Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2
= 262.38, df = 125, p = .00.
The various indices for the overall t of the
research model (shown in Figure 1) were GFI
(.82), AGFI (.76), RMSR (.89), NFI (.80), CFI
(.88);
2
= 275.04, df = 127, p = .00. The
difference between the research model and
the alternative model was not signicant
(
2
= 12.66, df = 2).
The relationships between variables and
path coefcients of the structural model are
presented in Table 6. The self-expressive value
of the brand personality had a signicant effect
on the attractiveness of the brand personality
(
11
= .84, t = 6.17). The distinctiveness of the
brand personality had a signicant effect on
the attractiveness of the brand personality
(
21
= .21, t = 2.31), but the effect was weaker
than that of self-expressive value. Therefore,
these results support hypothesis 1 (the higher
the self-expressive value of the brand person-
ality and the higher the distinctiveness of
the brand personality are, the more attractive
will be the brand personality). Furthermore,
the attractiveness of the brand personality
had a signicant effect on the level of
brand identication (
21
= .56, t = 4.61). There-
fore, hypothesis 2 (the more attractive the
brand personality is, the higher the level of
brand identication will be) is also supported.
The degree of brand identication positively
affected word-of-mouth reports (
32
= .38,
t = 3.00), but it did not signicantly affect the
level of brand loyalty (
42
= .11. t = 0.88).
Therefore, hypothesis 3 (the higher the con-
sumers identication with brand is, the higher
the consumers word-of-mouth reports and
brand loyalty will be) is only partly supported.
200 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 200 (Black plate)
The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty 201
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
Table 1. Factor analysis results brand personality
Factor 1: Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4: Factor 5:
Factor item sincerity excitement competence sophistication ruggedness Communality
I ntelligent .79
a
.12 .17 .10 .02 .6737
Successful .72
a
.26 .17 .07 .24 .6754
Leader .66
a
.07 .05 .06 .40 .6088
Upper class .66
a
.11 .36 .13 .27 .6717
Secure .66
a
.15 .24 .24 .10 .5811
Technical .65
a
.34 .14 .14 .27 .6512
Corporate .65
a
.01 .36 .36 .09 .5677
Reliable .63
a
.01 .37 .37 .12 .6256
Hardworking .63
a
.17 .34 .34 .03 .5587
Condent .60
a
.30 .14 .14 .19 .5218
Trendy .04 .79
a
.18 .12 .11 .6924
Young .01 .70
a
.15 .14 .05 .6412
Contemporary .41 .71
a
.05 .02 .08 .6758
Unique .21 .68
a
.28 .06 .17 .6125
Up-to-date .35 .65
a
.21 .20 .09 .6348
Spirited .04 .64
a
.24 .29 .03 .5556
Western .30 .58
a
.11 .01 .41 .6069
O utdoorsy .15 .50
a
.18 .12 .45 .5263
Charming .30 .27 .70
a
.26 .14
Sentimental .20 .10 .69
a
.24 .03 .7488
Smooth .20 .06 .67
a
.38 .16 .5829
Feminine .06 .28 .66
a
.09 .12 .6603
Good-looking .17 .25 .65
a
.27 .19 .5399
Glamorous .35 .20 .64
a
.25 .10 .6285
I maginative .13 .32 .54
a
.12 .08 .6432
Daring .33 .22 .54
a
.13 .32 .4420
Exciting .25 .39 .53
a
.14 .10 .5624
Wholesome .13 .05 .11 .74
a
.02 .5778
Honest .29 .01 .02 .69
a
.19 .5962
Small-town .06 .08 .16 .63
a
.11 .4420
Sincere .19 .03 .25 .62
a
.25 .5462
Friendly .13 .39 .24 .50
a
.06 .4783
O riginal .32 .16 .17 .50
a
.09 .4134
Tough .16 .12 .13 .24 .80
a
.7623
M asculine .29 .13 .15 .28 .75
a
.7626
Rugged .44 .15 .16 .21 .60
a
.6449
Explained by factors 5.9736 4.7723 4.4836 3.6345 2.7770
Eigenvalue 12.2277 3.6994 2.5413 1.6902 1.4824
Cronbachs .9110 .8702 .8825 .7768 .8373
a
Factor loading .5.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 201 (Black plate)
Finally, the attractiveness of the brand
personality signicantly affected positive word-
of-mouth reports, but it did not signicantly
affect brand loyalty (
31
= .33, t = 2.64,
41
= .14,
t = 1.16).
Discussion and conclusion
Summary of results
Most of the hypotheses were supported by the
test results. The conrmation of the rst
202 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
Table 2. Reliability of items
O riginal number Final number Cronbachs
Construct I tem of items of items
a
Those items which were not reliable and loading low on the corresponding constructs were excluded from further
analysis.
Attractiveness of
brand personality
Self-expressive value
of brand personality
Distinctiveness of
brand personality
Brand identication
Word-of-mouth
reports
Brand loyalty
1. Attractive
2. Favorable
3. Distinctive
1. The brand helps me to express myself
2. The brand reects my personality
3. The brand enhances myself
1. The brand was not related to other brands
(vs. closely related)
2. The brand is completely different from other
brands
a
(vs. completely similar)
3. The brand has few features in common with
other brands (vs. many features)
1. This brands successes are my successes
2. I am interested in what others think about this
brand
3. When someone praises this brand, it feels like
a personal compliment
a
4. When I talk about this brand, I usually say we
rather than they
5. I f a story in the media criticized the brand, I
would feel embarrassed
6. When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like
a personal insult
1. Recommend to other people that the brand
should be theirs as soon as possible
a
2. Recommend the brand to other people
3. Talk directly about your experience with them
1. I will continue to use this brand because I am
satised and acquainted with the brand
2. I will use this brand in spite of competitors
deals
3. I would buy additional products and service in
this brand
a
4. I prefer the brand to others
3
3
3
6
3
4
3
3
2
5
2
3
.89
.92
.50
.82
.78
.81
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 202 (Black plate)
hypothesis (the higher the self-expressive value
of the brand personality and the higher the
distinctiveness of brand personality, the higher
consumers will evaluate the attractiveness of
the brand personality) shows that there is a
positive relationship between customer and
brand.
Second, it turns out that the brand identi-
cation has a positive effect on word-of-mouth
reports, but it does not have a signicant direct
effect on brand loyalty. But, since word-of-
mouth reports signicantly affect brand loyalty
and since brand identication signicantly
affects word-of-mouth reports, it can be said
that brand identication has an indirect effect
on brand loyalty through positive word-of-
mouth reports.
Similarly, the attractiveness of the brand
personality directly affects positive word-of-
mouth reports and indirectly affects brand
loyalty. Unlike previous studies which argued
that the strength of ve dimensions of brand
personalities affect brand asset, the instrument
measuring attractiveness in this study had
three dimensions attractiveness, distinctive-
ness, and favorableness and these were
shown to affect brand loyalty and word-of-
mouth reports.
The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty 203
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
Table 3. Factor loadings (t values) from the conrmatory factor analysis of outcome variables
Factor items
a
Attractiveness Brand identication Word-of-mouth reports Brand loyalty
Attractiveness of brand personality
I tem 1 .86 (7.52)
I tem 2 .86 (7.54)
I tem 3 .84 (7.40)
Brand identication
I tem 1 .75 (8.78)
I tem 2 .54 (5.95)
I tem 4 .76 (8.98)
I tem 5 .80 (8.76)
I tem 6 .55 (6.08)
Word-of-mouth reports
I tem 2 .84 (8.76)
I tem 3 .77 (8.45)
Brand loyalty
I tem 1 .73 (6.60)
I tem 2 .74 (6.66)
I tem 3 .79 (6.91)
GFI = .91, AGFI = .86, RM SR = .05, NFI = .89, CFI = .97;
2
= 102.59, df = 80, p = .05.
a
See Table 2 for the numbered items.
Table 4. Factor loadings (t values) from the
conrmatory factor analysis of antecedent
variables
Self-expressive
Factors
a
value Distinctiveness
Self-expressive value
1 .91 (13.10)
2 .91 (13.06)
3 .81 (10.84)
Distinctiveness
1 .71 (3.53)
3 .53 (3.29)
GFI = .95, AGFI = .89, RM SR = .06, NFI = .95, CFI = .98;
2
= 28.02, df = 17, p = .05.
a
See Table 2 for the numbered items.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 203 (Black plate)
Implications for marketing strategies
Some strategic implications of this empirical
study are as follows. First, it is necessary for
rms to develop efcient communication
methods in order to launch a distinctive and
attractive brand personality. Communication
plays a vital role in creating and maintaining
brand personality. Unlike foreign examples,
there are few Korean cases in which brand
personality is consistently created. This re-
quires not only communication strategies but
also other activities such as the rms com-
munity service and consumer support activities.
However, many companies fail because they
emphasize and focus only on short-term goals
by responding ad hoc or emulating other
companies strategies. Therefore, the effective
use of brand personality (uniquely and in such
a way that the brand helps people enhance
their self-expression) can increase brand
loyalty and word-of-mouth reports. Usually,
brand personality is created by various
activities such as marketing communication,
sales promotion, social contribution, and
public relations. Therefore, brand personality is
not easily created, but once created it tends to
have a long life.
The results of this study have an important
theoretical implication, concerning the relation-
ship between brand and consumer. Recently,
with the increasing number of I nternet users,
more businesses have been focusing on customer
relationship management (CRM). The develop-
ment of brand identication affects the building
of a relationship between brand and consumer.
I n other words, when brand personality seems
attractive, brand identication is created. I f
brand identication increases, then online con-
sumers will not so readily click away from the
brands website. Brand personality would also
204 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
Table 5. Correlation matrix of research constructs
M ean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Self-expressive value 3.58 1.49 1.000
2. Distinctiveness 4.41 1.12 .156* 1.000
3. Attractiveness 3.96 1.28 .760* .021 1.000
4. Brand identication 3.20 1.30 .378* .151* .326* 1.000
5. Word-of-mouth reports 3.42 1.53 .445* .109 .386* .411* 1.000
6. Brand loyalty 3.87 1.50 .323* .047 .424* .299* .588* 1.000
This table shows the correlation matrix used for the LI SREL analysis. Those who would like to replicate our analysis could
use the correlation matrix rather than the full data set.
* p .1.
Table 6. Results of model and hypotheses
Hypothesis Coefcient value t value
11
Self-expressive value Attractiveness .84 6.17* *
21
Distinctiveness Attractiveness .21 2.31* *
21
Attractiveness I dentication .56 4.61* *
31
Attractiveness Word-of-mouth reports .33 2.64* *
41
Attractiveness Brand loyalty .14 1.16
32
I dentication Word-of-mouth reports .38 3.00* *
42
I dentication Brand loyalty .11 0.88
43
Word-of-mouth reports Brand loyalty .74 4.08* *
GFI = .82, AGFI = .76, RM SR = .89, NFI = .80, CFI = .88;
2
= 275.04, df = 127, p = .00.
* * p .05.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 204 (Black plate)
help a website powerfully differentiate itself
from competing sites, although they are
necessarily similar to each other, physically and
functionally. I n short, developing and main-
taining brand identication through brand
personality helps consumers consider the
brand as their long-term companion. This kind
of long-term relationship with customers is the
main objective of CRM.
Academically, this study has the following
theoretical implications. Unlike previous
research, this study tested possible relationships
between the self-expressive value of brand
personality, distinctiveness of brand person-
ality, and attractiveness of brand personality.
Most of these relationships are supported by
the current data. I n short, careful management
of brand personality helps consumers to develop
a favorable image of the company.
Limitations and future research directions
This study makes an important theoretical
contribution to connect the concept of brand
personality with the theory of social identi-
cation. Nevertheless, it has some limitations.
First, this study focuses only on cellular
phones, and many other products categories
could have been tested for the same purpose.
One of the interesting future areas is to
examine the issue of brand identication in
relation to sports marketing, brand extension,
I nternet marketing, and so on. For example, a
consumers identication with the brand of
a company (or simply brand identication)
would be signicantly affected by the con-
sumers identication with the sports team or a
star player sponsored by the company.
Second, this study tested the relationship
between brand identication and brand loyalty/
word-of-mouth reports, but additional theoret-
ical relationships could be tested within the
same framework. For example, repurchasing
behavior or intention ofine (or revisit be-
havior or intention online) could be included in
a future study.
3
References
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York:
Free Press.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality.
Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347356.
Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: the role of self-
expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36, 4557.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity
theory and the organization. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 14(1), 2039.
Bagozzi, R. (1980). Causal models in marketing.
Boston: John Wiley & Sons.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September),
139168.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995).
Understanding the bond of identication: an
investigation of its correlates among art museum
members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 4657.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V.
(1994). Organizational images and member
identication. Administrative Science Quarterly,
39, 239263.
File, K., Judd, B., & Prince, R. (1992). I nteractive
marketing: the inuence of participation on
positive word-of-mouth and referrals. Journal of
Service Marketing, 6(4), 514.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands:
developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24,
343373.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970).
Personal factors in organizational identifi-
cation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15,
176190.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identi-
cations: A social psychology of intergroup rela-
tions and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., Hardie, E. A., & Reyrolds, K. J. (1995).
Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and
depersonalized attraction: a perspective on
group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 25, 159177.
Karl, G. J., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LI SREL 8:
Structural equation modeling with the SI MPLI S
command language. Chicago: Science Software
I nternational.
Kim, C. (1998). Brand personality and advertising
strategy: an empirical study of mobile-phone
services. Korean Journal of Advertising, 9, 3752.
Lau, R. (1989). I ndividual and contextual inuences
on group identication. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 52, 220231.
The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty 205
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
3
We would like to thank one of the reviewers who
suggested this idea to us.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 205 (Black plate)
Mael, F. B., & Ashforth, E. (1992). Alumni and
their alma mater: a partial test of the reformu-
lated model of organizational identification.
J ournal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
103123.
Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a
difference. Journal of Advertising Research,
24(6), 2731.
Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB
grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4),
3438.
Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identi-
ties: the sources of collectivistic work motiva-
tion. Human Relations, 43, 313332.
(Received Jan. 17, 2001; accepted May 13, 2001)
206 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park
Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 206 (Black plate)