (Matzler et al., 2006; Lin, 2010; Virani 2013; Mann and Rawat, 2016). Findings show that consumer personality has an effect on brand loyalty.

For instance, Lin (2010) examined the relationship of personality traits and brand loyalty within toy and game brand industry. Her findings showed that personality traits indeed have

(20)

14 an influence on brand loyalty; moreover, agreeableness and openness personality traits have a significant positive impact on both action and affective brand loyalty. The study stresses the importance of brand loyalty to companies and the benefits of giving attention to customers’ insights like personality characteristics. (Lin, 2010)

Furthermore, Matzler, Bidmon, and Grabner-Kräuter (2006) identified openness and extraversion personality traits to have a positive relationship with brand affect, which in turn drives both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty. They proposed that due to the higher tendency of curiosity and experientially richer lives, than closed individuals, openness and extraversion personality traits are more likely to be open to affective responses towards brands. They demonstrated that consumer personality has an influence on brand loyalty, especially for brands with hedonic value; openness personality has a direct influence, whereas extraversion personality has an indirect influence via hedonic value. (Matzler et al., 2006) In line with prior research, Matzler et al. (2006) also identified that consumers are more likely to hold favorable attitudes towards brands that match with their personality, repeatedly purchase those brands, and so create brand loyalty. (Matzler et al., 2006)

Also, the relationship between personality traits and brand loyalty is researched in the fast moving consumer goods context. Concentrating on both brand loyalty dimensions of action and affective loyalty, research was conducted by Virani (2013) to explore the effect of personality traits on the loyalty dimensions. The results show again that the positive relationship between personality traits and brand loyalty exists. Moreover, positive influence on both action and affective brand loyalty were identified with personality traits of conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness. (Virani, 2013) Subsequently, a recently conducted study in the cell phone market found supporting evidence for findings of Virani (2013), also identifying personality dimensions of conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to have a positive relationship with brand loyalty. (Mann and Rawat, 2016)

(21)

15 Based upon these findings from prior literature, it can be stated that existing research and theory has found sufficient evidence regarding the positive relationship between consumer personality traits and brand loyalty. Concerning the research context in this study, the following five hypotheses are proposed:

H1: There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty.

H2: There is a positive relationship between agreeableness personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty.

H3: There is a positive relationship between conscientiousness personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty.

H4: There is a positive relationship between neuroticism personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty.

H5: There is a positive relationship between openness personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty.

2.4.2 The Impact of Brand Personality

The relationship between brand personality and consumer personality

As previously described, past research widely supports the approach of consumers having a preference for brands that match their personality (Belk, 1988; Malhotra, 1988; Kleine et al., 1993; Matzler et al., 2006). Also, distinct brand personality is seen to lead to a strong connection between consumers and the brand (Doyle, 1989). Moreover, Goyers and Schoormans (2005) conducted research regarding the positive influence of brand personality on consumer preferences through a

(22)

16 congruence effect. Findings of the study are in line with prior research and show that consumers prefer brands and products that have a high degree of similarity within their personality and brand personality. Govers and Schoormans (2005) highlight the importance of brand personality especially for mature markets, where differentiation in functionality or price is difficult. (Govers and Schoormans, 2005)

Moreover, brands personality and identity lie on both direct and indirect contacts consumers have with a brand (Batra et al., 1993), whereas human personality indicates on the foundation of one’s behaviour, thoughts, and beliefs (Park, 1986). The two concepts differ in how they are constructed but still share similar conceptualization. To formulate the brand personality scale, Aaker (1995) used the items from the Big Five model, but in the end completed the scale with other socio-demographic characteristics. Three out of five brand personality dimensions obtained the Big Five structure; sincerity corresponds to personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness, excitement to the personality trait of extraversion, and competence to personality traits of extraversion and conscientiousness. The brand personality dimensions of sophistication and ruggedness, do not correspond to the Big Five dimensions, but Aaker (1997) proposed that sophistication can be compared with extraversion personality trait, whereas ruggedness to neuroticism personality trait. (Aaker, 1997) Subsequently, various researchers have examined the relationship personality traits and brand personality with result supporting Aakers (1997) viewpoints (Geuens, Weijter, and De Wulf, 2009; Lin, 2010) Overall, the brand personality dimensions (Aaker, 1997) and the Big Five models personality traits co-vary.

The relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty

Various studies have explored the impact of brand personality on brand loyalty (Kim, Han, and Park, 2001; Kumar, Luthra and Dattathe, 2006; Balakrishnan, Lee, Md. Shuaib and Marmava, 2009; Lin, 2010; Mann and Rawat, 2016), supporting the brand personality to have an effect on

(23)

17 brand loyalty. Well-established brand personality increases the preference and so the usage of brands. By creating emotional bonds between the consumer and a brand, distinct brand personality results in greater levels of brand loyalty. (Siguaw, Mattila and Austin, 1999) Also, brand personality has a positive effect on product evaluations, therefore creating more associations in consumers’ minds, and affecting the development of brand loyalty. (Freling and Forbes, 2005)

For instance, the effect of brand personality on brand loyalty in different product categories and involvement levels was examined by Kumar et al. (2006). Their findings showed that brand personality has an effect on brand loyalty in case of consumer goods, for both low- and high involvement levels. The study highlights the importance of the role and value of brand personality in the creation of brand loyalty. (Kumar et al., 2006) Moreover, Kim et al. (2001) recognized the importance of brand personality for the generation of brand identification, and long-term benefits, such as brand loyalty. Supporting prior research, Kim et al. (2001) also highlight the importance of brand personality in to help consumers to develop a favorable image of a brand. (Kim et al., 2001)

Additionally, the impact of brand personality on brand preference- and loyalty was studied by Balakrishnan et al. (2009). The research aimed to provide insights for brand managers and academicians within the service industry. In line with prior research, the result indicated that brand personality has a strong influence on brand preference and loyalty; brand reference- and loyalty were positively related to brand personality dimensions of excitement, competence, and sophistication. (Balakrishnan et al. 2009) Furthermore, brand personality is also seen to have an effect on brand loyalty in case of toy and games industry, indicating the brand personality dimensions of competence and sophistication having a significant positive influence on both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty. (Lin, 2010) Additionally, a recent study explores the impact of brand personality of brand loyalty in cell phone sector, supporting the prior findings of brand personality having a positive effect on brand loyalty, showing a positive relationship between

(24)

18 personality traits of sincerity, excitement, and competence and brand loyalty. (Mann and Rawat, 2016)

Based upon the prior literature discussed, it can be stated that existing theory and research has found sufficient evidence regarding the effect of brand personality on the relationship between consumer personality and brand loyalty. Concerning the research context in this paper, the following moderating hypotheses are proposed:

H6: The relationship between extraversion personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty is moderated by brand personality so that this relationship is stronger for beauty brands with excitement, competence and sophistication brand personality.

H7: The relationship between agreeableness personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty is moderated by brand personality so that this relationship is stronger for beauty brands with sincerity brand personality.

H8: The relationship between conscientiousness personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty is moderated by brand personality so that this relationship is stronger for beauty brands with competence and sincerity brand personality.

H9: The relationship between neuroticism personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty is moderated by brand personality so that this relationship is stronger for beauty brands with ruggedness brand personality.

H10: The relationship between openness personality trait and both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty is moderated by brand personality so that this relationship is stronger for beauty brands with excitement brand personality.

(25)

19

2.5 Conceptual Model

Based on the prior literature and the proposed hypotheses the conceptual model is created for this study. The conceptual model can be seen in Figure 2.

(26)

20

3 Method

In this chapter, the research method used is presented. First, the procedure, sample and results of the pre-test are presented. Then, the measurements used in this study are discussed. Finally, the data collection procedure and the characteristics of the sample of this study are outlined.

3.1 Pre-Test

In order to ensure the usage of brands with right brand personalities, a pre-test is conducted. The objective of this pre-test is to identify five brands in beauty brand category with different brand personalities covering the five brand personality dimensions (Aaker, 1997) that can be used in the final survey. Regarding this study, it is important to select brands that have distinct brand personalities, and so score high on the brand personality dimension. One brand per brand personality dimension is identified to be used in the final survey, representing each brand personality dimension. In total six beauty brands were chosen based on their assumed brand personality. The six brands are: L’Oreal Paris, Garnier, Vichy, Maybelline New York, Lancôme, and Diesel.

3.1.1 Procedure

As demonstrated in Figure 1, the brand personality framework of Aaker (1997) consists of five personality dimensions, which together consist of 42 traits. Due to time constraints, the pre-test uses a shorter version, consisting of 15 traits from the original framework. Use of the shorter version of the brand personality framework is accepted within prior academic research (Phau and Lau, 2001; Kressmann, Sirgy, Herrmann, Huber, and Lee, 2006), and so internal consistency problems are not expected.

