Printer Friendly

Cognitive, experiential, and marketing factors mediate the effect of brand personality on brand equity.

Building and managing strong brands is considered one of the most critical tasks in brand management (Batra, Lenk, & Wedel, 2010; Keller, Dekimpe, & Geyskens, 2016). Because loyal customers create an entry barrier that makes it difficult for competitors to enter the market (Kent & Kellaris, 1994), almost all marketing activities are directed toward this goal (He, Li, & Harris, 2012). However, although the issues of brand loyalty and brand equity have been extensively studied, several important aspects regarding the antecedents, mediators, and consequences of brand personality still require further clarification.

First, many scholars (e.g., D. A. Aaker, 1991) have examined the antecedents of brand personality and brand equity from a cognitive perspective. Aaker defined four basic dimensions of brand equity: perceived quality, brand awareness, brand association, and brand loyalty. Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) argued that, in addition to considering attitude change and purchase intention from a cognitive perspective, focusing on consumers' experiential perception may be effective. They further stated that hedonic consumption is related to the multisensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of one's experience with a product or brand. Sheng and Teo (2012) argued that higher entertainment value could result in a higher level of brand equity, and Schmalz and Orth (2012) suggested that having more aesthetic elements contributes to higher brand loyalty and brand equity.

Second, Taleghani and Almasi (2011) proposed that marketing factor variables, including service quality, store image, brand accessibility, advertising, and perceived brand quality, are antecedents that influence brand equity both directly, and indirectly through brand-related variables. Chen (2010) claimed that private brand strategies, including product quality, price, presentation, promotion, and packaging, affect both brand equity and shopping preference. Therefore, it is essential for marketing specialists to utilize different marketing factors to elicit consumers' cognitive evaluation and experiential perception, as well as focusing marketing effects on promoting brand equity.

Third, we believe that the mediating roles of brand personality deserve scholarly attention. Several researchers (e.g., J. L. Aaker, 1997; Ramaseshan & Stein, 2014) have confirmed that brand personality mediates customer behavior before and after the purchase of a brand. Marketing initiatives have traditionally been aimed at encouraging consumers to view brands in human terms (Tzou & Lu, 2009). In line with this, Guthrie (1993) described animism as a person's desire to instill life into objects when motion from an object is discerned; as such, congruity between self-concept and brand image is an important area for marketing staff to focus on. Such congruity will result in more favorable evaluations with regard to brand performance, which promotes brand loyalty (Sung, Kim, & Jung, 2010; Swaminathan, Stilley, & Ahluwalia, 2009).

Describing brands in terms of human personalities may serve as a key stratagem in generating attachment and promoting word-of-mouth referrals. Especially in an environment of higher trust, the "brand as a person" metaphor can lead customers to believe that a brand is active, friendly, and able to be imitated, which can foster long-term loyalty toward the brand (Taleghani & Almasi, 2011). Brand personality offers consumers a means by which to construct a social identity and provide a mechanism for expressing the actual self, ideal self, and social self (Belk, 1988; Wang & Yang, 2010). Several researchers have concluded that a strong and positive brand personality can result in favorable brand equity evaluation among consumers, which can stimulate word-of-mouth referrals and repurchase intention (Puzakova, Kwok, & Rocereto, 2013). Therefore, we aimed in this study to identify the cognitive, experiential, and marketing factors that may influence brand equity either directly, or indirectly through brand personality.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Cognitive Antecedents

Keller (1993) identified customer-based brand equity (CBBE) as "the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer responses to marketing activity with respect to that brand" (p. 2). Because CBBE is closely related to marketing, we adopted Keller's definition to identify the concept of brand equity in this study. According to Keller, CBBE should be treated as a separate construct, and brand-related constructs should be regarded as the antecedents to, or mediators of, CBBE. Thus, Washburn and Plank (2002) identified five cognitive antecedents that can influence CBBE either directly, or indirectly through brand personality: a) brand awareness, b) brand association, c) perceived brand quality, d) brand image, and e) brand reputation. Brand awareness is "the likelihood that a brand name will come to mind and the ease with which it does so" (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Brand association is defined as "anything that reminds someone of the brand" (Ponsonby-McCabe & Boyle, 2006, p. 178). Perceived brand quality is defined as "a subjective satisfaction at the comprehensive quality or recognition level against the product or service offering under such brand to consumers" (Hu, Chang, Hsieh, & Chen, 2010, p. 91). Brand image is "the attitude, thoughts, and feelings of a person toward a particular thing or object" (Kotler, 2001, p. 273). Brand reputation is "a collective representation of a brand's past actions and results that describes the brand's ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders" (de Chernatony, 1999, p. 104).

