Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 205–216 | Cite as

Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences

  • Martin Eisend
  • Nicola E. Stokburger-Sauer
Article

Abstract

This article presents a meta-analysis on brand personality (BP) by investigating the antecedents and consequences of the BP dimensions of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness, as suggested by Aaker (Journal of Marketing Research 34:347–356, 1997). The authors synthesize the results from 76 independent samples in 56 studies. The meta-analysis finds several new empirical generalizations about BP. First, the key drivers of BP are communication with hedonic benefit claims, branding activities, a brand’s country-of-origin, and consumer personalities. Second, the study finds that the effects of BP are stronger for mature brands than for brands in the early life cycle stages. Third, sincerity and competence have the strongest influence on brand success variables (e.g., brand attitude, image, commitment, purchase intention), while excitement and ruggedness have the weakest influence on brand attitude and brand commitment.

Keywords

Brand personality Brand personality dimensions Brand relationship strength Brand loyalty Meta-analysis 

References

  1. Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). Why good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aggrawal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 468–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beard, F. K. (2003). College student attitudes toward advertising's ethical, economic, and social consequences. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(3), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer–company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, P.-L., & Chieng, M.-H. (2006). Building consumer–brand relationship: a cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology and Marketing, 23(11), 927–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: limits to self-expression and the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett, D. C. (1996). Kinds of minds: towards an understanding of consciousness. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  12. Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G., & Grime, I. (2005). The impact of brand extensions on brand personality: experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 39(1/2), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field, A., & Hole, G. (2003). How to design and report experiments. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  14. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johar, G. V., Sengupta, J., & Aaker, J. L. (2005). Two roads to updating brand personality impressions: trait versus evaluative inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117–124.Google Scholar
  19. Lim, E. A. C., & Ang, S. H. (2008). Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: a cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning. Journal of Business Research, 61, 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. T. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Applied social research methods series. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  21. Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand expressions. Journal of Marketing, 72, 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. P. (1995). A meta-analysis of country-of-origin-effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 883–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rust, R. T., Lehman, D. R., & Farley, J. U. (1990). Estimating publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sethuraman, R., Tellis, G. J., & Briesch, R. A. (2011). How well does advertising work? Generalizations from meta-analysis of brand advertising elasticities. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tremoulet, P. D., & Feldman, J. (2000). Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception, 29(943–951).Google Scholar
  28. Troy, L. C., Hirunyawipada, T., & Paswan, A. K. (2008). Cross-functional integration and new product success: an empirical investigation of the findings. Journal of Marketing, 72, 132–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yoo, C., Bang, H.-K., & Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of a consistent ad series on consumer evaluations. A test of the repetition–variation hypothesis in a South Korean context. International Journal of Advertising, 28(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European University ViadrinaFrankfurt (Oder)Germany
  2. 2.Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and TourismUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations