Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
user-imagery congruence
Brian T. Parker
School of Journalism & Mass Communication, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare the brand personality and brand user-imagery constructs in congruity theory to examine their
relationship in the image congruence model as a basis of modeling brand attitudes for publicly and privately consumed brands.
Design/methodology/approach A total of 272 surveys measured subjects self-image perceptions and subjects perceptions of brand personality
and user-imagery. Congruence measures were used as indicators of the difference between respondent self-image and each brands image, and served
as independent variables in stepwise regressions with brand attitude as the dependent variable.
Findings The results indicated that, for publicly consumed brands, user-imagery-based congruence measures contributed more often to the
explanatory power of the model. For privately consumed brands, brand personality congruity produced significant regressions but did not account for a
large portion of explained variance, while user-imagery only entered one private brand model.
Originality/value Brand personality and brand user-imagery are often used interchangeably in self-congruity theory research. Although both
constructs have received past research attention, no studies have compared them in the same study. The study fills the gap in the literature and
enhances the usefulness of the self-brand congruity model, providing a knowledge base for determining an overall brand positioning strategy.
Keywords Self assessment, Brand image, Brand identity
Paper type Research paper
175
Brian T. Parker
Brand image
Brand image has long been recognized as an important
concept in marketing. The general theory is that consumers
link strong, favorable, and unique associations to a brand, in
their memory, if they favor the brand image (Keller, 1998).
For the consumer, brand image can be based on direct
experience with the brand, as well as through promotion of
the brand, and even through observation of what kind of
people use the brand or times when the brand is best used
(Patterson, 1999).
Further, brands can be associated with certain types of
people and reflect different values or traits. By choosing
certain brands, an individual can communicate to others or
themselves the type of person they are or want to be (Keller,
1998). Essentially, brand image is a subjective perception, a
mental representation of functional and non-functional
information regarding the product or service (Patterson,
1999). Brand image is built in the memory of the consumer
176
Brian T. Parker
Brand personality
The personified brand captivated the attention of
communication researchers, particularly in the decades of
the 1980s and 1990s. Ogilvy (1983, p. 14) suggested that
products and brands have personalities that can make or
break them in the market place. Research has supported the
contention that brands develop unique personalities that can
serve as units of observation and analysis (Aaker, 1997;
Plummer, 2000; Sutherland et al., 2004). Brand personality is
the act of applying human characteristics or traits to a brand,
inducing consumers to think of a brand as if it had person like
qualities (Aaker, 1997). For example, consumers
characterized the brand personality of Oil of Olay as
upscale and aspirational, while Absolut vodkas brand
personality has been characterized as cool, hip, and
contemporary (Aaker, 1997; Plummer, 2000).
Associating human personality characteristics with a brand
is possible because people anthropomorphize, that is, transfer
human characteristics to inanimate objects on a regular basis
(Bower, 1999; Boyer, 1996). Typical examples are animating
a pet rock or when one references an object, such as a
motor boat by saying, she is a beauty. Not only do
individuals view the inanimate object as she/he would another
person, but also treats the object as another person (Boyer,
1996).
Evidence suggests companies that employ brand personality
as a part of an overall positioning strategy, when properly and
consistently communicated can affect consumer perceptions
in far more enduring ways than other communication
strategies (Burke, 1994). This differentiate facilitates
consumer choice by simplifying the decision process,
increases awareness and attachment (i.e. builds loyalty), and
enhances the favorability a brands image (Phau and Lau,
2001; Sutherland et al., 2004). Plummer (2000, p. 81),
suggests brand personality plays a critical role in the for me
choice, or I see myself in that brand choice.
A brands human personality traits result from any direct or
indirect contact an individual has with the brand (Aaker,
1997; Plummer, 2000). Direct source brand personality traits
originate from any individual associated with the brand (e.g.
endorsers, spokespersons, company CEO, and family
members), and transfer to the overall brand personality
perception. In comparison, indirect brand personality traits
originate from such informational sources as product
attributes, product category, brand name and symbol,
advertising approach, price, and demographic characteristics
(e.g. gender and social class). Overall, human characteristics
associated with a brand are drawn from many possible
sources, resulting in a global perception of a brand as if it has
an enduring human like personality.
Aaker (1997) advanced a framework of the brand
personality construct and a set of scales that tap into
construct dimensions. The Brand Personality Scales (BPS)
are grounded in a framework that psychologists have
advocated as a comprehensive classification of human
personality. Each BPS personality dimension is subdivided
into facets that provide indicators of each dimension. In total,
the standard BPS measures five personality dimensions (i.e.
Brand user-imagery
The majority of self-congruity research falls in the consumer
behavior domain and traditionally has focused attention on
different aspects of consumer self-image and limited the
conceptualization of brand image to the consumers view of
the typical brand user (Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969; Graeff,
1996; Hogg et al., 2000; Landon, 1974; Sirgy, 1982). Userimagery is a stereotyped perception of the generalized user
of a particular brand, depicted by human characteristics
associated with that brand user (Sirgy, 1982). For example,
Izod shirts may be depicted as being for yuppies or Oakley
sunglasses are for surfers and snowboarders.
User-imagery is similar to brand personality, in that both
concepts represent human characteristics associated with a
brand. However, user imagery simply represents a
prototypical person and likely plays a role in the overall
brand personality formation. On the other hand, brand
personality is a more encompassing perception of a brands
composite image, derived from multiple source inputs such as
product endorsers, celebrity spokesperson, and animated
characters.
The purpose of this study was to extend congruity theory
research to determine if brand personality and brand userimagery can be used interchangeably in Self-congruity theory.
Since there are no published reports of such a comparison,
there were no grounds to develop or test specific hypotheses.
The authors intent was to determine if brand user-imagery
based congruity (UIC) and brand personality congruity
(BPC) have independent effects on brand evaluations for
publicly and privately consumed brands (i.e. high versus low
in conspicuousness of use). Specifically, this study addressed
three research questions:
RQ1. What is the relationship between UIC and BPC
congruities when used simultaneously in brand
attitude prediction models?
RQ2. Are their differences in the amount of explanatory
power between UIC and BPC congruity types in brand
attitude prediction models?
RQ3. How does brand conspicuousness of use (public versus
private brands) influence the explanatory power of
BPC and UIC congruities in brand attitude prediction
models?
Methodology
This study employed survey research to compare the
predictability of UIC and BPC in the self-congruity model.
Preliminary research generated an extensive list of brands
highly relevant to respondents, used to select the units of
analysis for the study. Questionnaire refinement occurred via
two pre-tests on sub samples of the target population. A
convenience sample of 272 (n 272) undergraduate college
students participated in the primary survey, recruited from
undergraduate courses at a large southern university.
177
Brian T. Parker
n
X
2
P ij 2 S ij
i1
where:
Pij
Sij
Take a moment to think about [Brand x]. Think about the kind of person
who typically uses [Brand x]. Imagine this person in your mind and then
describe this person using one or more personal adjectives such as stylish,
classy, masculine, sexy, old, athletic, or whatever personal adjective you can
use to describe the typical user of [Brand x].
Once you have done this, indicate your agreement or disagreement to the
following statement: [Brand x] is consistent with how I see myself (actual
self-congruity).
Sincerity
Brand personality
Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness
Down-to-earth
Honest
Wholesome
Cheerful
Daring
Reliable
Spirited
Intelligent
Imaginative Successful
Up-to-date
Upper class
Charming
Outdoorsy
Tough
Brian T. Parker
Results
Descriptive statistics
Of the 272 complete surveys, the majority of the respondents
were females, (n 170) 62 percent, while 38 percent were
male (n 102). Respondents represented the full range of
college classifications; with 24 percent freshman (n 66), 17
percent sophomores (n 46), 38 percent juniors (n 101),
and 22 percent seniors (n 58); 87 percent of respondents
were between the ages 17 and 21.
Familiarity ratings for each brand were measured to exclude
respondents from analysis that were not familiar with a
particular brand. As planned from preliminary research, each
brand had high levels of familiarity. However, the brand
Birkenstock did display low familiarity ratings for 37 of the
272 total respondents (i.e. two or less on a seven-point scale).
Hence, the analysis for Birkenstock was limited to 235
respondents, while 272 surveys were deemed useful for the
other brands.
For the public brands, Nike ranked highest on the attitude
index (6.10), Banana Republic second (5.42), Abercrombie &
Fitch third (4.98), and Birkenstock displayed the lowest
attitudinal rating (4.54). For the private brands, Sony ranked
highest (6.29), Tropicana second (5. 35), Nabisco third
(5.25) and Charmin the lowest (4.98), though still a favorable
attitude evaluation. Examination of the internal consistency
via Cronbachs Alpha reliability coefficients showed high
reliability for the brand attitude indices for all eight brands
(ranged between 0.9699 and 0.9433).
Congruity analysis
Analysis involved correlation and multiple regressions to
address the research questions. Correlation analyses
demonstrated the strength of association between UIC and
BPC congruity indicator scores for each analyzed brand.
Stepwise multiple regressions were used to explore the
relationship between the distances between self-image, brand
personality, user-imagery and brand attitude towards the eight
selected brands. There were two independent variables, each
representing UIC and BPC congruity indictor scores.
Procedures followed the approach to multivariate model
building outlined by Hair et al. (1998). From the stepwise
procedures, the researcher compared R2 and beta weight
values to determine which congruity indicator explained the
most variance, adding the most explanatory power to the
model.
Importantly, negative correlations between self-brand
congruity indicators and brand attitude scores, and the
corresponding negative regression coefficients, indicate a
positive relationship between higher congruity and the
dependent measure. This is because according to theory, as
the congruity score goes down, which indicates a closer
distance between self-image and brand-image (i.e. higher
congruity), brand attitude scores should increase.
Private brands
Similar to the public brands, correlation analysis
demonstrated a positive association between UIC and BPC
congruity types for each analyzed brand. However, in contrast
to the public brands, the strength of association between the
two congruity types was consistently weaker across brands.
Correlation coefficients for each private brand are as follows:
Tropicana (r 0.189), Nabisco (r 0.236), Sony
(r 0.383), and Charmin (r 0.176).
For the private brands (Tables VI-VIII), congruities were
only significant for three brands. Neither of the congruity
measures were significant in the attitude model for the brand
Charmin. For two of the private brands (i.e. Nabisco and
Tropicana) the BPC congruity measure entered the model
first, accounting for the most explained variance. However,
when BPC entered the model, the explained variance is
typically minimal. For one private brand (i.e. Sony), UIC
entered the model first, accounting for most of the explained
variance, however, BPC did enter the model and increased
the explanatory power.
The stepwise procedures for the brand Nabisco (Table VI)
resulted in two models. The first model incorporated the BPC
(R2 0.084) indicator and accounted for about 8 percent of
explained variance in the dependent measure. The second
model (R2 0.111) included the UIC indicator and
increased the explained variance slightly by about 3 percent.
For the brand Tropicana (Table VII), only the BPC
measure entered the model and accounted for a moderate
amount of explained variance (R2 0.129). Out of the eight
Public brands
Correlation analysis demonstrated significant positive
associations between UIC and BPC congruities for each
analyzed brand. However, the strength of association differed
across brands. For Nike, there was a weak positive
relationship (r 0.268) between UIC and BPC. For
Abercrombie & Fitch UIC and BPC were moderately
related (r 0.458). Birkenstock also showed a moderate
179
Brian T. Parker
Model
1 Constant
User-imagery congruity (UIC)
2 Constant
User-imagery congruity (UIC)
Brand personality congruity (BPC)
7.332
2 0.566
7.480
2 0.423
2 0.196
Standardized coefficients
Beta
Sig.
20.357
20.166
44.890
2 8.457
42.077
2 4.392
2 2.038
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.043
Standardized coefficients
Beta
Sig.
27.050
2 10.211
24.262
27.980
23.867
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.163
0.067
0.178
0.096
0.096
20.477
R2
0.227
0.254
Unstandardized coefficients
B
Std. error
7.157
2 0.769
7.947
2 0.640
2 0.157
0.265
0.075
0.328
0.080
0.041
20.583
20.485
20.235
R2
0.339
0.385
Table IV Stepwise regression of self-brand congruities on attitude toward Abercrombie & Fitch
Model
1 Constant
User-imagery congruity (UIC)
Unstandardized coefficients
B
Std. error
8.004
20.973
Standardized coefficients
Beta
Sig.
R2
20.698
37.179
2 15.202
0.000
0.000
0.487
Standardized coefficients
Beta
Sig.
R2
20.626
42.908
2 12.394
0.000
0.000
0.391
Sig.
R2
0.261
20.166
80.843
3.966
80.843
3.558
2 2.267
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
Standardized coefficients
Beta
Sig.
R2
0.247
55.011
3.431
0.000
0.001
0.129
0.216
0.064
Unstandardized coefficients
B
Std. error
7.410
20.761
0.173
0.061
Unstandardized coefficients
B
Std. error
6.276
0.307
6.278
0.276
2 0.172
0.078
0.077
0.077
0.078
0.076
Standardized coefficients
Beta
0.290
0.084
0.111
Unstandardized coefficients
B
Std. error
5.707
0.356
0.104
0.104
180
Brian T. Parker
Unstandardized coefficients
B
Std. error
5.682
2 0.458
5.685
2 0.405
2 0.330
Standardized coefficients
Beta
0.118
0.118
0.116
0.117
0.117
20.278
20.245
20.200
Sig.
48.137
2 3.886
49.072
2 3.455
2 2.817
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.005
R2
0.077
0.116
Conclusions
Brand personality is an integral part of brand image and is
important for product differentiation in the marketplace. The
central goal of this study was to determine the contribution of
brand personality as a transposable construct for brand userimagery in the traditional self-brand congruity model and if
the two brand image constructs independently contribute to
the prediction of favorable brand attitudes. The results
suggest that brand personality based self-brand congruity
should be treated as a separate construct. In particular, brand
personality researchers need to account for the user-imagery
construct, rather than simply using brand personality in its
place, because it alone may drive the overall personality
position for publicly consumed brands. Overall, the usefulness
of the self-brand congruity model is enhanced by making
salient the importance of isolating different brand image
facets as the basis of self-brand congruity measurement. This
exploratory study advanced the usefulness of the selfcongruity model for brand personality research.
Limitations
The main limitation of this study was that it relied on a
convenience sample of university students, not necessarily
representative of all university students or the general
population. The sample was also skewed with more women
(62 percent) than men (38 percent). Results of this study
should not be generalized beyond the group of students in the
sample.
The study was also limited by the use of personality
measures not intended for self-congruity research. The BPS
181
Brian T. Parker
scales were not originally developed to assess respondent selfimage, even though they are based on image descriptors used
in decades of brand image research. Further care must be
taken in replication and construct validation studies to
address this issue. Other measures of brand personality may
have produced different results.
Future research
Future research should use probability sampling methods of
other populations and more accurate measures of behaviors.
The development of measures for identifying socially
conspicuous and image-based brands would help researchers
avoid having to make assumptions about the social
conspicuousness and image-based nature of objects under
study. Because self-brand congruity measures did not explain
large amounts of variance, future research should focus on the
identification and testing of other variables that will increase
the explanatory power of the model.
Additionally, as argued by congruity theorist Sirgy et al.
(1997), the technique of calculating congruity scores using
the same scales to measure both respondent self-image and
brand image perceptions are hampered by methodological
flaws. To address this issue, future research would benefit
from the development of a global type BPC measure,
similar to the global user-imagery measure or other innovative
techniques that would aid in the measurement of the brand
personality self-brand congruity construct.
Finally, researchers should examine individual brand
personality dimensions to determine if particular dimensions
are more predictive in a self-brand congruity model.
According to Aaker (1997), the brand personality
dimensions Sophistication and Ruggedness differ from
any known major dimension of human personality, and
suggest that these two dimensions may relate to or tap into
brand personality dimensions that individuals desire, but do
not necessarily have. In other words, consumers may
experience congruence with one dimension and not another.
By doing so, the brand personality construct may contribute
more explanatory power in self-congruity attitude models.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 347-56.
Aaker, J.L. (1999), The malleable self: the role of selfexpression in persuasion, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Belk, R.W. (1988), Possessions and the extended self,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 139-68.
Bellenger, D.N., Earl, S. and Wilber, W.S. (1976),
The congruence of store image and self image, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 52, Spring, pp. 17-32.
Birdwell, A.E. (1968), A study of influence of image
congruence on consumer choice, Journal of Business,
Vol. 41, pp. 76-88.
Bower, B. (1999), When stones come to life: researchers
ponder the curious human tendency to view all sorts of
things as alive, Science News, Vol. 155, pp. 360-2.
182
Brian T. Parker
Further reading
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), The importance of
the brand in brand extensions, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31, pp. 214-28.
Brian T. Parker
184