A Survey on Lee’s Brand Personality Orientation to its
PGDM. Regional College Of Management, Bhubaneswar.
Although a considerable amount of research in personality psychology has been done to
conceptualize human personality. There seems to be lack of studies to clearly establish
the relationship between the brand personality dimensions and brand loyalty. The
examination of brand personality will advance the research in marketing, especially the
growing area of brand-consumer relationship. In this empirical study, an attempt is made
to understand the relationship between brand personality dimensions and brand loyalty.
The conceptual model proposed in this study examines the determinants of brand loyalty
with respect to brand personality dimensions such as sincerity, competence and
ruggedness and an important brand-consumer relationship variable for a popular clothing
brand in India.
Brand differentiation is now becoming an important tactic for combating competition in
the hostile marketplace. A viable solution for establishing the distinctiveness of a brand is
through brand personality. Attaching personalities to brands contributes to a
differentiating brand identity, which can make brands more desirable to the consumer.
Jennifer Aaker developed a specialized brand personality scale, the five dimensions of
the scale being sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness.
To examine how the relationship between brand and human personality may drive
preference, Aaker (1997) indicates that two types of brand personality scales can be used.
The first type is ad hoc scales, typically composed of a set of traits ranging from 20 to
300 in number. However, though useful, these scales tend not to be theoretical in nature
often having been developed for the purposes of a specific research study. As a result,
key traits may be missing from such scales. Furthermore, the traits that are selected often
are chosen arbitrarily, which casts doubt upon the scales’ reliability and validity. The
second type of brand personality scales are those that are more theoretical in nature, but
are based on human personality scales that have not been validated in the context of
brands (e.g., Bellenger et al., 1976; Dolich, 1969 as cited in Aaker, 1997). Some
dimensions (or factors) of human personality may be mirrored in brands whilst others
might not. As a result, the validity of such brand personality scales often is questionable,
leading researchers to argue that “if unequivocal results are to emerge (in the literature on
the symbolic used of brands) consumer behaviour researchers must develop their own
definitions and design their own instruments to measure the personality variables that go
into the purchase decision” (italics in original, Kassarjian 1971). It was against this
setting that Aaker (1997) developed a brand personality scale by isolating these distinct
dimensions, further treating brand personality as a ‘unidimensional construct’ and
demonstrating how different types of brand personalities can be distinguished. This has
resulted in the perception that there are multiple ways in which the brand personality
construct can influence a consumer’s preference, and has provided investigators with
tools so that these may be better understood
Research in the area of brand personality has indirectly rather superficially suggested about
the outcome of specific brand personality with respect to brand loyalty. There seems to be
lack of studies to clearly establish the relationship between the brand personality dimensions
and brand loyalty, and its relative importance.
In this empirical study, an attempt is made to understand the relationship between brand
personality dimensions and brand loyalty. A popular clothing brand in India is examined to
test the impact of its brand personality dimensions on brand loyalty.
The study is expected to be of significance to both academicians and practitioners. from the
practicener`s perspective, this study emphasizes the marketers to understand brand
personality dimensions in the relationship perspective and develop the long term relationship
with consumer through image differentiation
The population for this study consisted of all the households in Bhubaneswar City. The sample
for the study was selected from the population by systematic sampling method.
Determination of Sample Size
A pilot study was conducted among 50 Lee brand users and the standard deviation of the items
was found to be 0.376. Hence the sample size was determined to be 189*.
Model Development and Hypothesis
This section discusses the proposed conceptual model of brand loyalty with respect to
brand personality dimensions sincerity, excitement, competence and ruggedness and a
consumer-based relationship variable, namely, relationship length. It also highlights the
rationale for the proposed model and indicates the resulting hypotheses.
Model of Brand Loyalty
Figure 1 presents the proposed conceptual, model of determinants of brand loyalty. The
brand personality traits – sincerity, excitement, competence and ruggedness with which
the customer relates himself – impact brand loyalty. The relationship characteristics such
as length of relationship (period which customer has been associated with the brand)
enhance brand loyalty.
It can be defined as down to earth, family-oriented and genuine. The relationship might
be similar to one that exists with a well-liked and respected member of family. If an
individual feels the brand to be like a member of family, he/she will be committed to the
relationship. Hence, Hypothesis 1 (H1) is: Sincerity brand personality dimension will lead
to brand loyalty.
Excitement means spirited, young, up-to-date and outgoing personality. If an individual
feels himself/ herself having a spirited, young, up-to-date, and outgoing personality,
he/she would like to associate with such brand that provides these personality
characteristics. Although ‘excitement’ personality relates to youth, it does not mean that
only young people would like such brands. Old people would also have such personality
and continuously buy such a brand. Hence, Hypothesis 2 (H2) is: Excitement brand
personality dimension will lead to brand loyalty.
It manifests the expertise power of the individuals’ personality. If an individual is
competent, people rely on him/her on the basis of his/her competence. Hence, Hypothesis
3 (H3) is: Competence brand personality dimension will lead to brand loyalty.
‘Ruggedness’ means athletic and outdoorsy personality. This personality dimension
manifests in an individual who can withstand any situation. If an individual thinks
himself/herself having a rugged personality and if there is a brand that manifests such a
personality, the individual would be willing to buy it regularly. Hence, Hypothesis 4 (H4)
is: Ruggedness brand personality dimension will lead to brand loyalty.
Loyalty grows over time, as the customer gets familiar with the product. The customer
would have got positive experiences with the product, which might also be the reason
why the customer buys the product again. If the customer’s relationship length is higher,
it shows that the customer is loyal. Hence, length of relationship will also have impact on
brand loyalty. Hence, Hypothesis 5 (H5) is: Relationship Length will increase brand
Figure 1 : Conceptual Model of Brand Loyalty with respect to Brand Personality
This section presents the methodology used to test the model and the research hypotheses
presented in the previous section. The measurements of the variables, the sampling, the
data collection method and the methods of statistical analysis are discussed here.
Measurement of the Variables
The majority of the constructs were measured using multiple items, where the
respondents were asked to indicate their agreement on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to
5 (Strongly agree).
Aaker (1997) measured brand personality on five dimensions and 42 traits scale. The five
dimensions were sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. In
this study, only four dimensions, namely sincerity, excitement, competence and
relationship length are included to suit the nature of the brand name.
Demographics and General Information
The basic demographic information such as age, gender, marital status, size of family and
income were also included in the questionnaire.
Sample and Data Collection Method
A survey was carried out to test the model and research hypotheses. Brand name of a
popular fabric company was used. Since in India the chosen company’s customers are the
typical urban customers, the respondents selected for this study were customers from
Bhubaneswar city. A total sample size of 350 was planned to enable the statistical
analyses required for this study and convenience sampling sampling method was used for
A total of 189 respondents from Bhubaneswar city were contacted for the study. The
demographic characterisitics of the respondents were shown in Table 2. As many as
93.70% of respondents were males. The respondents are well distributed among all age
groups. If we consider educations level, out of total samples 1.10% of population belongs
to Matriculate, College level 21.20%, higher education 20.10% and Professional is
57.70% which is high out of total sample. Out of total population majority is unmarried
i.e 83.10% and married is, 16.90%. The family size with less than five was dominant with
86.20%. More than half of the respondents had an annual income of above Rs 1, 00,000.
Table 2 : Characteristics of Respondents
Male 177 93.70
Female 12 6.30
18 - 25 141 74.60
26 - 32 27 14.30
33 - 40 16 8.50
41 and above 5 2.60
Matriculate 2 1.10
College level 40 21.20
Higher education 38 20.10
Professional education 109 57.70
Married 32 16.90
Single 157 83.10
0-5 163 86.20
6-9 23 12.20
10 & above 3 1.60
Less than Rs 10000 28 14.80
Rs 10000 - 15000 48 25.40
15000 - 20000 52 27.50
More than 25000 61 32.30
Validity and Reliability Assessment
The reliability of each scale was assed via ‘item to total correlation ( a method used to
understand the reliability of a particular measure wherein the responses of individual item in
the measure and the sum total of the responses of all the items in the same measure are tested
for correlation) and Cronbach coefficient alpha.. The results of the reliability analysis are
provided in Table 3. All the items of every measure except ruggedness used in this study
exceeded the cut-off point of 0.3. In Ruggedness measure all the item fall below the cut off
point 0.3, the measure i.e frequent washing gives –ve value which indicates it is not reliable
or does not have any influence on ruggedness.
Table 3: Reliability Analysis Results
Scale Items Item-to- Scale Mean Scale Coefficient
total Variance Alpha
Sincerity Quality 0.456 18.02 7.766 0.540
Comfortable 0.428 17.93 7.856 0.549
Durability 0.349 18.06 8.066 0.577
Benefits 0.501 18.18 7.563 0.522
Excitement Style 0.301 9.90 5.995 0.622
Special 0.384 10.71 4.833 0.576
Feeling 0.502 10.41 4.668 0.481
Different 0.444 10.71 4.878 0.527
Competency Fashionable 0.449 11.64 2.668 0.610
Reliability 0.480 11.40 3.390 0.594
Affinity 0.444 11.88 2.895 0.606
Faithfulness 0.461 11.50 3.241 0.596
Ruggedness Rough & 0.119 6.35 1.611 0.018
Frequent -0.031 7.56 1.875 0.404
Outdoorsy 0.118 6.47 1.740 -0.111
Brand User feeling 0.460 6.94 2.491 0.528
Loyalty User’s 0.443 6.69 2.865 0.560
Consumer 0.459 7.40 2.251 0.537
As the first step in examining the validity of each measure, explanatory factor analysis was
employed using SPSS17.0. All the items of all the measures were factor analysed together to
test convergent and discriminate validity of the measures. The items were subjected to
principal component analysis (with Varimax Rotation). The factor loading represented the
correlation between the items with the construct (Hair et al, 1992). In component analysis,
only the factor having Eigenvalues greater than 1 was considered significant (Hair et al,
1992). A minimum value of 0.50 was used to indicate the loading of any factor. The results
of factor analysis are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Factor Analysis for Validity Testing
1 2 3 4
Quality 0.619 0.141 -0.424 0.062
Comfortable 0.548 0.155 -0.363 0.383
Durability 0.492 0.177 -0.377 -0.395
Benefits 0.536 0.135 -0.408 -0.160
Style 0.531 0.242 0.537 0.161
Special 0.477 -0.379 0.067 0.503
Feeling 0.549 -0.500 0.160 -0.032
Feeling 0.550 -0.525 0.062 -0.201
Fashionable 0.540 0.395 0.327 0.054
Reliability 0.500 0.420 0.273 0.208
Affinity 0.691 0.176 -0.174 0.029
Faithfulness 0.540 0.363 0.228 -0.413
User Feeling 0.675 -0.162 -0.079 0.024
User’s 0.571 -0.286 0.329 -0.361
Consumer 0.662 -0.234 -0.037 0.142
Eigen Values 4.858 1.461 1.323 1.022
% of Variation 32.387 9.741 8.821 6.811
Cumulative % 32.387 42.128 50.949 57.760
*Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
**4 Components extracted
By factor analysis, the factors are reduced to only four components. The component one
leads to affinity and its value is 0.691, component two leads to reliability and its value is
0.420, but its value is below 0.5. Component three leads to style and its value is 0.537.
Component four leads to special occasion and its value is 0.503 respectively. These entire
four components have Eigen values more than one i.e. 4.858, 1.461, 1.323 and 1.022
Hypotheses Testing Results
All hypotheses were first tested using multiple regression and least squares estimation
(Pedhazur, 1982). To test all the hypotheses in the study, a multiple regression was carried
out with five independent variables – sincerity, excitement, competency, ruggedness and
relationship length and brand loyalty as the dependent variable. The results of the multiple
regressions are discussed here.
Table 5 provides the results of hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5. All these hypotheses were
tested using multiple regression with the help of SPSS 17.0. If the company promotes these
personalities in their advertisement campaigns, they will lead to loyal customers. There were
other factors which were also considered during the study like sincerity, excitement,
ruggedness and length of relationship, which have positive impact on brand loyalty. All these
hypotheses were tested using multiple regressions with the help of SPSS 17.0.
Table 5 provides the results of hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5. These hypotheses
indicate how brand personalities and length of relationship can lead to brand loyalty.
Table 5: Results of Hypothesis Testing
Hypotheses Independent P Value F Value Hypotheses
H1 Sincerity 0.139 1.639 YES
H2 Excitement 0.374 1.068 YES
H3 Competency 0.007* 3.686 NO
H4 Ruggedness 0.648 0.551 YES
H5 Length of 0.098 2.130 YES
This study examined the factors, which will lead the customers to brand loyalty. A survey
was conducted in Bhubaneswar city. The survey was aimed at knowing the Brand personality
lead to Brand loyalty of the customers.
Trends come and go in the ever-changing world of fashion. Staying in touch with the latest
and striving to keep at the forefront is one way of staying ahead in this competitive field.
Clothing is one form of self-expression. The brand Personality that a company has plays a
very important role and to some extent it also leads to customer loyalty. From this research it
is found that the company having a brand image of sincerity, excitement, ruggedness and
length of relationship. Thus, a company should think of enhance its sincerity, excitement,
ruggedness and length of relationship personalities in the forefront.
Many companies are already promoting these personalities through ad campaigns, which
show them as untainted, committed and trustworthy. This image can be promoted by taking
some real life examples where people show their commitment and their loyalty to the
Here competency is another brand personality which we have taken as hypotheses doesn’t
lead to brand loyalty of the customers. Ruggedness is another variable which also influence
the brand personality. Ruggedness means outdoorsy. This brand personality manifests as
today’s customers’ fashion needs and can be built through collections that highlight by
bringing new styles, comfort and coolness.
The company should think in the way in which it can promote these personalities. At the
same time, the company should distinguish these two personalities and the target customers.
By doing this, the company can retain all its customers who belong to different groups and
whose tastes are totally different. So, the company should be cautious in using these
dimensions of brand personality. It said that if a customer has been buying a fabric from a
certain company for 25 years, he will be considered a loyal customer of that company. But in
this research it was found that relationship length of does not have any impact on customer
loyalty. If a customer buys a company fabric for many years, it doesn’t mean that he/she is
loyal to the company, it may also be because he/she does not have any other option.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:
The main objective of this research was to measure the brand personality dimensions of the Lee
brand using the Brand Personality Scale suggested by Jennifer Aaker. A validity check of the
scale using factor analysis was carried out which indicates that the number of dimensions of
brand personality is 4 and that about 10 items of Jennifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale are
not applicable in the Indian situation. The applicability of this scale to the Indian situation was
not checked because it required an exploratory study to identify the dimensions of brand
personality in the Indian situation. A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality
constructs revealed that sincerity, excitement, competence, and sophistication are common to
both USA and Japan. It also revealed that there were culture-specific Japanese. (Peacefulness)
and American (ruggedness) dimensions.
The findings in the context of Spain yielded brand personality dimensions common to both
Spain and the United States (sincerity, excitement, and sophistication), plus the non-shared
Spanish (passion) and American (competence and ruggedness) dimensions. Hence, identifying
the Indian brand personality construct can be undertaken by future researchers. Also, this
research tried to identify the brand personality in India which implies that researchers can
identify brand personality for service, retail, and consumer durable brands. This research was
conducted in the largest city in Orissa and therefore future studies can be conducted in other
parts of India to improve the reliability of the study.
o Aaker, D A (1996). Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press.
o Aaker, J (1997). “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marking Research,
o Aaker, Jennifer Lynn; Benet-Martínez, Verónica and Garolera, Jordi (2001).
“Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand
Personality Constructs,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492-508.
o Banerjee, Ravi (2004), “ Smiles to Go,” Economic Times (Brand Equity), 15
o Belch, G and Belch, A (2001). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing
Communication Perspective, Fifth Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
o Bellenger, D N; Steinberg, E and Stanton, W W (1976). “The Congruence of Store
Image and Self Image, Journal of Retailing, 52(1), 17–32.
o Dolich, Ira J (1969), “Congruence Relationship between Self Image and Product
Brands,” Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80-84.
o Kassarjian, H H (1971). “Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 84(4), 409–418.
o K Abdul Waheed, Neeti Yadav (2007), “A Study on Brand Personality Orientation to
o Okazaki, Shintaro (2006). “Excitement or Sophistication? A Preliminary Exploration of
Online Brand Personality,” International Marketing Review, 23(3), 279-303.
o Rojas-Méndez, José; Erenchun-Podlech, Isabel; Silva-Olave, Elizabeth (2004). “The
Ford Brand Personality in Chile,” Corporate Reputation Review, 7(3), 232-251.
o Siguaw, Judy A; Mattila, Anna and Austin, Jon R (1999). “The Brand-Personality
Scale,” Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 48-55.
o Su-e Park; Dongsung, Choi; Jinwoo, Kim (2005). “Visualizing E-Brand Personality:
Exploratory Studies on Visual Attributes and E-Brand Personalities in Korea,”
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 7-34.
o Sung, Yongjun and Tinkham, Spencer F (2005). “Brand Personality Structures in the
United States and Korea: Common and Culture Specific Factors,”Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15(4), 334- 350.
o Supphellen, Magne and Gronhaug, Kjell (2003). “Building Foreign Brand Personalities
in Russia: the Moderating Effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism,” International Journal of
Advertising, 22(2), 203–226.