Respondents evaluated the chosen six beauty brands on the 15 traits of brand personality dimensions measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= strongly disagree to

(27)

21 5= strongly agree. Online survey software Qualtrics is used to create the survey. The survey was distributed via personal email and social media platform Facebook. The questionnaire used in the pre-test can be found in Appendix 8.1.

3.1.2 Sample

In a total of 79 respondents completed the pre-test questionnaire (N=79). As noted, the questionnaire was distributed via personal email and social media platform Facebook. Non-probability convenience sampling method is used for the pre-test, approaching family, friends, and colleagues of the researcher. From all 79 participants 69.7 % (n=69) are female and 10.1 % (n=10) are male. The age of the respondents ranges from 18 to 58, with age group of 20-29-year-olds being the largest by covering 64,7 % of the sample (n=64). A majority of respondents (55.6 %, n=55) are from Finland, whereas the second biggest country of origin within the sample is the Netherlands (22.2 %, n=22). Most of the respondents obtained Bachelor’s degree (42.4 %, n=42), rest of the respondents obtained either Master’s degree (26,3 %, n=26), or High school/ Vocational school degree (12.1 %, n=12).

3.1.3 Results

After finishing the data collection, the scale means for the five brand personality dimensions for the six brands were computed. Since the five brand personality dimensions consist of more than one trait, calculation of the scale means was necessary. The scale means for each brand per brand personality can be seen in Table 1.

The results of the pre-test show five different brand personalities among the tested six brands. L’Oreal Paris has competence brand personality, Garnier and Vichy are evaluated as sincere, Maybelline New York have excitement brand personality, Lancôme is considered as Sophistication, and finally, Diesel have a ruggedness brand personality. To have one brand per

(28)

22 brand personality dimension in the final survey, the researcher decided to use Garnier rather than Vichy as representative for sincerity brand personality dimension, since the brand personality of Garnier (4.14) is more distinct than Vichy (3.79).

3.2 Measurements

To ensure the reliability of measurements used in this study, validated constructs have been used in the questionnaire. For an overview of scale items used, please see Appendix 8.3. The original scales used to measure all of the constructs in this study were in English, so translation procedures were not needed. The scales used and their reliability is presented below.

Brand Loyalty

The dependent variable Brand Loyalty is measured based on the framework of Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). The scale consists of four statements reflecting either purchase related or attitudinal aspects of brand loyalty, following the framework by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978). A 7-point Liker scale was used with the four-item index, ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The questions consist of “I will buy this brand the next time I buy products that are included the brands’ portfolio”, “I intend to keep purchasing the brand”, I am committed to this brand” and “I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands”. The

Table 1.

Means scales pre-test

L’Oreal Paris Garnier Lancôme Maybelline New York Vichy Diesel

Competence 3.96 2.70 2.08 2.90 2.57 2.26

Excitement 2.97 3.42 2.63 4.62 2.72 2.30

Sincerity 2.96 4.14 2.06 2.52 3.79 1.89

Sophistication 2.36 1.83 4.36 1.64 2.44 2.11

Ruggedness 2.21 1.94 1.25 1.79 2.08 3.91

(29)

23 Cronbach’s α = .90 for purchase loyalty items and the Cronbach’s α = .83 for attitudinal loyalty items, indicating a good reliability. (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)

Personality Traits

The Big Five Inventory (BFI) (John, Donahue and Kentle, 1991) is used to measure the independent variables, hence personality traits. The scale consists of 44 items that the respondents answer about themselves in order to measure the Big Five personality traits. Due to the excessive length of the original NEO-Five Factor index of Costa and McCrae (2004), a decision to use the BFI index was made to control the length of the overall survey. The NEO-Five Factor index contains 240 items, and so was considered to be too long for the survey. Various studies have compared the validity of BFI to the NEO-Five Factor index, supporting the BFI to be a valid and reliable construct with the reliability scores ranging from Cronbach’s α = .76 to Cronbach’s α = .83 (Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann, 2003; Thalmayer, Saucier and Eigenhuis, 2011). Each item of BFI scale consists of a short statement on which the respondents answer to what extend the statements applies to them. A 5-point Liker scale is used with the 44 item index, ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. (John et al., 1991)

Brand Personality

Like aforementioned, Brand Personality is measured in the pre-test using the framework by Jennifer Aaker (1997), and so is not tested again in the final questionnaire. The results of the pre-test indicated brand personalities for five beauty brands, one brand for each brand personality dimension. These brands represented the brand personality dimensions in the final questionnaire. The scale reliability for the Brand Personality framework is Cronbach’s α = .86, indicating a good reliability. (Aaker, 1997) To minimize the chance of inaccurate results, participants were asked if

(30)

24 they were familiar with the brands presenting the brand personality dimensions in the final survey. Only respondents that are familiar with all the brands are included to the final sample.

Control Variables

Results of this study are controlled for two control variables; age, and gender. The control variables capture the demographic characteristics in this study. Respondents were also asked about their education level and nationality. These items were included in the last section of the questionnaire.

3.3 Data Collection Procedure and Sample

This quantitative study is conducted through questionnaires to collect cross-sectional data. The questionnaire was created in the online survey software Qualtrics, and a single survey was sent out to respondents through personal email and social media platform Facebook. This chosen data collection method mirrored a non-probability convenience sampling technique and was used due time constrict to collect the responses as well as for convenience purposes. The data was collected in a two-week period, from 1st of May, until 15th of May, 2017. The questionnaire for the final survey can be found in Appendix 8.2.

The final sample contains 219 respondents who are familiar with the beauty brands presented in the final survey, excluding 48 respondents who did not complete the questionnaire or were not familiar with the brands. Furthermore, it was necessary to be able to have a sufficient level of English, as the study was conducted in English. The respondents were informed upfront of the topic and language of the questionnaire.

(31)

25

4 Results

In this chapter, the statistical approach used to analyze the results of this study is presented. First, the preliminary steps of data preparation are discussed, including the reliability analysis for used scales. Next, the descriptive statistics are presented and finally, the results of the analyses done to test the proposed hypotheses are demonstrated. The chapter ends with an overview of the results gained from hypotheses testing.

4.1 Data Preparation Procedure

In order to perform the statistical analyses, the Statistical Analysis Software Package SPSS is used. First, a data screening was conducted, to identify missing data. As aforementioned, the total of 267 responses were gathered, from those 219 were completed within criteria of being included in the study; only fully completed responses were the respondent is familiar with all the brands presented in the survey are included in this study (N=219). Next, the counter-indicative items were re-coded, and scale means were created. In order to use control variable age in analyses conducted, six age groups were created indicating 1= under 20 year olds, 2= 20-29, 3= 30-39, 4=40-49, 5= 50-59, and 6 = 60 year olds and older. Finally, the scale reliabilities were measured in order to confirm the reliability of used scales.

4.1.1 Reliability Analysis

The reliability analyses are conducted to confirm the quality of the measures used. The reliability analyses for consumer personality scales were done per personality trait scale. Furthermore, the reliability analyses for brand loyalty dimensions are also conducted. The results are represented in Table 2.

(32)

26

Result of the reliability analyses shows that the Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness personality scales have a high reliability, with Cronbach’s α > .70. For all these scales the corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score, with value > 0.3. However, the Agreeableness- and the Conscientiousness personality scales did not reach the desired reliability score, with Cronbach’s α < .70. The reason for a lower score in the reliability test might lie in the content of the items within scales. The fact that the scale is somewhat old, and so some of the questions might be outdated. For example, the question that affected the Cronbach’s α for Agreeableness personality scale was “I see myself as someone who can be cool”, that can be considered as somewhat outdated question. The other reason for lower reliability results might also rise from the reverse coded questions that seem to have impact on the Cronbach’s α for Conscientiousness personality scale. Still, the personality scales used in this study are widely valued and used within academic research. The Cronbach’s α for the two scales were close to desired > .70 value. Furthermore, none of the items in the scales would substantially affect reliability. Based on these facts and in order the study to be comparable with other studies that have used the Big Five Inventory (BFI) framework, no items were deleted. Furthermore, the reliability analysis for brand loyalty dimensions showed high reliability for both scales, with Cronbach’s α >.70. For the scales, the corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have good correlation with the total of the scale, with value >.30.

Table 2.

Scale Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

Extarversion 0.85 8

Agreeableness 0.68 9

Conscientiousness 0.69 9

Neuroticism 0.76 8

Openness 0.72 10

Purchase Brand Loyalty 0.85 10

Attitudinal Brand Loyalty 0.86 10

Reliability Statistics: Personality Traits & Brand Loyalty

(33)

27

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

Next, the descriptive statistics are presented. First, the respondent analysis is discussed. Then, the sample distribution is examined by Skewness and Kurtosis tests. Next, the factor analysis is presented, exploring the factorial loadings of the personality trait items. Finally, the correlation between variables is discussed, and correlation matrix table is presented.

4.2.1 Respondent Analysis

As aforementioned, a number 219 completed questionnaires are used for the analyses of this study (N=219). From the 219 respondents, 91 % are female (n=199) and 9 % are male (n=20). The age of the respondents ranges between 17 and 67, with age group of 20-29-year-olds being the largest by covering 78.5 % of the sample (n=172). A majority of the respondents (64.8 %, n=142) are from Finland, whereas the second biggest country of origin within the sample is the Netherlands (14.2 %, n=31). Most of the respondents obtain Bachelor’s degree (45.2 %, n=99), rest of the respondents obtain either Master’s degree (32 %, n=70), or High school/ Vocational school degree (22.8 %, n=50). These sample characteristics can be explained by the used convenient sampling method and the fact that used beauty brands might be more attractive to female beauty brand consumers, than men.

4.2.3 Kurtoses and Skewness Test

In order to examine the distribution of the sample, a Kurtoses and Skewness tests are conducted. The Skewness value indicates the summary of the distribution, whereas the Kurtosis value provides the information of “peakedness” of the distribution. (Pallant, 2010, pg. 57) The results from the Kurtoses and Skewness tests can be seen from the Table 3.

(34)

28 The distribution occurs perfectly normal if the Skewness and Kurtosis obtain the value of 0. This is usually very uncommon in the social sciences, and therefore normal distribution is identified to have Skewness and Kurtosis value between -1 and 1. (Pallant, 2010, 57). Since the Skewness and Kurtosis values for all personality traits and both brand loyalty dimensions are close to zero, we can say that for those variables the sample is normally distributed. Moreover, positive Skewness indicates that scores are clustered to the left at low values, whereas negative Skewness indicates scores to be clustered at the high end. A positive Kurtosis value indicates the distribution to be rather peaked, whereas negative values show the distribution to be relatively flat. (Pallant, 2010, 57) For the two control variables, age, and gender, the results indicate that the sample is not normally distributed. This is due to the convenience sampling technique and the fact that used beauty brands can be seen to be more attractive for female consumers than men, hence the sample consist of more women than men. Most of the respondents were young; this was also due to the convenience sampling technique since the participants from the same age group as the researcher were the most convenient to reach to participate in the study.

Table 3.

Variable N

Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

Age 219 2.428 0.164 6.165 0.327 Gender 219 -2.857 0.164 6.219 0.327 Extarversion 219 0.098 0.164 -0.769 0.327 Agreeableness 219 -0.190 0.164 0.560 0.327 Conscientiousness 219 -0.190 0.164 -0.307 0.327 Neuroticism 219 0.436 0.164 0.440 0.327 Openness 219 -0.485 0.164 0.308 0.327

Purchase Brand Loyalty 219 -0.813 0.164 0.545 0.327

Attitudinal Brand Loyalty 219 -0.065 0.164 -0.670 0.327

Valid N (listwise) 219

Distribution of the sample: Skewness and Kurtosis

Skewness Kurtosis

(35)

29 4.2.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis

A principal axis factoring analysis (PAF) was conducted on the scales for Personality traits (IVs). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .758. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity x² (946) = 4787.387, p < .001, indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PAF. (Appendix 8.5.1) An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Eleven components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 67% of the variance. (Appendix 8.5.1) Keiser’s criterion,

examination of the scree plot revealed a levelling off after eleventh factor (Appendix 8.5.1). The different factor solutions were examined by using varimax rotations, with five factor solution being preferred. Consequently, a principle components analysis of the five factors was conducted. For the five factors the eigenvalues were over 2.0 and in combination explained 43% of the total variance (Appendix 8.5.1). Thus, five factors were retained and rotated with a Varimax with Kaiser

Normalization rotation. The factor loadings after rotation can be seen in Table 4. The items that cluster on the same factors suggest that factor 1 represents Neuroticism personality trait, factor 2 represents Openness personality trait, factor 3 Extraversion personality trait, and factor 5

Conscientiousness personality trait. As results suggest, some of the items show high cross-loadings on other factors as well, this could be due to the content of the items. Still, the highest loading is always found in the items representing the factors suggested.

(36)

30 Table 4.

Exploratory Factor Analyses for Perssonality Traits;

Questionnaire Item 1. Neuroticism 2. Openness 3. Extraversion 4. Agreeableness 5. Conscientiousness

1. Is talkative 0.73

2. Is reserved (r) -0.32 0.54

3. Is full of energy -0.36 0.32 0.47 0.32

4. Generates a lot of enthusiasm 0.44 0.47

5. Tends to be quiet (r) -0.58 0.60

6. Has an assertive personality 0.34 0.45

7. Is sometimes shy (r) -0.54 0.58

8. Is outgoing -0.33 0.61

1. Tends to criticize others -0.33 0.66

2. Is helpful 0.65

3. Starts arguments with others (r) -0.38 0.40

4. Has a forgiving nature 0.58

5. Is generally trusting 0.63

6. Can be cool (r) -0.40 -0.30 0.63

7. Is considerate and kind to almost everyone

0.85

8. Is sometimes rude to others (r) -0.34 0.38

9. Likes to cooperate with others 0.52

1. Does a thorough job 0.46 0.56

2. Can be somewhat careless (r) -0.44 0.63

3. Is reliable 0.31 0.48 0.50

4. Tends to be disorganized (r) 0.48

5. Tends to be lazy (r) 0.48

6. Finishes my tasks 0.56

7. Does things efficiently 0.30 0.62

8. M akes plans and follows through with them

0.40

9. Is easily distracted (r) -0.31 -0.46 0.50

1. Is depressed 0.49 -0.39

2. Handles stress well (r) 0.48 -0.37 -0.33

3. Can be tense 0.63 -0.31

4. Worries a lot 0.73

5. Not easily upset (r) 0.45 -0.40

6. Can be moody 0.67

7. Remains calm in tense situations (r) 0.33 -0.31

8. Gets nervous easily 0.75

1. Is original 0.64

2. Is curious about many different things 0.67

3. Is a deep thinker 0.33 0.62

4. Has an active imagination 0.59

5. Is inventive 0.72

6. Values artistic experiences 0.35 0.37

7. Prefers work that is routine (r) -0.51

8. Likes to reflect, play with ideas 0.63

9. Has few artistic interest (r) 0.41

10. Appreciates art, music, or literature 0.36 0.41

Rotation Method: Variance-maximizing (varimax) with Keiser Normalization Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis with a fixed number of factors. Rotated component matrix

(37)

31 4.2.4 Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis was conducted to initially examine the relationship between variables. An overview of the descriptive statistics; correlation coefficients, means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities are presented in the correlation matrix in Table 5. From the correlation carried on, most of the consumer personality traits do not appear to relate significantly to purchase or attitudinal brand loyalty. However, personality trait agreeableness relates significantly to both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty, with a Pearson Correlation coefficient of r= 0.14 for purchase brand loyalty and a Pearson Correlation coefficient r= 0.16 for attitudinal brand loyalty. On the other hand, personality trait openness relates significantly to purchase brand loyalty with a Pearson Correlation coefficient r=0.15 and also for attitudinal brand loyalty with a Pearson Correlation coefficient r= 0.12. Among the control variables, none had a significant relation to neither of the brand loyalty dimensions.

(38)

32 Table 5. Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Age 2.30 0.92 - 2. Gender 1.91 0.29 0.09 - 3. Extraversion 3.33 0.77 0.17* 0.20** (.85) 4. Agreeableness 3.62 0.54 -0.01 0.08 -0.09 (.68) 5. Conscientiousness 3.53 0.54 0.24** 0.08 0.21** 0.03 (.67) 6. Neuroticism 3.00 0.70 -0.16** -0.04 -0.48** -0.18** -0.26** (.76) 7. Openness 3.60 0.56 0.09 0.06 0.20** -0.06 0.25** -0.07 (.72)

8. Purchase Brand Loyalty 4.27 1.22 -0.07 -0.03 0.01 0.14*

-0.03 0.00 0.15* (.85) 9. Attitudinal Brand Loyalty 3.38 1.22 0.05 -0.06 0.06

0.16* -0.08 0.01 0.12* 0.77** (.86) Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Note: N = 219. Gender coded as 1=male 2=female. Reliabilities are reported along the diagonal.

(39)

33

4.3 Hypotheses Testing

Regression analyses were undertaken to test the hypotheses of this study. The direct relationships, as well as the moderation effects between variables, were examined by the use of hierarchical multiple regressions. The regression analyses were conducted for two dependent variables; (1) purchase brand loyalty, and (2) attitudinal brand loyalty. In step 1, the control variables age and gender are entered into the equation; this was done to control their influence on the results. In step 2, the independent variables; consumer personality dimensions, were entered into the model. In order to examine the moderating effect of brand personality on the direct relationships in interaction terms, a third step is conducted per brand personality.

4.3.1 The Relationship Between Consumer Personality and Brand Loyalty

The first goal of this study, and the first five hypotheses referred to enlighten the relationship between independent variables; personality traits and dependent variables; purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty. In this study, hierarchical multiple regressions are performed to examine the individual contribution of each of the five personality traits in explaining both purchase and attitudinal brand loyalty, after controlling age and gender.

First, hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of consumer personality traits to predict purchase brand loyalty, after controlling age and gender. In the first step, two predictors were entered: age and gender. This model was not statistically significant F(2, 215) = .53; p > .05 and explained 1% of variance in purchase brand loyalty. After entry of the personality traits at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 5% F(7, 210) = 1.53; p > .05. The introduction of the personality traits explained additional 4% variance in purchase brand loyalty, after controlling age and gender (R² Change = .04; F(5, 210) = 1.92; p > .05). (Appendix 8.5.2.1) In the final model two out of seven predictor variables were

(40)

34 statistically significant; the agreeableness personality trait (β = .14, p < .05) and the openness personality trait (β = .16, p < .05). (Table 6)

Based on the analysis, the linear relationship between the agreeableness personality trait and purchase brand loyalty, as well as the openness personality trait and purchase brand loyalty, is positively significant. In short, if agreeableness personality trait increases by one unit, purchase brand loyalty will increase by .14. Also, if the openness personality trait increases by one unit, purchase brand loyalty will increase by .16. These results indicate that for higher levels of agreeableness and openness personality, purchase brand loyalty for beauty brands increases. The results of hierarchical multiple regression for purchase brand loyalty can be found in Table 6.

Next, the same procedure was conducted for the second dependent variable; attitudinal brand loyalty. In the first step of the hierarchical multiple regression, two predictors were entered: age and gender. This model was not statistically significant F(2, 216) = .71; p > .05 and explained 1% of variance in attitudinal brand loyalty. After entry of the personality traits at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 6% F(7, 211) = 1.84; p > .05. The

Table 6.

Hierarchical regression model testing the relationship between personality traits and purchase brand loyalty

R R² Change B SE β t Step 1 0.07 0.01 Age -0.08 0.09 -0.06 -0.94 Gender -0.10 0.28 -0.02 -0.33 Step 2 0.22 0.05 0.04 Age -0.13 0.09 -0.10 -1.34 Gender 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.11 Extraversion -0.04 0.13 -0.02 -0.30 Agreeableness 0.31 0.16 0.14* 1.95 Conscientiousness -0.05 0.16 -0.02 -0.29 Neuroticism -0.05 0.14 -0.03 -0.33 Openness 0.13 0.06 0.16* 2.23

Note. Statistical significance: *p<0.05;**p<0.01;***p<0.001

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

De aanleg van heemtuin Tenellaplas 50 jaar geleden, Een kleine zandzuiger ver­ plaatst duizenden kubieke meter zand en de duinplas krijgt zijn natuurlijke vorm,

Further, we identify two institutional changes to shift the path dependent trajectory of vehicular dominance: (1) changing the conventional transport planning paradigm whereby

The main strategies of the global public health community to address NTDs were laid out in resolution WHA 66.12 adopted at the World Health Assembly 2013(8) and the 2012 WHO

The three final piles were translated into the following codes: (a) PA acceptance, which is the administrative and official acceptance of subnational PA in the organization and of

Het geloof dat er fundamentele wetten zijn die enkel door mensen kunnen worden ontdekt, de Constitutionele stroming, is volgens onder andere Hungtinton (1981, 14)

We show evidence in this study that participative team interaction patterns are associated with a team’s extensive sharing of information and, in turn, with team effectiveness in

As the established infrastructure of the TU Braunschweig Learning Factory [9] features ideal conditions to demonstrate this research topic (e.g. presence of small-scale production

This study proposes to perform semantic segmentation on panoramic images and transformed images to separate light poles and traffic signs from background implemented by