Matching-up celebrities’ brands with products

and social causes

Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
Department of Management, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – Beyond traditional brand endorsement, many celebrities have in recent years decided to launch their own product lines, which may be
used to promote their own celebrity brand. Which product categories or social causes match a celebrity’s brand personality? This study aims to
investigate the antecedents of celebrity–product degree of fit and willingness to pay (WTP)/make a donation in different scenarios. The manipulation
of the scenarios aims to capture the role of celebrity attributes, perceived personality profiles, product involvement and acceptance of social causes.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 335 respondents answered an online questionnaire with a factorial plan corresponding to 20 different
matching scenarios: five celebrities/perceived personalities (Emma Watson, Jennifer Lawrence, Kim Kardashian, Natalie Portman and Scarlet
Johansson)  four types of branding scenarios (a lipstick for low involvement; a watch for high involvement; an eco-foundation for “high social
acceptance” and vodka for “low social acceptance/controversial”).
Findings – Scarlett Johansson obtained the highest degree of fit, both for launching her own brand of lipstick or a watch. Kim Kardashian had the
best degree of fit for launching her own vodka brand, while Emma Watson’s attributes confirmed that she would be seen as the ideal founder of an
eco-foundation. Significant predictors of WTP/make a donation were assessed by multiple linear regression for each type of product.
Practical implications – The paper provides recommendations that may help guide celebrity brand managers through the celebrity–product
matching process.
Social implications – Celebrity branding in relation to social causes is also discussed in this paper.
Originality/value – This study explores a gap found in the literature as it explores the product match-up hypotheses within a celebrity branding
context and moreover extends this investigation to social causes and products with different degrees of involvement and social acceptance.
Keywords Celebrity branding, Celebrity product match-up, Perceived degree of fit, Big five personality scale, Social causes, Emma Watson,
Jennifer Lawrence, Kim Kardashian, Natalie Portman, Scarlet Johansson
Paper type Research paper

Introduction been developed which aim to understand the psychological

relationships between the four entities involved (brand, product
In 1998, Leonardo DiCaprio created a foundation that carries
category, endorser and consumer/user), using concepts such as
his name the “Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation”, with the
“match-up”, “degree of fit”, “identification”, “appropriateness”,
mission of protecting the world’s last wild places. Imagine a
“similarity” or “congruence” interchangeably.
scenario in which Emma Watson, nominated in 2014 as a
For example, the product match-up hypothesis, investigated
United Nations (UN) female goodwill ambassador, decided to
by Kamins (1990) and Kamins et al. (1989) maintains that
launch her own non-governmental organisation (NGO),
messages conveyed by a celebrity’s image and the product
“Emma NGO”, to support any type of social cause. How
message should be congruent for effective advertising.
would the general public receive this news and how much
According to Erdogan (1999, p. 302), the “determinant of the
might they be willing to give (if anything) as a donation to this
match between celebrity and brand depends on the degree of
NGO? Alternatively, imagine that Emma Watson announces
perceived ‘fit’ between brand (brand name, attributes) and
that she is going to launch a new brand of vodka called Emma.
celebrity image”.
Would consumers think that this product category fits with
Moreover, within the marketing and advertising industries,
Emma Watson’s perceived personality or her celebrity brand
this topic is also popular among practitioners and several
positioning?
consultancy services help brands choose their best endorser
The casting process, which occurs in traditional celebrity
(Erdogan et al., 2001). For example, E-Poll Market Research
endorsement, has been widely explored in the literature (Choi
et al., 2005; Erdogan, 1999; Erdogan et al., 2001; Knoll and suggests the E-Score Celebrity Index (Gergaud and Ginsburgh,
Matthes, 2017; Silvera and Austad, 2004). Several theories have 2010), while the website (www.celebritytypes.com) provides
personality profiles of several celebrities according to the
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator Test.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Received 8 March 2017
Revised 7 June 2017
Journal of Product & Brand Management
25 August 2017
28/2 (2019) 242–255 24 November 2017
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 5 March 2018
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-03-2017-1439] Accepted 13 March 2018

242
 Social causes
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
There are also a range of recent papers that have investigated
the perceived match or degree of fit between celebrity endorsers
(particularly female stars/celebrities) and different types of
products or services (Arsena et al., 2014; Kelting and Rice,
2013; McCormick, 2016; Seno and Lukas, 2007; Zamudio,
2016). However, all of these studies were developed for brand
endorsement purposes between stars/celebrities and third-party
entities (corporate brands owned by product manufacturers or
service providers).
However, a growing number of celebrities are creating their
own product lines, with their own brand name(s)/celebrity
brand extensions, rather than simply endorsing products for
third parties, thus introducing a new research topic which has
been designated as celebrity branding (Centeno and Wang,
2017; Hollensen and Schimmelpfennig, 2013; Keel and
Nataraajan, 2012). For example, when Jennifer Lopez endorses
a L’Oreal product in an advertisement, it is a different
advertising strategy from when she promotes her own perfume
brand Love & Glamour.
From the consumer’s advertising processing perspective, the
main difference lies in the fact that a celebrity (human brand)
usually endorses a product/service that belongs to a corporation
(which may/may not convey a different brand personality). On
the other hand, within the context of celebrity branding, the
celebrity, represented by his/her public persona/avatar with a
perceived human personality profile (Leary and Allen, 2011),
promotes products or services carrying his/her own name. In
this celebrity branding context, there is only a dyadic
relationship as the celebrity’s public persona plays the same role
as the (corporate) brand personality.
As such, this paper aims to fill a gap in the literature by
analysing the problem of the adequacy between the product
and the brand within the celebrity branding context. It is based
on the matches between five female celebrities with different
types of perceived personalities (Arsena et al., 2014; Pradhan
et al., 2016) and products/services with different levels of social
acceptance or social responsibility. In the literature, we
acknowledge one relevant contribution, namely, the study
developed by Kowalczyk and Royne (2013), which explores the
moderating role of consumers’ level of celebrity worship on
consumer attitudes towards celebrity brand extensions.
In doing so, this paper firstly aims to analyse consumer
response in terms of the perceived degree of fit and willingness to
pay (WTP), by simulating the launch of a new celebrity branded
product line/service. Secondly, the inclusion of social causes and
non-profit organisations in the study provides an innovative
approach to the subject. Some authors have stated that celebrities
should be used as endorsers in purchases that carry a higher social
or psychological risk (Atkin and Block, 1983) or in social causes
(Bigné et al., 2012; Branigan and Mitsis, 2014; Choi et al., 2017;
Ilicic and Baxter, 2014; Kelly et al., 2014; Thamaraiselvan et al.,
2017; Zdravkovic et al., 2010).
The structure of this paper is as follows. The introduction
section clarifies the differences and similarities between
celebrity endorsement and celebrity branding. The literature
review reveals that a consumer’s processing of celebrity
advertising encompasses several congruencies (or match-up)
mechanisms, which are influenced by a number of independent
variables. Moreover, the role of the celebrity’s perceived
personality, the influence of product involvement and social
243
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255
acceptance will frame the hypothesis development. The third
section presents the methodology used, describing the factorial
plan used in the online survey. Finally, the results provide new
insights into the subject and a set of recommendations for
celebrity brand managers.
Literature review
Alexander (2010, p.324) proposed a definition of celebrity:
As an iconic form of collective representation [. . .] structured by the
interplay of surface and depth. The surface is an aesthetic structure whose
sensuous qualities command attention and compel attachment; the depth
projects the sacred and profane binaries that structure meaning even in
postmodern societies.
The concept of celebrity branding is analogous to the notion of
human branding, one of the many operationalisations of the
broader branding concept (Thomson, 2006), but differs from
the notion of celebrity endorsement, a well-known practice in
the field of marketing.
Some aspects that have been widely studied by celebrity
endorsement researchers (Erdogan, 1999) remain very
important in the celebrity branding context. For example,
celebrity credibility (Goldsmith et al., 2000; Klebba and Unger,
1982; Ledbetter and Redd, 2016; Ohanian, 1990, 1991; Spry
et al., 2011) plays a decisive role in the branding process.
According to several authors, credibility is a multidimensional
construct determined by celebrity expertise (Eisend and
Langner, 2010; Rossiter and Smidts, 2012), category/type (Till
and Busler, 2000) and celebrity attractiveness (DeBono and
Telesca, 1990; Eisend and Langner, 2010; Felix and Borges,
2014; Fleck et al., 2012; Till and Busler, 2000).
Branigan and Mitsis (2014), Moulard et al. (2015) and Ilicic
and Webster (2016) also acknowledge the role of authenticity,
defined by Moulard et al. (2015, p. 175) “as the perception that
a celebrity behaves according to his or her true self”, as an
important source of credibility which positively affects attitudes
towards the celebrity and subsequent behavioural intentions
(Moulard et al., 2014). The same influence may also occur with
other topics related to attractiveness, such as body shape
(D’Alessandro and Chitty, 2011), a woman’s perceived beauty
(Bjerke and Polegato, 2006), celebrity image (Seno and Lukas,
2007) or likeability (Fleck et al., 2012).
In both the context of celebrity branding and celebrity
endorsement, consumers may engage an advertising stimulus
process. The next section compiles a list of the efforts that have
been made to analyse these processes.
Consumer response and celebrity advertising
processing: a theoretical approach
The literature about celebrity endorsement usually refers (in
chronological order) to the following conceptual frameworks,
whose persuasion mechanisms can be applied to celebrity
branding as well: the source credibility model (Hovland and
Weiss, 1951), the attractiveness model (McGuire, 1985), the
product match-up hypothesis (Kamins, 1990; Kamins et al.,
1989) and the meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989).
The source attractiveness model, developed by Baker and
Churchill (1977), focussed on the role of the celebrity’s
physical attractiveness in promoting the effectiveness of the
advertising message. Other mechanisms gained more relevance
when the product match-up hypothesis claimed that a good
 Social causes
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
match-up between the product and the endorser makes an
advertisement more persuasive and also brings benefits to
celebrities (Erdogan, 1999; Kamins, 1990; Kamins and Gupta,
1994; Kamins et al., 1989; Wright, 2016).
Rather than analysing the congruence between the product
and the endorser, Sirgy (1982) examined self-image and brand
image and found that the similarity or congruence between
one’s self-image and the brand’s image is positively correlated
with attitudes towards the brand and motivation to purchase
(Knoll and Matthes, 2017; Paul and Bhakar, 2018). Sirgy’s
(1982) self-congruity theory was extended through the
meaning transfer model of McCracken (1989), which states
that celebrities may transfer a set of meanings that are relevant
to the consumer through a brand/product via its endorsement.
That said, having a celebrity endorsing a brand may result in
high rewards or high risks; the latter may occur if celebrities are
overexposed or are linked to public controversy. In these cases,
aside from being a very expensive investment, the endorsement
of a product/brand may be risky to both parties (Messner and
Reinhard, 2012).
Combining the match-up hypothesis with self-congruence
theory, several analogies have been made for endorser–product,
product–brand and endorser–brand dyads (Albert et al., 2017;
Pradhan et al., 2016; Paul and Bhakar, 2018), which are based
on to the generalisation of the term “congruence”, particularly
in relation to brand extension, co-branding, sponsoring and
endorsement. Their aim is “to assess the fit between a brand
and another entity (a new product category, another brand, an
event or an individual” (Fleck et al., 2012, p. 653). Fleck and
Quester (2007) provided an extensive list of definitions and
measures of congruence. Moreover, Maille and Fleck (2011)
and Ilicic and Webster (2013) claimed that congruence
encapsulates two dimensions as follows; relevancy and
expectancy. In brand endorsement theory, a celebrity can be
considered:
As relevant if there is a clear meaning why he/she endorses the brand or
product, and a celebrity is expected if he/she corresponds to a pattern
evoked by the message of the brand (Fleck et al., 2012, p. 653).
Attempting to integrate these mechanisms, the TEARS model
of Shimp (2003) comprised five dimensions as follows:
celebrities must inspire trustworthiness (T) as it influences the
perception of product reliability. Besides expertise (E) or
knowledge about the product/brand category, celebrities
should also have some physical attractiveness (A) as attractive
persons capture more attention in advertisements. Some
admiration and respect (R) should also be present in the image
of the celebrity. Ultimately, the consumer should identify with
the celebrity: as people generally tend to like people similar to
themselves, this would suggest that there should be some
degree of empathy or similarity (S).
Moreover, the consumer’s perception of celebrity attributes
influences the effectiveness of an advertising message (Rossiter
and Smidts, 2012), their attitude towards the brand (Kamins,
1990; Misra and Beatty, 1990) and their purchase intentions
(Pradhan et al., 2016) and WTP/brand equity (Spry et al.,
2011).
The literature also highlights other individual variables that
moderate advertising processing, but their inclusion in the
model would increase the complexity of the analysis. For
example, consumers are influenced by the following: previous
244
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255
product/category knowledge (Keel and Nataraajan, 2012);
worship or attachment to human brands (Hung, 2014;
Kowalczyk and Royne, 2013; Thomson, 2006); consumer
personality (Roy et al., 2013); or brand experience (Knoll et al.,
2017). Furthermore, McCormick (2016) claims that
Millennials (or Generation Y) exhibit a different pattern of
response behaviour towards celebrity endorsements (influence
of age).
Conceptual foundations and hypothesis development
This paper proposes a new theoretical framework to assess the
impact of those independent variables discussed in the previous
section on celebrity branding (Figure 1):
 celebrity-related variables (perceived personality, credibility,
trustworthiness, likeability and similarity); and
 variables related to the branding scenario (product
involvement and social acceptance/responsibility).
Influence of celebrity personality on celebrity branding
The American Psychological Association defines personality as
individual differences in our patterns of thinking, feeling and
behaving. Mishra et al. (2015) claim that there is a positive and
significant impact of personality-based congruence on endorser
credibility and suitability, which in turn, positively and
significantly affects the believability of advertisements. Costa
and McCrae (1992) developed the Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and also designated the NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) – the Big Five model – which
identifies the following traits of human personality:
extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism
and openness to experiences.
Alternative scales are proposed by Malhotra (1981), Aaker
(1997), Geuens et al. (2009) or Kumar and Kumar (2014) to
measure not only the (corporate) brand personality but also the
consumer’s personality (Pradhan et al., 2016) or the
congruence index (calculated by the gap for each item between
the perceived brand personality trait and self-assessed
consumer trait).
Figure 1 Theoretical framework and research hypotheses
H1a
H1b
D
H2
H4
H3
H5a,b
H6e
H6a,b,c,d
 Social causes
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
By contrast, Dwivedi et al. (2015) claim that celebrity
endorsement may impact brand equity via two pathways.
Making an analogy within the celebrity–product match-up
context, this study acknowledges a direct effect of the
celebrity’s credibility on the celebrity’s brand equity (first
pathway), moderated by the congruence between consumer
and celebrity (second pathway). Based on these same two
pathways, the study focussed on the measurement of consumer
responses for two variables: product–celebrity perceived degree
of fit and WTP, defined as the maximum amount of money that
an individual was willing to pay for a single unit of a product.
Therefore, the H1 examines the influence of the celebrity
personality (Batra and Homer, 2004; Lunardo et al., 2015;
Malodia et al., 2017) within a celebrity branding context on
WTP (Lahtinen et al., 2016; Zamudio, 2016), driven by a
congruence mechanism between celebrity personality and
consumer personality, as supported by self-congruity theory
(Pradhan et al., 2016);
H1a. The celebrity’s perceived personality influences the
degree of fit between the celebrity and the product.
H1b. The celebrity’s perceived personality influences WTP/
make a donation.
Influence of other celebrity’s characteristics on
celebrity branding
Based on the source attractiveness model, the TEARS model
and the contributions of Erdogan (1999) and Spry et al. (2011),
a range of attributes/characteristics were chosen as independent
variables:
 credibility;
 trustworthiness;
 likeability; and
 similarity.
This study draws on product match-up theory and aims to
assess the influence of those attributes on the degree of fit
(Wang et al., 2015; Wright, 2016) within a celebrity branding
context. As such, the H2 examines whether:
H2. The celebrity–product degree of fit is positively
correlated with (a) credibility, (b) trustworthiness, (c)
likeability and (d) similarity.
The influence of celebrity characteristics on WTP (an
indicator of brand equity) is supported by Seno and Lukas
(2007), Spry et al. (2011) and Dwivedi et al. (2015)
amongst others. Therefore, this study formulates H3,
aiming to confirm their findings within a celebrity branding
context:
H3. The consumer’s WTP for a product is positively
correlated with (a) credibility, (b) trustworthiness, (c)
likeability and (d) similarity.
Furthermore, as claimed by several studies, a higher degree of
fit between the endorser and the product will promote a more
favourable consumer response (Erdogan, 1999; Kamins, 1990;
Kamins and Gupta, 1994; Kamins et al., 1989; Wright, 2016).
This study aims to verify if the match-up mechanism is also
245
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255
important in a celebrity branding context, leading to a H4 being
added to the conceptual framework:
H4. The consumer’s WTP is positively correlated with the
degree of fit between the celebrity and the product.
Influence of involvement with product category and/or
social cause in a celebrity branding context
For Grau and Folse (2007, p. 20), the concept of involvement
is often conceptualised as “personal relevance which is the level
of perceived personal importance and/or interest evoked by a
stimulus within a specific situation and is based on inherent
needs, values, and interests”. The product involvement
construct, usually measured by Zaichkowsky’s (1985) scale,
plays a moderating role, as reported by several authors
(Miniard et al., 1991; Wang et al., 2015; Zwilling and Fruchter,
2013).
Petty and Cacioppo (1980) examined the role of the
attractiveness of endorsers of a shampoo advertisement to
test the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). The ELM
model postulates that the quality of arguments contained in
a message has a greater impact on persuasion under high-
involvement conditions, whereas under low-involvement
conditions peripheral cues – source attractiveness and
credibility – have a greater impact on persuasion. However,
Petty et al. (1981) and Eisend and Langner (2010) found
that endorser attractiveness was equally important under
both high- and low-involvement conditions. Furthermore,
in high-involvement or transformational advertising,
similarity (congruence) between the celebrity and the target
audience is more important (Pradhan et al., 2016).
This study expects that a celebrity’s characteristics may play
the role of peripheral cues within a celebrity branding context,
leading to the H5:
H5a. The influence of celebrity likeability is higher in the
low-involvement buying decision-making context.
By contrast, according to Pradhan et al. (2016), celebrity–
consumer congruity (or similarity) is more influential under
high-involvement conditions:
H5b. Similarity is a significant predictor of WTP under high-
involvement conditions.
The role of celebrity branding in cause-related
marketing
According to Forehand and Grier (2003) and Branigan and
Mitsis (2014), non-profit decision makers rely on authentic
alignment and a genuine relationship between the celebrity and
their organisational values and mission(s); through this
alliance, the brand aims to position itself as socially responsible
(Hoeffler and Keller, 2002; Roy and Cornwell, 2003). The
degree of involvement with social causes affects the way a
person judges the level of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
of a brand (Berger et al., 1999; de los Salmones and
Dominguez, 2016), the cause-brand fit (Bigné et al., 2012),
product purchase intention (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Gupta
 Social causes
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
and Pirsch, 2006) and the willingness to make a donation
(Hajjat, 2003).
Therefore, it can be expected that these attributes (H3) and
cause–celebrity fit (H4) are positively correlated with the
willingness to make a donation (Ilicic and Baxter, 2014; Park
and Cho, 2015) within a celebrity branding context, thus
leading to the H6:
H6. The consumers’ willingness to make a donation to a
social cause/NGO is positively correlated with (a)
credibility, (b) trustworthiness, (c) likeability and (d)
similarity.
H6e. The consumer’s willingness to make a donation to a
social cause/NGO is positively correlated with the
celebrity–product degree of fit.
Methodology
Research design and preliminary tests
To test the hypotheses formulated in the previous section, the
authors designed an experimental study simulating the match-
up branding process according to a factorial plan comprising 20
different celebrity–product matching scenarios within a
celebrity branding context: five types of celebrity personality/
inter-subjects effect (extraversion, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to experiences) 
four types of branding scenarios/intra-subjects effect (“high
social acceptance” vs “low social acceptance/controversial” vs
high involvement vs low involvement).
To select the celebrities and the products, a focus group was
conducted with post-graduate students asking participants to
nominate 14 female celebrities. An online pre-test survey,
which collected 151 responses, showed that Jennifer Lawrence,
Natalie Portman, Kim Kardashian, Scarlett Johansson and
Emma Watson were the five most preferred celebrities. The
personality profile of these five celebrities was pre-tested using a
20-item short version Big Five scale developed by Passos and
Laros (2015) based on Costa and McCrae’s (1992) NEO-PI-
R. As celebrities’ brands may be seen as avatars or public
personas of human subjects, it was considered that the NEO-
PI-R would be a more suitable assessment tool than other
alternatives developed from the Big Five theory (Banerjee,
2016; Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer, 2013; Spörrle and Bekk,
2014). Dobewall et al. (2014) as it demonstrated that people
could use the Big Five model with remarkable accuracy for the
external assessment of personality traits (by others).
The traits with higher scores for each celebrity were as
follows: Jennifer Lawrence – openness to experience; Natalie
Portman – neuroticism; Kim Kardashian – extraversion;
Scarlett Johansson – agreeableness and Emma Watson –
conscientiousness.
According to Keel and Nataraajan (2012) and Abirami and
Krishnan (2018), there has been a big increase in recent years
in the number of celebrity branded products. Some celebrities
choose to brand products that are consistent with their original
source of fame, while others choose not so obvious categories.
To operationalise the level of involvement, two products were
selected according to the Foote, Cone and Belding (FCB) grid
246
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255
(Ratchford, 1987; Vaughn, 1980), both belonging to the
affective and hedonistic quadrants:
1 a low-involvement product – a lipstick; and
2 a high involvement product – a watch.
Later, two other scenarios were added to simulate different
levels of social acceptance:
1 an eco-foundation (high social acceptance); and
2 a bottle of vodka (low social acceptance/controversial).
As according to Matthew (2013), the willingness to make a
donation increases when organisations show evidence
of environmental responsibility (ER) and “green
management”.
Stimulus, instruments and measures
To assess the antecedents and consequences of match-up
scenarios, the authors developed a questionnaire comprising
three sections, preceded by a filter question, whereby
respondents had to choose only one celebrity to be analysed;
as such, only the authors were in a position to make inter-
subject comparisons.
The first section contained a set of questions related to
celebrity awareness, likeability, credibility and trustworthiness
and the respondent–celebrity similarity (synonymous with self-
congruence or identification). Respondents rated the 20-item
short version of the NEO-PRI scale (Passos and Laros, 2015)
to measure perceived celebrity personality. Spörrle and Bekk
(2014) demonstrate the validity and reliability of a five-item
scale (one-item per dimension), which is the shortest version
developed.
The second section of the questionnaire presented the
four match-up scenarios separately. In each scenario,
respondents were asked to respond to the same three
questions related to the degree of fit between the celebrity
and the branded product or social cause, WTP and purchase
frequency.
Finally, the third section collected information relating to a
self-evaluation of each respondent’s personality, age, gender,
professional situation, qualifications and average monthly
income.
The scenario stimuli were composed strictly of images for
each celebrity and the following text “Imagine that this
celebrity [. . .] is willing to launch (a new product line of [. . .]/an
eco-foundation) carrying her own brand name”. All the
celebrity images used were official images retrieved from the
IMDb website (www.imdb.com/). In addition, product images
did not contain any celebrities and products together to avoid
simulating an advertisement.
Sample
The questionnaire was shared on social media, specifically on
Facebook, during the first week of June 2016. The surveys were
completely anonymous and confidential, ensuring the privacy
of respondents. Using non-probabilistic convenience sampling,
the questionnaire was answered voluntarily by a total sample of
335 respondents (63.3 per cent female vs 36.7 per cent male),
divided into five groups (Table I). There was no significant
association between gender and group type according to the
Chi-square test.
 Social causes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255