Emari, Jafari, and Mogaddam (2012) argued that for a brand to be valued, it must be acknowledged by customers. Therefore, if the cognitive aspects of the brand illustrate a personality showing values that fulfil the needs and wants of customers, purchase intention will be higher. Moisescu (2009) argued that brand personality plays a key role in increasing brand equity. Further, D. A. Aaker (1991) asserted that higher levels of brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, and brand image result in higher levels of cognitive thinking and reasoning, which further promotes higher brand equity. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Cognitive antecedents will positively influence brand personality. Hypothesis 2: Cognitive antecedents will positively influence brand equity.

Experiential Antecedents

Hedonic consumption refers to "consumers' multisensory images, fantasies, and emotional arousal in the process of using products" (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982, p. 92). Hirschman and Holbrook contended that people tend to engage in certain consumption experiences to seek out pleasure and entertainment. In addition, Hackley and Tiwsakul (2006) emphasized that entertainment marketing can influence experiential consumption. Sheng and Teo (2012) stated that both utilitarian (such as perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness) and hedonic (such as entertainment and aesthetics values) factors are critical for promoting customer experience and brand equity.

On the basis of the above review, we identified seven experiential antecedents that can influence CBBE either directly, or indirectly through brand personality: a) experiential perception, b) entertainment value, c) aesthetic value, d) brand attachment, e) brand affect, f) enjoyment value, and g) hedonic attitude. Customer experience is defined as "a set of interactions between a customer and a product, a company, or any part of an organization, which provokes a reaction" (LaSalle & Britton, 2003, p. 30). Entertainment value is a "pleasant experiential state, which includes physiological, cognitive, and affective components" (Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfield, 2004, p. 393). Aesthetic value is "the appreciation of the formal, expressive, and symbolic quality of a product, appearance, or environment" (Fiore & Kimle, 1997, p. 26). Brand attachment is "the strength of the cognitive and affective bond connecting the brand with the self" (Park, MacInnis, & Priester, 2006, p. 4). Brand affect is the positive response that consumers have after using the product (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Enjoyment value is, in a consumer context, "the extent to which the shopping activity is perceived to provide reinforcement in its own right, apart from any anticipated performance consequences" (Childers, Carr, Peck, & Carson, 2001, p. 513). Hedonic attitude is the consumption that involves emotional arousal taking place while purchasing or consuming.

In a hedonic-consumption context, different types of emotional feelings, both physiological and psychological, play major roles (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). According to the hedonic consumption model, as proposed by Hirschman and Holbrook, hedonic attributes (such as entertainment and aesthetics values) and hedonic attitudes (such as excitement, delight, being thrilled, and enjoyment) are essential for brand equity. Sheng and Teo (2012) argued that both utilitarian and hedonic attributes are important for brand loyalty and brand equity. Furthermore, according to brand attachment theory, people tend to develop affectionate ties with particular persons, so creating a brand personality that is tied with particular consumers should increase their purchase intention. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Experiential antecedents will positively influence brand personality. Hypothesis 4: Experiential antecedents will positively influence brand equity.

Marketing Antecedents

In a competitive market, marketing is recognized as one of the most important factors to promote sales because appropriate marketing initiatives can create both cognitive and affective commitment. Taleghani and Almasi (2011) suggested that the brand-related constructs of product sales promotion, store image, brand accessibility, and advertising can further promote brand equity. In addition, Keller (2003) and Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml (2004) emphasized the importance of increasing brand equity through conducting a variety of marketing and promotional activities.

On the basis of the above review, we identified six marketing antecedents that can influence CBBE either directly, or indirectly through brand personality: a) advertising, b) sales promotion, c) brand accessibility, d) service quality, e) brand familiarity, and f) perceived value. Advertising is a tool that allows organizations to communicate a brand's functional and emotional values (de Chernatony, 2010). Sales promotions "involve both monetary and nonmonetary endeavors, and provide consumers with an array of utilitarian and hedonic benefits" (Luk & Yip, 2008, p. 455). Brand accessibility is "a link which can represent the strength of the cue-object; a strong link facilitates top-of-mind retrieval of the object upon presentation of the cue" (Holden & Lutz, 1992, p. 105). Service quality can be defined as consumers' appraisal of overall quality or service excellence, which may affect their decision to remain with the current service provider or switch to others (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Brand familiarity is "a unidimensional construct directly related to the amount of time that has been spent processing information about the brand, regardless of the type or content of the processing involved" (Baker, Hutchinson, Moore, & Nedungadi, 1986, p. 637). Perceived value is "the result of consumers' integrated experience of the service and perceptions of the firm providing the service and products" (Gonzalez, Comesana, & Brea, 2007, p. 154).

According to Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000), marketing actions can promote the formation of brand equity, and Kabadayi and Alan (2012) suggested that marketing staff should concentrate on communication and promotion strategies to create brand trust, brand affect, and brand equity. Furthermore, Ouwersloot and Tudorica (2001) argued that marketing activities influence brand personality, and Batra, Lehmann, and Singh (1993) asserted that the personality of a brand is created over a long time period because it is composed of all marketing components. Lee, Anh, and Kim (2008) also argued that marketing efforts significantly influence brand loyalty and brand equity. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5: Marketing factors will positively influence brand personality. Hypothesis 6: Marketing factors will positively influence brand equity.

