Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Global Journal of Finance and Management.

ISSN 0975-6477 Volume 6, Number 1 (2014), pp. 9-18


Research India Publications
http://www.ripublication.com

Applicability of Brand Personality Dimensions across


Cultures and Product Categories: A Review
Anees Ahmad1, K. S. Thyagaraj2
1

Department of Management Studies, Indian School of Mines


Dhanbad-826004, Jharkhand, India
2
Department of Management Studies, Indian School of Mines
Dhanbad-826004, Jharkhand, India
1
anees.candytuft@gmail.com, 2 ksthyagaraj@gmail.com

Abstract
In recent years, brand personality as a branding construct has attained
significant attention, which has paved the way for personality directed
brand management. In this context, development of a brand personality
scale by Aaker(1997) has strongly influenced the research on symbolic
meanings of brands. Although Aakers brand personality scale has
been widely approved and used in many brand personality-related
studies, yet the generalizability of her framework has been questioned
by some researchers. The purpose of this paper is to review the studies
related to applicability of brand personality dimensions across cultures
and product categories, and to describe the implications of these
findings for brand managers.
Keywords: Brands, Brand Personality, Brand Management, Culture

Introduction
Brand personality refers to the human characteristics associated with brand. Since
brands are visualized by consumers as human beings, the dimensions of brand
personality can be described as an extension of the dimensions of human personality
to the domain of brands. Aaker [1] developed a new five dimensional model named
Brand Personality Scale based on the big five model of human personality.
Development of this scale paved the way for the construction of a definite
measurement personality model with the perspective of brands.
Prior to Aakers [1] brand personality scale, ad-hoc scales or scales deduced
from personality psychology were the only available scales for researchers but their
application involved problems of validity in the marketing area. Aaker [1] offered a

10

Anees Ahmad and K. S. Thyagaraj

solution to these problems in the form of a theoretical framework of brand


personality. She analyzed the perception of American consumers regarding
commercial brands which resulted into the development of a 42-trait scale containing
five brand personality dimensions viz. Sincerity, Excitement, Competence,
Sophistication, and Ruggedness. Each of the five dimensions of the Aakers [1]
brand personality scale comprises of various matching attributes. For example,
Sincerity dimension of brand personality incorporates honesty and genuineness
attributes while strong and outdoorsy attributes define Ruggedness dimension of
brand personality [2].
The brand personality scale effectively met various standards such as testretest reliability, internal reliability and content validity. Moreover, construct validity
and nomological validity were also confirmed. Aakers [1] brand personality
framework has been a subject of study in numerous researches and it has been
accepted worldwide. However, the generalizability and validity of Aakers framework
has also been questioned by some researchers from time to time [3, 4, 5]. In relation
to that, many studies focused on the applicability of brand personality dimensions
across cultures and also across product categories.
The investigation of the applicability of brand personality dimensions across
cultures may lead to the identification of needs and values relevant to the consumers
perception of brands in these cultures. There is also a probability of identifying brand
personality dimensions specific to a culture due to difference in needs and values.
Similarly, brand personality dimensions may also vary across product categories. In
this study, brand personality research has been reviewed and analyzed in order to
examine the applicability of brand personality dimensions across cultures and across
product categories. According to Batra et al. [6], Plummer [7] and Okazaki [8], both
consumers perception and company efforts are responsible for shaping brands
personality. Hence the findings of this study will also help brand managers in
formulation of branding strategies.

Brand Personality Dimensions: Applicability Across Cultures


In her seminal work on brand personality, Aaker [1] refers to the limitation of cultural
generalizability. She mentions this limitation because she carried out the studies on
American consumers only and thereby she questioned the stability of her described
brand personality dimensions across cultures and product categories. In this context,
Aaker et al. [9] tested brand personality dimensions in the context of Japans and
Spains culture. McCracken [10] suggests that brands are consumption symbols which
express a deeper meaning. This indicates that brands reflect beliefs, values and
behavioral patterns of an individual. Also According to Schwartz & Bilsky [11],
Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner [12], and Hofstede [13], values and beliefs, being
elements of culture, differ across countries. All of the above findings led to Aakers
assumption that there may be a difference in brand personality dimensions across
cultures. As a consequence, Aaker [1] questioned the stability of brand personality
dimensions across cultures and investigated whether brand personality dimensions

Applicability of Brand Personality Dimensions across Cultures and..

11

convey universal meaning or culture specific meaning. In other words, whether brand
personality dimensions are identical or different among countries?
In their study, Aaker et al. [9] selected two countries Japan and Spain. Japan
represents the culture of East Asia and Spain denotes the Latin culture. Thus, brand
personality dimensions were synthesized from the research in both cultures. Though
all of the dimensions synthesized did not correspond to the brand personality
dimensions identified in American context, four dimensions Excitement,
Competence, Sincerity and Sophistication were common between Japan and the
USA. The fifth American dimension Ruggedness could not be confirmed for the
culture of Japan. However, Peacefulness in place of Ruggedness could be
confirmed as brand personality dimension specific to the culture of Japan.
Furthermore, Sincerity, Excitement, and Sophistication are the only dimensions
which are shared both by USA and Spain. The fourth and fifth dimensions identified
for Spain were Peacefulness (similar to Japan) and Passion respectively.
Table 1 summarizes the studies on the applicability of brand personality dimensions
across cultures.
Table 1. Literature related to brand personality dimensions across countries
Author(s)
Ferrandi et al.
(2000)

Description
examined brand
personality dimensions in
a French perspective

Aaker et al.
(2001)

examined the dimensions


of brand personality across
the cultures of Spain and
Japan

Austin et al.
(2003)

measured the personality


of US restaurant brands

Hieronimus
(2003)

examined the dimensions


of brand personality in
German context
developed a new brand
personality scale for the
Netherlands

Smit et al.
(2003)

Supphellen &
Grnhaug
(2003)

examined the dimensions


of brand personality in
Russian context

Rojas-Mendez
et al. (2004)

measured the personality


of Ford brand in Chile

Findings
Dimensions corresponding with Aakers
brand personality scale: Sincerity,
Sophistication, Excitement, Ruggedness
France Specific: Conviviality
Dimensions corresponding with Aakers
brand personality scale: Sincerity,
Excitement, Competence, Sophistication,
Japan Specific: Peacefulness
Spain Specific: Peacefulness and Passion
Brand personality scale of Aaker (1997) does
not generalize to individual brands within one
product category
Germany specific: Trust & Security,
Temperament & Passion
Dimensions corresponding with Aakers
brand personality scale: Competence,
Excitement, Ruggedness
Netherlands specific: Gentle, Annoying and
Distinguishing
Russian consumers perceptions of brand
personality possess similarities as well as
differences with regard to western
consumers perception of brand personality
Identified brand personality dimensions:
Excitement, Sincerity, Competence and
Sophistication

12

Anees Ahmad and K. S. Thyagaraj

Sung &
Tinkham
(2005)

examined the dimensions


of brand personality across
the cultures of USA and
Korea

Chu & Sung


(2011)

examined the dimensions


of brand personality in the
context of China

Rojas-Mendez
et al. (2013)

examined perceptions of
Chinese consumers about
the American brand
personality

Dimensions corresponding with Aakers


(1997) Brand Personality Scale: Competence,
Sophistication and Ruggedness
Korea Specific: Ascendancy and Passive
Likeableness
USA specific: Androgyny and White Collar
Dimensions corresponding with Aakers
(1997) Brand Personality Scale: Competence,
Excitement, and Sophistication
China specific: Joyfulness, Traditionalism and
Trendiness
Three main dimensions of U.S. brand
personality viz. Amicableness,
Resourcefulness, and Self- centeredness

Source: Authors research


According to the study of Aaker et al. [9], Sincerity, Excitement, and
Sophistication dimensions of brand personality convey cultural meanings having
universal effect while Competence, Peacefulness and Passion dimensions of
brand personality express quite culture specific meanings. Albeit some dimensions of
brand personality can be universally applied, the accurate perceptive or explanation or
facets, however, can even differ. For instance, although Sophistication dimension
can be applied to both United States and Spain, the facets considered for the same
dimension in both the countries vary to some extent. Besides the facets shared by both
cultures such as good looking, glamorous, smooth, and stylish, Spain also associates
confident, persistent and leader traits with Sophistication dimension which are rather
related with Competence dimension of brand personality by Japan or USA.
In addition to Aaker et al.s [9] research concerning international relevance of
brand personality scale, Ferrandi et al. [14] followed a similar approach and appraised
Aakers [1] brand personality scale in the context of France. Thereby, they
synthesized
a five-dimensional-structure in which four dimensions of brand
personality match with Sincerity, Excitement, Sophistication and Ruggedness
dimensions of Aakers [1] framework. The Competence dimension did not
correspond to the culture of France. Moreover, the brand personality scale developed
for France comprised Conviviality as a novel dimension.
Similarly, Chu & Sung [15] evaluated Aakers [1] brand personality scale with
Chinese perspective. Thereby, they identified six dimensions of Chinese brand
personality viz. Competence, Excitement, and Sophistication (consistent with
Aakers [1] brand personality scale), Traditionalism, Joyfulness, and Trendiness
(specific to Chinese culture). Sung & Tinkham [16] examined the brand personality
structures in United States and Korea. The two countries shared six dimensions of
brand personality while both cultures were found to have two factors unique to them.
Sung & Tinkham [16] identified Ascendancy and Passive Likeableness specific to

Applicability of Brand Personality Dimensions across Cultures and..

13

Korean culture and Androgyny and White Collar for American culture. Six
common factors are Competence, Trendiness, Western, Ruggedness, Tradition,
and Likeableness.
Rojas-Mendez et al. [17] empirically measured the brand personality of Ford
in Chile. Thereby, they developed a brand personality scale comprising four
dimensions viz. Excitement, Sincerity, Competence, and Sophistication.
Supphellen & Grnhaug [18] examined Aakers [1] dimensions of brand personality
with Russian perspective. Thereby, they found that consumer perceptions of brand
personality in Russia contain both similarities and differences with regard to America.
Furthermore, consumer ethnocentrism moderates the brand personality dimensions
effect on the attitude of western brands.
In contrast to other researchers, Smit et al. [19] developed a brand personality
scale, completely different from Aakers scale, for the Netherlands. Although they
followed a similar approach as of Aaker [1], they drew a somewhat dissimilar
conclusion and identified a six-dimensional-structure. In the brand personality
structure of Smit et al. [19], Excitement, Competence, and Ruggedness
dimensions of brand personality correspond with framework of Aaker [1] while three
brand personality dimensions viz. Gentle, Annoying and Distinguishing were
found to be Netherland-specific.
In another study related to cross cultural applicability of Aakers brand
personality dimensions, Austin et al. [4] postulates that the use of aggregate data
covering different categories of product can increase successful applicability of brand
personality scale. The scale may, however, face major limitations in the examination
of aggregate data covering a specific product category. Rojas-Mndez et al. [20]
studied the perceptions of Chinese consumers about the American brand personality.
Thereby, they identified three main dimensions of US brand personality viz.
Amicableness, Resourcefulness, and Self-centeredness. According to their study,
the Chinese ascribe a polarized personality to the United States where two dimensions
Resourcefulness and Amicableness apparently withstand Self-centeredness.
Hieronimus [21] conducted another significant validation study regarding brand
personality whereby he reviewed Aakers [1] brand personality structure with German
perspective. For this purpose, Hieronimus [21] merged dimensions of brand
personality identified by Aaker [1] with two additional dimensions of brand
personality discovered by Aaker et al. [9] while examining the brand personality
dimensions with the perspective of Japan and Spain and finally conducted his research
on the basis of a seven-dimensional scale.
In order to better suit the German context, Hieronimus [21] translated Aakers
dimensions of brand personality by using the German translation as given by Esch
[22]. Consequently, he concluded that none of the three brand personality structures
identified in the context of USA, Japan and Spain can be applied to Germany which
indicates the need to develop a new scale. In this perspective, Hieronimus [21]
deduced a two-dimensional brand personality scale applicable to German culture
using exploratory factor analysis. Although his brand personality structure deviates

14

Anees Ahmad and K. S. Thyagaraj

from Aakers [1] brand personality framework, yet it does not essentially contradict
with Aakers [1] dimensions of brand personality. In contrast, brand personality scale
of Hieronimus [21] consolidates Aakers framework. For example, Sincerity and
Competence dimensions of Aakers framework are combined to form the Trust and
Security dimension of Hieronimus [21] which reflects the rational part of a brands
personality. On the contrary, Temperament and Passion dimension represents the
emotional facet of brands personality derived from the combination of Excitement
and Passion dimensions of Aakers framework. Moreover, Hieronimus [21] for his
identified dimensions of brand personality ascribes five extra facets, namely,
successful, down-to-earth, honest, genuine and reliable for Trust and Security and
temperamental, imaginative, venturesome, passionate and cheerful for Temperament
and Passion.

Brand Personality Dimensions: Applicability Across Product Categories


Researchers have applied the brand personality scale of Aaker [1] across different
product categories. These studies, however, support the five-dimensional-structure
given by Aaker. For example, Hayes [23] examined Aakers dimensions of brand
personality in connection with sunglasses and thereby they found that the factor
analysis could not reproduce the five-dimensional-structure in general. In order to
match the results of his research, he consequently decreased the number of items from
forty two to fourteen in his brand personality scale. Even though Hayes [23] study
failed to replicate the brand personality scale of Aaker yet he applied the basic
structure of Aakers Framework thus could not fully validate Aakers brand
personality scale but still followed its basic structure all over his study.
Following a similar approach, Wysong [24] tried to authenticate Aakers
framework with regard to US-American beer brands but could not fully reproduce
Aakers brand personality scale. Although Wysong [24] conducted his study based on
brand personality dimensions developed by Aaker [1] yet he adjusted the scale in four
cases so as to fit the research object. Wysong [24] attributes this deviation in results to
the choice of product and the specific product category. Similarly, Villegas et al. [25]
examined Aakers framework in the context of personal computer industry but their
research could not replicate Aakers brand personality scale. However, they
concluded that brand personality scale of Aaker[1] is quite useful to measure the
personality of computer brands. Thus the studies conducted by Hayes [23], Wysong
[24] and Villegas et al. [25] produce similar results.
Some other researchers also examined the validity of Aakers framework in
other product categories. For example, Siguaw et al. [26] conducted the validation
study for Restaurant brands and Kim [27] examined the Aakers scale for Apparel
brands. Most of the studies albeit could not fully replicate the brand personality scale
of Aaker [1] yet they agree to the use of this framework in further studies of brand
personality measurement with minor adjustments.

Applicability of Brand Personality Dimensions across Cultures and..

15

Conclusion and Managerial Implications


In the studies questioning generalizability of brand personality dimensions across
cultures, it is found that all the five dimensions suggested by Aaker are not consistent
with countries other than USA but some of the dimensions correspond with each
countrys culture (e.g., Japan, Spain, France, Netherlands and China). Therefore, all
brand personality dimensions are not stable across cultures. Similarly, in studies
related to validation of Aakers brand personality scale across product categories, the
researchers could not fully replicate the scale but all of them agree on the usefulness
of Aakers framework in the brand personality measurement studies. Even though
researchers have mixed observations about the brand personality scale of Aaker, yet
this scale has been widely used in various empirical studies in order to examine the
significance of brand personality in consumer purchase intentions. Different
validation studies suggest that Aakers brand personality scale cannot be applied par
for par across countries and product categories. Nevertheless the scale developed by
Aaker [1] is a great contribution to the concept of brand personality and proffers a
solid foundation for future research.
There are some implications of these findings for brand managers. Firstly, the
studies conducted regarding cross-cultural applicability of brand personality
dimensions suggest that brand personality together with symbolic meanings
embedded in brands can reflect beliefs and values of a culture. Hence, similarities and
differences among cultures can be identified by using brand personality dimensions
which in turn will be help brand managers in formulating branding strategies.
Secondly, brand managers should recognize the role of culture in forming the
consumers perception of commercial brands. Hence they should develop a well
defined brand personality which conveys the beliefs and values of respective cultures.

References
[1] Aaker Jennifer L. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing
Research 1997; 34 (3): 347-356.
[2] Guthrie M, Kim H S, Jung J. The effects of facial image and cosmetic usage on
perceptions of brand personality. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management 2008; 12(2):164-181.
[3] Caprara Gian V, Barbaranelli C, Guido G. Brand personality: How to make the
metaphor fit. Journal of Economic Psychology 2001; 22(3):37795.
[4] Austin Jon R, Siguaw Judy A, Mattila Anna S. A re-examination of the
generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 2003; 11(2):7792.
[5] Geuens M, Weijters B, De Wulf K. A new measure of brand personality.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 2009; 26(2):97107.
[6] Batra, Rajeev, John G, Myers, Aaker David A. Advertising management.
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey 1996.
[7] Plummer Joseph T. How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising
Research 2000; 40(6):7983.

16

Anees Ahmad and K. S. Thyagaraj

[8] Okazaki S. Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of online


brand personality. International Marketing Review 2006; 23(3):279303.
[9] Aaker Jennifer L, Benet-Martnez V, Garolera J. Consumption symbols as
carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality
constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001; 81(3):492508.
[10] McCracken G. Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure
and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of
Consumer Research 1986; 13(1):71-84.
[11] Schwartz Shalom H, Bilsky W .Toward a theory of the universal content and
structure of values: extensions and cross cultural replications. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 1990; 58(5):878-891.
[12] Trompenaars F, Hampden-Turner C. Riding the waves of culture:
understanding cultural diversity in business. Nicholas Brealy, London, England
1997.
[13] Hofstede Geert H. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications, London,
United Kingdom 2001.
[14] Ferrandi Jean M, Valette-Florence P, Fine-Falcy S. Aakers brand personality
scale in a french context: a replication and a preliminary test of its validity.
Developments in Marketing Science 2000; 23:7-13.
[15] Chu S C, Sung Y. Brand personality dimensions in China. Journal of
Marketing Communications 2011; 17(3):163-181.
[16] Sung Y, Tinkham S. Brand personality structures in the United States and
Korea: Common and culture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology
2005; 15(4):33450.
[17] Rojas-Mndez Jos I, Erenchun-Podlech I, Silva-Olave E. The Ford brand
personality in Chile. Corporate Reputation Review 2004; 7(3):23251.
[18] Supphellen M, Grnhaug K. Building foreign brand personalities in Russia:
The moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of
Advertising 2003; 22(2):20326.
[19] Smit E, Van den Berge E, Franzen G. Brands are just like real people!: The
development of SWOCCs brand personality scale. In: Hansen F, Christensen
Lars B. Branding in Advertising. Copenhagen Business School, Denmark 2003.
[20] Rojas-Mndez Jos I, Murphy Steven A, Papadopoulos N. The US brand
personality: A Sino perspective. Journal of Business Research 2013;
66(8):1028-1034.
[21] Hieronimus F. An empirical study on the measurement, perception and impact
of brand personality. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2003.
[22] Esch F R. Modern brand management: basic principles, innovative approaches
and practical implementations. 3rd extended and updated edition, Wiesbaden
2009.
[23] Hayes J. Antecedents and consequences of brand personality. Dissertation,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi, United States 1999.

Applicability of Brand Personality Dimensions across Cultures and..

17

[24] Wysong S. This brands for you: a conceptualization and investigation of


brand personality as a process with implications for brand management.
Dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington, United States 2000.
[25] Villegas J, Earnhart K, Burns N. The brand personality scale: an application
for the personal computer industry. In proceedings of the 108th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington (DC),
August 2000.
[26] Siguaw Judy A, Mattila A, Austin Jon R. The brand personality scale: An
application for restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 1999; 4(3):4855.
[27] Kim H S. Examination of the brand personality and brand attitude within the
apparel product category. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management
2000; 4(3):243-252.

18

Anees Ahmad and K. S. Thyagaraj

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen