The Effect of Brand Personality and Congruity on Customer-based Brand
Equity and Loyalty of Personal Computer Brands
Introduction
Commercial brands represent significant consumption symbols that provide symbolic and
self-expressive functions to consumers (Shavitt, 1990). Organisations can enhance brand
performance, by communicating desired symbolic meanings through their brand. A brand
personality describes how an organisation imbues a brand with human personality traits
intended to create symbolic associations that are strong, unique and congruent to the
customer (Freling & Forbes, 2005). There is much speculation within the literature as to how
brand personality can be distinguished from other constructs including brand identity and
brand image (Aaker, 1997; Freling & Forbes, 2005). Parker (2009), suggests that brand
personality should be treated as a separate construct, because it has an independent effect on
brand evaluations.
Brand personality is theorised to be a significant source of customer-based brand equity and
loyalty (Aaker, 1996; Anisimova, 2007; Burmann, Jost-Benz & Riley, 2009). A successful
brand personality can encourage customer preference and usage (Sirgy, 1982), increase levels
of emotional attachment (Beil, 1993), trust and loyalty (Fournier, 1998) and provide a basis
for differentiation (Aaker, 1996). Previous research tends to focus on describing and
understanding brand personality. There is limited knowledge as to how brand personality
affects aspects of business performance, customer relationships and loyalty (Aaker, 1997;
Anisimova, 2007; Freling & Forbes, 2005). Aaker (1997) reveals five distinct dimensions of
brand personality, including sincerity, competence, excitement, sophistication and
ruggedness. Several articles suggest the need for research across a variety of cultures,
industries and product categories (Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 1999; Ekinici & Hosany, 2003).
Consumption of products and brands portrays aspects of an individual’s identity, for “we are
what we consume” figuratively and symbolically (Belk, 1988). It is theorised that a high level
of similarity between a consumer and brand personality will result in preference toward the
brand (Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 1999; Sirgy, 1985). There is currently insufficient knowledge to
guide the development of brand personalities that enhance customer-based brand equity.
This study applies Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale (BPS) to evaluate the level of
congruity between Generation Y consumer and brand personalities and its effect on
customer-based brand equity and loyalty in the context of personal computers. Generation Y
are an emerging segment that account for a significant proportion of current and future
consumption (Wilson, 2007). The personal computer industry has reached a critical stage in
its life cycle. The market is heavily saturated with competing brands, leading to substantial
investment in brand differentiation (Hui, 2004). Personal computers are highly conspicuous
in social situations, especially laptops. Penrose and Seiford (1988) propose that when
deciding between computer brands; instead of determining the functions required from the
computer, a better strategy is to determine the compatibility of user and computer
personalities. It is somewhat surprising that there is limited subsequent research that
investigates personal computer brands.
The research objectives of this paper are therefore to understand the importance of brand
personality to target customers and to determine what aspects of personality congruity
(excitement, sincerity, sophistication, competence, ruggedness) have an effect on customerbased brand equity and loyalty of personal computer brands.
Conceptual Model Development
Figure 1 demonstrates the conceptual model used in this research. Customer satisfaction
reflects an individual’s perception of product performance in relation to their initial
expectations. It is apparent within the literature that customer satisfaction leads to greater repurchase intentions (Walsh, Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2008). Incongruent personalities
result in feelings of inadequacy and dissatisfaction (Johar & Sirgy, 1991; Sirgy & Su, 2000).
Thereby, congruent personalities lead to feelings of consistency, self-enhancement and
consequently satisfaction (Aaker, 1999; Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy, 1985). It is therefore
hypothesised that: H1: The greater the congruency between user-brand personality, the
greater the level of customer satisfaction.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Satisfaction
Personality Congruity
Associations
Preference
Loyalty
Freling and Forbes (2005) conceptualise brand personality as “one type of association in
consumer memory that may be accessed as the need or desire for a particular product arises”
(p.410). Their research shows that “a strong and positive brand personality leads to brand
associations that are favourable, unique, strong and congruent, thus enhancing brand equity”
(Freling & Forbes, 2005, p.409). It is therefore hypothesised that: H2: The greater the
congruency between user-brand personality, the greater the level of brand associations.
Brand preference refers to a consumer’s inclination to choose a specific brand among
alternatives based on the benefit or value it provides. Wang, Yang and Liu (2009) show that
self-image congruity positively affects purchase intention. Multiple studies provide evidence
to support the argument that consumers prefer brands that share similar personality
characteristics to their own actual or ideal self-image (Aaker, 1999; Maehle & Shneor, 2010;
Sirgy, 1982). It is therefore hypothesised that: H3: The greater the congruency between userbrand personality, the greater the level of brand preference.
Loyalty relates to a customer’s commitment to continue purchasing a product or brand.
Commitment to a brand is generally dependent on a customer’s level of satisfaction (Aaker,
1996). A study by Kressmannn et al. (2006) indicates that self-image congruity positively
effects brand loyalty directly and indirectly through functional congruity, product
involvement and brand relationship quality. Other research supports that differentiation using
brand personality increases awareness and attachment, thus enhancing levels of trust and
loyalty to a brand (Fournier, 1998; Phau & Lau, 2001). It is therefore hypothesised that;
H4: The greater the congruency between user-brand personality, the greater the level of
brand loyalty.
Methodology
A voluntary and self-administered questionnaire was implemented to collect data. The widely
adopted brand personality scale (BPS) originally developed by Aaker (1997) was used to
measure perceived personality of the computer brand. The literature suggests that a
consumer’s “ideal” self-image reflects how they would like to view themselves (Sirgy, 1982).
Therefore, when a consumer describes their “ideal brand personality,” they are defining their
own desired personality. Identical scale items to the brand personality construct were used to
measure “ideal brand personality.” The satisfaction scale was used to measure the degree of
satisfaction with a product recently purchased (Mano & Oliver, 1993). The
association/differentiation scale developed by Aaker (1996) measured the degree to which
customers perceive user imagery, uniqueness, differentiation and organisational associations
within a particular brand. The preference scale measures the degree to which a person views
their computer brand as the focal or preferred brand compared to others (Sirgy, Grewal,
Mangleburg, Park, Claiborne, & Berkman, 1997). The loyalty scale originating from Yoo,
Donthu and Lee (2000) was used as a measure of commitment to a brand.
The sample frame consisted of Generation Y consumers, over 18 years of age who owned a
laptop computer, purchased after 2007. Often regarded as the “digital generation” these
consumers regularly use personal computers, and are very brand savvy and image conscious
(Wilson, 2007). Based on this trend, awareness of computer brands and their personalities is
likely. The sample was required to own a laptop computer, in order to perform a postpurchase evaluation of the brand. In addition, to reduce the impact of negative attitudes
caused by computer age, the computer must not have been purchased earlier than 2007.
The validity and reliability of constructs and their items were assesed, and some items
removed. Based on research of the consumer’s self-concept (Sirgy, 1982) and self-congruity
theory (Sirgy, et al., 1991), a personality congruity score was obtained using a difference
model. It compared a consumer’s perception of a computer brand’s “actual brand
personality” and the consumer’s “ideal brand personality” for their computer using the five
dimensions of Aaker’s (1997) BPS scale. The congruity score was mathematically
formulated, by subtracting the “actual” from the “ideal” score (Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy, et al.,
1991).
Results and Discussion
An initial ANOVA analysis was performed to identify if the perceived evaluations of brands
were significantly different amongst the top four computer brands (Apple, HP, Toshiba and
Dell). Overall the results show that Apple users perceive their computer to be significantly
more exciting, sincere, sophisticated and competent. Results also show that Apple users’
perceive the brand to be most congruent to their ideal level of competence and excitement.
These results may be attributed to Apple’s marketing efforts to establish a brand personality.
In addition Apple users also demonstrated significantly higher levels of satisfaction with the
brand. Satisfied customers are advocates of the brand, contributing to positive word of mouth
and recruiting new customers through referrals. It is apparent that these young customers are
satisfied and fulfilled by Apple’s product. If this continues, they may remain loyal to Apple
throughout their lives.
Table 1 shows the results of the regression analysis between the elements of brand
personality and brand equity. Negative coefficients, indicate higher congruity. H1 is partially
supported with two dimensions namely “excitement” (b = -0.160, p<0.05) and “competence”
(b = -0.419, p<0.05) found to influence customer satisfaction. The literature suggests that
functional congruity is a prerequisite to positive attitudes toward a product or brand
(Kressmann, et al., 2006; Sirgy, Johar, Samli, & Claibourne, 1991). It refers to the match
between a consumer’s ideal expectation of utilitarian product features and how these features
actually perform (Kressmann, et al., 2006). Personal computers exhibit important functional
features that are vital in order for the computer to operate effectively, and are therefore
fundamental to customer satisfaction. In addition, Ekinci and Hosany (2006) suggest exciting
personalities are more attractive and generate greater interest. Excitement is usually
associated with brands used for self-expressive purposes (Ang & Lim, 2006). Based on
theories of symbolic consumption, a computer brand communicates information and
associations about the user when operated in social situations (Sirgy, 1982).
Table 1: Summary of Regression Analysis
Hypothesis
Relationship
H1
Excitement
Sincerity
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Competence
SATISFACTION
Excitement
Sincerity
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Competence
BRAND ASSOCIATIONS
Excitement
Sincerity
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Competence
PREFERENCE
Excitement
Sincerity
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Competence
LOYALTY
H2
H3
H4
Beta
Value
-0.160
-0.008
0.090
0.026
-0.419
t - Value
Significance
-2.201
-0.132
1.411
0.576
-6.517
Standard
Error
0.073
0.064
0.064
0.045
0.064
-0.061
-0.100
0.078
0.017
-0.316
-0.697
-1.311
1.021
0.315
-4.097
0.087
0.076
0.077
0.054
0.077
0.487
0.192
0.309
0.753
0.000*
-0.188
-0.081
0.089
0.025
-0.283
-2.355
-1.149
1.258
0.499
-4.002
0.080
0.070
0.071
0.049
0.071
0.020*
0.253
0.210
0.619
0.000*
-0.235
-0.037
0.078
0.047
-0.258
-2.843
-0.513
1.068
0.917
-3.515
0.083
0.073
0.073
0.051
0.073
0.005*
0.609
0.287
0.361
0.001*
0.029*
0.895
0.160
0.566
0.000*
Adjusted
R²
Outcome
0.525
Partially
Supported
0.318
Partially
Supported
0.414
Partially
Supported
0.375
Partially
Supported
* p<0.05 significance level (2-tailed)
Only one dimension “competence” (b = -0.316, p<0.05) was found to influence brand
associations; meaning H2 is partially supported. It appears that the personality dimensions of
a symbolic and self-expressive nature do not produce important memory-based associations
(Keller, 1993). Anisimova (2007) suggests that for complex and infrequently purchased
durables, the corporate brand reputation, and especially the functional personality dimension
“competence” is likely to be an important contributor to brand equity. The significance of the
dimension “competence” may render the symbolic and self-expressive personality
dimensions to be non-important. Freling and Forbes (2005) suggest that competence is a
“determinant attribute” (Lovelock, 1984). When a computer brand is perceived as strong and
positive with regard to “competence,” consumers may remember the brand more easily and
demonstrate higher purchase intention (Sirgy, 1982).
H3 is partially supported with two dimensions namely “excitement” (b = -0.188, p<0.05) and
“competence” (b = -0.283, p<0.05) found to influence brand preference. A personal computer
brand that performs functional features as anticipated or superior to expectations, will receive
positive brand evaluations and preference according to functional congruity theory
(Kressmann, et al., 2006). The significance of the dimension “excitement” indicates that
symbolic associations also contribute to brand preference. Research observes a greater effect
on brand preference for socially conspicuous products and brands (Aaker, 1999; Dolich,
1969; Maehle & Shneor, 2010; Parker 2009; Wang, Yang, & Liu, 2009). Laptop computers
are portable and are often used in social situations, especially within the sample frame.
H4 is also partially supported with two dimensions namely “excitement” (b = -0.235, p<0.05)
and “competence” (b = -0.258, p<0.05) found to influence brand loyalty. In general, the
conclusions drawn from this study support other research into the importance of selfcongruity in predicting brand loyalty (Esch, Langner, Schmitt & Geus 2006; Kressmann, et
al., 2006). Consumers develop emotional attachments to brands based on symbolic
associations and personality traits (Fournier, 1998), which either match their actual selfimage or represent their ideal self-image (Sirgy, 1982). Competence and excitement influence
the cognitive and affective components associated with brand trust and brand attachment to
personal computer brands, and when combined drive brand loyalty (Esch, et al., 2006; Sung
& Kim, 2004).
Conclusions, Limitations and Directions for Future Research
This study confirms the positive effects of personality congruity on brand equity and loyalty
within personal computers. The results indicate that marketing practitioners should imbue
personal computer brands with a congruent personality, emphasising specific personality
dimensions that contribute to customer based brand equity and loyalty. The results
consistently show that for personal computers excitement and competence are particularly
important. Computer brands that fail to convey these characteristics are likely to be perceived
by consumers as less favourable to competing brands.
Aaker (1997) recommended that the brand personality scale (BPS) might produce different
brand evaluations in different contexts. Further studies should investigate the role of
personality congruity, for example, among other demographic groups. The study was limited
by the use of personality measures not intended for personality-congruity research. The BPS
(Aaker, 1997) was not originally developed to assess respondent personality. Further care
must be taken in replication and construct validation studies. Finally, the use of a single
product category, limits the generalisability of the findings upon other products and
industries.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California
Management Review, 38(3), p.102-120.
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions or brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347-356.
Aaker, J.L. (1999). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion. Journal
of Marketing Research, 24(December 1999), 315-328.
Ang, S.H. & Lim, E.A. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on Brand
Personality Perceptions and Attittudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39-53.
Anisimova, T.A. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and
behavioural consumer loyalty. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 395-405.
Beil, A. (1993). Converting image into equity. Brand Equity Advertising, David A. Aaker and
Alexander Beil, eds. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(September),139-168.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M. & Riley, N. (2009). Towards an identity-based brand equity
model. Journal of Business Research, 62(2009), 390-397.
Dolich, I.J. (1969). Congruence Relationships between Self-images and Product Brands.
Journal of Marketing Research, 6(February, 1969), 60-84.
Ekinici, Y. & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination Personality: An application of brand personality
to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(November 2006), 127-139.
Ekinici, Y. & Riley, M. (2003). An investigation of self-concept: actual and ideal congruence
compared in the context of service evaluation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
services, 10(2003), 201-214.
Esch, R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H. & Geus, P. (2006). Are brand forever? How brand
knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product
and Brand Management, 15(2), 98-105.
Fournier, S. (1998) Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 343-370.
Freling, T.H. & Forbes, L. (2005) An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. The
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404-413.
Hui, K. (2004). Product Variety under Brand Influence: An Empirical Investigation of
Personal Computer Demand. Journal of Management Science, 50(5), 686-700.
Johar, J. & Sirgy, J. (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When
and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 23-33.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.
Kressmannn, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee D.J. (2006). Direct
and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business
Research, 59(9), 955-964.
Lovelock, C. (1984). Services Marketing. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Maehle. N. & Shneor, R. (2010). On congruence between brand and human personalities.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(1), 44-53.
Mano, H. & Oliver, R.L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the
consumption experience: Evaluation, Feeling and Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(December 1993), 452-466.
Parker, B.T. (2009). A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(3), 175-184.
Penrose, J. & Seiford, L.M. (1988). Computer “Personalities”: A New Approach to
understanding user compatibility. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(1), 74-87.
Phau, I. & Lau, K.C. (2001). Brand personality and consumer self-expression: Single or dual
carriageway? Brand Management, 8(6), 428-444.
Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 26(2), 124-148.
Sirgy, J.M. (1982). Self-concept in Consumer Behaviour: A Critical Review. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300.
Sirgy, J.M. (1985). Using Self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation.
Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195-206.
Sirgy, J.M., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, K.C., Claiborne, J.S. & Berkman, H. (1997).
Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence.
Journal of Marketing, 25(Summer), 229-241.
Sirgy, J.M., Johar, J.S., Samli, A.C. & Claibourne, C.B. (1991). Self-congruity versus
functional congruity: Predictors of consumer behaviour. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 19(4), 363-375.
Sirgy, J. & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity and travel behaviour: Toward
and integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 340-352.
Sung, Y. & Kim, J. (2004). Effects of Brand Personality on Brand Trust and Brand Affect.
Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 693-661.
Walsh, G., Evanschitzky, H. & Wunderlich, M. (2008). Identification and analysis of
moderator variables: Investigating customer satisfaction-loyalty link. European Journal
of Marketing, 42(9/10), 977-1004.
Wang, X., Yang, Z. & Liu, N.R. (2009). The impacts of brand personality and congruity on
purchase intention: Evidence from the Chinese Mainland’s automobile market. Journal
of Global Marketing, 22(3), 199-215.
Wilson, M. (2007). Defining Gen Y: For retailers this is a wake-up call. Chain Store age,
March (2007), 35-40.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing miss elements
and brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 195-211.