Construct · 4 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · a personality scale that measures image Nearest construct by meaningself-brand connectioncompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to brand personality is self-brand connection.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The set of human characteristics that consumers associate with a brand, in Jennifer Aaker's 1997 definition and the scale that made the idea usable in practice. Aaker gathered hundreds of personality-like traits, had respondents rate well-known brands on them, and reduced the ratings by factor analysis to five dimensions she named sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. The five-factor shape deliberately echoes the Big Five of human personality, although only two of the labels line up and the brand factors came from brand ratings rather than from people describing themselves. The referent is a perception consumers hold about a commercial object, scored by agreement with trait adjectives, not an inner disposition of any mind. Marketers use it to give a brand a recognisable character and to set it apart from rivals selling much the same thing.[1]
The wider bundle of associations a brand brings to mind, of which personality is only one part, and the construct that Azoulay and Kapferer argue Aaker's scale actually captures. In a 2003 critique they show that several scale items, such as those tapping competence, class, or the outdoor imagery behind ruggedness, describe a brand's reputation, its typical user, or its origin rather than any trait a person could hold. On their reading much of what the scale measures is brand image or brand identity in a personality costume, so a high score need not mean the brand has a distinct character at all. The existing pages on image and brand equity treat these neighbouring associations directly. The distinction matters because a measure that quietly folds image into personality cannot tell a manager which of the two a campaign actually moved.[2]
The degree of match between the personality or image a consumer reads into a brand and the way that consumer sees, or wishes to see, themselves. Sirgy's 1982 review of self-concept in consumer behaviour set out how people prefer brands whose symbolic meaning fits their actual or ideal self, and how that fit predicts preference and choice. Brand personality is what makes the match possible, since a brand can mirror a self only once it is described in person-like terms. This is why the two ideas are hard to keep apart: a study of self-congruity needs a brand personality to compare the self against, and a study of brand personality often justifies itself by the congruity it produces. The related page on congruence covers the more general form of the same fit.[3]
The finding that the five brand dimensions do not carry over from one culture to another, which undercuts the idea that they describe a stable structure. Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera reran the study in Japan and Spain in 2001 and recovered only part of the American set: Japanese respondents produced a peacefulness dimension in place of ruggedness, Spanish respondents a passion dimension, while sincerity, excitement, and competence turned up in each. If the dimensions shift with the market, the scale is charting the associations a particular culture attaches to brands, not a universal grammar of brand character. This is a validity problem in the ordinary meaning: a human personality structure that changed shape between countries would not be trusted as a measure of the same thing. It is a caution against treating the original five factors as if they travelled unchanged.[4]
Next
See how brand personality sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct