Cultural Factors That Impact Brand

Personification Strategy Effectiveness

Alexandra Aguirre-Rodriguez
Florida International University

ABSTRACT

A brand personification is a human-like portrayal of a product or brand that is designed to associate

the brand with certain human characteristics. Brand personifications, such as fictional human
characters (e.g., Mr. Clean), human-like brand characters (e.g., Pillsbury doughboy), and product
animations (e.g., M&M’s characters), portray human-like personality characteristics intended to
shape consumers’ brand images. However, a brand personification strategy that appeals to
consumers in one cultural context will not necessarily appeal to consumers in another cultural
context. To explore cultural factors impacting brand personification strategies, a literature review
was conducted. Ten research propositions were developed for future research and managerial
implications were discussed.  C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The decades-long success of popular brand personi-
fications such as Tony the Tiger, Ronald McDonald,
and the Marlboro Man is a testament to the effec-
tiveness of the brand personification strategy. These
characters present the brands in human-like terms,
encouraging consumers to think of these brands as
possessing certain human-like personality character-
istics (Aaker, 1996; Fournier & Alvarez, 2012). The
brand personification strategy consists of formulating
and establishing a desirable brand personality that
is then embodied in a personification, or human-like
representation, of the brand. Ideally, the personifica-
tion of the brand engenders positive brand attitudes
among targeted consumers. Ultimately, positive atti-
tudes toward the brand personification result in pur-
chase intent, brand trial, and brand loyalty. Cultural
factors represent an important yet often overlooked
element in the effectiveness of brand personification
strategies.
Most brand personifications have been created by
US advertising agencies, within an American cultural
frame of reference. For instance, the Leo Burnett
ad agency from Chicago created many classic brand
personifications such as Tony the Tiger, the Pills-
bury doughboy, the Keebler Elves, and Marlboro Man
(Enrico, 1999). Although these and other brand person-
ifications have proven successful among Western con-
sumers, cultural context clearly affects the extent to
which any brand personification effectively conveys the
brand’s messaging. In the United States, for example,
Ronald McDonald may effectively and unambiguously
convey the message that McDonald’s restaurants are a
place for family-friendly fun. However, in some cultural
contexts, this same personification of this globally ubiq-
uitous brand may elicit not-so-positive associations to
American imperialism and unhealthy food (Botterill &
Kline, 2007).
Various cross-cultural differences, including those
related to values, customs, and beliefs, are known to
impact consumer response to marketing strategies (De
Mooij, 2004). Despite this fact, the majority of empiri-
cal brand personification research has been conducted
with American consumers and has been built on theo-
ries developed in a North American cultural context. As
such, existing brand personification research provides
a Western culture based foundation for understanding
consumer response to brand personification strategies.
Often overlooked are the cross-cultural factors that can
impact brand personification effectiveness in commu-
nicating a particular brand personality and producing
brand equity building outcomes (such as brand differen-
tiation, consumer self-expression, and the development
of a consumer relationship with a brand). Addressing
this apparent gap in the scholarly literature is critical
given the global focus of many marketing strategies.
This article contributes to an understanding of brand
personification in a cultural context by presenting a
cross-cultural model of how cognitive and motivational
differences can impact brand personification messag-
ing (see Figure 1). In the course of discussing various
elements of the model, 10 propositions are formulated
as questions for future research.
BRAND PERSONIFICATION STRATEGY
AND BRAND PERSONALITY
COMMUNICATION
Brand personification is a human-like portrayal of a
product or brand that is designed to associate the brand

Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 31(1): 70–83 (January 2014)

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20676

70
 Figure 1. Cultural factors that impact brand personification strategy effectiveness.
with certain human characteristics. Brand personifica-
tion strategies are diverse and include personifications
that are product animations (such as the California
raisins and the M&M’s characters), fictional human
brand characters (such as Mr. Clean and the Marl-
boro Man), fictional human-like characters (such as the
Fruit of the Loom guys and the Michelin man), celebrity
spokespeople (such as William Shatner for Priceline
and Queen Latifah for Cover Girl), and corporate leader
spokespersons (such as the late Steve Jobs for Apple
and Richard Branson for the Virgin Group). Effective
brand personification tactics lead consumers to asso-
ciate brands with desirable human-like qualities that
become part of the brand’s image in consumers’ minds
(Fournier & Alvarez, 2012; McCracken, 1989). For ex-
ample, the character of Mr. Clean exudes power and
strength. This personification is designed to impress
upon consumers the power and strength of the brand
as a cleaning agent. Some brand personifications, much
like Mr. Clean, remain stable over time. Another tactic
that has endured over the long term is the personifi-
cation of the Keebler brand by means of the Keebler
Elves. For decades now, these cartoon characters have
been portrayed as baking “uncommonly good” cookies
from a factory housed in a hollow tree. Nevertheless,
not all brand personifications are as magical in terms
of their longevity. Brand personifications, much like the
brands they represent, must sometimes be updated ow-
ing to changes in market conditions, changes in cultural
context, or other such factors.
Less long-term brand personifications, even from
long-established brands, can play a vital role with re-
gard to consumer perceptions of the brand’s present-
day personality. Consider in this context the General
CULTURAL FACTORS THAT IMPACT BRAND PERSONIFICATION
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Motors Cadillac brand. Once a standard by which other
luxury cars were judged, Cadillac has become a com-
petitor in a very crowded market place of foreign and
domestic luxury automobiles. Perhaps to overcome a
perception that the brand is aged, stodgy, and out of its
prime, a recent television campaign depicted a Cadillac
enlivening a dull party attended by competing luxury
cars. The Cadillac bursts in the door and struts about
confidently as its social competitors back away, cow-
ering. Such advertising seems designed to imbue the
Cadillac brand with a personality that is self-confident,
even to the point of being refreshingly brash or exciting.
The personification suggests that far from having seen
better days, Cadillac is very much the “alpha male” in
the room when it comes to the luxury brand category
of automobiles. To better understand what brand mes-
saging is conveyed in this (or any other advertising), an
understanding of the brand personification communica-
tion process from the marketer’s perspective would be
helpful. Also helpful would be an understanding of the
cognitive processes and motivational factors that me-
diate anthropomorphic inference making on the part of
the consumer.
The Brand Personification Communication
Process
The typical process entailed in communicating a brand
personality via a brand personification strategy begins
with a brand manager (the sender), usually in collabo-
ration with an advertising agency, formulating an in-
tended brand personality (message). The brand person-
ality message is encoded into a brand personification.
71
Within the context of brand knowledge learned from
direct and indirect messages from the marketer in the
form of advertising and promotion, packaging, price,
and related means, consumers (the receivers) must de-
code or interpret the meaning of the brand personifica-
tion and the intended brand personality. The successful
implementation of a brand personification strategy oc-
curs when there is a good fit or message congruence
between the intended brand personality as envisioned
by the brand manager, the personification representing
that brand personality, and the consumer’s interpre-
tation of the brand personality (Malär, Nyffenegger,
Krohmer, & Hoyer, 2012). Miscommunication occurs
when the consumer interprets or decodes the brand
personality embodied in the brand personification in
a manner divergent from the marketer’s intended mes-
sage. Miscommunication is an ever-present threat in
the world of brand messaging. Individual consumers
may decode or interpret brand messaging, as well as
respond to it idiosyncratically, based on their own back-
ground, experience, cultural context, and character-
istic ways of processing anthropomorphic and other
messages.
Cognitive Processes That Mediate
Anthropomorphic Inference Making
Interpreting the human-like portrayal of products and
brands inherent in brand personifications entails an
anthropomorphic inference-making process. The cog-
nitive processes that mediate anthropomorphic infer-
ence making are similar to that of any type of inductive
inference whereby the individual acquires knowledge,
retrieves stored knowledge, and applies the activated
knowledge (Higgins, 1996). Anthropomorphism is typi-
cally invoked when an unfamiliar, nonhuman object ac-
tivates knowledge about humans, which can be applied
to make sense of the object. Anthropomorphism fosters
interpretation of an object’s observed or imagined be-
havior in terms of human-like internal states (such as
personality, motivation, intentions, and emotions). In
the context of brand personification, this induction pro-
cess begins when exposure to a human-like brand per-
sonification elicits activation of a consumer’s knowledge
about humans. The human-like brand portrayal may be
spontaneously recognized by the consumer, as when a
car’s grille and headlights seem to look like a human
face (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007), and inferences about
the car’s “personality” result (Landwehr, McGill, &
Herrmann, 2011; Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz, 2012).
Sometimes the meaning of the human-like brand por-
trayal is not obvious, straightforward, or instantly rec-
ognizable; additional cognitive processing is required
before understanding is achieved. In the case of the
party-crashing Cadillac, for example, the message that
is actually taken away from exposure to the advertising
would seem to be more dependent on several aspects of
the receiver’s decoding process. With regard to the re-
ceiver’s knowledge base, what prior familiarity does the
72
receiver have with the Cadillac brand? With regard to
the cultural filter or lens that communications are sub-
jected to, how culturally valued is the type of aggres-
siveness displayed? These and many related questions
must be raised to better understand the receivers’ de-
coding processes in various cultural contexts.
Exposure to brand personifications encourages con-
sumers to apply their own category knowledge of people
to interpret and evaluate the brand (Epley, Waytz, &
Cacioppo, 2007). For example, for some consumers, the
party-crashing Cadillac advertising might trigger re-
trieval of social knowledge about people who crash par-
ties and intimidate social competitors. This knowledge
and associated imagery would then be applied to eval-
uate the brand. As a result, the Cadillac brand could
be imbued with human-like personality characteristics
and actually be perceived by the consumer in ways
ranging from “confident, fun, and exciting,” to “rude,
brash, and intimidating.”
Consumers’ cognitive and motivational character-
istics can influence both the likelihood of anthropo-
morphizing products and brands, as well as aspects
of how an anthropomorphized object is processed and
ultimately perceived. With regard to cognition, a criti-
cal factor concerns the availability and accessibility of
knowledge about the object being personified. If little
or no knowledge exists about an object being person-
ified, then the unfamiliar object may be interpreted
within a frame of reference with which the perceiver
is more familiar; typically, this more familiar reference
is knowledge of people and human behavior (Aggarwal
& McGill, 2007; Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007).
Motivational Factors That Mediate
Anthropomorphic Inference Making
A number of motivational factors, internal to the con-
sumer, may be presumed to mediate anthropomorphic
inference making. Two motivational factors that will be
highlighted here have to do with the consumer’s need
for affiliation (otherwise known as sociality motivation)
and the consumer’s need to manage his or her world, re-
solve ambiguity, and otherwise be in control (effectance
motivation). It is generally believed that the stronger
a person’s need for affiliation or social connection, the
more accessible social category knowledge will be. As
social category knowledge becomes more accessible, so
the likelihood of applying that knowledge to make infer-
ences about objects portrayed in a human-like manner
increases.
High levels of the sociality motivation facilitate the
formation of anthropomorphic images. Another moti-
vational factor that can facilitate anthropomorphism
is the need to competently understand and master the
environment. The stronger one’s effectance motive is,
the greater the likelihood that one will attempt to un-
derstand and gain mastery of unfamiliar objects by
conceptualizing them in human-like terms (Waytz
et al., 2010).
AGUIRRE-RODRIGUEZ
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON
ANTHROPOMORPHISM
All cognitive and motivational processes, including
those related to how and why people anthropomorphize,
are subject to cultural influences. What follows below is
a consideration of cultural factors that contribute to cul-
tural differences in the tendency to anthropomorphize.
Cultural Differences in Cognitive
Processing
Culture shapes people’s knowledge of the anthropomor-
phic qualities of nonhuman objects. Members of ru-
ral, nonindustrialized societies tend to interact more
with live animals (as a food source, a means of trans-
portation, a work tool, etc.) than city dwellers in ur-
ban industrialized societies. In contrast to city dwellers
then, rural dwellers are more likely to have real-
istic, nonanthropomorphic knowledge representations
of animals. Consistent with their utilitarian, animal-
related knowledge base and experiences, the rural soci-
ety members may be less likely to think about animals
in human-like (anthropomorphic) terms. On the other
hand, members of urban, industrialized societies in-
teract more frequently with sophisticated mechanical
objects (such as cars and computers) and may therefore
be less likely to anthropomorphize such objects. Epley,
Waytz, and Cacioppo (2007) propose that members of
nonindustrialized cultures, relative to their industrial-
ized counterparts, are less likely to anthropomorphize
animals, while members of industrialized cultures, rel-
ative to nonindustrialized counterparts, are less likely
to anthropomorphize mechanical devices. Supporting
this view is the observation that children in the United
States (an industrialized culture) are more likely to
think about animals in anthropomorphic terms (Carey,
1985) as compared to children from less developed, ru-
ral regions of Mexico (Atran et al., 2001; Ross, Medin,
Coley, & Atran, 2003). These findings have implica-
tions for differential perception of brand personifica-
tions, which are addressed in the first research propo-
sitions (and its corollary).
P1: Consumers in rural cultural contexts are
more likely to anthropomorphize brands
personified by mechanical objects than an-
imals, resulting in more accurate decod-
ing of the personification’s intended brand
personality.
P1a: Consumers in urban cultural contexts are
more likely to anthropomorphize brands
personified by animals than mechanical
objects resulting in more accurate decod-
ing of the personification’s intended brand
personality.
CULTURAL FACTORS THAT IMPACT BRAND PERSONIFICATION
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Cultural Differences in Sociality Motivation
High need for affiliation can increase anthropomorphic
reasoning tendencies by increasing the accessibility of
knowledge about social characteristics and behaviors,
and triggering search for sources of social connection.
In the absence of human connections, a person may
compensate by attributing human, social behavior to
nonhuman objects (Gardner, Pickett, & Knowles, 2005).
Thus, anthropomorphism should be more likely among
people who feel less social connection to other humans
relative to people who feel a strong sense of social con-
nection. Some evidence for this comes from one study
about anthropomorphism of pets among people who
considered themselves socially connected as compared
to people who considered themselves socially isolated.
The socially isolated individuals tended to rate their
pets higher on an anthropomorphic scale of supportive-
ness (Epley, Waytz, Akalis, & Cacioppo, 2008).
The sociality motive, as it relates to perceived an-
thropomorphism, is also impacted by whether a culture
is generally individualistic or collectivistic in nature.
In collectivistic cultures, there tends to be emphasis on
interdependence and social connectedness. By contrast,
in individualistic cultures there tends to be emphasis on
independence and self-reliance (Hofstede, 2001). Tradi-
tionally, a country such as the United States is cited as
representative of individualistic culture while a coun-
try such as China is cited as representative of collec-
tivistic culture. Of course, there are subcultures within
any country, which harbor values that are not typical
or mainstream.
In general, members of collectivistic societies iden-
tify with extensive social networks and possess strong
in-group ties. Accordingly, the social condition of collec-
tivistic individuals satisfies their sociality motive. By
contrast, members of individualistic societies are sub-
ject to greater social isolation due to the self-reliant, in-
dependent nature of the people. It is possible that such
social isolation intensifies the need for affiliation and
strengthens the sociality motivation. In turn, social-
ity motivation should drive members of individualistic
cultures toward stronger tendencies to anthropomor-
phize as compared with members of collectivistic cul-
tures (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007). As compared
to consumers in collectivistic cultures, it might be ex-
pected that brand personifications are more likely to
trigger anthropomorphic thought about brands among
consumers in individualistic cultures. According to this
logic, individualistic consumers would be more likely
than collectivistic consumers to infer human-like per-
sonality characteristics from brand personifications.
This leads to the second research proposition.
P2: Brand personifications are more likely to
produce anthropomorphic inferences about
brand personality characteristics among
consumers in individualistic versus collec-
tivistic cultural contexts.
73
Cultural Differences in Effectance
Motivation
Effectance motivation influences perceived anthropo-
morphism to the extent that one applies familiar, hu-
man knowledge representations to nonhuman agents
in order to understand, control, manage, and predict
(Waytz et al., 2010). Attributing human characteristics
or motives to an object provides an individual with a
familiar frame of reference within which to understand
an unfamiliar nonhuman object. This sort of attribu-
tion increases the person’s confidence in predicting how
the personified object will “behave” in the future, thus
reducing uncertainty in interactions (Epley, Waytz, &
Cacioppo, 2007). At a broader level, effectance moti-
vation is related to the cultural value of uncertainty
avoidance, that is, the tolerance for ambiguity and un-
certainty that generally prevails in a society (Hofst-
ede, 2001). Consumers in societies high in uncertainty
avoidance may be motivated to engage in anthropomor-
phism when exposed to brand personifications in adver-
tising. This is so because anthropomorphism facilitates
inference making thus reducing (if not avoiding) uncer-
tainty. Accordingly, the third research proposition is as
follows:
P3: Brand personifications are more likely to
produce anthropomorphic inferences about
brand personality characteristics among
consumers in cultural contexts that are high
(vs. low) in uncertainty avoidance.
CULTURE AND BRAND
PERSONIFICATION STRATEGY
OUTCOMES
Brand personifications produce brand equity build-
ing outcomes when consumers anthropomorphize the
brand to make inferences about its brand personality
or related human-like characteristics (such as age, so-
cioeconomic class, gender; Aaker, 1997; Delbaere, Mc-
Quarrie, & Philips, 2011). Consumer conceptualization
of brand personality can potentially benefit the brand
in various ways (Aaker, 1996). One such benefit to
the brand comes in the form of brand differentiation.
A brand’s personality can differentiate it from other
brands in the product category as well as the firm’s
product family. For example, the rugged cowboy im-
age of the Marlboro Man distinguishes the Marlboro
brand from competing brands that are both internal
and external to the Altria/Philip Morris family of to-
bacco products.
In addition to brand differentiation, another brand-
building outcome associated with brand personification
has to do with consumers using the personified brand
as a means of self-expression. In this sense, people who
choose to smoke the Marlboro brand may be affirming
to themselves, as well as communicating to others, a
message of perceived congruence between their self-
74
concept and the rugged independence conveyed by the
brand’s personality. The perceived congruence between
a consumer’s self-concept and brand’s personality may
be based on the consumer’s actual or ideal self-view
as well as social self-perceptions (Sirgy, 1982). So, for
instance, some consumers may use Marlboro privately
to affirm their personal self-view of ruggedness, but
may also avoid using the brand publicly because of a
lack of congruence with their social self-image, or the
view they believe significant others have of them.
A third potential benefit to marketers of personify-
ing a brand has to do with the possibility of targeted
consumers developing a “relationship” with the brand
(Fournier & Alvarez, 2012). This relationship may take
many forms ranging from a pseudo-friendship, part-
nership, or marriage. In this context, for example,
some Marlboro smokers may not perceive themselves
as rugged, but they may consider the rugged Marlboro
cowboy as a desirable or like-minded companion for the
occasion of smoking a cigarette.
Although there are clear benefits to marketers for
personifying a brand, there are a number of considera-
tions and caveats with regard to culture that must be
kept firmly in mind if a campaign that relies on brand
personification is to be successful. The first such con-
sideration has to do with the prevailing values in the
culture to which the brand personification strategy will
be introduced.
Cultural Values and Consumer Evaluation
of Personified Brands’ Personalities
Consumer brand personality perceptions and reactions
must be considered within a cultural context (De Mooij,
2004). Cultural values impact the processes leading to
brand personality outcomes such as brand differenti-
ation, consumer self-expression, and consumer-brand
relationships. A brand personality that achieves con-
gruence with the values, ideals, or other variables as-
sociated with consumers in one cultural context will
not necessarily achieve congruence with consumers in
another cultural context (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, &
Garolera, 2001). In 2006, for example, Apple launched
the “Get a Mac” advertising campaign in the United
States, which used comedic actors to personify Ap-
ple’s Mac computer and the Windows-based PC (Nodd,
2011). Mac was portrayed as a cool, laid-back, young
adult male who was play-oriented and focused on build-
ing interpersonal relationships with friends and fam-
ily. PC was personified as an older, corporate-looking
adult male who was efficient with work applications but
less successful in quality of life. In the United States,
these commercials successfully differentiated the Mac
brand personality from the PC. In the United States,
Mac’s popular, cool, social image was generally seen
as preferable to PC’s boring, corporate image. How-
ever, this consumer response to the “Get a Mac” brand
personifications was clearly bound by the consumers’
cultural context.
AGUIRRE-RODRIGUEZ
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Using Japanese actors in similar commercials, Ap-
ple launched a similar branding campaign for Mac in
Japan. Interestingly, Japanese consumers perceived
the personified Mac and PC brands quite differently
than American consumers. Japanese consumers viewed
Mac as a conceded slacker, whereas PC was viewed
as hardworking and endearing (Fowler, Steinberg, &
Patrick, 2007). Japanese consumers valued PC’s orga-
nizational pride, group conformity, and strong work
ethic and saw this personality as preferable to the
fun-oriented Mac character. In a collectivist society
such as Japan, the perceived nonconformity of Mac
ran counter to prevailing social values (Gupta, Winkel,
& Peracchio, 2009). Clearly, cultural values can serve
as a filter through which consumers interpret the
brand personality information that marketers com-
municate, or attempt to communicate, through brand
personifications. These cultural filters can render a
brand image more or less desirable than marketers
intend.
Cultural Receptivity to Brand
Differentiation and Corporate Branding
Strategies
Brand differentiation can strengthen a brand’s image
by minimizing interference effects associated with com-
peting products in the product category. Often, it is the
more distinctive brand that wins out as the preferred
brand (Freling, Crosno, & Henard, 2011).
In some product categories, brands are similar in
their product attributes making distinctions challeng-
ing for consumers to make. Consider, for example, in-
surance products. A short list of product attributes
shared by most insurance products would include type
of insurance offered, benefit structure, price, discount,
insurance claim response time, and customer service.
Establishing a desirable, distinctive brand personality
via brand personification has helped several insurance
companies differentiate their brands (Shultz, 2011).
For example, Progressive Insurance has its quirky “Flo”
sales clerk character and Geico has its personable, talk-
ing gecko.
Clear brand differentiations are particularly desir-
able in individualistic cultural contexts (such as the
United States), which value uniqueness, independence,
and distinguishing one’s self from others. The West-
ern, individualistic view of personality complements
these values and conceptualizes personality as a per-
son’s persistent, distinguishing psychological qualities
(Kassarjian, 1971). Many brands that appeal to Amer-
ican consumers establish brand personalities that dis-
tinguish themselves from (a) competing brands and
(b) other brands owned by the same company. For ex-
ample, General Mills owns several brands—Pillsbury,
Betty Crocker, Green Giant, Hamburger Helper, and
Trix—each with a brand personality and brand person-
ification that is uniquely independent from the General
Mills corporate umbrella.
CULTURAL FACTORS THAT IMPACT BRAND PERSONIFICATION
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
By contrast, in collectivistic cultures, people are de-
fined by interpersonal relationships rather than by dis-
tinctiveness; conformity and connectedness is valued
over uniqueness and independence (Heine, Kitayama,
& Lehman, 2001; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, &
Norasakkunkit, 1997). From a collectivistic cultural
perspective, personality characteristics capture a per-
son’s interdependent characteristics and the social na-
ture of a person’s behavior. Consistent with this per-
spective, in collectivistic cultures, brand personality
should reflect a brand’s relationship to the corporation
that owns the brand (De Mooij, 2004). Sony Corpora-
tion’s founder Akio Morita reflected on the importance
of this affiliation in his statement “ . . . I have always
believed that the company name is the life of an enter-
prise. It carries responsibility and guarantees the qual-
ity of the product . . . ” (Temporal, 2000). Similar to the
Japanese company Sony, the Korean companies Sam-
sung and LG use their one corporate brand name for
all of their wide-ranging product categories; home ap-
pliances to smartphones to home electronics to comput-
ing products. Thus, in collectivistic cultures, a branding
strategy that links each product’s identity to the larger
entity—the corporate umbrella company—is preferable
to an independent branding strategy that establishes
distinctive personalities for products by means of sub-
brands disconnected from the corporate brand identity
(De Mooij, 2005). Considering the differences between
individualist and collectivist societies, here is research
Proposition 4 and its corollary:
P4: Brand personification strategies that com-
municate a brand’s personality as distinct
from the corporate brand will be evaluated
more positively by consumers from individ-
ualistic cultures as opposed to collectivistic
cultures.
P4a: Brand personification strategies that com-
municate the interconnectedness of a brand
personality with the corporate brand image
will be evaluated more positively by con-
sumers from collectivistic cultures as op-
posed to individualistic cultures.
Cultural Determinants of Consumer
Self-Expression with Personified Brands
Establishing a brand personality via brand personifi-
cation fosters consumer brand use for self-expression.
The potential for consumers to use a brand for self-
expression requires self-image congruence between the
consumer and the brand. Congruence between the
brand and consumer occurs when the consumer per-
ceives a match between certain self-concept facets and
the human-like personality characteristics of the brand
(Aguirre-Rodriguez, Bosnjak, & Sirgy, 2012). Aaker
(1997) described five brand personality dimensions—
75
sincerity, competence, sophistication, ruggedness, and
excitement—reflected in US consumers’ brand person-
ality perceptions. Each dimension consists of several
facets that represent the traits consumers may per-
ceive as similar to self-concept facets. For instance, the
personality dimension ruggedness consists of the traits
outdoorsy, masculine, western, tough, and rugged. A
particular consumer may relate the traits masculine,
tough, and rugged to his own actual or ideal self-
concept resulting in self-image congruity with a brand
that similarly emphasizes ruggedness as a personality
dimension.
Brand personifications can help consumers quickly
recognize and assess a brand’s personality traits. For
instance, the Marlboro Man, Mr. Clean, the Gorton’s
Fisherman, and Dos Equis’ “most interesting man in
the world” portray different facets of the “ruggedness”
brand personality dimension. Consumers exposed to
these brand personifications may come to associate the
brands with the facets of ruggedness the personifica-
tion embodies. If “ruggedness” is also among any of the
consumers’ self-concept facets, then there is the possi-
bility for the brand to be congruent with the consumer.
A perceived match between a consumer self-concept
and a brand’s personality (i.e., self-image congruence)
increases the likelihood that the consumer will pur-
chase and use the brand (Aguirre-Rodriguez, Bosnjak,
& Sirgy, 2012; Sirgy, 1982).
Consumers do not need to perceive congruence be-
tween a brand’s personality and all aspects of their
self-concept to be motivated to use the brand for self-
expression. For example, the same consumer could use
Gymboree to express her self-concept of “mother” while
at the same time use Burberry to express her self-
concept of “professional.” Consumers may also incor-
porate brand associations into their self-concepts (Es-
calas, 2004; Escalas & Bettman, 2003). Through this
process, consumers may come to include brands in their
mental representation of self, believing in essence, “I
consider this brand to be me” (Escalas & Bettman,
2005). In general, congruity between the self and
brand’s personality is conducive to the purchase and
use of the brand for self-expression. However, cross-
cultural differences in the perception of (human) per-
sonality and personality of a brand, as well as factors
related to the consumer’s own self-perceptions must be
considered. These factors can influence the likelihood
that the consumer will use a brand.
CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN
THE PERCEPTION OF PERSONALITY,
BRANDS, AND SELF
Cross-Cultural Differences in Perception of
Personality
In individualistic cultural contexts, personality is
viewed as the set of psychological characteristics
76
unique to an individual, which predicts stable and con-
sistent behaviors across situations and roles (Kassar-
jian, 1971). As applied to brands, this cultural perspec-
tive fosters the expectation that a brand’s personal-
ity, much like a person’s personality, will be consistent
across situations and roles. By contrast, in collectivis-
tic cultural contexts, people are more apt to perceive
personality as shaped by situational influences and the
social context. Personality is conceived of as dynamic
rather than stable in nature (Norenzayan, Choi, & Nis-
bett, 2002). This cultural perspective fosters the expec-
tation that a brand’s personality, much like a person’s
personality, will vary as a function of the specific sit-
uation. Accordingly, consumers in collectivist cultures
tend to perceive a brand’s personality as reflecting a
specific social role pertaining to their own self-concept
(De Mooij, 2005). A Harley–Davidson owner may see
himself in terms such as “public transit commuter”
or “business man” during the week, but a leather-clad
“biker” on weekends (Thompson, 2012). A business ex-
ecutive may perceive Apple’s brand personality as re-
flecting her social (i.e., nonbusiness) self, whereas her
PC reflects her business executive self.1
Self-perception in terms of dualities such as busi-
ness versus social self is not unique to collectivist cul-
tures. As Aaker (1996) has pointed out, the personality
elements that influence behavior depend to a large de-
gree on the role the individual is carrying out (such
as the role of employee or the role of motorcycle club
member) as well as the situation. Still, brand personifi-
cations that convey personalities that are flexible with
regard to roles and situations would seem optimal in
the context of collectivist cultures. Accordingly, one
might question whether different types of characters
in Apple’s “Get a Mac” campaign might have worked
better for presentation in collectivist societies. Apple
might have, for example, personified Mac to convey a
friendly, fun, and laid-back personality for home com-
puter use. The personification of Mac in the workplace
could have been made to be more professional, seri-
ous, focused, and competent. By portraying the brand
differently as a function of situation, consumers would
have been encouraged to purchase and use the brand
for self-expression in various roles. This logic supports
research Proposition 5 and its corollary.
P5: Brand personifications that portray the
brand personality as uniformly consistent
will encourage brand use for self-expression
among consumers from individualistic (vs.
collectivistic) cultures.
P5a: Brand personifications that portray the
brand personality as adapting to different
roles or social contexts will encourage brand
1
If this were true, it would not be surprising if Apple’s business
division focused sales on devices other than computers, such as
smartphones and tablets. In fact, this is the case as described in
Kopytoff and Austen (2011).
AGUIRRE-RODRIGUEZ
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 use for self-expression among consumers
from collectivistic (vs. individualistic)
cultures.
Cross-Cultural Differences in the
Perception of a Brand’s Personality
A brand personification’s appeal to a group of con-
sumers depends largely on the personality traits valued
in consumers’ particular cultural context. Some brand
personifications that have reached icon status in Amer-
ican culture, such as the Marlboro Man and Energizer
bunny (who keeps going and going), not only person-
ify brand-specific traits but they also embody widely
held and culturally valued traits. The Marlboro Man
exudes ruggedness and the Energizer bunny conveys
competence, two brand personality dimensions that ap-
peal uniquely to American consumers. Consumers in
other cultural contexts identify with different cultur-
ally relevant brand personality traits. For instance, the
brand personality dimensions of passion and peace-
fulness work well with Spaniards (Aaker, Benet-
Martinez, & Garolera, 2001). Other brand personality
dimensions have been identified as being favored by
Japanese consumers (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garol-
era, 2001), Chinese consumers (Chan, Saunders, Tay-
lor, & Souchom, 2003), Korean consumers (Sung & Tin-
kham, 2005), and Chilean consumers (Rojas-Méndez,
Erenchun-Podlech, & Silva-Olave, 2004).
Brand personifications must reflect culturally rele-
vant brand personality traits to foster brand use for
consumer self-expression. The “outdoorsy,” “Western,”
and “rugged” Marlboro Man may provide a culturally
relevant basis for self-expression among American con-
sumers. However, this brand personification is less rel-
evant for members of the peaceful Japanese culture or
the nonaggressive, polite, and harmonious Chinese cul-
ture (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001; Lew,
1998; Yau, 1988). In fact, one study found that rugged-
ness as a brand personality dimension was altogether
absent from Chinese consumer perception of brands
(Chan et al., 2003). Similarly, the ruggedness dimen-
sion, among others, was not found to be relevant in a
study conducted in Chile by Rojas-Méndez, Erenchun-
Podlech, and Silva-Olave (2004) using Ford owners and
non-Ford owners.
Brand personifications that convey culturally irrel-
evant brand personality traits weaken consumers’ per-
ceived self-image congruity with the brand. For in-
stance, in Rojas-Méndez, Erenchun-Podlech, and Silva-
Olave’s (2004) study, Chilean participants rated the
Ford brand highest on the competence dimension of
Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale. However, com-
petence is not a culturally relevant brand personality
dimension among Spaniard consumers (Aaker, Benet-
Martinez, & Garolera, 2001). Given the Spanish her-
itage of Latin American countries such as Chile, self-
image congruity between Chilean consumers and Ford
CULTURAL FACTORS THAT IMPACT BRAND PERSONIFICATION
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
on the basis of the competence brand personality di-
mension would be expected to be weak.
To increase culturally relevant consumer brand per-
sonality perceptions, it is necessary for some brands to
adapt personifications in culture-specific ways. For in-
stance, the “masculine” facet of the American brand
personality dimension ruggedness forms part of the
Japanese brand personality dimension of competence.
Thus, a personification such as the Marlboro Man can
be portrayed as culturally relevant in Japan in a man-
ner consistent with Japanese competence traits (such
as “leader,” “confident,” and “reliable”) without compro-
mising the brand’s masculine image (Chan et al., 2003).
So, here is research Proposition 6 and its corollary.
P6: Brand personifications that portray cultur-
ally relevant brand personality characteris-
tics consistent with a culture’s values will
produce stronger consumer self-congruity
with the brand and will stimulate more
brand use for consumer self-expression.
P6a: Brand personifications that portray cultur-
ally irrelevant brand personality character-
istics that are inconsistent with a culture’s
values will produce weaker consumer self-
congruity with the brand and will stimulate
less brand use for consumer self-expression.
Cross-cultural Differences in Brand Use for
Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
Many consumers use brands as a means of self-
enhancement (i.e., as an expression of need to en-
hance one’s self-view) and/or self-verification (i.e., as
an expression of a need to confirm one’s self-view).
A consumer may use Apple-branded products to ex-
press the creative, noncorporate, and cool aspects of
their actual self-concept. This type of usage might ful-
fill a self-verification motive. Alternatively, this usage
might be an expression of the consumer’s ideal self, in
which case the self-enhancement motive may be op-
erative. Additionally, consumers may use brands to
achieve valued social identification goals, such as affil-
iating with groups to which they already belong (mem-
bership groups) or desire to belong (aspirational ref-
erence groups) or distancing themselves from unde-
sirable groups (dissociative reference groups; Escalas
& Bettman, 2003, 2005). Owning Apple-branded prod-
ucts may enhance identification and solidarity with
peers (membership group) or an aspirational reference
group, such as young, trendy people. Additionally, own-
ing Apple-branded products may serve to distance the
consumer from the dissociative reference group of up-
tight, corporate types.
Escalas and Bettman (2003) examined the impact of
two commonly held self-concept goals, self-verification
and self-enhancement, on consumer response to brands
77
that represent certain types of reference groups. They
found that consumers driven by a self-enhancement
motive (need to improve self-esteem) were prone to
form connections to brands associated with aspira-
tional reference groups. Consumers driven by a self-
verification motive (need to maintain consistency with
one’s self-view) tended to form connections to brands
associated with membership groups. This research was
based on the assumption that people are generally moti-
vated to maintain and enhance self-esteem and present
themselves positively to others to gain social approval
(Greenwald, Bellezza, & Banaji, 1988; Schlenker, 1980;
Swann, 1990).
There is evidence to suggest that maintaining pos-
itive self-views or improving one’s self-view are not
universal self-concept needs. Stark contrasts exist be-
tween East Asian cultures and North American cul-
ture with regard to various aspects of self-image. Mod-
esty and even self-criticism are norms for Japanese
and Chinese cultures, whereas self-enhancement and
self-consistency are more common to North American
culture (Heine, 2001; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Ki-
tayama, 1999). In the context of North American cul-
ture, acknowledging negative traits reflects incompe-
tence. By contrast, in Japanese culture, self-criticism
is perceived as an aid to identifying areas where im-
provement can be made in order to fulfill obligations
to the in-group (Kitayama et al., 1997). Accordingly,
brand personification strategies that encourage con-
sumers to reexamine their self-concepts and engage in
self-criticism will probably have greater appeal in East
Asian cultural contexts, as compared to North Ameri-
can ones. Similarly, personified brands where the per-
sonification itself presents the brand’s personality in
a modest or self-critical manner are also preferable in
East Asian culture. By contrast, brand personification
strategies that suggest that the brand’s personality is
consistent with the targeted consumers’ self-concepts,
or in some way can enhance those self-concepts, may
have greater appeal in a North American cultural con-
text, as compared to an East Asian one. Accordingly,
here is research Proposition 7 and its corollary.
P7: Brand personifications that encourage con-
sumer self-enhancement or self-verification
will produce greater brand use for consumer
self-expression among North American con-
sumers (vs. East Asian consumers).
P7a: Brand personifications that encourage con-
sumer self-criticism will produce greater
brand use for consumer self-expression
among East Asian consumers (vs. North
American consumers).
The East Asian tendency toward modesty and self-
criticism is consistent with reportedly lower self-esteem
among East Asian individuals as compared to individu-
als from North America (Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman,
78
2001; Kitayama et al., 1997; Rhee, Chang, & Rhee,
2003). In a study of the use of brands for social sig-
naling based self-expression, it was found that low
self-esteem consumers were more likely than high self-
esteem consumers to express themselves using brands
with personality traits believed to make a good impres-
sion with potential relationship partners. However, low
self-esteem consumers’ motivation to minimize nega-
tive social impressions made them even more prone to
avoid self-expression with brand personalities that sig-
naled undesirable traits to potential relationship part-
ners (Swaminathan, Stilley, & Ahluwalia, 2009). An
implication of the research is that brand personifica-
tions targeted toward East Asian consumers should ide-
ally emphasize how the brand personality is desirable
for making positive impressions in a social context. At
the same time, such personifications should avoid com-
municating socially undesirable personality character-
istics about the brand. This leads to the next research
proposition.
P8: Brand personifications that portray the
brand personality as instrumental in mak-
ing positive social impressions will pro-
duce greater brand use for consumer self-
expression among East Asian (vs. North
American) consumers.
Cross-Cultural Differences in Consumer
Connection with “In-group” and
“Out-group” Brands
People from cultures characterized as individualistic
tend to view themselves as independent and unique.
This is in contrast to people from cultures character-
ized as collectivistic where the self is viewed as inter-
dependent and defined by social relationships and roles
(Hofstede, 2001). There is research to suggest that an
independent versus interdependent self-view impacts
consumers’ tendencies to personally connect their self-
concept with a brand associated with in-group per-
sonality traits or to distance themselves from brands
consistent with out-group personality traits (Aaker &
Schmitt, 2001; Deaux, 2002; Tajfel, 1982).
Aaker and Schmitt (2001) compared the brand-based
self-expression tendencies of independent and interde-
pendent consumers on a national culture basis (Study
1: American vs. Chinese participants) and individual
difference basis (Study 2). The researchers found that
consumers with an independent self-construal tended
to express themselves more by means of demonstrat-
ing differentiation as compared to their counterparts.
By contrast, self-expression on the part of interde-
pendent consumers’ tended to be more characterized
by demonstrating similarity (Aaker & Schmitt, 2001).
Although both independent and interdependent con-
sumers connected in-group representative brands to
their self-concept, it was the independent consumers
who were more likely to distance themselves from
AGUIRRE-RODRIGUEZ
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
out-group-associated brands. This distancing served
the purpose of differentiating the self and maintaining
a unique self-concept. In general, interdependent con-
sumers have an interest in relating to their in-group
and are less likely to distance themselves from out-
group-associated brands (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). An
implication of the research has to do with brand person-
ification strategies that attempt to create an in-group
image for one brand while attaching an out-group im-
age to the competition’s brand. Relative to independent
consumers, less distancing from the out-group brand
can be expected on the part of consumers from interde-
pendent societies.
As an example of the in-group/out-group dynamic
at work in different cultures, consider again Apple’s
“Get a Mac” ad campaign. In that campaign, PC’s per-
sonality, consisting of competence and conformity, was
personified as negative, out-group personality traits for
the targeted audience. Mac’s fun, laid-back personality
represented desirable, in-group personality traits. The
campaign was deemed successful in the individualis-
tic cultural context of the United States. However, the
campaign was less successful in Japan. This outcome is
consistent with a population of consumers who construe
themselves as interdependent; this self-construal stim-
ulates self-expression via in-group-associated brands
but does not necessarily discourage the use of out-
group-associated brands (Fowler, Steinberg, & Patrick,
2007; Nodd, 2011).
Appealing to Consumers with Multiple
Cultural Identities
Many individuals in multicultural societies, especially
immigrants, possess multiple cultural identities. Mul-
tiple cultural identities arise as a result of absorb-
ing the culture of one’ country-of-origin as well as the
culture or cultures of one’s country-of-residence (Har-
itatos & Benet-Martinez, 2002). Some bicultural in-
dividuals have adapted the mind-sets of two differ-
ent cultures with similar cultural dispositions (such as
European culture and Anglo-American culture). Other
bicultural individuals find themselves trying to rec-
oncile (or, in some way having reconciled) the mind-
sets of two cultures with conflicting dispositions (such
as Anglo-American culture and East Asian culture;
see LaFramboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). The self-
concept of bicultural individuals who possess both an
individualist and collectivistic cultural frame of refer-
ence evidence a well-developed interdependent and in-
dependent sense of self. That is, both self-construals
coexist and form part of biculturals’ self-view (Yamada
& Singelis, 1999).
Advertisers can use culturally symbolic cues to in-
crease accessibility of one cultural facet of a bicul-
tural consumer’s identity. So, for example, a mar-
keter may appeal to an African-American consumer
who identifies both with mainstream America and
with the African-American subculture using white ver-
CULTURAL FACTORS THAT IMPACT BRAND PERSONIFICATION
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
sus African-American spokespersons or actors as cul-
tural mind-set triggering cues. The presence of a white
American family in a print ad for a brand associated
with mainstream American culture serves as a cul-
tural cue that might activate the African-American’s
mainstream American cultural mind-set and produce
a positive response to the brand. The presence of an
African-American family in an ad presenting special-
ized products targeted toward African-American con-
sumers might activate a subcultural African-American
mind-set and encourage a positive response to the prod-
ucts (Brumbaugh, 2002). Similarly, Spanish language
versus English language advertising messages can acti-
vate Hispanic American consumers’ Hispanic cultural
associations to friends, family, and country-of-origin.
The Spanish language advertising increases the acces-
sibility of these consumers’ Hispanic cultural mind-set
(Noriega & Blair, 2008). The process by which bicul-
tural individuals access one of their internalized cul-
tural frames in the presence of a cultural cue is known
as cultural frame switching. Cultural frame switching
involves an automatic shift in focus from one cultural
mind-set (knowledge structure) to another in response
to a stimulus of culturally laden cues (Hong, Morris,
Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000). For example, the style
of dress, skin tone, and jewelry of Ms. Chiquita (the
Chiquita brand personification) represent Hispanic cul-
tural cues that could activate a Hispanic American con-
sumer’s Hispanic cultural mind-set. As a result of this
frame-switching process, the bicultural consumer could
access and apply Hispanic cultural knowledge to inter-
pret the brand’s personality in a culturally meaning-
ful manner. It is conceivable that such culture-engaged
brand personality interpretation could yield the effect
of fostering use of the brand for self-expression. Accord-
ingly, here is the ninth research proposition.
P9: Presenting brand personifications with cues
that symbolize the culture of the brand’s
personality will facilitate bicultural con-
sumer interpretation of culturally relevant
brand personality characteristics and en-
courage brand use for self-expression.
An alternative approach for marketers who wish to
appeal to bicultural consumers is to create bicultural
brand personifications. Just as a brand can convey dif-
ferent personalities that fit different social situations
and roles (Aaker, 1996), it is reasonable to suggest
that a brand can convey multiple, culturally entrenched
brand personality dimensions. For instance, the Dos
Equis brand’s US advertising campaign personifies the
brand via the character of the “most interesting man
in the world.” This character is depicted in various ad-
ventures and in diverse cultural settings, such as run-
ning with bulls, deciphering hieroglyphics, and visiting
with royalty. The ads describe how “At museums, he’s
allowed to touch the art . . . His blood smells like
cologne . . . He once had an awkward moment, just to
79
see how it feels . . . ” (Paumgarten, 2011). This Mexi-
can beer brand’s personification embodies a passionate,
competent, rugged, yet sophisticated male with a Span-
ish accent. As passion is a brand personality dimension
that reflects how Spaniards perceive brands (Aaker,
Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001), such advertising
could be expected to appeal to Hispanics of Spanish
ancestry. Ruggedness and competence are brand per-
sonality dimensions that resonate with American con-
sumers’ brand perceptions. Sophistication is a brand
personality dimension common to brand perceptions of
both Americans and Spaniards, providing a basis for
joint appeal to Hispanic and American consumers. This
bicultural portrayal of the Dos Equis brand as possess-
ing brand personalities associated with American and
Spanish cultures provides two cultural bases for bicul-
tural Hispanic American consumers to experience self-
image congruity with the brand. Consequently, Dos Eq-
uis may be used to express both cultural identities. The
tenth and final research proposition presented next,
along with its corollary, relate to brands representing
more than one cultural identity.
P10: Bicultural brand personification strategies
will produce stronger self-image congru-
ence with bicultural consumers who iden-
tify with both cultures associated with the
brand’s personalities and will result in
greater likelihood of brand use for self-
expression.
P10a: Monocultural brand personification strate-
gies will produce weaker self-image con-
gruence with bicultural consumers who
identify with both cultures associated with
the brand’s personalities and will result
in lesser likelihood of brand use for self-
expression.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
A brand personification strategy can build a brand’s eq-
uity when the personification effectively communicates
the intended brand personality and consumers respond
to the brand personality by perceiving brand differ-
entiation, using the brand for self-expression, and/or
forming a relationship with the brand. Marketers fre-
quently use brand personification strategies to com-
municate brand personality characteristics to Ameri-
can consumers. The strategy can be effective because
American consumers commonly engage in anthropo-
morphic reasoning about nonhuman objects, such as
products and brands. American consumers commonly
understand the personality characteristics of the brand
personifications presented to them because these per-
sonifications were designed to be culturally relevant
to, and appeal to members of American culture. When
the same or similar brand personification strategies
80
are employed to communicate with people in markets
from different countries and cultures, there is no guar-
antee of parallel brand messaging interpretation and
outcomes. Brand personification strategies may not be
exported in the same way that the consumer goods or
services being marketed can be exported. To be glob-
ally competitive, brand personification strategies must
be adapted to the culture in which they are being im-
plemented. Such adaptation is essential for the brand
messaging to be accurately decoded by its intended re-
cipients and for the persuasive appeal of the messaging
to be optimal. An imperative exists for marketers to
adapt branding and marketing strategies in culturally
relevant ways when targeting consumers from various
cultural contexts (Jiang & Wei, 2012; Papavassiliou &
Stathakopoulos, 1997).
Cultures differ in many ways, including effectance
motivation or the extent to which its members need to
avoid uncertainty and to understand, manage, control,
and predict. Understanding a brand personification in
human terms is one way of understanding, managing,
controlling, and predicting. As a result of such under-
standing, consumers may reduce uncertainty about the
anthropomorphized object and even feel a social con-
nection to the object’s human-like traits. Consumers in
high uncertainty avoidance societies may be more prone
to anthropomorphize unfamiliar, nonhuman objects in
an effort to better understand them. These consumers
may also be more prone to forming relationships with
brands.
Domestically or globally, brand personifications
have the potential to present appealing brand person-
alities that stimulate consumers to form relationships
with them. A quasi-social relationship may be formed
with the brand as the brand takes on the form of a
friend, business contact, family member, or some other
role. Brand personifications can help establish brand
personality traits in consumer’s minds that form the
basis for a relationship with the brand. In some ways,
it is conceivable that a consumer can have a better “re-
lationship” with a brand personification than an actual
agent of the brand. In this context, it may well be that
some consumers who have purchased Progressive In-
surance products have a better relationship with Flo
(the brand’s personification) than they do with their
own—real, live person—insurance agent. Certainly in
the United States, Flo exudes many personality traits
that may generally be viewed as desirable in an in-
surance company representative. Flo could be charac-
terized in various positive terms such as down-to-earth,
fast, friendly, accepting, quirky, funny, and knowledge-
able about her portfolio of products. Such traits may
serve to enhance the appeal of Flo—and Progressive In-
surance by proxy—as a kind of “life partner” for some-
one in the market for insurance. Of course, whether
Flo’s appeal is universal is another matter entirely.
While positively valued in the United States, it remains
to be seen how desirable traits such as “quirky” and
“funny” are for insurance representatives in other mar-
kets, most notably in Asia.
AGUIRRE-RODRIGUEZ
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Sociality motivation and effectance motivation carry
with them cultural implications with regard to the like-
lihood with which consumers may form relationships
with personified brands. People high in the need for af-
filiation, otherwise known as sociality motivation, may
be more sensitive to social cues and be more receptive
to social category knowledge. For such people, there is
an increased likelihood that messages received, partic-
ularly messages with some ambiguity, will be processed
in a way so as to make human-like inferences about the
ambiguity. Additionally, when a person experiences a
lack or deprivation of social connections, the person’s
sociality motive can trigger a person’s search for social
connections (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Such message
processing and cognitive search mechanisms may in-
crease the likelihood of anthropomorphizing nonhuman
objects, including brand personifications, to serve as a
kind of social connection.
Cross-cultural differences in individualism and
collectivism impact the role of the sociality motive.
Consumers in collectivistic cultures value interdepen-
dence and social relationships. Therefore, members
of collectivistic societies tend to have extensive social
networks and strong in-group ties that manifest them-
selves via cooperation and conformity with in-group
norms. In individualistic cultures, self-reliance and
distinctiveness are valued. For members of such
societies, this may result in smaller social networks,
and weaker in-group ties. In individualistic cultures,
there tends to be greater competition between in-
group members in addition to more social distance
between them (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, Bontempo,
Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Of course, people in
individualistic cultural contexts are not immune to the
fundamental human need for social belonging. Thus,
people in individualistic cultural contexts, who may
experience social isolation as a consequence of their
independence and self-reliance, may be more likely
than individuals from collectivistic cultural contexts to
compensate by anthropomorphizing nonhuman objects
(such as products or brands) as a source of social
connection. Accordingly, brand personifications can
appeal to the sociality motive for consumers from both
individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
In this article, research on cross-cultural consumer
psychology was drawn on to provide insights into cul-
ture’s impact on brand personification strategy effec-
tiveness. Ten research propositions were developed,
each with culture-related relevance to cognitive and
motivational differences that impact brand person-
ality messaging through brand personification com-
munications. It is hoped that these propositions will
have heuristic value and stimulate much needed cross-
cultural research on brand personification.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free
Press.
CULTURAL FACTORS THAT IMPACT BRAND PERSONIFICATION
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal
of Marketing Research, 34(August), 347–356.
Aaker, J. L., & Schmitt, B. (2001). Culture-dependent assim-
ilation and differentiation of the self: Preferences for con-
sumption symbols in the United States and China. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 561–576.
Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001).
Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of
Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 492–508.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at
me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthro-
pomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34,
468–479.
Aguirre-Rodriguez, A., Bosnjak, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012).
Moderators of the self-congruity effect on consumer
decision-making: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Re-
search, 65, 1179–1188.
Atran, S., Medin, D., Lynch, E., Vapnarsky, V., Ucan Ek’, E.,
& Sousa, P. (2001). Folkbiology doesn’t come from folkpsy-
chology: Evidence from Yukatek Maya in cross-cultural per-
spective. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1, 3–42.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental hu-
man motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Botterill, J., & Kline, S. (2007). From McLibel to McLettuce:
Childhood, spin and re-branding. Society and Business Re-
view, 2, 74–97.
Brumbaugh, A. M. (2002). Source and Nonsource cues in ad-
vertising and their effects on the activation of cultural and
subcultural knowledge on the route to persuasion. Journal
of Consumer Research, 29(September), 258–269.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge,
MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
Chan, P. Y. L., Saunders, J., Taylor, G., & Souchom, A. (2003).
Brand personality perception: Regional or country specific?
In D. Turley & S. Brown (Eds.), European Advances in
Consumer Research (Vol. 6, pp. 300–307). Provo, UT: Asso-
ciation for Consumer Research.
De Mooij, M. K. (2004). Consumer behavior and culture: Con-
sequences for global marketing and advertising. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
De Mooij, M. K. (2005). Global marketing and advertising: Un-
derstanding cultural paradoxes (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Deaux, K. (2002). Social identity. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclope-
dia of women and gender (Vol. 2). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Philips, B. J. (2011). Per-
sonification in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40, 121–
130.
Enrico, D. (1999, March 29). Top 10 advertising icons. Adver-
tising Age, C42.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing hu-
man: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psycho-
logical Review, 114, 864–886.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When
we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropo-
morphism. Social Cognition, 26, 143–155.
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer
connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14,
168–180.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, James R. (2003). You are what
they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers’
connections to brands. Journal of Consumer psychology, 13,
339–348.
81
Escalas, Jennifer E., & Bettman, James R. (2005). Self-
construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal
of Consumer Research, 32, 378–389.
Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship
partners: Warmth, competence, and in-between. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 22, 177–185.
Fowler, G. A., Steinberg, B., & Patrick, A. O. (2007, March 1).
Mac and PC’s Overseas adventures: Globalizing Apple’s ads
meant tweaking characters, clothing and body language.
Wall Street Journal, B.1.
Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., & Henard, D. H. (2011). Brand
personality appeal: conceptualization and empirical vali-
dation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39,
392–406.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C., & Knowles, M. L. (2005). “Social
snacking” and “social shielding”: The use of symbolic social
bonds to maintain belonging needs. In K. Williams, J. For-
gas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism,
social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York: Psy-
chology Press.
Greenwald, A. G., Bellezza, F. S., & Banaji, M. R. (1988). Is
self-esteem a central ingredient of the self-concept? Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 34–45.
Gupta, S. F., Winkel, D., & Peracchio, L. (2009). Cultural
values dimensions and brands: Can a global brand im-
age exist? In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park & J. R. Priester
(Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relationships. Armonk, NY: M.
E. Sharpe.
Haritatos, J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2002). Bicultural iden-
tities: The interface of cultural, personality, and socio-
cognitive processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,
598–606.
Heine, S. J. (2001). Self as cultural product: An examination
of East Asian and North American selves. Journal of Per-
sonality, 69, 881–906.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., & Lehman, D. R. (2001). Cultural
differences in self-evaluation. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 32, 434–443.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S.
(1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?
Psychological Review, 106, 766–794.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, ap-
plicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglan-
ski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles
(pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford Press.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-y., & Benet-Martinez,
V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist
approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist,
55, 709–720.
Jiang, J., & Wei, R. (2012). Influences of culture and market
convergence on the international advertising strategies of
multinational corporations in North America, Europe and
Asia. International Marketing Review, 29, 597–622.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and consumer behavior:
A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 409–418.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & No-
rasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes
in the construction of self: Self-enhancement in the United
States and Self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72, 1245–1267.
Kopytoff, V. G., & Austen, I. (2011, August 20). Yesterday’s
computer. New York Times, 1.
82
LaFramboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psy-
chological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412.
Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It’s
got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive ‘Facial’
expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Market-
ing, 75, 132–146.
Lew, W. J. F. (1998). Understanding the Chinese personality:
Parenting, schooling, values, morality, relations, and per-
sonality (Vol. 6). Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Malär, L., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., & Hoyer, W. D.
(2012). Implementing an intended brand personality: A
dyadic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 40, 728–744.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cul-
tural foundations of the endorsement process. The Journal
of Consumer Research, 16, 310–321.
Nodd, T. (2011, April 13). Apple’s ‘Get a Mac,’ the Com-
plete Campaign. Adweek. Retrieved on 9 May 2013 from
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/apples-get-mac-complete-
campaign-130552.
Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural
similarities and differences in social inference: Evidence
from behavioral predictions and lay theories of behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 109–120.
Noriega, J., & Blair, E. (2008). Advertising to bilinguals:
Does the language of advertising influence the nature of
thoughts? Journal of Marketing, 72(September), 69–83.
Papavassiliou, N., & Stathakopoulos, V. (1997). Standardiza-
tion versus adaptation of international advertising strate-
gies: Towards a framework. European Journal of Market-
ing, 31, 504–527.
Paumgarten, N. (2011, February 7). Interesting. The New
Yorker, 86, 21.
Rhee, S., Chang, J., & Rhee, J. (2003). Acculturation, commu-
nication patterns, and self-esteem among Asian and Cau-
casian American adolescents. Adolescence, 38, 749–768.
Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Erenchun-Podlech, I., & Silva-Olave, E.
(2004). The Ford brand personality in Chile. Corporate Rep-
utation Review, 7, 232–251.
Ross, N., Medin, D. L., Coley, J. D., & Atran, S. (2003). Cul-
tural and experiential differences in the development of
biological induction. Cognitive development, 18, 25–47.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-
concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Mon-
terey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The right
angle: Visual portrayal of products affects observers’ im-
pressions of owners. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 705–711.
Shultz, E. J. (2011, February 21). How the insurance indus-
try got into a $4 billion ad brawl; Geico’s gecko and Pro-
gressive’s Flo have goaded Allstate and others into upping
marketing ante. Advertising Age, 82, 2.
Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A crit-
ical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287–300.
Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personality struc-
tures in the United States and Korea: Common and culture-
specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 334–
350.
Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. N., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When
brand personality matters: The moderating role of attach-
ment styles. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 985– 1002.
Swann, W. B. Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The
interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In E. T.
AGUIRRE-RODRIGUEZ
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation
and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 408–448).
New York: Guilford.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations.
Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Temporal, P. (2000). Strategic positioning: Creating growth,
generating profits, and achieving high performance. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, W. E. (2012). Hogs, blogs, leathers and lattes: The
sociology of modern American motorcycling. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Company, Inc.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., &
Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-
cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao,
J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Making sense by mak-
ing sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomor-
CULTURAL FACTORS THAT IMPACT BRAND PERSONIFICATION
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
phism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
410–435.
Yamada, A.-M., & Singelis, T. M. (1999). Biculturalism and
self-construal. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, 23, 697–709.
Yau, O. H. M. (1988). Chinese cultural values: Their dimen-
sions and marketing implications. European Journal of
Marketing, 22, 44–57.
The author extends special thanks to Psychology & Marketing
Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ronald Jay Cohen, for his instrumental
guidance and feedback provided on this manuscript.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to:
Alexandra Aguirre-Rodriguez, Marketing Department, Col-
lege of Business Administration, Florida International Uni-
versity, 11200 SW 8th Street, Modesto Maidique Campus,
RB308A, Miami, FL 33199-0001 (aarodrig@fiu.edu).
83