Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
A Research On The Determination Of Brand Personality Perception
Of Universities
Esin AYSEN
Ali YAYLI
Gazi Üniversitesi
esin.aysen@gazi.edu.tr
Gazi Üniversitesi
yayli@gazi.edu.tr
Engin HELVACI
Gazi Üniversitesi
engin.helvacı@gazi.edu.tr
Abstract
Along with getting strength of producers and increasing of competition,
the necessity of the differentiation of products also has increased. This necessity
has created brand utility and thanks to the studies on brands, new concepts are
added to literature. In this paper brand personality which is one of these
concepts was examined. Additionally branding of universities and the brand
personalities of universities which are perceived by university students were
searched. Another subject of this study is whether some nationalist attitudes
which are known as consumer ethnocentrism impact on brand personality
perceptions of the students. Available studies show that ethnocentrism affect on
consumer purchasing behavior. The fact that patriotic and nationalist tendencies
of the students also in the education field may be determining in their adopting a
brand personality towards universities and choosing a school is the point of
origin of the study. As a result of this study that the brand personalities
perceived by the students of the state and private universities aren’t different
each other, there isn’t any noteworthy difference between the students of the
state and private universities regarding ethnocentric tendencies impact on
university preferences and the ethnocentric tendencies of students have influence
on the brand personality perceptions towards the state and private universities
are determined.
Keywords: Brand personality, branding of üniversities, ethnocentrism
1. Introduction
It is known how brands are effective on creating consumer loyality and affecting their
behaviour of purchase in marketing. Business administrations benefit from the impression of
brands in order to build strong connections with their customers. The customer are informed
about both products and administrations through looking at brands. Brands reflect a
personality and image related to product which they represent. These reflections coming out
in customers’ mind form their tendencies towards purchase. In marketing, products need
brands as a differentiation means; brands want an image and a personality as well. In similiar
way universities also need a brand and personality. Recently the effords which have been
made by universities for being percieved different by students are conspicuous. Even though
these effords offen have been focused by universities being in abroad, in this sence there is an
activity in Turkey as well. The competition which has increased more and more between
universities get them to stay away from traditional methods and look for difference.
Researches show that consumer purchase behaviours are influenced by a lot of factors.
One of those is ethnocentrism concept which feeds nationalist and patriotic feelings. That the
1
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
etnocentric tendencies may affect the perception of university brand personalities are thought
in the scope of the study.
One of the aims of the study is measuring the perception of university brand
personalities in students’minds. Furthermore It is required to uncover that how much the
etnocentric tendencies with low or high levels are determinant regarding the students assign a
brand personality for their universities. With the aim of this ıt is conducted a research, and
learned which personality traits are used for their universities by the student who study in both
public and private universities. Thus ıt can be inferred whether the perception of university
brand personality are different or not according to the student who study in a public or private
university.
2. The Concept of Brand Personality
Brands are quite important in the marketing of a product, service, person or an opinion
both for producers and consumers. There are a great number of definitions of brand concept in
the literature. The definition by the Association of American Marketing is that: Brand is a
name, term, sign, symbol, form or their combination which defines the properties and services
of a seller or the group of sellers and aims to distinguish them between their opponents
(www.marketingpower.com)
Today the definitions of brand attract attention to the psychological influence of
brands on consumers. For example a defination is that: brand is a total of features which is
seen favored as sensational and functional and has an inner meaning in the consumers’mind.
Because of the fact that the physical properties of a product are insufficent in order to
creating strong brands and positioning them in the target markets has raised the concept of
brand personality. The concept claims that brands should have a personality to be unique just
like people. The consept is widely known in the literature through the definition by Jennifer
Aaker. According to Aaker’s definition: brand personality is all personality traits which is
named with a brand (Aaker, 1997: 347). This definition includes in some humane characters
such as amiable, anxiety, emotional as well as it stresses on the demographic features such as
gender, age, socioeconomic (Yılmaz, 2007: 10).
Personality is the soul of brand and can positively affect on the desicion of purchase
(Kuşakçıoğlu, 2003: 109). The studies related to the subject have found out that the 70
percent of consumers make a move with the impression of brand personalities (Aksoy and
Özsomer, 2007: 2). Thus, the strong emotional relation between consumers and brands
contribute to the preference of brands and constitude brand loyalty in the course of time.
3. The Dimensions of Brand Personality
The emphirical studies about brand personality have increased recently (Aaker et all.
2005; Aksoy and Özsomer, 2007; Andreasson and Streling, 2007; Dikmen and Akerman,
2011; Dölarslan, 2012). These studies are based on two main components as the characters of
brands and traits of personality (Yakın and Ay, 2012; Meer, 2010; Yılmaz, 2007).
In literature there are different methods which measures brand personality in quality
and quantity. One of those is brand personality scale, which is often used and well-known
2
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
(Kelemci and Bodur, 2009: 5). This scale was formed by Aaker in 1997. The starting point of
the study is Neo-Five Factor Measuring which is the symbol of five dimensions of personality
and states the attributes of personality often used in psychology. Aaker states that the
characters describing brand personality are sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication
and ruggedness (Dölarslan, 2012: 3).
Although it is a fundamental study about brand personality the brand personality scale
developed by Aaker have been criticized after all. Some opinions put forward that Aaker’s
scale doesn’t reflect the same meaning for different cultures, so it can not be valid as universal
(Yongjun and Thinkham, 2005: 337). While the dimensions arisen by the researces conducted
in different countries are mostly similiar with Aaker’s study unusual dimensions sometimes
may appear. In this point that the perception of brand personality may change from culture to
culture can be understood.
4. The Process of The Branding of Universities
Provided that university brand is parallel with the expectations of students, students
probably prefer that university (Ghodeswar, 2008: 4–12). The managers who are aware of
this reality have properly focused on the matter of university branding.
Despite of the fact that awareness is insufficent considering that universities are
branding, some universities become successful in the sense of differentiation and draw
attention with the effords of positioning their brand as well as being a brand. One of those is
Usküdar University which aims to specialization in the field of mental health and fills the
important deficiency of Turkey in this field. The other example is Piri Reis University which
makes progress in the way of being brand with focusing on navigation (Dalgıç, 2012).
Yeditepe University which has differentiated among the rivals for a long time and has the
name of “the most preferred university“ is one of the most clear examples of branding
(Çakmakçı, 2006). The Technique University of The Middle East has high education
standards and is recognised both in domestic and international scale.
When it is looked over the universities being brand in abroad the universities provide
training in Canada come to mind at first. As well as they bring scientists being specialist in
their own field up, most of them contribute to the development of the country because of
having the quality of a reserach university.
Oxford University with the slogan of “God is my guide” has provided education as a
universal brand in the sciences of genetics, mathematics, scientific calculation, physics and
life. The Universities of Stanford, Harward, Cambridge enable the creation of technological
products and do researces changing the world (Altınsoy, 2011: 101–102). There is no doubt
regarding these universities have fulfilled the necessities of being a brand.
5. The Concept Of Ethnocentrism and It’s Relation with Brand Personality
As to the definition by William Graham Summer: ethnocentrism is the tendency that
somebody regards his own culture and style of life privileged in comparison with others
(Eroğlu and Sarı, 2011: 5). Thus, the person thinks that the best of everything is applied
within his own country (Torlak and Özçelik, 2011: 366).
3
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
When the literature is looked over, It is faced with a concept which is named as
consumer ethnocentrism. It is found out that the ethnocentric tendencies of consumers have
influence on their behaviors of purchase (Watson and Wright, 2000; Nguyen et all, 2008;
Turgut, 2010). This effect can be adapted into the sector of education. As a result it is inferred
that the perception of brand personality of students may differ from each other as to the level
of their tendencies of ethnocentrism. It is supposed that the students with high etnocentric
tendencies prefer a university in paralel with this idea and also determine a brand personality
for their universities by the effect of the ethnocentric tendencies. The student being under this
effect defines his university with the adjectives such as nationalist, patriot, protective, loyal.
In many of researces are used CETSCALE having been developed by Shimp and
Sharma (1987) for measuring the tendencies of ethnocentrism (Arı, 2007; Armağan and
Gürsoy, 2011; Saydan and Sütütemiz, 2009). Because of the fact that the scale aims to
measure tendencies rather than attitudes, it is named as “The Scale Of The Consumer
Ethnocentrism Tendency.” This study is based on the scale (CETSCALE) as well.
6. The Methodology
First of all the dimensions composing brand personalities are determined in the study.
It is thought that Aaker’s brand personality dimensions being often used while evaluating
consumers in marketing may be acceptable also for universities and made up personality traits
peculiar to universities. The traits are composed by means of the findings of some studies in
literature. (Aaker, 1997,; Torlak, 2011; Kurtuluş, 2008; Özgüven and Karataş, 2010). On the
other hand CETSCALE is modified in accordance with the aim of the study.
In this research is dealed with university students and universities instead of
consumers and products and focused on brand personalities of universities. Ethnocentrism is
also discussed in this research as well. The question is whether or not students being the vital
point of society adopt a nationalist attitude while making one of the most important decisions.
Do some etnocentric thoughts affect in determining a university or identifing a brand
personality for their universities? In the point of finding answers to these questions the study
is supported with a public survey consisting of students whom they study in both government
and private universities. The number of students and universities is limited with Ankara. The
survey includes in six universities and three of them are government universities while the
others are private universities.
6.1 The Purpose and Scope
The main purpose of the study is measuring the perception of brand personality of the
undergraduate studying in Ankara and finding out whether the perception of brand personality
of the universities included in the study is different each other or not. Furthermore it is aimed
to determine whether the ethnocentric tendencies in the preference of university are
determinant, there is relation between the perception of university brand personality and the
etnocentriz tendencies or not. What’s more it is discussed that the level of the ethnocentric
tendencies is a determinant factor regarding the university preferred is private or public one
6.2 The Research Model
The model of research is based on the hypothesis that there is a relation between the
dimensions of brand personalities perceived and the ethnocentric tendencies and the
4
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
dimensions of brand personality are percieved differently by students studying in private and
public universities. So the hypothesises of the study:
H1: The dimensions of brand personality perceived by students differ from private
universities to public ones.
H2: The ethnocentric tendencies affect differently on the students studying in private
and public universities in the phase of choosing a university.
H3: There is a positive relationsip between that the students perceive the dimensions
of brand personality relating to private and public universities and their ethnocentric
tendencies.
Shape 1: The Model Of The Research
The Dimensions Of
Brand Personality
 Competence

Entertainment

Sweet but harsh

Excitement
 Traditionalism
 Stability
UNIVERSITIES
.
PUBLIC
.
PRIVATE
Ethnocentric
Tendencies
6.3 The Method of Data Collection and Analysis
It is designed a questionnaire form to collect data. The form constists of three sections.
The questions in first section are asked to determine the demographic characteristics of
students. In the second section there are expressions which measure ethnocentric tendencies
of students. The level of agreement with these expressions are measured with Five Likert
Scale. In the last section it is put 62 adjectives reflecting the brand personality traits of
universities. These adjectives are prepared through being benefited from Aaker’s Brand
5
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
Personality Scale. The level of agreement with these expressions are measured with Five
Likert Scale as well.
The Statistical Package Program, SPSS (13.0) is used to evaluate data being gotten,
done the analysis of ANOVA and Factor.
6.4 Sampling Design
The sampling is chosen the undergraduate keeping on studying in Ankara. The
universities being included in the survey are Gazi University, Ankara Uni., Hacettepe Uni.,
Başkent Uni., Çankaya Uni., and Turgut Özal Uni. The first three of them are public; the
others are private universities. Questionnaire forms are scattered to 646 students; but totally
474 forms are evaluated.
6.5 Findings
6.5.1 Demographic Characteristics
Demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. When it is looked over the
dispersion of gender, while 49,8 percent of participants consists of women; 50,2 percent of
them is men. The great number of the total (57,8) is from the Region of Central Anatolia
Anatolia. In the category of section, the highest rate (69,6) belongs to Social Sciences.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics
Demographic
Characteristics
Gender
Geographical
Region
Section
Education
Groups
Woman
Man
Mediterranean
Eastern Anatolia
Aegean
Southeast Anatolia
Central Anatolia
Black Sea
Marmara
Social Sciences
Natural and applied
sciences
Health Sciences
Associate degree
Undergraduate
Master’s degree
f
%
236
238
49,8
50,2
50
9
45
13
274
34
49
330
92
10,5
1,9
9,5
2,7
57,8
7,2
10,3
69,6
19,4
52
38
408
28
11,0
8,0
86,1
5,9
6
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
6.5.2 Data Relating to Perceived Brand Personality Traits
Table 2: Brand Personality Traits of Universities According to the Perception of
Students
Brand Personality Traits
Prestigious
Explorer
High quality
Young
Lovedetail
Aristocratic
Honest
Self-confident
Useful
Ethical
Virtuous
Intelligent
Reliable
Professional
Orijinal
Rich
Leader
Brave
Realist
Participant
Modern
Beautiful
Logical
Analytical
Sensitive
Cool-headed
Simple
Kind
Charming
Social
Creative
Democratic
Open-minded
Sincere
Tolerant
Ambitious
Helpful
Friedly
Humble
Free
Economical
Trendy
Cold
x
s.s.
3.50
1.16
3.49
1.11
3.47
1.14
3.45
1.13
3.43
1.10
3.418
1.14
3.416
1.14
3.411
1.22
3.407
1.13
3.407
1.17
3.398
1.15
3.393
1.21
3.393
1.14
3.392
1.21
3.38
1.16
3.379
1.26
3.371
1.21
3.366
1.18
3.366
1.12
3.362
1.15
3.357
1.14
3.357
1.18
3.339
1.14
3.339
1.16
3.316
1.16
3.316
1.15
3.312
1.16
3.294
1.20
3.28
1.21
3.277
1.24
3.276
1.19
3.267
1.19
3.264
1.23
3.26
1.19
3.24
1.18
3.239
1.27
3.239
1.15
3.237
1.15
3.217
1.14
3.213
1.21
3.16
1.13
3.15
1.18
3.144
1.23
7
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
Extroverted
Just
Groundbreaking
Old-fashioned
Romantic
Arrogant
Shy
Peasant
3.140
1.19
3.12
1.18
3.06
1.21
3.05
1.33
2.99
1.32
2.92
1.27
2.87
1.21
2.85
1.29
As it is understood through Tablo 2, the brand personality trait that students mostly
accept relating to their universities is “prestigious” (Mean 3.50). Following “high quality,
young. lovedetail” are the most obvious ones of the brand personality traits perceived by
students relating to their universities. The brand personality trait that students perceive at least
is “peasant” (Mean 2.85). In other words students don’t accept that their universities are
peasant. Correspondingly It is inferred from the results that the universities don’t have
personality traits such as shy, arrogant, romantic. Consedering the students’opinions of public
and private universities, students in public accept the trait of “prestigious” relating to their
universities and perceive the trait of “peasant” at least. Students in private agree on their
universities have a young personality but they don’t accept that their uıniversities are peasant
as well.
6.5.3 Factor Analysis and Credibility Analysis
It is carried out Cronbach Alfa Test so as to measure the credibility of the expressions
which belong to CETSCALE and Brand Personality Scales in questionnaire form. The results
of the test are in Table 3.
Table 3: the Credibility of the Scales
Scale Name
The Number Of
Expressions
Brand Personality
62
CETSCALE
19
alpha
,981
,899
As iı is understood from the results of the test (,981; ,899), It is observed that the
level of the credibility is high
8
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
Table 4: Rotated Factor Analysis’ Results
Competence
AMBITIOUS
,672
EXPLORER
,649
USEFUL
,638
HIGH IN QUALİTY
,620
PARTICIPANT
,615
PROFESSIONAL
,604
LOVEDETAİL
,604
SELF-CONFIDENT
,602
BEAUTİFUL
,598
ANALİTICAL
,594
ORİJİNAL
,592
BRAVE
,559
SINCERE
,547
ETİHCAL
,528
RELIABLE
,520
PRESTIGIOUS
,516
CHARMİNG
,510
Factors
Sweet but
Entertainment
harsh
FREE
,699
OPEN MINDED
,688
RICH
,631
TRENDY
,609
VIRTUOUS
,581
INTELLIGENT
,575
HONEST
,571
LEADER
,567
CREATOR
,558
ARISTOCRATIC
,545
SOCIAL
,543
TOLERANT
,497
JUST
,460
DEMOKRATIC
,709
COOL HEADED
,671
REALISTIC
,664
SENSITIVE
,646
LOGICAL
,645
KİND
,631
SIMPLE
,630
MODERN
,613
ROMANTİC
,486
Excitement
HELPFUL
,695
YOUNG
,648
EXTROVERTED
,637
FRIENDLY
,600
GROUNDBREAKING
,560
Traditionalism
HUMBLE
,597
ECONOMICAL
,523
OLD FASHIONED
Stability
,786
9
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
COLD
,742
SHY
,733
PEASANT
,706
ARROGANT
,615
Independent Groups T-Test is carried out to understand whether there is a difference
between public and private university students regarding these factors explaining brand
personalities or not. The test shows that the dimensions such as competence, entertainment,
sweet but harsh, excitement and stability aren’t perceived differently; but ıt is found out a
difference between the students of public and private universities considering the dimension
traditionalism. Thus public universities have a personality being more traditionalist than
private ones. In other words H1 is rejected.
It ıs carried out Independent Groups T-Test to determine whether ethnocentric
tendencies of students are different according to their universities’type (public or private). The
results of the test are in Table 5.
Table 5: Data Relating to Ethnocentric Tendencies
Etnocentric Tendencies
Universities
n
x
s.s.
t
p
1. I preferred the university which I still have
studied because It has the characteristics of
Turkish culture
2. I preferred the university which I still have
studied because the city where it is situated has a
similiar way of life to my hometown
3. I preferred the university which I still have
studied because the city where it is situated is
nearby my hometown
4. I preferred the university which I still have
studied because the dialect spoken in the city
where it is situated is similiar to my hometown’s
dialect
5. I barter the universities in Turkey for none of
the universities in abroad
6. I preferred the university which I still have
studied because it has better opportunities about
training than others.
7. That there are a lot of Turkish students in my
university makes me happy.
8. I preferred the university which I still have
studied because it makes me feel at home.
9. My first objective is training at a university in
Turkey.
10.The first objective of other students must be
training at a university in Turkey as well.
11. That universities have an amblem
symbolising the history and tradition of Turkish
makes me pleased.
12. I preferred the university which I still have
studied because it successfully represents Turkey
in the international platform
13. Even though training at a university in
Turkey is expensive I still prefer training at a
university in Turkey
14. Training at a university in Turkey doesn’t get
on well with patriotism
15. The universities in abroad shouldn’t found
their own campus in Turkey
Public
Private
221
253
2.81
2.86
1.32
1.24
-,400
,690
Public
Private
221
253
2.91
3.16
1.44
1.37
-1,913
,056
Public
Private
221
253
2.85
3.01
1.47
1.46
-1,190
,235
Public
Private
221
253
2.25
2.58
1.30
1.39
-2,617
,009*
Public
Private
Public
Private
221
253
221
253
2.34
2.56
3.49
3.00
1.26
1.42
1.24
1.17
-1,796
,071
4,403
,000*
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
221
253
221
253
221
253
221
253
221
253
2.98
3.08
2,59
2,86
2.98
2.95
2.81
2.89
3.34
3.46
1.27
1.31
1.30
1.27
1.31
1.31
1.30
1.27
1.31
1.30
-,843
,399
-2,330
,020*
,247
,805
-,735
,463
-,982
,326
Public
Private
221
253
3.30
2.88
1.27
1.20
3,749
,000*
Public
Private
221
253
2.85
2.89
1.23
1.24
-,373
,709
Public
Private
Public
Private
221
253
221
253
2.42
2.51
2.43
2.69
1.42
1.45
1.26
1.42
-,714
,476
-2,029
,041*
10
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
16. That Turkish students train in abroad should
Public
221
2.19
1.30
-,260
be restricted.
Private
253
2.22
1.30
17. The training level of universities in Turkey is
Public
221
2.53
1.13
-,523
more advanced than others
Private
253
2.59
1.29
18. The education of universities in Turkey is
Public
221
2.73
1.14
,832
more qualified than others
Private
253
2.64
1.18
19. It can be possible to train at a university in
Public
221
2.93
1.37
,442
abroad provided that a training programme isn’t
Private
253
2.88
1.33
supplied by Turkish universities.
1=I surely disagree 2=I disagree 3=I’m indecisive 4=I agree 5=I surely agree
,795
,598
,406
,659
The Tablo 5 shows that there are meaningful differences between the students of
public and private universities in terms of the expressions with number 4, 6, 8, 12, 15. The
students in public don’t care that the dialect spoken in the city where their universities are
situated is similiar to their hometown’s dialect (Mean 2.25). In other words the ethnocentric
tendencies of the students in private are higher than the others (Mean 2.58).
The students in public agree that their universities have better opportunities about
training than others (3.49). The students in private are indecisive about this expression (Mean
3.00). Considering the sixth expression, the students in public show more ethnocentric
tendencies than the others.
The students in public don’t agree that the university which they still have studied
make them feel at home (Mean 2.59). The students in private are indecisive about this
expression (Mean 2.89)
The students in public accept that the university which they still have studied
successfully represents Turkey in the international platform (Mean 3.30). On the other hand
the students in private don’t agree with this expression, so their ethnocentric tendencies are
found out lower than the others.
The students in public don’t accept that the universities in abroad shouldn’t found their
own campus in Turkey (Mean 2.43). Although students in private are indecisive about this
matter they stil behave more nationalist than the others. Thus in the light of the results in
Table 5, H2 is accepted for the expressions with number 2, 6, 8, 12, 15.
The relation between perceived the brand personality traits of public and private
universities and the ethnocentric tendencies of students is tried to determine through The
Analysis of Correlation. The results are in Table 6
Table 6: The Relation Between Perceived Brand Personality Traits of Public and
Private Universities and The Ethnocentric Tendencies of Students
Competence Entertainment Sweet Excitement Traditionalism Stability
but
harsh
Etnosentric
Tendencies
0,123
0,115
0,106
0,106
0.019
0,109
The relation between the brand personalities consisting of the dimensions of
competence, entertainment, sweet but harsh, excitement, traditionalism, stability and
11
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
ethnocentric tendencies is observed as positive but weak. It is possible to claim that H3 is
supported with the values of Table 6.
7. Conclusion
The value of products has icreased through the enterprises of branding in marketing.
The fact that people need to feel close products themselves to buy them set marketing activists
into action. As a result products have begun to be called to mind with a brand personality.
Personality of brand is a reflection of person using it. Designating a personality for brands
means having more custumer, accordingly getting profit in view of business executives.
Today a great many of researches about brand personality take into consideration the
personality of the products purchased by consumers or sold by salesman. In this research is
dealed with university students and universities instead of consumers and products and
focused on brand personalities of universities.
The concept of Consumer Ethnocentrism which is adopted by marketing surroundings
affect on the perception, attitude and decision of individuals. Academical studies show that
the level of ethnocentrism might be distinctive in the behaviors of purchasing. This reality in
marketing becomes a new dimension for the study and the question of how much the
ethnocentric tendencies of students are determinant on choosing a university brings to mind.
The role of ethnocentric tendencies on having students acquire the perception of brand
personality relating to their universities is important among the subjects of the study as well.
In the point of finding answers to these questions the study is supported with a public
survey consisting of students whom they study in both government and private universities.
The survey includes in six universities and three of them are government universities while
the others are private universities.
In the questionnaire totatlly sixty two (62) adjectives defining brand personality traits
are used. As a result of the factor analysis these adjestives are gathered into a group. The title
of each group represents a dimension of brand personality. The dimensions of brand
personality scale are determined as “competence, entertainment, sweet but harsh, excitement,
traditionalism and stability”. “Sweet but harsh and stability” are the dimensions being peculiar
to this study.
The means of expressions which test etnocentric tendencies in the survey show that in
general the level of the etnocentric tendencies of students is low and these trends aren’t
characteristic. As to the students, going abroad for education or studying in a foreign
university doesn’t mean treason. Consequently they don’t agree with the opinion that traing in
abroad should be restricted. Additionally in the process of choosing a university, students
mostly consider which university provides the best education opportunity for themselves.
Based on the results of the survey it is possible to infer that the perception of brand
personalities of universities aren’t quite different in view of the students of both government
and private universities. It is found out that there is a relation between ethnocentric
inclinations and the perceptions of brand personality of universities even if it is in low level. It
means that the higher the etnocentric tendencies of students are the more they personify their
universities with an adjective being parallel with these tendencies.
12
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
The number of students and universities is limited with Ankara. It is benefitted from
the students who are going on training at university in the study. Because of the fact that the
survey is carried out in just a city of Turkey and isn’t included in all undergraduates in Turkey
findings aren’t favourable for generalize.
References
AAKER, J., (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality” Journal of Marketing Research,
34(3), Aralık, s. 347
AKSOY, L., ÖZSOMER, A., (2007) “Türkiye’de Marka Kişiliği Oluşturan Boyutlar” 12.
Ulusal Pazarlama Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, s.2
ALTINSOY, S., (2011), “Yeni Devlet Üniversitelerinin Gelişimi: Sorunlar ve Politika
Önerileri”, Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(2), s. 98–104
AMERIKAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION (1995),
http://www.marketingpower.com/_layouts/Dictionary.aspx?source=footer, 18.07.2012
ANDREASSON, L., STRELING, M., (2007), Brand Personality Offline Versus Online,
Lulea University of Technology Department of Business Administration and Social
Sciences
ARI, E., (2007), Satın Alma Kararlarında Tüketici Etnosentrizmi ve Menşe Ülke Etkisinin
Rolü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
ARMAĞAN, E., GÜRSOY, Ö., (2011), “Satın Alma Kararlarında Tüketici Etnosentrizmi ve
Menşe Ülke Etkisinin CETSCALE Ölçeği ile Değerlendirilmesi”, Organizasyon ve
Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt 3, Sayı 2
ÇAKMAKÇI, N., (2006), “Üniversitelerin Tek Çaresi Var O Da Markalaşmak”,
http://www.7tepedis.com/universitelerin-tek-caresi-var-o-da-markalasmak.aspx?pageID=94&nID=1178, 12.07.2012
DALGIÇ, T., (2012), “Üniversiteler, Markalar ve Tanıtım Stratejileri Üstüne”,
http//www.farklihaber8.com/koseyazilari/tevfik-dalgic/universiteler-markalar-vetanitim-stratejileri/1259.aspx, 02.08.2012
DİKMEN, C., AKERMAN, S., (2011), 10. Ulusal İşletmecilik Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, İzmir
DÖLARSLAN, E., Ş., (2012), “Bir Marka Kişiliği Ölçeği Değerlendirmesi”, Ankara
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 67, Sayı 2, s. 1–28
EROĞLU, A., SARI, S., (2011), “Tüketici Etnosentrizmi ve Marka Bağlılığı Arasındaki
İlişki”, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Uluslar arası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 3, Sayı
2, s. 39–55
GHODESWAR, B. M. (2008). “Building Brand Identity In Competitive Markets”, Journal Of
Product And Brand Management, 17(1), 4–12
13
Proceedings of 6th International Business and Social Sciences Research Conference
3 – 4 January, 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978-1-922069-18-4
KELEMCİ, G., BODUR, C., (2009), “Tüketicilerde Marka Kişiliği Algısı İle Marka
Tercihine İlişkin Bir Analiz: Hijyenik Ürünler Sektöründe Bir Uygulama”, Dumlupınar
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı 24, s. 2–5-6
KUŞAKÇIOĞLI, A.. (2003), Marka Kimliği, Kurum Kimliği ve Aralarındaki Bağlantı,
Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Halkla İlişkiler ve Tanıtım Anabilim
Dalı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara
MEER, L., (2010), Communicating Destination Brand Personality: The Case of Amsterdam,
Dissertation, Master Program Tourism Destination Management, University of Applied
Sciences
NGUYEN, T. D., NGUYEN, T., BARRETT, N. (2008), “Consumer Ethnocentrism, Cultural
Sensitivity and Intention to Purchase Local Products-evidence from Vietnam”, Journal
Of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, s. 88–100
ÖZGÜVEN, N., KARATAŞ, E., (2010), “Genç Tüketicilerin Marka Kişiliği Algılamalarının
Cinsiyete Göre Değerlendirilmesi”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı 11, s. 140
SAYDAN, R., SÜTÜTEMİZ, N., (2009), “Tüketici Etnosentrizmi Etkisini Ölçmede
CETSCALE Ölçeği”, Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, Cilt 46, Sayı 534
TORLAK, Ö., ÖZÇELİK, D. G., (2011), “Marka Kişiliği Algısı İle Etnosentrik Eğilimler
Arasındaki İlişki: Levis ve Mavi Jeans Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Ege Akademik Bakış,
Cilt 11, Sayı 3, s.361- 377
TURGUT, B., (2010), Tüketici Etnosentrizminin Satın Alma Davranışlarına Etkisi: Hizmet
Sektöründe Bir Uygulama, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü
WATSON, J., WRIGHT K, (2000), “Consumer Ethnocentrism and Attitudes Toward
Domestic and Foreign Products”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, Iss. 9/10,
s.1149–1166
YAKIN, V., AY, C., (2012), “Markaların Kişilik Arketiplerinin Algılanması Üzerine Bir
Çalışma”, The Turkish Online Journal Of Design, Art and Communication, Sayı 3
YILMAZ, M., (2007), Marka Kişiliğinin Boyutları ve İkea Uygulaması, Yüksek Lisans Tezi,
Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
YONGJUN, S., THINKHAM, S. “Brand Personality Structures in The United Statesand
Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, s.337
14