Table I Gender and age of the sample respondents by group according to the evaluated celebrity
Celebrity
Emma Watson Jennifer Lawrence Kim Kardashian Natalie Portman Scarlett Johansson Total
Female
N 46 47 42 39 38 212
Gender (%) 21.7 22.2 19.8 18.4 17.9 100.0
Celebrity % 69.7 64.4 67.7 53.4 62.3 63.3
Total % 13.7 14.0 12.5 11.6 11.3 63.3
Male
N 20 26 20 34 23 123
Gender % 16.3 21.1 16.3 27.6 18.7 100.0
Celebrity % 30.3 35.6 32.3 46.6 37.7 36.7
Total % 6.0 7.8 6.0 10.1 6.9 36.7
Total
N 66 73 62 73 61 335
Gender % 19.7 21.8 18.5 21.8 18.2 100.0
Celebrity % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total % 19.7 21.8 18.5 21.8 18.2 100.0
Age
M 22.83 22.78 26.71 28.08 23.52 24.81
SD 5.89 5.29 8.50 8.67 7.11 7.50

The average age of the respondents was 24.8 years, but there
were significant differences between the groups (Kruskal–
Wallis test: Chi-square = 25.95; df = 4; p < 0.001) because
respondents who chose Kim Kardashian and Natalie
Portman had a higher average age compared with the other
groups (Table I). In terms of monthly disposable income,
69.6 per cent of the respondents received less than e500.
There was a significant association between disposable
income and the type of celebrity (Kruskal–Wallis test: Chi-
square = 42.35; df = 24; p = 0.012) as a higher share of
respondents who chose Natalie Portman earned more than
e500 per month.
Table II presents the five dimensions of the self-evaluation of
the respondent’s personality profiles. All groups of respondents
described themselves with higher scores for agreeableness.
There was also a significant difference in extraversion between
those respondents choosing Jennifer Lawrence and the other
respondents. The Cronbach’s alpha for all the dimensions were
satisfactory.
Discussion of the results
Celebrities’ perceived characteristics and their
personality profiles
Table III presents the evaluation of each celebrity in terms of
celebrity similarity, likeability, credibility and trustworthiness.
The Kruskal–Wallis test and one-way ANOVA least significant
distance (LSD) post-hoc contrasts showed that the
respondents exposed to the Emma Watson matching scenarios
rated higher scores for all variables, while those exposed to the
Kim Kardashian matching scenarios gave her an overall
negative evaluation compared with the other celebrities.
At this point, it was important to analyse the perceived
personality profiles for each of the celebrities, as evaluated
by the respondents (Table IV). The Kruskal–Wallis test
showed significant differences for all personality traits. The
conscientiousness trait was the most salient trait for Emma
Watson; Jennifer Lawrence had a similar profile. However,
in the cases of Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson,
neuroticism received the highest score, but the other traits

Table II Self-evaluated respondent’s personality profile measure using the short version of NEO-PI-R (Passos and Laros, 2015)
Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness to experiences
Sample group N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Emma Watson 66 17.77 4.35 20.59 3.44 21.59 3.66 15.68 5.40 20.68 3.21
Jennifer Lawrence 73 20.30 4.35 21.22 3.29 22.92 3.50 17.33 5.44 20.88 3.00
Kim Kardashian 62 19.23 4.40 20.58 3.02 21.87 3.30 16.13 4.59 20.95 2.95
Natalie Portman 73 18.95 5.35 20.37 4.62 21.75 4.56 15.60 5.59 20.62 3.92
Scarlett Johansson 61 18.21 5.55 20.79 3.27 21.52 3.62 15.85 5.11 20.54 3.55
Total 335 18.93 4.88 20.71 3.59 21.96 3.79 16.14 5.27 20.73 3.34
Cronbach’s alpha 0.913 0.791 0.903 0.839 0.693
Kruskal–Wallis (df = 4) Chi-square (p) 10.4 (p = 0.034) n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

247
 Social causes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255

Table III Celebrities’ evaluation characteristics: significant differences according to the Kruskal–Wallis test and one-way ANOVA LSD post-hoc contrasts
N M SD Chi-square a Differences
Celebrity similarity (Identification with the celebrity)
Emma Watson 66 3.98 1.534 64.59 Emma > All Kim < All
Jennifer Lawrence 73 3.29 1.523
Kim Kardashian 62 1.79 1.230
Natalie Portman 73 3.16 1.537
Scarlett Johansson 61 3.43 1.477
Total 335 3.15 1.623
Celebrity likeability
Emma Watson 66 5.15 1.460 71.70 All except for Emma = Scarlett Scarlett = Jennifer
Jennifer Lawrence 73 4.53 1.546
Kim Kardashian 62 2.77 1.348
Natalie Portman 73 4.01 1.712
Scarlett Johansson 61 4.67 1.423
Total 335 4.24 1.698
Celebrity credibility
Emma Watson 66 5.23 1.298 92.38 Emma > All Kim < Allm Scarlett = Jennifer
Jennifer Lawrence 73 4.64 1.337
Kim Kardashian 62 2.44 1.350
Natalie Portman 73 4.30 1.672
Scarlett Johansson 61 4.66 1.389
Total 335 4.28 1.691
Celebrity trustworthiness
Emma Watson 66 4.80 1.511 89.85 Emma > All Kim < All Scarlett = Jennifer Jennifer = Natalie
Jennifer Lawrence 73 3.89 1.603
Kim Kardashian 62 2.00 1.215
Natalie Portman 73 3.67 1.537
Scarlett Johansson 61 4.13 1.323
Total 335 3.72 1.706
Notes: aKruskal–Wallis; Chi-square (df = 4); p < 0.001

Table IV Perceived personality profile of the celebrities evaluated by sample respondents

Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness to experiences
N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Emma Watson 66 18.09 3.85 22.36 3.40 13.02 3.91 22.27 3.35 20.23 3.42
Jennifer Lawrence 73 19.92 4.67 20.44 3.88 14.94 4.34 20.38 4.53 19.18 4.09
Kim Kardashian 62 22.73 4.98 19.65 4.16 17.47 4.12 16.27 3.85 16.85 3.32
Natalie Portman 73 16.97 4.53 18.79 4.54 13.71 4.10 19.82 4.70 18.82 4.66
Scarlett Johansson 61 18.43 4.54 19.74 3.78 13.74 4.49 20.85 4.09 19.20 4.04
Total 335 19.16 4.91 20.18 4.14 14.54 4.44 19.96 4.56 18.88 4.08
Cronbach’s alpha 335 0.894 0.861 0.936 0.878 0.800
Kruskal–Wallis (df = 4) 57.952 29.687 66.394 47.736 25.483
Chi-square (p) (p < 0.001) (p < 0.001) (p < 0.001) (p < 0.001) (p < 0.001)

had similar scores. Finally, Kim Kardashian’s personality
profile had one trait rated with a very high score –
extraversion. These results therefore reconfirmed the traits
of two celebrities when compared with the expected
celebrity personality measures in the pre-test: extraversion
for Kim Kardashian and conscientiousness for Emma
Watson.
As mentioned before, all groups of respondents described
themselves with higher scores for agreeableness, although none
of the celebrities had agreeableness as a dominant trait. Because
of this, there seem to be no a priori conditions for stimulating
the congruence between the respondents’ and celebrities’
personalities.
Differences between match-up scenarios for the degree
of fit and willingness to pay
Tables V and VI present the degree of fit and WTP for each
product. The Kruskal–Wallis tests show significant

248
 Social causes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255

Table V Degree of fit and WTP for a lipstick vs watch product lines branded by the selected celebrities
Lipstick Watch
Degree of fit WTP Degree of fit WTP
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Emma Watson 66 5.11 1.37 11.41 8.77 4.89 1.520 83.15 65.97
Jennifer Lawrence 73 5.04 1.50 12.42 14.15 4.63 1.532 104.40 255.19
Kim Kardashian 62 5.74 1.69 9.53 9.95 4.58 1.869 82.87 193.96
Natalie Portman 73 4.96 1.62 12.71 8.59 4.88 1.554 123.27 136.60
Scarlett Johansson 61 6.13 1.12 12.31 12.54 5.43 1.040 88.69 86.23
Total 335 5.36 1.54 11.73 11.03 4.87 1.547 97.48 165.42
Kruskal–Wallis (df = 4) 40.948 n.s. n.s. 20.135
Chi-square (p) (p < 0.001) (p < 0.001)

Table VI Degree of fit and WTP (donation) for a vodka vs eco-foundation branded by the selected celebrities
Vodka Eco-foundation
Degree of fit WTP Degree of fit WTP
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Emma Watson 66 1.97 1.28 10.41 9.60 5.74 1.219 30.11 36.79
Jennifer Lawrence 73 2.68 1.67 11.38 10.75 5.38 1.420 23.66 31.21
Kim Kardashian 62 4.23 2.04 11.66 10.76 3.34 2.134 9.48 18.10
Natalie Portman 73 2.22 1.47 11.63 10.75 5.14 1.661 57.62 164.76
Scarlett Johansson 61 2.61 1.44 15.48 14.34 5.20 1.526 24.03 35.68
Total 335 2.71 1.76 12.0418 11.34 4.99 1.798 29.83 83.0
Kruskal–Wallis (df= 4) 50.338 n.s. 48.710 46.050
Chi-square (p) (p < 0.001) (p < 0.001) (p < 0.001)

differences between the groups for the degree of fit for a
lipstick, vodka and an eco-foundation. By contrast, there
were no significant differences between the degrees of fit for
watches rated by the five groups for the different celebrities.
Nevertheless, regarding WTP for a watch and willingness to
make a donation to an eco-foundation, the Kruskal–Wallis
tests revealed significant differences between different
celebrities. For some scenarios, the results support H1a and
H1b, postulating that celebrity personality influences the
degree of fit and WTP. However, it seems that for low-
involvement or low CSR products, such as a lipstick or vodka,
the celebrity’s personality does not influence WTP.
Scarlett Johansson obtained the highest degree of fit, both for
the lipstick and watch scenarios. The prior knowledge of her
endorsement of several high-end fashion brands, such as
Dolce & Gabbana, Calvin Klein and Louis Vuitton,[1] may
have influenced the respondents’ evaluation. In terms of
products, her endorsements often focus on perfumes and
make-up, even though she endorses other product types, such
as the champagne brand Moêt & Chandon. In contrast, Kim
Kardashian (perceived as an extroverted person) obtained the
highest degree of fit for a celebrity branded vodka, while Emma
Watson was confirmed as the ideal founder of an eco-
foundation. This might be explained by the fact Emma Watson
is well known for her work in women’s rights and her
appointment as a UN female goodwill ambassador.
Branigan and Mitsis (2014) highlighted the need for source
credibility, often expressed as authenticity, alignment or
celebrity – cause degree of fit, when selecting celebrities to
endorse social causes. As such, this could explain why Emma
Watson has the credibility to create celebrity branding of an
eco-foundation, given the reduced probability that consumer
will perceive inauthentic motivations.
However, in all categories, except for celebrity branding of
vodka, the respondents who evaluated Natalie Portman
showed a higher WTP for the products and for donating to an
eco-foundation because of the higher disposable income of this
group, who were also older than the other groups.
The matrix of Spearman correlation coefficients in Table VII
shows that there were no correlations between similarity,
trustworthiness, likeability, credibility or the degree of fit for a
lipstick (CPF1). However, positive correlations were found for
WTP1. Nevertheless, when analysing the match-up with
vodka, respondents’ responses revealed negative correlations.
The respondents rated the celebrity–product degree of fit
(CPF3) with vodka more favourably when the celebrities were
perceived as less credible, less trustworthy or less likeable,
which corresponds to a more irreverent or controversial profile.
Therefore, it may be concluded that the results support H2 and
H3, but not for all scenarios.
Regarding the influence of product involvement proposed in
H5a and H5b, the results show that similarity is correlated with
the degree of fit and WTP only for the high-involvement
product (watch), thus validating H5b. However, likeability
positively correlated with WTP and degree of fit only for the
high-involvement product, as opposed to what was proposed in
H5a. By contrast, H6a and H6b, regarding the match-up with
social causes, were both supported by the results as the
celebrities’ attributes were correlated with WTP and degree
of fit.

249
 Social causes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255

Table VII Spearman correlation coefficients between similarity, likeability, credibility, trustworthiness and the degree of fit and WTP for the analysed
products
CL CC CT CPF1 WTP1 CPF2 WTP2 CPF3 WTP3 CPF4 WTP4
       
Similarity (CCI) 0.683 0.645 0.670 n.s. 0.278 0.138 0.170 0.120 0.257 0.294
Likeability (CL) 1.000 0.818 0.742 n.s. 0.331 0.141 0.183 0.207 
0.343 0.306
Credibility (CC) 1.000 0.819 n.s. 0.326 0.187 0.216 0.204 0.422 0.312
Trustworthiness 1.000 n.s. 0.294 0.230 0.222 0.223 0.340 0.267
(CT)
Degree of fit (CPFi) 1.000 n.s. 1.000 0.398 1.000 0.409 1.000 0.408
Note: CPF1 – Celebrity–product degree of fit (lipstick); WTP1 – WTP for a lipstick; CPF2 – Celebrity–product degree of fit (Watch); WTP2 – WTP for a watch;
CPF3 – Celebrity–product degree of fit (vodka); WTP1 – WTP for a vodka; CPF4 – Celebrity–product degree of fit (eco-foundation); WTP4 – Willingness to
make a donation to the eco-foundation;  p < 0,01;  p < 0,05

Predictors of willingness to pay for different match-up
scenarios
As a complementary analysis, four multiple linear regressions
were conducted (F < 0.001), one for each product, to identify
the significant predictors of WTP. Although the variance
explained is low according to the regression coefficients
presented (Table VIII), the beta coefficients in Table IX show
that the celebrity–product degree of fit is an important
predictor for all products (as suggested in H4), except for the
low-involvement product (the lipstick). The buying frequency
was also a significant predictor for all products, which suggests
that the accumulated knowledge and experience in a particular
product category is a predictor for WTP or donation amount.
The regression model shows that WTP for a lipstick was
predicted by three other variables, likeability (as suggested in
H5a), purchase frequency and the respondent’s extraversion.
Consumers who identified themselves as more extrovert
seemed to be willing to pay more for a celebrity lipstick.
However, these results go against the findings of Robertson
et al. (2008), who found that extroversion is negatively
correlated with cosmetics usage; as such, the demand for this
product was assigned directly to the influence of the celebrity. A
lipstick is a product that can fit any of the celebrities presented,
so the degree of fit did not appear as a significant variable.
WTP for a celebrity branded watch is influenced by the
celebrity–product degree of fit (confirming H4), purchase
frequency, average monthly income, celebrity extraversion
(with a negative beta coefficient) and the respondents’
neuroticism. As a high-involvement product, the acquisition of
a watch requires more consideration in terms of purchase
decision-making. Thus, consumers tend to seek brands or
products that inspire trust and credibility and it might therefore
make sense that they are willing to pay more for a watch when it
is branded by a celebrity who is considered to be “reliable” or
“less extroverted”. This result supports the influence of
celebrity personality, proposed in H1.
The results show that levels of celebrity–product degree of fit
(confirming H4), purchase frequency and perceived celebrity
extraversion (confirming H1) affect WTP for a bottle of vodka,
which explains why Kim Kardashian was the most suitable
celebrity for creating a brand of vodka.
On the other hand, when a celebrity was perceived to have a
strong extraversion personality trait (Kim Kardashian), it is not
recommended for her to promote luxury/high-involvement
products (watches). It is also possible to establish an analogy
with the endorsement context, as pointed out by Messner and
Reinhard (2012), who emphasised that strategically exiting
from controversial sponsorship (i.e. possible doping scandals)
can have positive consequences for the sponsor’s image when
the decision is trusted, but detrimental consequences when
attributed to overly self-serving reasons.
For the willingness to make a donation to an eco-foundation,
degree of fit (again confirming H4), donation frequency and
respondent’s agreeableness were significant predictors. Not
every celebrity had the right profile to create an eco-foundation
or to support a cause. The degree of fit influenced the response
to the celebrity branded eco-foundation because consumers
tend to evaluate the credibility and authenticity of celebrities’
motivations; consumers may be more sceptical of the
motivations of celebrities when they endorse a non-profit cause.
This occurs because the alliance maybe seen as just a marketing
tool used by celebrities to increase their credibility (Branigan
and Mitsis, 2014). In addition, the degree of consumer
involvement with a particular cause can affect the way in which
a person judges a celebrity – cause alliance (Berger et al., 1999)
and therefore the amount of money a person is willing to
donate. Younger generations, of 20-24 years of age, also
demonstrate a greater interest in global environmental issues

Table VIII Summary of multiple regression models

R R2 AdjustedR2 Standard Error R2 change F change gl1 gl2 Sig. F change Durbin Watson
Lipstick 0.364 0.132 0.124 10.33787 0.021 7.797 1 329 0.006 1.882
Watch 0.351 0.123 0.110 156.47628 0.011 3.986 1 327 0.047 2.043
Vodka 0.373 0.139 0.131 10.56921 0.025 9.506 1 329 0.002 2.085
Eco-foundation 0.239 0.057 0.049 81.19469 0.015 5.228 1 328 0.023 2.025

250
 Social causes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255

Table IX Beta coefficients of the predictors of WTP for the products

Correlations Collinearity
Model B SE Beta t Sig. Zero order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
Lipstick
(Constant) 4.410 2.726 1.618 0.107
Celebrity likeability 1.501 0.339 0.230 4.421 0.000 0.264 0.237 0.227 0.979 1.022
Product buying frequency 1.201 0.305 0.204 3.941 0.000 0.240 0.212 0.202 0.980 1.021
Respondent extraversion 0.325 0.116 0.144 2.792 0.006 0.157 0.152 0.143 0.998 1.002
Watch
(Constant) 70.861 57.286 1.237 0.217
Celebrity–product degree of fit 23.478 5.737 0.218 4.093 0.000 0.240 0.221 0.212 0.949 1.054
Product buying frequency 16.287 6.459 0.133 2.522 0.012 0.187 0.138 0.131 0.963 1.038
Celebrity extraversion 4.977 1.757 0.148 2.833 0.005 0.155 0.155 0.147 0.989 1.011
Respondent neuroticism 3.886 1.650 0.124 2.355 0.019 0.077 0.129 0.122 0.971 1.030
Monthly income 10.010 5.014 0.104 1.996 0.047 0.131 0.110 0.103 0.982 1.018
Vodka
(Constant) 10.370 2.451 4.231 0.000
Celebrity–product degree of fit 1.915 0.346 0.298 5.534 0.000 0.303 0.292 0.283 0.905 1.105
Product buying frequency 1.186 0.361 0.175 3.286 0.001 0.219 0.178 0.168 0.924 1.082
Celebrity extraversion 0.377 0.122 0.163 3.083 0.002 0.064 0.168 0.158 0.932 1.073
Eco-Foundation
(Constant) 41.036 27.628 1.485 0.138
Celebrity–product degree of fit 8.003 2.583 0.172 3.099 0.002 0.154 0.169 0.166 0.936 1.068
Respondent agreeableness 3.327 1.213 0.152 2.742 0.006 0.097 0.150 0.147 0.940 1.064
Donation frequency 7.429 3.249 0.124 2.286 0.023 0.129 0.125 0.123 0.972 1.029

according to McDougle et al. (2011), which could explain
donation frequency as an independent variable of the model.
Conclusions, managerial implications, limitations
and further research
The literature review confirmed that celebrity branding is a
phenomenon with increasing relevance in the twenty-first
century, in a marketplace dominated by digital marketing.
Celebrities and their brand managers often face a matching-up
problem, trying to find the correct product category
considering the direct transfer from the celebrity’s public
persona to their celebrity brand. The findings of this study
confirmed that the celebrity–product degree of fit is an
important predictor of the WTP.
In this study, there were no conditions for stimulating the
congruence between the respondents’ and celebrities’
personalities. Nevertheless, brand managers should never
neglect the role of self-congruence mechanisms and other
moderating effects, such as previous knowledge or involvement
with the product.
For low-involvement products, such as a lipstick, the influence
of the perceived celebrity personality as a peripheral cue was found
to be very important for the matching-up process, but when asked
about WTP, probably due to the low average price, the variability
explained by this peripheral cue was absorbed by other price-
related concerns. However, for the high-involvement product (a
watch), as expected (according to the ELM model), consumers
were more sensitive to product-related cues (central path) and
therefore the peripheral cues, such as celebrity personality, did not
influence the degree of fit. Nevertheless, the perception of celebrity
extraversion was an unfavourable determinant when product
involvement was high. This result also confirmed the traditional
advertising copy strategy used in the endorsement of watch
brands, which is usually based on being very sober to enhance the
status and exclusivity of brand identity. As expected in luxury
markets, the results address the influence of monthly income (as
an indicator of purchasing power) and buying frequency as
relevant predictors.
This study reveals some key conclusions: the celebrity
must be authentic in the sense that she has enough relevance
to support the cause and her motives must be perceived as
altruistic, credible and trustworthy. The amount of the
donation increases if the respondent evaluates themselves as
being less agreeable. This might be explained by the
tendency to non-conformity among such individuals, which
may compel them to action or in this case to contribute to a
better world.
The study also has some limitations as it analyses specific
sets of female celebrities and match-up scenarios. Although
respondents in all groups rated themselves as possessing a
higher agreeableness trait, each group ended up rating each
celebrity with distinguishable traits other than agreeableness.
Nevertheless, the results confirm the conclusions of Dobewall
et al. (2014), who claim that self-rating and assessment by
others are techniques that could be explored more, especially
if measuring a public persona, which as Leary and Allen
(2011) pointed out, is always affected by the celebrity’s
impression management strategies, public self-consciousness
and approval motivation.

251
 Social causes
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
Each respondent evaluated only one celebrity and therefore
only inter-group comparisons were allowed, but it would be
interesting also to have intra-subject comparisons. In addition,
brand/human personality trait theory and its measurement
tools are still receiving criticisms and this is another area might
be extended by further research. Further research could also
undertake a comparative analysis of the alternative model
proposed by Hung (2014) – the dual entertainment path
model. In addition, as suggested by Branigan and Mitsis (2014)
and Moulard et al. (2015), research might also explore the role
of other independent variables, such as celebrity gender, type of
expertise or authenticity.
As a final comment, it is worth recalling that the celebrity–
product matching problem still needs further attention from
scholars and practitioners to clarify the theoretical boundaries
between three different advertising processing and buying
situations: celebrity endorsement, celebrity branding and
celebrity brand co-branding.
Note
1 According to the website celebrityendorsementads.com
References
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.
Abirami, U. and Krishnan, J. (2018), “Attitude towards
celebrity endorsement-a case study of adolescent students
using personal care products”, International Journal of
Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Albert, N., Ambroise, L. and Valette-Florence, P. (2017),
“Consumer, brand, celebrity: which congruency produces
effective celebrity endorsements?”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 81, pp. 96-106.
Alexander, J. (2010), “The celebrity-icon”, Cultural Sociology,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 323-336.
Arsena, A., Silvera, D. and Pandelaere, M. (2014), “brand trait
transference: when celebrity endorsers acquire Brand
personality traits”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 7,
pp. 1537-1543.
Atkin, C. and Block, M. (1983), “Effectiveness of celebrity
endorsers”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 57-61.
Baker, M. and Churchill, G. (1977), “The impact of physically
attractive models on advertising evaluations”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 538-555.
Banerjee, S. (2016), “Influence of consumer personality, brand
personality, and corporate personality on brand preference:
an empirical investigation of interaction effect”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 198-216, doi: 10.1108/APJML-05-2015-0073.
Batra, R. and Homer, P.M. (2004), “The situational impact of
brand image beliefs”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 318-330.
Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006),
“The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on
consumer behaviour”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 1, pp. 46-53.
252
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255
Berger, I., Cunningham, P. and Kozinets, R. (1999),
“Consumer persuasion through cause-related advertising”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 491-497.
Bigné, E., Currás-Pérez, R. and Aldás-Manzano, J. (2012),
“Dual nature of cause–brand fit”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 3/4, pp. 575-594.
Bjerke, R. and Polegato, R. (2006), “How well do advertising
images of health and beauty travel across cultures? A self-
concept perspective”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 865-884.
Branigan, E. and Mitsis, A. (2014), “Reach for generation Y:
using celebrity endorsement to communicate about
nonprofit causes with young people in Australia”,
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 314-321.
Centeno, D. and Wang, J. (2017), “Celebrities as human
brands: an inquiry on stakeholder–actor co-creation of brand
identities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 74, pp. 133-138.
Choi, S.M., Lee, W.N. and Kim, H.J. (2005), “Lessons from
the rich and famous: a cross-cultural comparison of celebrity
endorsement in advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 85-98.
Choi, J.H., Choi, T.R., Ryoo, Y. and Mackert, M. (2017),
“Would you listen to brad pitt? The impact of construal level
and celebrity endorsement in donation advertising: an
abstract”, in Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future
Marketing Trends, Springer, Cham, pp. 211-211.
Costa, P.T., Jr. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) Manual, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Odessa, FL.
D’Alessandro, S. and Chitty, B. (2011), “Real or relevant
beauty? Body shape and endorser effects on brand attitude
and body image”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 8,
pp. 843-878.
De los Salmones, M. and Dominguez, R. (2016), “Celebrity
endorsement and involvement with the social cause in
nonprofit organizations”, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 309-326.
DeBono, K. and Telesca, C. (1990), “The influence of source
physical attractiveness on advertising effectiveness: a
functional perspective”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 20 No. 17, pp. 1383-1395.
Dobewall, H., Aavik, T., Konstabel, K., Schwartz, S.H. and
Realo, A. (2014), “A comparison of self-other agreement in
personal values versus the big five personality traits”, Journal
of Research in Personality, Vol. 50, pp. 1-10.
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L. and McDonald, R. (2015),
“Celebrity endorsement, self-brand connection and
consumer-based brand equity”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 449-461.
Eisend, M. and Langner, T. (2010), “Immediate and delayed
advertising effects of celebrity endorsers’ attractiveness and
expertise”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 527-546.
Eisend, M. and Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. (2013), “Measurement
characteristics of aaker’s brand personality dimensions: lessons
to be learned from human personality research”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 950-958.
 Social causes
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
Erdogan, B.Z. (1999), “Celebrity endorsement: a literature
review”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 291-314.
Erdogan, B., Baker, M. and Tagg, S. (2001), “Selecting
celebrity endorsers: the practitioner’s perspective”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 39-48.
Felix, R. and Borges, A. (2014), “Celebrity endorser
attractiveness, visual attention, and implications for ad
attitudes and brand evaluations: a replication and
extension”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21 Nos 7/8,
pp. 579-593.
Fleck, N., Korchia, M. and Le Roy, I. (2012), “Celebrities in
advertising: looking for congruence or likability?”, Psychology
& Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 651-662.
Fleck, N., Quester, P. (2007), “Birds of a feather flock
together. . . definition, role and measure of congruence: an
application to sponsorship”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 975-1000.
Forehand, M. and Grier, S. (2003), “When is honesty the best
policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer
scepticism”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 349-356.
Gergaud, O. and and Ginsburgh, V. (2010), “Success: talent,
intelligence or beauty?”, ECARES Working Papers.
Geuens, M., Weijters, B. and De Wulf, K. (2009), “A new
measure of brand personality”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 97-107.
Goldsmith, R., Lafferty, B. and Newell, S. (2000), “The
impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on
consumer reaction to advertisements and brands”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 43-54.
Grau, S. and Folse, J. (2007), “Cause-related marketing
(CRM): the influence of donation proximity and message-
framing cues on the less-involved consumer”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 19-33, available at: www.jstor.
org/stable/20460811
Gupta, S. and Pirsch, J. (2006), “The company-cause-
customer fit decision in cause-related marketing”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 314-326.
Hajjat, M. (2003), “Effect of cause-related marketing on
attitudes and purchase intentions: the moderating role of
cause involvement and donation size”, Journal of Nonprofit &
Public Sector Marketing, , Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 93-109, doi:
10.1300/J054v11n01_07.
Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K. (2002), “Building brand equity
through corporate societal marketing”, Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 78-89.
Hollensen, S. and Schimmelpfennig, C. (2013), “Selection of
celebrity endorsers”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 88-102.
Hovland, C. and Weiss, W. (1951), “The influence of source
credibility on communication effectiveness”, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 635-650.
Hung, K. (2014), “Why celebrity sells: a dual entertainment path
model of brand endorsement”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 155-166, doi: 10.1080/00913367.2013.838720.
Ilicic, J. and Baxter, S. (2014), “Fit in celebrity–charity
alliances: when perceived celanthropy benefits nonprofit
organisations”, International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 200-208.
253
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255
Ilicic, J. and Webster, C. (2013), “Celebrity co-branding
partners as irrelevant brand information in advertisements”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 941-947.
Ilicic, J. and Webster, C. (2016), “Being true to oneself:
investigating celebrity brand authenticity”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 410-420.
Kamins, M. (1990), “An investigation into the ‘match-up’
hypothesis in celebrity advertising: when beauty may be only
skin deep”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Kamins, M.A. and Gupta, K. (1994), “Congruence between
spokesperson and product type: a matchup hypothesis
perspective”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 569-586.
Kamins, M., Brand, M., Hoeke, S. and Moe, J. (1989), “Two-
Sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsement: the impact on
advertising effectiveness and credibility”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 4-10.
Keel, A. and Nataraajan, R. (2012), “Celebrity endorsements
and beyond: new avenues for celebrity branding”, Psychology
& Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 690-703.
Kelly, S., Morgan, G. and Coule, T. (2014), “Celebrity
altruism: the good, the bad and the ugly in relationships
with fundraising charities”, International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp. 57-75.
Kelting, K. and Rice, D.H. (2013), “Should we hire david
beckham to endorse our Brand? Contextual interference
and consumer memory for brands in a celebrity’s
endorsement portfolio”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 30
No. 7, pp. 602-613.
Klebba, J. and Unger, L. (1982), “The impact of negative and
positive information on source credibility in a field setting”,
in Bogazzi, R.P. and Tybout, A.M. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, Vol. 10, pp. 11-16.
Knoll, J. and Matthes, J. (2017), “The effectiveness of celebrity
endorsements: a meta-analysis”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Knoll, J., Matthes, J., Münch, A. and Ostermann, M. (2017),
“How long does celebrity meaning transfer last? Delayed
effects and the moderating roles of brand experience,
celebrity liking, and age”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 588-612.
Kowalczyk, C. and Royne, M. (2013), “The moderating role of
celebrity worship on attitudes toward celebrity Brand
extensions”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 211-220.
Kumar, A. and Kumar, R.V. (2014), “Brand personality scales
for media: a story in the making”, The Business &
Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Lahtinen, V., Rundle-Thiele, S. and Adamsen, J.M. (2016),
“Willingness to pay for midwife-endorsed product: an
australian best–worst study”, Health Marketing Quarterly,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Leary, M.R. and Allen, A.B. (2011), “Personality and persona:
personality processes in self-presentation”, Journal of
Personality, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 1191-1218.
Ledbetter, A. and Redd, S. (2016), “Celebrity credibility on
social media: a conditional process analysis of online self-
disclosure attitude as a moderator of posting frequency and
 Social causes
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
parasocial interaction”, Western Journal of Communication,
Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 601-618.
Lunardo, R., Gergaud, O. and Livat, F. (2015), “Celebrities as
human brands: an investigation of the effects of personality
and time on celebrities’ appeal”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 685-712.
McCormick, K. (2016), “Celebrity endorsements: influence of
a product-endorser match on millennials attitudes and
purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 32, pp. 39-45.
McCracken, G. (1989), “Who is the celebrity endorser?
Cultural foundation of the endorsement process”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 310-321.
McDougle, L.M., Greenspan, I. and Handy, F. (2011),
“Generation green: understanding the motivations and
mechanisms influencing young adults’ environmental
volunteering”, International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 325-341.
McGuire, W.J. (1985), “Attitudes and attitude change”, in
Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds), Handbook of Social
Psychology, Random House, New York, NY, Vol. 2,
pp. 233-346.
Maille, V. and Fleck, N. (2011), “Perceived congruence and
incongruence: toward a clarification of the concept, its
formation and measure”, Recherche et Applications en
Marketing (English Edition), Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 77-113.
Malhotra, N.K. (1981), “A scale to measure self-concepts,
person concepts, and product concepts”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 456-464.
Malodia, S., Singh, P., Goyal, V. and Sengupta, A. (2017),
“Measuring the impact of brand-celebrity personality
congruence on purchase intention”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 493-512.
Matthew, W. (2013), “Does green management matter for
donation intentions? The influence of environmental
consciousness and environmental importance”, Management
Decision, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 1716-1732, doi: 10.1108/MD-10-
2012-0732.
Messner, M. and Reinhard, M. (2012), “Effects of
strategic exiting from sponsorship after negative event
publicity”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 240-256.
Miniard, P., Bhatla, S., Lord, K., Dickinson, P. and Unnava,
H. (1991), “Picture-based persuasion processes and the
moderating role of involvement”, The Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 92-107.
Mishra, A., Roy, S. and Bailey, A. (2015), “Exploring
brand personality–celebrity endorser personality
congruence in celebrity endorsements in the indian
context”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 12,
pp. 1158-1174.
Misra, S. and Beatty, S. (1990), “Celebrity spokesperson
and brand congruence: an assessment of recall and
affect”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 159-171.
Moulard, J., Garrity, C. and Rice, D. (2015), “What makes a
human Brand authentic? Identifying the antecedents of
celebrity authenticity”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 173-186.
254
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255
Moulard, J., Rice, D., Garrity, C. and Mangus, S. (2014),
“Artist authenticity: how artists’ passion and commitment
shape consumers’ perceptions and behavioral intentions
across genders”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 8,
pp. 576-590.
Ohanian, R. (1990), “Construction and validation of a scale to
measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise,
trustworthiness, and attractiveness”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 39-52.
Ohanian, R. (1991), “The impact of celebrity
spokespersons’ perceived image on consumers’ intention
to purchase”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 46-54.
Park, S.Y. and Cho, M. (2015), “Celebrity endorsement for
nonprofit organizations: the role of celebrity motive
attribution and spontaneous judgment of celebrity-cause
incongruence”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 224-245.
Passos, M. and Laros, J. (2015), “Construção de uma escala
reduzida de cinco grandes fatores de personalidade [Building
of a reduced scale of the big five factors of personality]”,
Avaliação Psicol
ogica, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 115-123.
Paul, J. and Bhakar, S. (2018), “Does celebrity image
congruence influences brand attitude and purchase
intention?”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 153-177.
Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1980), “Effects of issue involvement
on attitudes in an advertising context”, in Gom, G.G. and
Goldberg, M.E. (Eds), Proceedings of the Division 23 Program,
American Psychological Association, Montreal, pp. 75-79.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. and Goldman, R. (1981), “Personal
involvement as a determinant of argument-based
persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 847-855.
Pradhan, D., Duraipandian, I. and Sethi, D. (2016),
“Celebrity endorsement: how celebrity–brand–user
personality congruence affects brand attitude and purchase
intention”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 22
No. 5, pp. 456-473.
Ratchford, B.T. (1987), “New insights about the FCB grid”,
Journal of Advertising Research.
Robertson, J., Fieldman, G. and Hussey, T. (2008), “Who
wears cosmetics?’ individual differences and their
relationship with cosmetic usage”, Individual Differences
Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 38-56.
Rossiter, J.R. and Smidts, A. (2012), “Print advertising:
celebrity presenters”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65
No. 6, pp. 874-879.
Roy, D. and Cornwell, B. (2003), “Brand equity’s
influence on responses to event sponsorship”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 Nos 6/7,
pp. 377-393.
Roy, S., Jain, V. and Rana, P. (2013), “The moderating role of
consumer personality and source credibility in celebrity
endorsements”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 72-88.
Seno, D. and Lukas, B. (2007), “The equity effect of product
endorsement by celebrities: a conceptual framework from a
co-branding perspective”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 41 Nos, 1/2, pp. 121-134.
 Social causes
Ana Luisa Santos, Filipa Barros and Ant
onio Azevedo
Shimp, T.A. (2003), Advertising, Promotion and Supplemental
Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, 6th ed.,
South Western Cengage Learning, Mason.
Silvera, D. and Austad, B. (2004), “Factors predicting the
effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertisements”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1509-1526.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a
critical review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 287-300.
Spörrle, M. and Bekk, M. (2014), “Meta-analytic
guidelines for evaluating single-item reliabilities of
personality instruments”, Assessment, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 272-285.
Spry, A., Pappu, R. and Cornwell, T. (2011), “Celebrity
endorsement, brand credibility and brand equity”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 882-909.
Thamaraiselvan, N., Arasu, B. and Inbaraj, J. (2017), “Role
of celebrity in cause related marketing”, International
Review Public Nonprofit Marketing, doi: 10.1007/s12208-
017-0176-0.
Thomson, M. (2006), “Human brands: investigating
antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 104-119.
Till, B. and Busler, M. (2000), “The match-up hypothesis:
physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand
attitude, purchase intent and Brand beliefs”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 1-13.
Vaughn, R. (1980), “How advertising works: a planning
model”, Journal of Advertising Research.
Wang, H., Chao, P. and Wang, J. (2015), “Effects of fit,
consumer involvement and the number of celebrities on
consumer behavior in an emerging market”, Journal of
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
255
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 242–255
International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 388-402.doi: 10.1080/08961530.2015.1047004.
Wright, S. (2016), “Reinvestigating the endorser by product
matchup hypothesis in advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 45
No. 1, pp. 26-32.doi:, doi: 10.1080/00913367.2015.1077360.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement
construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 341-352.
Zamudio, C. (2016), “Matching with the stars: how Brand
personality determines celebrity endorsement contract
formation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 409-427.
Zdravkovic, S., Magnusson, P. and Stanley, S. (2010),
“Dimensions of fit between a brand and a social cause and
their influence on attitudes”, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 151-160.
Zwilling, M. and Fruchter, G.E. (2013), “Matching
product attributes to celebrities who reinforce the
brand”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 53 No. 4,
pp. 391-410.
Further reading
Mathys, J., Burmester, A. and Clement, M. (2016), “What
drives the market popularity of celebrities? A longitudinal
analysis of consumer interest in film stars”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 428-448.
Corresponding author
onio Azevedo can be contacted at: antonioa@eeg.
Ant

uminho.pt