Brand Personality and Self Congruence in Laptop Computers

Abstract

To make the success of the brand in the market, basic and one of the most important elements is the “positioning”. For right positioning of the brand in the mind of the customers, study of the consumer behavior is essential. This study includes laptop industry and end users of the laptop brand. The major focus of the study is search for the answer of the question: “Do people buy the laptop brand which resembles their own personality?” In search of the answer, so many literatures have been studied. Aaker (1997) has developed scale “Dimensions of the Brand Personality” and Malhotra (1981) has developed scale to measure Self-concept, Person concepts, and product concepts. According to him the same scales which we are using to measure brand-image can be used to measure self-image. For the study both literature taken as base with others to identify the congruence between the brand personality and user’s own personality correlation analysis have been used. To support this major finding, brand-wise correlation analysis, analysis of variance, and LSD test have been used. It identify there is an association between the role of gender and the laptop own for which the test has been performed.

Keywords

Congruence brand personality self-image correlation ANOVA and LSD laptop

Introduction

The days have long gone, when firms would able to achieve economies of scale by supplying their standardized products to large customer pool in some of the specific industry. In trying to achieve economies of scale they end up with diseconomies of scale by offering the discounts and the schemes. One of the reasons behind it is continuous change in the technology and lack of proper understanding of their target segment and consumer behavior.

Indian laptop industry clutter with many laptop brands Acer, Apple, Dell, Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo, Samsung, HP/Compaq, HCL, Panasonic, LG, Asus etc. To make unique identity for success, companies need to focus on right positioning of their brand.

While positioning brand it is important to treat it like a human being with specific characteristics (Aaker, 1996; Duboff 1986; Thomas & Sekar, 2008). If targeted consumers are not really able to relate brand with their own specific symbolic criteria, then there will be doubt about the positioning of that brand.

Review of Related Literature

Brand Personality and Self Congruence

Any brand is said to have personality, when a consumer view it as having human characteristics (Aaker, 1997).

Lots of research has been conducted in the area of branding (Aaker, 2004) which include brand personality, personality of the consumer (self personality), and self congruity (association with the brand) (Durgee, 1988; Freling and Forbes, 2005; Sung et al., 2005; Supphellen et al., 2003). Personality can be described as the psychological characteristics that both determine and reflect how a person responds to his or her environment (Schiffman, Kanuk, Lazar, & Wisenblit, 1997).

“One of the major concepts in relational marketing is the congruence between the brand personality and the consumer’s self-image. It counts among the strategic tools which allow firms to understand the analogy between the human being and a given brand” (Achouri & Bouslama, 2010; Bellenger et al., 1976; Chang et al., 2001; Dolich and Ira J 1969). Associating the specific personality features to the brands allows the consumer to express a certain conception of them, so as to acquire some value enhancing, symbolic benefits from a given consumption (Vernette, 2003).

“Brand Personality is an important antecedent in formation of brand attitude” (Aaker, 1999; Azoulay et al., 2003; Batra & Homer, 2004; Chen & Wells, 1999; Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004; Oklevik, 2007).

Why brand personality should have any effect, relates to congruence (Aaker, 1999; Grimm, 2005; Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004; Hem & Iversen, 2002). “The idea behind, that consumers are more likely to prefer brands with image similar to their own self-concept. Self-concept can be interpreted as the present self-concept, the ideal self-concept, the self-concept as perceived by significant others and, the self concept as ideally perceived by significant others” (Belch and George 1978; Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004; Sirgy, 1982). Congruence seems to be especially important when products are used to emphasize any symbolic meaning for the consumer (Aaker, 1997, 1999; Batra, Myers et al., 1996; Hem & Iversen, 2002). Symbolic benefits are the more extrinsic advantages of product consumption (Keller, 1993; Park, Jaworski et al., 1986). “Extrinsic advantages are product-related but not part of the physical product itself. Price, brand name, and level of advertising are examples of extrinsic advantages” (Riezebos, Kist et al., 2003; Szybillo & Jacoby, 1974; Zeithaml, 1988). Such products (which have symbolic benefits) have been classified as social identity products in literature (Shavitt, 1990; Shavitt & Lowrey, 1992).

So many researchers have pointed at the positive influence of the brand personality on the consumers’ preferences toward the brand (Ambroise, 2006; Batra et al., 1993; Jamal & Goode, 2001; Sirgy, 1982; Wee, 2004). Some found the effect of congruence of the image on the attitude of the brand’s consumer in behavioral responses (Onkvist & Shaw, 1989; Sirgy & Samli, 1985; Sirgy et al., 1991; Sirgy et al., 2005; Sirgy and Su, 2000; Park and Lee, 2005).

Govers and Schoormans (2005) and Wee (2004) have shown that congruence between brand personality and human personality is significantly influential on consumers toward the targeted brand. So consumers often prefer the brands or the products which have a high level of congruence with self-image (Phau & Lau, 2001; Sirgy, 1986; Sirgy et al., 1997).

So the main focus of this study is to identify the behavior of consumers: “Do people buy the laptop which resembles their own personality?”

Aaker (1997), in “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” developed a brand personality scale. This study developed a specialized brand personality scale on the basis of personality scales from psychology, personality scales used by marketers’ and original qualitative research of personality traits associated with a mentioned number of brands. Out of 42 variables, Aaker (1997) have found five dimensions of the brand personality (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness).

Malhotra (1981), in “A Scale to Measure Self-concepts, Person Concepts, and Product Concepts,” explains the construction of scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product concepts. This scale would be applicable for coordinating the image of a product with the self-concept of the target market. According to these research, the same scales as brand image can measure self-image (Malhotra, 1981).

The consumer seeks certain congruence between the features of a brand’s image and the way his personality is presented (Belk, 1988; Sirgy, 1982).

Need for the Study

In the current competitive market, right positioning of the brand is very necessary. The research will provide relationship of brand personality with owner’s personality, which will help the companies for proper positioning of the brand in the market. The study will also help firms to prepare right promotional tool for the target audience.

Objectives of the Study

To understand the role of gender in brand preference for the laptop

To identify the most associated brand personality dimension of a laptop computer among the users

To find the most preferred personality of the laptop brand users

To identify whether there is the existence of the relationship between the brand personality and self (personality) congruence.

Methodology

Research Design

For this study, descriptive research design has been used as our research question is “Do people buy the laptop which resembles their own personality?” and lots of literature has been available and studied.

There are different types of scales available. For this study, primary closed ended structured questionnaire has been used as research instrument (different personality traits for laptop owned and for self-image (personality); (5–highly descriptive and 1–not at all descriptive) which uses the Aaker (1997) dimensions of the brand personality and as describe in Malhotra (1981) same scales as brand image can measure self-image. So same have been used to identify association of brand personality with self (user’s) personality (self congruence).

Sampling Design

Samples are taken from the well-known University in Nadiad district, Gujarat, which runs the technical and management courses with large pool of the quality students. For the data collection non-probability; convenience sampling method has been used. Selection of the college students as criteria has been chosen.

Determination of Sample Size

A pilot study was conducted among 50 laptop users and the standard deviation of the items was found to be 0.3670. Hence the sample size was determined to be 207 (the sample size derived from n = (Zs/e)²).

Reliability of the Data

For reliability (Nunnally, 1978) of the data, reliability test has been run. From Tables 1 and 2, the data obtained from the respondents are reliable (Cronbach’s alpha value greater than 0.8 for all the dimensions).

Data Analysis

There are total 207 respondents, out of which 127 (61 percent) are men and 80 (39 percent) are women. Out of 207 respondents, owner of Dell are 84 (41 percent) respondents, for HP are 45 (22 percent), for Lenovo are 14 (7 percent), for Sony are 32 (15 percent), for Acer are 19 (9 percent), and for Toshiba are 13 (6 percent).

To achieve the first objective, whether there is an association between the gender and laptop own, chi-square test has been performed (Haire, 1950; Kothari, 1985; Malhotra, 2000). In cross tabulation, one cell value has count less than 5. Chi-square test should not be performed (as for Toshiba laptop there are no women respondents). So without Toshiba laptop respondents again the chi-square has been performed.

H0: There is no significant association between the gender and laptop brand own by the respondents.

Ha: There is significant association between the gender and laptop brand own by the respondents

In Table 3 all the cell values are more than 5. Table 4 indicated significance value 0.002 which is less than 0.01 so null hypothesis is rejected. So we can say that there is an association between the gender of the respondents and the laptop own by them.

Table 1.

Reliability and Equivalence of Various Items in Brand Personality Dimensions

Dimensions	Cronbach’s Alpha Value	Hotelling’s T-squared	F Value	df	P Value
Sincerity	0.947	144.755	13.843	10,197	0.000
Excitement	0.950	255.746	24.457	10,197	0.000
Competence	0.933	143.007	17.268	8,199	0.000
Sophistication	0.910	154.642	30.328	5,202	0.000
Ruggedness	0.878	51.997	12.810	4,203	0.000

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Table 2.

Reliability and Equivalence of Various Items in Self Personality (Image/Concept) Dimensions

Dimensions	Cronbach’s Alpha Value	Hotelling’s T-squared	F Value	df	P Value
Sincerity	0.908	225.026	21.519	10,197	0.000
Excitement	0.933	91.3560	8.737	10,197	0.000
Competence	0.884	104.993	12.678	8,199	0.000
Sophistication	0.861	92.8770	18.215	5,202	0.000
Ruggedness	0.904	59.0480	14.547	4,203	0.000

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20)

Table 3.

Cross Tabulation

Gender * Laptop_own Cross Tabulation
			Laptop_own					Total
			Dell	HP	Lenovo	Sony	Acer	Total
Gender	Men	Count	43	33	7	25	6	114
		% Within Laptop_own	51.2	73.3	50.0	78.1	31.6	58.8
	Women	Count	41	12	7	7	13	80
		% Within Laptop_own	48.8	26.7	50.0	21.9	68.4	41.2
Total		Count	84	45	14	32	19	194
		% Within Laptop_own	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Table 4.

Chi-square Test

	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2 sided)
Pearson chi-square	17.119^a	4	.002
Likelihood ratio	17.630	4	.001
Linear-by-Linear association	.044	1	.834
N of valid cases	194

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Note: ^a0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.77.

To identify brand personality and self congruence among the respondents, correlation analysis has been performed.

H0: There is no significant correlation between the laptop brand personality (dimensions) and one’s own self personality (image dimensions)

Ha: There is the significant correlation between the laptop brand personality (dimensions) and one’s own self personality (image dimensions)

Tables 5 and 6 are the outcome of correlation analysis where for brand personality dimension (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness) and self personality dimension (sincerity–1, excitement–1, competence–1, sophistication–1, and ruggedness–1) the values of Pearson correlation coefficients and significance values have been generated by SPSS version 20. For all the dimension significance values are less than 0.01, so the null hypothesis has been rejected. So, for all the dimension there is the significant correlation between the laptop brand personality and one’s own self personality. Also correlation coefficients explain strong positive correlation coefficient between the brand personality and self personality. While only for one dimension (competence) it shows weak correlation. We can conclude from above results that people do like to buy the laptop which resembles their own self personality.

Table 5.

Correlation Analysis between the Brand Personality Dimensions and Self (Personality/Image Dimensions) to Identify Congruence

		Sincerity–1	Excitement–1	Competence–1
Sincerity	Pearson Correlation	.718**	.287**	.257**
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.000	.000	.000
	N	207	207	207
Excitement	Pearson Correlation	.153*	.621**	.379**
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.028	.000	.000
	N	207	207	207
Competence	Pearson Correlation	.307**	.404**	.392**
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.000	.000	.000
	N	207	207	207

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

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

Table 6.

Correlation Analysis between the Brand Personality Dimensions and Self (Personality/Image Dimensions) to Identify Congruence

		Sophistication–1	Ruggedness–1
Sophistication	Pearson Correlation	.700**	.069
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.000	.325
	N	207	207
Ruggedness	Pearson Correlation	.075	.810**
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.282	.000
	N	207	207

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

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

To support the above major finding brand-wise correlation analysis has been generated.

Correlation analysis for the Sony laptop brand:

H0: There is no association/correlation between brand personality dimensions of Sony laptop purchased by the customer and their self personality dimensions.

Ha: There is significant correlation between brand personality dimensions of Sony laptop purchased by the customer and their self personality dimensions.

In Tables 7 and 8 for all the dimension significance values are less than 0.01, so the null hypothesis has been rejected and there is the significant correlation between the Sony laptop brand personality and the owner’s self personality. Also correlation coefficients explain strong positive correlation coefficient between the Sony brand personality and the owner’s self personality.

Table 7.

Correlation Analysis for Sony Laptop Brand

		Sincerity–1	Excitement–1	Competence–1
Sincerity	Pearson correlation	.927**	.032	.010
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.000	.861	.956
	N	32	32	32
Excitement	Pearson correlation	–.644**	.587**	.717**
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.000	.000	.000
	N	32	32	32
Competence	Pearson correlation	–.670**	.648**	.750**
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.000	.000	.000
	N	32	32	32

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

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

Table 8.

Correlation Analysis for Sony Laptop Brand

		Sophistication–1	Ruggedness–1
Sophistication	Pearson correlation	.963**	–.341
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.000	.056
	N	32	32
Ruggedness	Pearson correlation	–.575**	.973**
	Sig. (2 tailed)	.001	.000
	N	32	32

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

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

Like the above for all other brands correlation analysis has been performed. The results summary is shown in Table 9.

Table 9.

Correlation Analysis (Correlation Coefficient r) Brand-wise

	Sony	Acer	HP	Dell	Lenovo
Sincerity	0.927	0.882	0.626	0.432	0.763
Excitement	0.587	0.760	0.960	0.430	0.604
Competence	0.750	0.852	0.211	0.199	0.660
Sophistication	0.963	0.823	0.451	0.430	0.780
Ruggedness	0.973	0.700	0.566	0.525	0.612

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

For all brands significance value (0.000) is less than 0.05, so null hypothesis is rejected except for HP and Dell for the competence dimension it is greater. So there is significant correlation between the brand personality dimensions of laptop (brand-wise) and self personality (supporting objective achieved). Correlation coefficients r which is given in Table 9 shows positive correlation. While in some cases it shows strong positive correlation.

To identify the most associated personality dimension for Sony laptop analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc test: LSD test has been performed. For the brand personality of Sony laptop brand results are as follows:

H0: There is no significant difference between the brand personality dimensions for Sony laptop computers.

Ha: There is significant difference between the brand personality dimensions for Sony laptop computers.

In ANOVA Table 10 significance value is 0.000 which is less than 0.01, so the null hypothesis is rejected. There is significant difference exists between the brand personality dimensions for Sony laptop brand. In Table 12 post hoc; LSD test has been performed. Which shows there is significance difference existed between sophistication and excitement (significance value: 0.001), sophistication and competence (significance value: 0.010), excitement. Also there is no significance difference existed between competence and excitement (significance value: 0.432). Mean ratings given for the brand Sony laptop computers are as follows: Sophistication, 4.4481; competence, 3.9213; and excitement, 3.7612.

Table 10.

Analysis of Variance

ANOVA
Rating_sony
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	141.190	4	35.298	53.533	.000
Within Groups	102.201	155	.659
Total	243.391	159

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

So we can conclude that most preferred/associated brand personality dimension of the Sony laptop computers is sophistication.

Descriptive statistics (Table 11), ANOVA and post hoc test (Table 12): LSD test has been performed for the laptop brand users to identify most preferred brand personality dimension by users and the results summary are in Table 13:

Table 11.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics
Rating_sony
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
Sincerity	32	2.3847	1.10350	.19507	1.9868	2.7825	1.00	4.09
Excitement	32	3.7612	.65117	.11511	3.5265	3.9960	2.91	5.00
Competence	32	3.9213	.58770	.10389	3.7094	4.1331	3.00	4.78
Sophistication	32	4.4481	.59583	.10533	4.2333	4.6629	3.33	5.00
Ruggedness	32	2.0125	.97708	.17272	1.6602	2.3648	1.00	3.40
Total	160	3.3056	1.23724	.09781	3.1124	3.4987	1.00	5.00

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Table 12.

Post Hoc Test; LSD Test

Multiple Comparisons
Rating_sony LSD
(I) Brand_personality_Sony	(J) Brand_personality_Sony	Mean difference (I–J)	Std. error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower bound	Upper bound
Sincerity	Excitement	–1.37656*	.20300	.000	–1.7776	–.9756
	Competence	–1.53656*	.20300	.000	–1.9376	–1.1356
	Sophistication	–2.06344*	.20300	.000	–2.4644	–1.6624
	Ruggedness	.37219	.20300	.069	–0.0288	.7732
Excitement	Sincerity	1.37656*	.20300	.000	.9756	1.7776
	Competence	–.16000	.20300	.432	–.5610	.2410
	Sophistication	–.68687*	.20300	.001	–1.0879	–0.2859
	Ruggedness	1.74875*	.20300	.000	1.3477	2.1498
Competence	Sincerity	1.53656*	.20300	.000	1.1356	1.9376
	Excitement	.16000	.20300	.432	–0.2410	.5610
	Sophistication	–.52687*	.20300	.010	–0.9279	–0.1259
	Ruggedness	1.90875*	.20300	.000	1.5077	2.3098
Sophistication	Sincerity	2.06344*	.20300	.000	1.6624	2.4644
	Excitement	.68687*	.20300	.001	.2859	1.0879
	Competence	.52687*	.20300	.010	.1259	.9279
	Ruggedness	2.43562*	.20300	.000	2.0346	2.8366
Ruggedness	Sincerity	–.37219	.20300	.069	–.7732	.0288
	Excitement	–1.74875*	.20300	.000	–2.1498	–1.3477
	Competence	–1.90875*	.20300	.000	–2.3098	–1.5077
	Sophistication	–2.43562*	.20300	.000	–2.8366	–2.0346

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Note: *The mean difference is significant at 0.05 level.

Table 13.

Most Associated Brand Personality of Laptop

Brand Name	Associated Brand Personality Dimension	ANOVA Sig.	LSD Test Summary
Dell	Sincere, competence, and ruggedness	0.000	There is no significance difference existed between sincerity and competence (significance value: 0.163), sincerity and ruggedness (significance value: 0.763), competence and ruggedness (significance value: 0.090). Rating given by Dell computers for sincerity is 3.2927, for competence is 3.5354, and for ruggedness 3.2405.
Sony	Sophistication	0.000	There is significance difference existed between sophistication and excitement (significance value: 0.001).
HP	Ruggedness and competence	0.000	There is no significance difference existed between ruggedness and competence (significance value: 0.187), competence and sincerity (significance value: 0.292). There is significance difference existed between ruggedness and sincerity (significance value: 0.018). Rating given for HP laptop computers for ruggedness is 3.4978, competence 3.2604, and for sincerity 3.0713.
Acer	Competence, excitement, and sincere	0.000	There is no significance difference existed between competence and excitement (significance value: 0.150), competence and sincerity (significance value: 0.150) while there is significance difference existed between competence and sophistication (significance value: 0.012). Ratings given for the brand Acer laptop computers are as follows: competence 4.0147, excitement 3.6232, and sincerity 3.6232.
Lenovo	—	0.672	As the ANOVA result shows the value greater than 0.05 so there is no significant difference in the mean ratings given by users between the brand personality dimensions. So there is no any meaning to perform LSD test. Also we can say that users of Lenovo could not able to identify the significant difference between the Lenovo brand personality dimensions (confusion about the positioning of the brand in mind of Lenovo laptop owners).

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Table 14.

Most Associated Self Personality (Laptop Owner’s Personality) of Users

Brand Name	Self (User) Personality (Image/Concept) Dimension	ANOVA Sig.	LSD Test Summary
Dell	Competence and sincere	0.000	Which shows there is no significant difference existed between sincerity and competence (significance value: 0.239), but sig difference existed between competence and excitement (sig: 0.01). Rating given by Dell computers for sincerity is 4.1455 and for competence is 4.2956.
Sony	Sophistication, excitement, and competence	0.000	There is no significance difference existed between sophistication and excitement (significance value: 0.333), sophistication and competence (significance value: 0.129), and excitement and sophistication (significance value: 0.333). Excitement and competence (significance value: 0.580) While with other dimensions sig. difference existed. Rating given for Sony laptop computers for sophistication is 4.4628, for excitement is 4.2528, and for competence (4.1331).
HP	Ruggedness	0.000	There is significance difference existed between ruggedness and competence (significance value: 0.037). Rating given for HP laptop computers for ruggedness is 3.7733 and for competence 3.3882.
Acer	Sincere	0.000	There is significance difference existed between sincerity and excitement (significance value 0.04999). So the most is sincerity with the mean rating of 3.501.
Lenovo	Sincere, excitement, and competence	0.000	There is no significance difference existed between sincerity and excitement (significance value: 0.908), sincerity and competence (significance value: 0.943), while significance difference existed in other pairs. So these are first preferred. Mean ratings given to sincerity is 4.5779, competence 4.5571, and excitement 4.5443.

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

To identify the most associated dimension of personality of user (self personality) again descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and post hoc: LSD test has been performed. The summary is given in Table 14.

Major Findings and Conclusion

There is significant association between the gender of the person and laptop brand they owned

There is significant correlation exists between the laptop brand personality and one’s own self personality (refer Tables 5, 6, and 9 in data analysis).

So there is congruence between the brand personality of the laptop and self (owner of the laptop)

In case of Lenovo, the brand personality could not be extracted because the respondents are not clear about the positioning of the Lenovo brand in their mind.

So using the scale of Aaker (1997), reference of Malhotra (1981), chi-square test, correlation analysis, ANOVA, and post hoc: LSD test (refer ‘Data Analysis’ section). We can conclude there is congruence between the brand personality of laptop and self (owner of the laptop brand) (Table 15). In other words, people would like to buy the laptop which resembles their own personality.

Table 15.

Summary for Brand Personality and Laptop Owner’s Personality

Brand Name	Associated Brand Personality Dimension	Self Personality
Dell	Sincerity, competence, and ruggedness	Competence and sincerity
Sony	Sophistication	Sophistication, excitement, and competence
HP	Ruggedness and Competence	Ruggedness
Acer	Competence, excitement, and sincerity	Sincerity
Lenovo	—	Sincere, excitement, and competence

Source: Primary data (SPSS, v.20).

Limitations of the Study

Study does not include some of the laptop brand as lack of responses from the owners.

References

Aaker

D.A.

(1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker

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

Aaker

(1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57.

Aaker

, Fournier

, & Brasel

S.A.

(2004). Why good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16.

Achouri, & Bouslama (2010). The effect of congruence between brand personality and self-image on consumer’s satisfaction and loyalty: A conceptual framework. IBIMA Business Review, 2, 34–49. DOI: 10.5171/2010.627203.

Ambroise

(2006). La personnalité des marques: une contribution réelle à leur gestion. Revue Française du Marketing, 207, 25–41.

Azoulay

Audrey

, & Kapferer

Jean-Noel

(2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11(2), 143–155.

Batra

, & Homer

P.M.

(2004). The situational impact of brand image beliefs. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 318–330.

Batra

, Lehmann

D.R.

, & Singh

(1993). The brand personality component of brand goodwill: Some antecedents and consequences. In Aaker

David A.

& Biel

Alexander

(Eds), Brand equity and advertising (pp. 83–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

10.

Batra

, Myers

J.G.

, & Aaker

D.A.

(1996). Advertising management. Englewood Cliffs: NJ Prentice Hall.

11.

Belch

George E.

(1978). Belief systems and the differential role of the self-concept. Advances in Consumer Research, 5(1), 320–325.

12.

Belk

R.W.

(1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 139–168.

13.

Bellenger

D.N.

, Steinberg

, & Stanton

W.W.

(1976). The congruence of store image and self image. Journal of Retailing, 52(1), 17–32.

14.

Chang

K.S.

, Park

J.Y.

, & Choi

I.H.

(2001). The influence of self-congruity between brand personality and self-image on attitude toward brand. Korean Journal of Marketing, 3(2), 92–114.

15.

Chen

L.D.

, & Wells

W.D.

(1999). Attitude toward the site. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(5), 27–38.

16.

Dolich

Ira J.

(1969). Congruence relationship between self image and product brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80–84.

17.

Duboff

R.S.

(1986, January 3). Brands, like people, have personalities. Marketing News, p. 8.

18.

Durgee

(1988). Commentary: Understanding brand personality. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(3), 21–25.

19.

Freling

T.H.

, & Forbes

L.P.

(2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404–413.

20.

Grimm

P. E.

(2005). A b components’ impact on brand preference. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 508–517.

21.

Govers

P.C.M.

, & Schoormans

J.E.L.

(2005). Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 189–197. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760510605308

22.

Haire

(1950). Projective techniques in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 14(5), 649–656.

23.

Helgeson

J. G.

, & Supphellen

(2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity and brand personality. International Journal of Market Research, 46(2), 205–233.

24.

Jamal

, & Goode

(2001). Consumers and brands: Self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Retailing and Service Science, 1–13.

25.

Kaplan

L.B.

, Szybillo

G.J.

, & Jacoby

(1974). Components of perceived risk in product purchase: A cross-validation. Journal of applied Psychology, 59(3), 287–291.

26.

Keller

K. L.

(1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer Based Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

27.

Kothari

C.R.

(1985). Research methodology (2nd ed., pp. 1–10). Delhi: New International (P) Ltd.

28.

Leif

E.H.

, & Nina

M.I.

(2002). Decomposed similarity measures in brand extensions. In Susan

M.B.

, & Kent

(Eds), NA—Advances in consumer research (Vol. 29, pp. 199–206). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

29.

Malhotra

Naresh

(1981). A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4), 456–464.

30.

Malhotra

Naresh K.

(2000). Marketing research (4th ed.). Patparganj, Delhi: Pearson Education.

31.

Nunnally

J.C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Oklevik

(2007). Effects of brand personality. Sogn and Fjordane University College-Nordic Academy of Management, Working paper.

33.

Onkvist

, & Shaw

(1987). Self-concept and image congruence: Some research and managerial implications. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4(1), 13–23.

34.

Park

C. W.

, Jaworski

B. J.

, & Maclnnis

D. J.

(1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145.

35.

Park

, & Lee

E.M.

(2005). Congruence between brand personality and self-image, and the mediating roles of satisfaction and consumer-brand relationship on brand loyalty. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 39–45. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/11859/volumes/ap06/AP-06

36.

Phau

& Lau

K.C.

(2001). Brand personality and consumer self-expression: Single or dual carriageway. Journal of Brand Management, 8(6), 428–444. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540042

37.

Riezebos

, Riezebos

H.J.

, Kist

, & Kootstra

(2003). Brand management: A theoretical and practical approach. Harlow, UK: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

38.

Schiffman

L. G.

, Kanuk

L. L.

& Wisenblit

(1997). Consumer behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

39.

Shavitt

(1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(2), 124–148.

40.

Shavitt

, Lowrey

T. M.

, & Han

S.P.

(1992). Attitude functions in advertising: The interactive role of products and self-monitoring. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 337–364.

41.

Sirgy

(1982). Self concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(December), 287–300.

42.

Sirgy

M.J.

(1986). Self-congruity: Toward a theory of personality and cybernetics. New York: Praeger.

43.

Sirgy

M.J.

, Grewal

, Mangleburg

T.F.

, Park

J.O.

, Chon

K.S.

, Claiborne

C.B.

, & Berkman

(1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 25(3), 229–241.

44.

Sirgy

M.J.

, Grzeskowiak

, & Su

(2005). Explaining housing preference and choice: The role of self congruity and functional congruity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 329–347.

45.

Sirgy

M.J.

, Johar

J.S.

, Samli

A.C.

, & Claiborne

C.B.

(1991). Self-congruity versus functional congruity: Predictors of consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 363–375.

46.

Sirgy

M.J.

, & Samli

A.C.

(1985). A path analytic model of store loyalty involving self-concept, store image, geographic loyalty, and socioeconomic status. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13(3), 265–291.

47.

Sirgy

M.J.

, & Su

(2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behavior: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340–352.

48.

Sung

Yongjun

, & Tinkham

Spencer F.

(2005). Brand personality structures in the United States and Korea: Common and culture specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 334–350.

49.

Supphellen

Magne

, & Gronhaug

Kjell

, (2003). Building foreign brand personalities in Russia: The moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 203–226.

50.

Thomas

, & Sekar

(2008). Measurement and validity of Jennifer Aaker’s brand personality scale for Colgate brand. Vikalpa, 33(3), 49–61.

51.

Vernette

(2003). Les atouts et les pieges de la personnalite de marque. Décisions Marketing, 49, 19–31.

52.

Wee

T.T.T.

(2004). Extending human personality to brands: the stability factor. Journal of Brand Management, 11(4), 317–330. Retrived from http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540176

53.

Zeithaml

V.A.

(1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 2–22.