Brand Personality and Brand Equity

The benefits of mediation are well-known from the points of view of both spiritual enlightenment and clinical psychology. Venkatraman (1989) asserted that a mediation effect represents the existence of a significant mechanism between an antecedent (or independent variable) and the consequence (or dependent variable). Full mediation means that whereas an (indirect) mediation effect through a mediator exists, the direct effect of the antecedent on the consequence does not (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Further, partial mediation means that both the direct effect and the (indirect) mediation effect through the mediator exist (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Brand personality, which is "the set of human characteristics associated with a brand" (J. L. Aaker, 1997, p. 347), is essential to brand equity. As per the theory of animism, consumers tend to identify with a brand that represents their self-concept. Thus, brand personality offers consumers a means to construct an identity and provide a mechanism to express the actual self, ideal self, and social self (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013; Wang & Yang, 2010). Establishing congruity between consumers' self-concept and brand image is crucial for securing a favorable evaluation toward the brand (Puzakova, Kwok, & Rocereto, 2009; Sung et al., 2010). Dolatabadi, Kazemi, and Rad (2012) argued that sincerity, competence, excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness components of brand personality influence brand equity. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7: Brand personality will positively influence brand equity.



We identified five research constructs and evaluated the interrelationships among them: a) experiential factors, b) cognitive factors, c) marketing factors, d) brand personality, and e) brand equity. All of the survey items were modified from previous studies (see Table 1) and rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree.

Participants and Procedure

Survey data were collected between February 2014 and March 2015, via intercept interviews conducted in malls, department stores, and other public shopping areas. Intercept interviews have the advantage of gaining access to relevant participants and providing researchers with the opportunity for personal contact with respondents (He et al., 2012). Respondents were the purchasers of a variety of cosmetic brand products in Taiwan, who were asked to identify the cosmetic brands they favored, then interviewed about their perception of one of the brands they had mentioned.

Of the 292 valid respondents, 229 (78.47%) were women, and age ranges were as follows: 5.67% were from 17 years or under, 38.24% from 18 to 25 years, 28.90% from 26 to 35 years, 14.73% from 36 to 45 years, 6.80% from 46 to 55 years, and 5.66% 56 years or over. Of the respondents, 6.52% had no tertiary education, 56.90% held a bachelor's degree, 33.46% held a master's degree, and 3.12% held a doctorate. With regard to annual income, 25.21% of the respondents earned less than NT$500,000 (approximately US$16,600), 46.18% earned between NT$500,001 and NT$1,000,000, 18.98% earned between NT$ 1,000,001 and NT$2,000,000, 6.23% earned between NT$2,100,001 and NT$3,000,000, and 3.40% earned more than NT$3,000,001 (approximately US$96,100). In terms of job tenure, 14.45% did not have any working experience, 37.39% had less than 3 years of tenure, 25.78% had between 3 and 5, 12.75% had between 6 and 9 years, 5.67% had between 10 and 15 years, and 3.96% had more than 16 years.

Among the 292 valid respondents, 206 (70.43%) usually shopped at open-shelf counters, which are spaces where products are displayed on accessible shelves and drawers to allow for consumer interaction. The cosmetics brands mentioned by respondents were as follows, in order of frequency: Shiseido (70), Maybelline (68), Mentholatum (63), Anna Sui (47), KATE (39), KOSE (39), Za (37), Avon (35), L'Oreal (35), Aqualabel (31), Olay (29), Lancome (25), Chanel (23), Kanebo (23), Integrate (22), Estee Lauder (19), MAC (19), Sofina (18), Clinique (17), and Revlon (17).

Data Analysis

In order to confirm the dimensionality and reliability of the measures used to assess the constructs in this study, we conducted factor analysis to examine the basic structure of the data, and calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficients to examine the internal consistency of each of the proposed dimensions. Table 1 shows the factor loading results as well as the Cronbach's alpha values for each research construct.


Common Method Variance Test

According to Teo (2011), common method variance (CMV) refers to the overlap of variance between two variables that occurs because of the type of measurement used rather than a true relationship between the variables. Campbell and Fiske (1959) stated that an outcome of CMV is inflation of the observed correlations, which may provide false support for the hypotheses. In order to address the issue of CMV, we first conducted Harmon's one-factor test, in which we loaded all variables into a principal components factor analysis (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The explained variance of the one-factor test was 32.78% in the unrotated solution; that is, less than 50%. Second, a discriminant validity test was also performed by comparing the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) with the constructs' Pearson correlation coefficients. All AVE estimates (see Table 2) were greater than the corresponding interconstruct square correlation estimates. These empirical results suggest that CMV was not a significant issue in this study.

Evaluation of the Measurement Model

According to Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011), whereas covariance-based structural equation modeling is aimed at reproducing the theoretical covariance matrix rather than explaining the amount of variance, partial least square (PLS) structural equation modeling is focused on maximizing the explained variance of the dependent latent constructs. Therefore, PLS path modeling is increasingly being used by marketing and behavioral researchers, because it allows latent constructs to be modeled under conditions of nonnormal distribution with small to medium sample sizes.

Hair et al. (2011) suggested using the coefficient of determination (R2), AVE, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and Cronbach's a as the criteria to evaluate reliability. In this study, R2 ranged from .580 to .968, which indicates substantial reliability according to Schroer and Hertel (2009). The AVE of the constructs ranged from .579 to .841, all of which are higher than the recommended benchmark of .500, demonstrating satisfactory reliability and convergent validity of the research constructs. Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from .750 to .953, all of which are above the minimum standard of .700, thus confirming the internal consistency of the measurement items. The composite reliability (CR) coefficients ranged from .844 to .963, all of which are much higher than the minimum accepted criterion of .600, showing that the amount of variance shared by the respective indicators is robust. On this basis, the reliability and convergent validity of the research model are appropriate; thus, we were able to proceed to an evaluation of the structural model.

Evaluation of the Structural Model

We examined the structural model and hypotheses by calculating the parameter estimates of the path between research constructs. Using a sample size of 353, a nonparametric bootstrapping procedure was performed with 2,500 subsamples to obtain the statistical significance of each path coefficient for hypotheses testing. The GFI is used to measure the overall fitness between the data and the model; for our structural model it was .738. This is considered large (Vinzi, Chin, Henseler, & Wang, 2010); thus, the structural model was determined to be appropriate with high predictive power (see Table 3).

Our empirical results indicate that all cognitive-related variables had a significantly positive influence on cognitive perception toward the brand, including brand awareness ([beta] = .262, t = 15.758), brand association ([beta] = .287, t = 17.571), perceived quality ([beta] = .149, t = 9.344), brand image ([beta] = .241, t = 13.457), and brand reputation ([beta] = .214, t = 7.856). Furthermore, cognitive factors significantly and positively influenced brand personality ([beta] = .263, t = 3.368) and brand equity ([beta] = .265, t = 4.663). Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

Our empirical results also indicate that experiential-related variables had a significantly positive influence on experiential factors, including experiential perceptions ([beta] = .184, t = 9.000), entertainment value ([beta] = .197, t = 13.126), aesthetic value ([beta] = .288, t = 11.746), brand attachment ([beta] = .137, t = 8.178), enjoyment value ([beta] = .162, t = 8.800), and hedonic attitude ([beta] = .161, t = 8.687). Furthermore, experiential factors significantly and positively influenced brand personality ([beta] = .361, t = 5.491), and brand equity ([beta] = .274, t = 4.746). Therefore, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported.

In addition, our empirical results show that many marketing-relevant variables had a significantly positive influence on marketing stimuli, including service quality ([beta] = .220, t = 11.734), sales promotion ([beta] = .238, t = 9.269), advertising ([beta] = .313, t = 11.817), brand accessibility ([beta] = .287, t = 8.883), perceived value ([beta] = .249, t = 7.150), and brand familiarity ([beta] = .186, t = 7.510). In addition, marketing stimuli significantly and positively influenced brand personality and brand equity. Therefore, Hypotheses 5 and 6 were supported.

Finally, our empirical results show that brand personality had a significantly positive impact on brand equity. Therefore, Hypothesis 7 was supported.


Our purpose in this study was to identify the mediating roles of cognitive, experiential, and marketing factors in the relationship between brand personality and brand equity. Several conclusions can be drawn from our results. First, the cognitive antecedents of brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality of the brand, brand image, and brand reputation, all promoted brand equity and brand personality equally well. D. A. Aaker (1991), as a pioneer of brand equity, originally identified the positive influence of brand awareness, brand association, and perceived quality on brand equity. Following the theory of animism (Guthrie, 1993), brand awareness and brand association have been asserted to be the major predictors of brand personality, and our results further confirm that brand managers should focus on the above core components to promote brand equity. These results can be explained by the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), in which it is asserted that specific attitudes and idiosyncratic norms may lead to the performing of desired behaviors; consumer behavior theory (Fawcett, 1992), which involves a systematic process of obtaining information from consumers that is affected by psychological, social, and marketing factors; and the brand equity model (D. A. Aaker, 1991), in which consumers are assumed to be rational human beings. Marketing staff should, therefore, focus their efforts on the functions and performance of the brand to persuade consumers to make purchases.

In addition, the experiential antecedents of experiential perceptions, entertainment value, aesthetic value, brand attachment, enjoyment value, and hedonic attitude, all enhanced brand personality and brand equity. These results are also in line with those obtained in previous studies. For example, Sheng and Teo (2012) argued that higher entertainment value can, by inducing playfulness, enjoyment, and delight, result in higher brand equity. Further, Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) contended that hedonic attributes (e.g., entertainment and aesthetics value) and hedonic attitudes (e.g., excitement, delight, being thrilled, and enjoyment) are all essential variables for promoting brand equity and purchase intention. In addition, Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, and Vrechopoulos (2010) argued that consumers' attachment to a brand is a strong predictor of brand equity and word-of-mouth referrals. Therefore, the experiential aspect of antecedents has a significant influence on brand personality and brand equity. Our results further emphasize the need to focus on the experiential side of brand marketing to promote brand personality and brand equity.

Third, the marketing antecedents of advertising spending, sales promotion, service quality, and perceived value promoted brand equity. These results are in line with those obtained in previous studies. Ouwersloot and Tudorica (2001) stated that advertising, as one of the most important marketing initiatives, influences how consumers form their perceptions of brand personality. Ouwersloot and Tudorica further commented that designing marketing activities that are targeted toward satisfying the needs and wants of customers is the primary issue. Thus, we recommend that marketing staff promote brand personality and brand equity by using different types of innovative promotions to elicit both cognitive and experiential evaluations, thereby increasing consumers' willingness to buy. As such, organizations should aim to identify the best message to communicate their brand identity to target consumers (Ghodeswar, 2008). Specifically, Taleghani and Almasi (2011) proposed that marketing staff focus on promoting service quality, store image, brand accessibility, advertising, and perceived quality to elicit cognitive evaluations, whereas Sheng and Teo (2012) suggested that marketing strategies be focused on promoting the aesthetic and hedonic aspects of the product to elicit experiential evaluations.

Fourth, we found that brand personality had a positive impact on brand equity. Consumers tend to prefer brands that are compatible with their own perceived personality or self-image (Puzakova et al., 2009), and to desire a brand that has both a good reputation and aligns with their preferred personality (Panyachokchai, 2013). Rajagopal (2010) pointed out that, when the domain of brand personality is extended to the domain of human personality, an effective long-term relationship between the firm and the consumer can be established. Such a relationship will further promote brand loyalty and brand equity.

Finally, brand personality was found to serve as a partial mediator of the influences of marketing, cognitive, and experiential antecedents on brand equity. Our results suggest that brand personality is a crucial variable that not only has a direct impact on brand equity but can also indirectly influence brand equity through mediating variables, such as the antecedents of brand personality. Brand personality may serve as a bonding agent providing firms with connections between the brand and the customers; thus marketing staff should view it as a key performance index for customer retention. These results highlight the importance of brand personality in promoting brand equity through brand marketing. That is, brand personality can be used in the process of brand positioning to extend brand personality to human personality.

Although our results draw attention to the influences of antecedents of brand personality, as well as the mediating role that brand personality plays in the relationship between the proposed antecedents and brand equity, there remain several limitations to this study that necessitate further research. First, as the formation of brand personality is a complicated process, future researchers should adopt qualitative methods and take a longitudinal approach to investigate the generalizability of the current findings. Second, following Brady, Noble, Utter, and Smith (2002) and Yoshida and Gordon (2012), we acknowledged value equity, psychological equity, and relationship equity as three major factors contributing to CBBE. However, this definition could be slightly different from that of Keller (1993), who conceptualized CBBE as the incremental effect of brand knowledge on consumer responses to marketing activities regarding specific brands. Future researchers could compare the results with different definitions of CBBE. Third, whereas we used well-known cosmetics brands that were well-positioned as the target for our survey, future researchers could focus on other new brand categories to identify the generalizability of our results.


Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38, 102-120.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-356.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baker, W., Hutchinson, J. W., Moore, D., & Nedungadi, P. (1986). Brand familiarity and advertising: Effects on the evoked set and brand preference. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 637-642.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Batra, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Singh, D. (1993). The brand personality component of brand goodwill: Some antecedents and consequences. In D. A. Aaker & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity and advertising (pp. 83-96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Batra, R., Lenk, P., & Wedel, M. (2010). Brand extension strategy planning: Empirical estimation of brand-category personality fit and atypicality. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 335-347.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40.

Brady, M. K., Noble, C. H., Utter, D. J., & Smith, G. E. (2002). How to give and receive: An exploratory study of charitable hybrids. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 919-944.

Buil, L., de Chernatony, L., & Martinez, E. (2013). Examining the role of advertising and sales promotions in brand equity creation. Journal of Business Research, 66, 115-122.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

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. Chen, Y.-S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 307-319.

Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 511-535.

de Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 157-179.

de Chematony, L. (2010). From brand vision to brand evaluation. The strategic process of growing and strengthening brands (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Aleman, J. L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14, 187-196.

Dolatabadi, H. R., Kazemi, A., & Rad, N. S. (2012). The impacts of brand personality on product sale through brand equity (Case study: Cosmetic products retailers). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Science, 2, 294-309.

Eisend, M., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2013). Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters, 24, 205-216.

Emari, H., Jafari, A., & Mogaddam, M. (2012). The mediatory impact of brand loyalty and brand image on brand equity. African Journal of Business Management, 6, 5692-5701.

Fawcett, J. (1992). Conceptual models, theories, and research. In J. Fawcett & F. S. Downs (Eds.), The relationship of theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 101-115). Philadelphia, PA: Davis.

Fiore, A. M., & Kimle, P. A. (1997). Understanding aesthetics for the merchandising and design professional. New York, NY: Fairchild.

Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 97-107. Ghodeswar, B. M. (2008). Building brand identity in competitive markets: A conceptual model.

Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17, 4-12. Gonzalez, M. A., Comesana, L. R., & Brea, J. A. F. (2007). Assessing tourist behavioral intentions through perceived service quality and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 60, 153-160.

Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hackley, C., & Tiwsakul, R. (2006). Entertainment marketing and experiential consumption. Journal of Marketing Communication, 12, 63-75.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139-151.

He, H., Li, Y., & Harris, L. (2012). Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 65, 648-657.

Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92-101. Holden, S. J. S., & Lutz, R. J. (1992). Ask not what the brand can evoke; ask what can evoke the brand? Advances in Customer Research, 19, 101-107.

Hu, T.-L., Chang, C. Y., Hsieh, W.-C., & Chen, K.-H. (2010). An integrated relationship on brand strategy, brand equity, customer trust, and brand performance: An empirical investigation of the health food industry. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 2, 89-106.

Kabadayi, E. T., & Alan, A. K. (2012). Brand trust and brand affect: Their strategic importance on brand loyalty. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 6, 80-88. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Keller, K. O., Dekimpe, M. G., & Geyskens, I. (2016). Let your banner wave? Antecedents and performance implications of retailers' private-label branding strategies. Journal of Marketing, 80, 1-19.

Kent, R. J., & Kellaris, J. J. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: Are familiar brands exempt? Journal of Marketing Communications, 7, 159-169.

Kim, H.-B., Kim, W. G., & An, J. A. (2003). The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms' financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20, 335-351.

Kotler, P. (2001). A framework for marketing management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

LaSalle, D., & Britton, T. A. (2003). Priceless: Turning ordinary products into extraordinary experiences. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lee, Y.-K., Ahn, W.-K., & Kim, K. (2008). A study on the moderating role of alternative attractiveness in the relationship between relational benefits and customer loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 9, 52-70.

Luk, S. T. K., & Yip, L. S. C. (2008). The moderator effect of monetary sales promotion on relationship between brand trust and purchase behavior. Brand Management, 15, 452-64.

Malar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75, 35-52.

McCarthy, J. E., & Perreault, W. D., Jr. (1984). Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Moisescu, O. I. (2009). The impact of brand-consumer personality congruence on brand loyalty. International Journal of Business Research, 9, 175-179.

Ouwersloot, H., & Tudorica, A. (2001, February). Brand personality creation through advertising. Maastricht Academic Center for Research in Services Working Paper (No. 2001-01). Retrieved from

Panyachokchai, K. (2013, March). A study of factors affecting brand loyalty: A case study of Nivea For Men facial wash in Bangkok. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Business, Economics, and Accounting, Bangkok, Thailand.

Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2006). Consumer-based brand equity and country-oforigin relationships: Some empirical evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 40, 696-717.

Park, W. C., MacInnis, D., & Priester, J. (2006). Brand attachment: Construct, consequences, and causes. Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 1, 191-230.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Ponsonby-McCabe, S., & Boyle, E. (2006). Understanding brands as experiential spaces: Axiological implications for marketing strategists. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14, 175-189.

Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2009). Pushing the envelope of brand and personality: Antecedents and moderators of anthropomorphized brands. Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 413-420.

Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77, 81-100.

Rajagopal. (2010). Conational drivers influencing brand preference among consumers. Journal of Transnational Management, 15, 186-211.

Ramaseshan, B., & Stein, A. (2014). Connecting the dots between brand experience and brand loyalty: The mediating role of brand personality and brand relationships. Journal of Brand Management, 21, 664-683.

Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68, 109-127.

Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V. A., & Lemon, K. N. (2000). Driving customer equity: How customer lifetime value is reshaping corporate strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Schmalz, S., & Orth, U. R. (2012). Brand attachment and consumer emotional response to unethical firm behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 869-884.

Schroer, J., & Hertel, G. (2009). Voluntary engagement in an open web-based encyclopedia: Wikipedians and why they do it. Media Psychology, 12, 96-120.

Sheng, M. L., & Teo, T. S. H. (2012). Product attributes and brand equity in the mobile domain: The mediating role of customer experience. International Journal of Information Management, 32, 139-146.

Sung, Y., Kim, J., & Jung, J. H. (2010). The predictive roles of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect: A study of Korean consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 22, 5-17.

Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When brand personality matters: The moderating role of attachment styles. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 985-1002. http://

Taleghani, M., & Almasi, M. (2011). Evaluate the factors affecting brand equity from the perspective of customers using Aaker's model. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 1, 1-12.

Teo, T. (2011). Considering common method variance in educational technology research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 94-96.

Tzou, R.-C., & Lu, H.-P. (2009). Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative product on fashion technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28, 311-322.

Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14, 423-444.

Vinzi, V. E., Chin, W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods, and applications. London, UK: Springer-Verlag.

Vlachos, P. A., Theotokis, A., Pramatari, K., & Vrechopoulos, A. (2010). Consumer-retailer brand attachment: Some antecedents and the moderating role of attachment anxiety. European Journal of Marketing, 44, 1478-1499.

Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfield, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory, 14, 388-408.

Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2010). The effect of brand credibility on consumers' brand purchase intention in emerging economies: The moderating role of brand awareness and brand image. Journal of Global Marketing, 23, 177-188.

Washburn, J. H., & Plank, R. E. (2002). Measuring brand equity: An evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10, 46-62.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 195-211.

Yoshida, M., & Gordon, B. (2012). Who is more influenced by customer equity drivers? A moderator analysis in a professional soccer context. Sport Management Review, 15, 389-403. http://

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31-46.


Nanhua University


Chinese Culture University


Ton Duc Thang University

Ying-Kai Liao and Wann-Yih Wu, Program of International Business, Nanhua University; Adriana A. Amaya Rivas, Department of International Business, Chinese Culture University; Teresa Lin Ju, Faculty of Business Administration, Ton Duc Thang University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adriana A. Amaya Rivas, Department of International Business, Chinese Culture University, No. 55, Hwa-Kang Road, Yang-Ming Shan, Taipei 11114, Taiwan, ROC. Email:
Table 1. Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests of Research

Items                                                         Factor

Cognitive factors
Brand awareness (D. A. Aaker, 1996; Chen, 2010), Cronbach's
[alpha] = .893
[BAW1] I am aware of this brand.                              .857
[BAW2] I can recognize this brand among other competing
brands in the same product category.                          .849
[BAW3] I am very familiar with this brand.                    .839
[BAW4] I know what this brand's products look like.           .827
[BAW5] When I think of cosmetics, this is one of the brands   .813
that comes to my mind.
Brand association (D. A. Aaker, 1996; Buil, de Chernatony,
& Martinez, 2013;
Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2006), Cronbach's [alpha] = .906
[BASS1] The company that makes this brand has credibility.    .892
[BASS2] I like the company that makes this brand.             .882
[BASS3] I trust the company that makes this brand.            .854
[BASS4] Within the same product category, I consider this     .815
brand a good buy.
[BASS5] This brand is good value for money.                   .753
[BASS6] This brand has a clear personality.                   .749
Perceived quality of brand (D. A. Aaker, 1996; Yoo, Donthu,
& Lee, 2000), Cronbach's [alpha] = .840
[PQ1] This brand offers products of consistent quality.       .908
[PQ2] This brand offers products of very good quality.        .907
[PQ3] This brand offers very durable products.                .887
Brand image (Chen, 2010; Keller, 1993), Cronbach's
[alpha] = .915
[BI1] My purchased brand offers sensory enjoyment.            .888
[BI2] My purchased brand satisfies my desire to have it.      .882
[BI3] My purchased brand provides me with a good image.       .882
[BI4] My purchased brand focuses on its quality.              .879
[BI5] My purchased brand offers me a sense of group           .792
Brand reputation (D. A. Aaker, 1996), Cronbach's [alpha]
= .868
[BR1] Most of my friends agree that this brand offers good    .868
[BR2] I choose this brand because of its good reputation.     .835
[BR3] This brand has won many awards for its designs/         .809
[BR4] This brand has a good reputation among my colleagues/   .778
[BR5] I generally prioritize this brand over other,           .738
homogeneous brands.
Marketing factors
Advertising (D. A. Aaker, 1996; Chen, 2010), Cronbach's
[alpha] = .937
[AD1] The advertisements for this brand are creative.         .910
[AD2] The advertisements for this brand are frequently        .876
[AD3] The advertisements for this brand are original.         .875
[AD4] The advertisements for this brand are different from
those for competing brands of cosmetics.                      .873
[AD5] This brand is intensively advertised.                   .848
[AD6] This brand seems to spend a lot on its advertising
compared to competing cosmetics brands.                       .846

Sales promotion (Buil et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2000),
Cronbach's [alpha] = .889
[SP1] This brand uses price discounts more frequently than    .882
competing brands do.
[SP2] This brand frequently offers gifts.                     .875
[SP3] This brand frequently offers price discounts.           .855
[SP4] This brand uses gifts more frequently than competing    .852
brands do.
Brand accessibility (McCarthy & Perreault, 1984; Taleghani
& Almasi, 2011), Cronbach's [alpha] = .859
[BAC1] I know where I can purchase the products/services of   .936
this brand.
[BAC2] This brand's stores are easy to access.                .936
Perceived value (Kim, Kim, & An, 2003), Cronbach's
[alpha] = .899
[PV1] I am happy with the value for money I get from this     .875
[PV2] This brand's services provide excellent value.          .864
[PV3] Compared with that of competitors, this brand's value   .831
is better.
[PV4] This brand offers superior value.                       .830
[PV5] This brand provides excellent value for money.          .821
Service quality (Berry, Parasuraman, & Zeithaml, 1988;
Yoshida & Gordon, 2012), Cronbach's [alpha] = .953
[SQ1] This brand's service people provide prompt service to   .930
[SQ2] This brand's service people fully understand the        .919
needs of customers.
[SQ3] This brand's service people have a very neat            .917
[SQ4] This brand's service people interact well with
customers and assure the quality of services.                 .914
[SQ5] This brand's service people are reliable.               .905
Brand familiarity (Kent & Kellaris, 1994; Malar, Krohmer,
Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011), Cronbach's [alpha] = .917
[BF1] I feel very experienced with this brand.                .893
[BF2] I know the products offered by this brand.              .875
[BF3] I feel very familiar with this brand.                   .865
[BF4] I have used this brand for a long time.                 .861
[BF5] I feel good about this brand.                           .842
Brand personality (Emari, Jafari, & Mogaddam, 2012; Geuens,
Weijters, & Wulf, 2009), Cronbach's [alpha] = .876
[BP1] This brand is bold.                                     .876
[BP2] This brand is aggressive.                               .860
[BP3] This brand is innovative.                               .835
[BP4] This brand performs as expected.                        .810
[BP5] This brand is simple.                                   .707
Brand equity
Value equity (Brady, Noble, Utter, & Smith, 2002; Yoshida &
Gordon, 2012), Cronbach's [alpha] = .868
[VE1] I think that the quality of this brand measures up to   .876
the price I pay for it.
[VE2] Generally, I think that this brand offers good value    .875
for the money I spend.
[VE3] Overall, I think that the value I am receiving from     .823
this brand is high.
[VE4] It is worth paying more to buy this brand.              .812

Psychological equity (Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Aleman,
2005; Yoo et al., 2000), Cronbach's [alpha] = .937
[PE1] Even if another brand has the same features, I would    .900
prefer to buy this brand.
[PE2] If I have to choose among brands of cosmetics, this
brand is definitely my top choice.                            .897
[PE3] It makes sense to buy this brand instead of others,     .887
even if they are the same.
[PE4] If I have to buy cosmetics, I plan to buy my brand
even though there are other equally good brands.              .882
[PE5] Even if another brand has the same price, I would       .874
still buy my brand of cosmetics.
[PE6] I have a positive image of this brand.                  .781
[PE7] I think I am loyal to this brand.                       .738
Relationship equity (Rust, Zeithaml, & Lemon, 2000; Yoshida
& Gordon, 2012), Cronbach's [alpha] = .881
[RE1] I am satisfied with the membership program I joined.    .880
[RE2] As a fan of this brand, I have a high-quality
relationship with the brand (community).                      .870
[RE3] Because I am satisfied with the membership program of
this brand, I also invite others to join it.                  .865
[RE4] I am satisfied with the relationship I have with this   .820

Table 2. Correlations Among Research Constructs

Constructs             Cognitive   Experiential   Marketing
                       factors     factors        factors

Cognitive factors      .819
Experiential factors   .690        .861
Marketing factors      .720        .707           .690
Brand equity           .696        .708           .520
Brand personality      .664        .707           .678

Constructs             Brand    Brand         [R.
                       equity   personality   sup.2]

Cognitive factors                             .968
Experiential factors                          .965
Marketing factors                             .949
Brand equity           .873                   .750
Brand personality      .681     .821          .580

Note. Values below the diagonal are interconstruct correlations.
Values shown on the diagonal are the square root of the average
variance extracted.

Table 3. Evaluation of Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing Results

Hypothesis   Path

1            Cognitive factors [right arrow] Brand personality
2            Cognitive factors [right arrow] Brand equity
3            Experiential factors [right arrow] Brand equity
4            Experiential factors [right arrow] Brand personality
5            Marketing factors [right arrow] Brand personality
6            Marketing factors [right arrow] Brand equity
7            Brand personality [right arrow] Brand equity

Hypothesis    SE     t

1            .263   3.368*
2            .265   4.663**
3            .274   4.746**
4            .361   5.491**
5            .228   3.026*
6            .116   5.082**
7            .188   3.076*

Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Liao, Ying-Kai; Wu, Wann-Yih; Rivas, Adriana A. Amaya; Ju, Teresa Lin
Publication:Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
Article Type:Report
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Previous Article:Filial piety and life satisfaction among Chinese students: relationship harmony as mediator.
Next Article:Money priming affects consumers' need for uniqueness.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters