The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention - Evidence From the Chinese...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [City University of Hong Kong]On: 12 July 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 909150473]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Global MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792304011

The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention:Evidence From the Chinese Mainland's Automobile MarketXuehua Wang a; Zhilin Yang b; Ning Rong Liu c

a Faculty of Management and Administration, Macau University of Science and Technology, Avenida WaiLong, Taipa, Macau b Department of Marketing, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong c Schoolof Professional and Continuing Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Online Publication Date: 01 July 2009

To cite this Article Wang, Xuehua, Yang, Zhilin and Liu, Ning Rong(2009)'The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity onPurchase Intention: Evidence From the Chinese Mainland's Automobile Market',Journal of Global Marketing,22:3,199 — 215

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08911760902845023

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08911760902845023

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792304011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08911760902845023

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Journal of Global Marketing, 22:199–215, 2009Copyright c© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0891-1762 print / 1528-6975 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08911760902845023

The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity onPurchase Intention: Evidence From the Chinese Mainland’s

Automobile Market

Xuehua WangZhilin Yang

Ning Rong Liu

ABSTRACT. This study focuses on comparison of the importance of product-brand personality and im-portance of company-brand personality characteristics as well as on investigation of product-/company-brand congruity and self-image congruence on purchase intention, within the context of ChineseMainland’s automobile industry. Results reveal that product-brand personality is more significant inaffecting purchase intention than company-brand personality. Furthermore, it is found that congruitybetween product-brand personality and company-brand personality acts as a moderating variable be-tween product-/company-brand personality and purchase intention. Of equal importance, it is foundthat self-image congruence with product-/company-brand personality positively affects purchase inten-tion, at a statistically significant level, and plays a moderating role between product-/company-brandpersonality and purchase intention. Implications for research, as well as for business practices, arediscussed.

KEYWORDS. Product-brand personality, company-brand personality, self-image congruence, China

INTRODUCTION

Consumers purchase products/brands notonly on the basis of their functions or quality,but do so, more importantly, because of the sym-bolic meanings contained in products/brands(Veryzer, 1995). Brands offer different valuesto consumers; these values basically include

The authors gratefully acknowledge a grant from the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong SAR (ProjectNo. 9041182, CityU 1454/06H) and a grant from City University of Hong Kong (CityU SRG Project No.7002182) for financial support.

Xuehua Wang is Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management and Administration, Macau University ofScience and Technology, Avenida Wai Long, Taipa, Macau. Zhilin Yang is Associate Professor, Departmentof Marketing, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Ning Rong Liu is Assistant Professor,School of Professional and Continuing Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Address correspondence to Xuehua Wang, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management and Admin-istration, Macau University of Science and Technology, Avenida Wai Long, Taipa, Macau. E-mail:[email protected]

functional (i.e., the problem-solving capabilityof a brand), experiential (i.e., benefits relatedto sensory enjoyment or cognitive arousal), andsymbolic brand benefits (i.e., the signal effectsshown to others via the brand) (Keller, 1993).In addressing the symbolic benefits, many ar-ticles have concentrated on personality-relatedconcepts, such as brand personality (e.g., Biel,

199

Downloaded By: [City University of Hong Kong] At: 03:40 12 July 2009

200 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

1993), and self-image congruence (e.g., Sirgyet al., 2000) to investigate this phenomenon. Thepresent study also falls within this stream ofresearch.

In particular, this study aims to offer fivepotential contributions to the current brand-ing literature by addressing corresponding gaps.First, we aim to address the question as towhich trait, whether product-brand personalityor company-brand personality, is more signif-icant than the other in influencing consumers’purchase intention; second, it is desirable to in-vestigate whether congruity between product-and company-brand personality would influenceconsumers’ decision making; third, this studyalso examines the self-image congruity issues inconsumers’ brand purchasing behavior; fourth,we intend to develop company- and product-brand personality scales, specifically in theMainland China’s automobile industry; and fifth,this study was conducted in the Chinese Main-land, a major emerging economy; therefore,with successful replications, our findings maybe generalizable to other emerging countries orareas.

An important notion in the context of branddifferentiation, which is currently receiving in-creasing attention in the marketing domain, isbrand personality (Aaker, 1997). It describesthe phenomenon that a brand is often associ-ated with human personality traits. A favorablebrand personality can increase consumer pref-erence and usage (Sirgy, 1982), foster feelingsof comfort and confidence in the minds of con-sumers (Biel, 1993), enhance levels of loyaltyand trust (Fournier, 1998), and can provide a ba-sis for brand differentiation among the myriadbrands in the market, hence potentially influenc-ing consumers’ brand purchase intention (Keller,1993, 2003).

Prior brand personality literature suggeststhat the more congruent the product-brand per-sonality is with the human characteristics ofan individual’s self-concept, the more positivehis/her attitudes toward the product will be(Sirgy, 1982). Similarly, company brands alsohave their particular personalities, which con-tribute to overall company images. For instance,when talking about Citroen, consumers wouldbe more likely to relate this auto manufacturer to

such human characteristics as confidence, pres-tige, and attractiveness. In line with prior lit-erature on brand personality (Biel, 1993; Mc-Cracken, 1986; Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy et al., 2000),it is suggested that company-brand personalitycan also impact consumers’ purchase intention.Hence, the more important that a company’sbrand personality characteristics are to an indi-vidual, the higher the purchase intention tends tobe.

Some firms extend their company brandsto individual products. For instance, in China,Mengniu (a company brand in the milk indus-try) is extensively used in its different productlines. There are also other firms that prefer touse a new name for their products and/or at thesame time associate their products with com-pany brands. For example, Coca Cola creates anumber of new brands for their products in theChina market, such as Fanta, and its companybrand also appears in product packages. Thisstudy focuses on those companies who not onlyutilize new brands for their products, but alsoassociate their products with company brands;this practice has been widely used in the Chinamarket.

However, few studies have answered the ques-tion as to which trait, whether product-brand per-sonality or company-brand personality, is moresignificant in influencing consumers’ purchaseintention. (e.g., Barich & Philip, 1991; Gregory,1997). This is important in providing insights forresearch as well as for practice. To address rel-atively scarce coverage of this concept in priorliterature, this study aims to empirically com-pare the importance of product-brand personal-ity with the importance of company-brand per-sonality on purchase intention, specifically in theChinese Mainland’s automobile industry. Fur-thermore, the influence of congruity betweencompany-brand personality and product-brandpersonality on purchase intention is also empir-ically tested.

Another important concept in the sameresearch stream regarding personality-relatedaspects of brands is self-image congruence.Consumer behavior literature has pointed outthat self-image congruence with product/brandimage can influence product/brand prefer-ence, brand choice, customer satisfaction, and


Wang, Yang, and Liu 201

purchase intention (Sirgy et al., 1997).Kressmann et al. (2006) further find that self-image congruity can motivate consumers to pro-cess product-/brand-related information, result-ing in higher product/brand involvement. How-ever, only a handful of studies have focused onself-image congruity with a brand’s personal-ity characteristics (e.g., Govers & Schoormans,2005; Murphy et al., 2007), which is significantin providing insights into consumer purchase be-havior. Hence, this study also aims to investigatewhether or not consumers emphasize self-imagecongruity with company- or product-brandpersonality when purchasing, particularly inChinese Mainland’s auto industry.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND ANDHYPOTHESES

The primary conceptual framework featuredin this study is presented in Figure 1, pertaining

to company-brand personality, product-brandpersonality, importance of company-brandpersonality, importance of product-brand per-sonality, self-image congruity with company-brand personality, and self-image congruity withproduct-brand personality as independent vari-ables, product knowledge as a control variable,congruity of company-/product-brand personal-ity and self-image congruity with company- orproduct-brand personality as moderating vari-ables, and purchase intention towards the brandas the dependent variable.

Brand Personality

Brand personality refers to the human charac-teristics associated with a specific brand (Aaker,1997; Govers & Schoormans, 2005). Varyingthe emphasis somewhat, Sweeney and Brandon(2006, p. 645) regard brand personality fromthe perspective of an interpersonal relationshipwith the brand. They believe that brand person-ality is “the set of human personality traits that

FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model



correspond to the interpersonal domain of hu-man personality and are relevant to describingthe brand as a relationship partner.”

In general, the role of brand personality inmarketing is typically regarded as an importantpromotional tool appealing to targeted audiencesfor development of an overall image (Gwinner& Eaton, 1999). To illustrate this concept, Pepsi,for instance, may be portrayed with a fashion-able, energetic, and modern young man; whereasCoca-Cola could be personified with a gentleand conservative man. This may be partly dueto advertisers’ strategies to personify brands,so that when consumers think about a par-ticular brand, human personality traits wouldcome to mind, thus providing a basis for branddifferentiation.

Furthermore, Keller (1993) points out thatbrand personality possesses symbolic valuesrather than utilitarian functions. By imbuingbrands with human personalities and throughpurchasing and/or using the brands, consumerscan achieve higher self-esteem (Belk et al., 1982;McCracken, 1986). Sources that contribute tothe formation of brand personality can be clas-sified into two categories: direct and indirectsources (Aaker, 1997). The direct sources in-clude the set of human characteristics associatedwith a typical brand user, company employees,the CEO of the company, and brand endorsers.The indirect sources consist of all the decisionsmade by company managers, such as decisionsrelated to the product, its price, distribution, andpromotion.

Recent research findings indicate that a strongand positive brand personality can result in fa-vorable product evaluations (e.g., Wang & Yang,2008). Demonstrating this notion, Freling andForbes (2005) find that, when respondents areexposed to a brand’s positive personalities, theytend to have a greater proportion of congru-ent brand associations, greater unique brand as-sociations, and a greater proportion of strongbrand associations. Fennis, Pruyn, and Maasland(2005) observe that brand personality dimen-sions could affect consumers’ self-perceptionswith respect to agreeableness, extroversion, con-scientiousness, and intellect. Aaker (1991) alsopoints out that a distinctively positive brand per-sonality could be highly indicative of more fa-vorable brand equity than when only product

information is given. Thus, we hypothesizethat:

H1: The more favorable the perceived brandpersonalities, the more likely is the pur-chase intention of a brand.

Importance of Brand Personalityto Consumers

Brands can be classified into company brandsand product brands. As is the case with prod-uct brands, company brands can also be asso-ciated with human characteristics and are re-garded as a subset contributing to the overallimage of the company. Thus, it could be inferredthat consumers may rate purchase intention highfor company brands whose personality charac-teristics are more favorable than those of oth-ers. Thus, importance of brand personality maybe classified as importance of company-brandpersonality and importance of product-brandpersonality.

Regarding the problem focused on whichtype of importance may exert more significantinfluence on purchase intention, few studieshave provided insights (e.g., Kralingen, 1999).Brand personality has been extensively stud-ied in the last decade; most of these studiescenter on product brands. For instance, Fen-nis, Pruyn, and Maasland (2005) observe that aproduct’s brand personality could affect ratingson consumer agreeableness, self-perceptions ofhedonism, and sophistication. Czellar (2003)proposes four key processes in forming brandextension attitudes, one of them being the per-ception of fit or similarity between the extensionbrands and the parent brands.

Company brands can be differentiated in con-sumers’ minds by means of establishing variousvaluable brand associations, including valuesand images, company credibility, and com-mon product attributes (Barich & Philip, 1991;Gregory, 1997). Company-brand personality isa key component of company image and de-pends on the perceptions, values, and actions ofall company employees. Indeed, company-brandpersonality reflects an indirect force in affect-ing consumer behavior, compared with product-brand personality (Keller & Richey, 2006).The hierarchy of the effects model suggests



that a company brand provides an overall judg-ment preceding a product brand that offers anevaluation immediately before a specific pur-chase situation (Keller, 2003). Hence, product-brand personality may represent a direct forceexerted on consumers’ decision-making, whilecompany-brand personality might be an indirectinfluence, and thus might be less significant. Aspointed out by Hsieh, Pan, and Setiono (2004),company image works as inferential informationaffecting consumers’ decision-making. There-fore, we hypothesize:

H2: Importance of product-brand personalityis likely to be more significant in affect-ing purchase intention than importance ofcompany-brand personality.

Keller and Richey (2006) observe thatcompany-brand personality can reflect companycredibility, programs and values, as well as com-mon attributes or benefits contained in prod-ucts, the associations of which are much widerthan those of product-brand personality. That is,company-brand personality possesses a level su-perior to that of product-brand personality, andat the same time product-brand personality canbe reflected in perceptions of company-brandpersonality (Keller, 2003). It is proposed that ifconsumers perceive products favorably, then thecompany image would also be positive, as a re-sult of the strong unit link (Heider, 1958). Manraiet al. (1997) find that when consumers believea product is truly green, their perception towardthe company’s environmental image would alsobe environmentally friendly. On the other hand,when a new product is offered to consumers,about which they have limited knowledge, theywould almost certainly use company-brand per-sonality characteristics as a cue to quality andpurchase intention (Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal,1991).

High congruity occurs when company-brandpersonality matches product-brand personality,and vice versa (Hsieh, Pan, & Setiono, 2004).Under a scenario of high congruity, company-/product-brand personality associations mayhave a high degree of relevance to each other(Ahluwalia & Gurhan-Canli, 2000). Conse-quently, it is likely that consumers make useof this highly specific associative information

for evaluation of each other regarding purchaseintention and may transfer certain associationsto each other (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991).Conversely, when faced with company-/product-brand personality that is judged to be mis-matched or less related, it is less likely that con-sumers will utilize company- or product-brandpersonality information to judge each other interms of purchase intention (Taylor & Bearden,2002).

Thus, a consequence of such a difference be-tween congruity and incongruity may be thatcompany-/product-brand personality would ex-ert a larger positive effect on purchase intentionof congruent match-ups than incongruent match-ups. That is, under a high congruity sce-nario, company-/product-brand personality mayexert a stronger positive influence on con-sumers’ purchase intention. On the other hand,when low congruity occurs, the link betweencompany/product-brand personality and con-sumers’ purchase intention may be weak,indicating the moderating effect of congruity be-tween company-brand personality and product-brand personality.

Congruity of company-/product-brand per-sonality may thus be hypothesized as a moder-ating, rather than an independent variable in thisstudy. We first aim to compare the importanceof product-brand personality characteristics withcompany-brand personality characteristics onpurchase intention; subsequently, we investi-gate the moderating effects of their congruityon purchase intention. This congruity variablerepresents a difference between company- andproduct-brand personality; therefore, it maybe more reasonable to treat it as a moder-ating variable rather than as an independentvariable.

Hence, we hypothesize that:

H3: Congruity between company-brand per-sonality and product-brand personalitytends to act as a moderating variable inthe relationship between company-brandpersonality and purchase intention of thebrand.

H4: Congruity between company-brand per-sonality and product-brand personalitytends to act as a moderating variable inthe relationship between product-brand



personality and purchase intention of thebrand.

Self-Image Congruity1

Self-congruity theory suggests that the con-gruence between consumers’ self-concept andthe product/brand-user image can partially af-fect consumer behavior (Sirgy et al., 1997). Sirgy(1982) further differentiates four self-congruitytypes based on four types of self-concept, i.e.,actual, ideal, social, and ideal social congruity.Actual congruity is defined as the congruencebetween how consumers actually see themselvesin terms of a set of attributes and how theythink a typical user of a specific brand shouldbe, regarding the same set of attributes. As tothe other three congruity types, the attributes ofa typical brand user are compared to how con-sumers would like to be (ideal congruity), howthey think significant others consider them (so-cial congruity), and how they want to be seen bysignificant others (ideal social congruity). Whenbrand-user image matches an individual’s selfimage, high self-congruity occurs (Sirgy et al.,1997). In contrast, low-self congruity refers to asituation in which s/he believes the comparisonbetween brand-user image and self-image doesnot match.

Brand value consists of functional and sym-bolic dimensions. According to Grubb andGrathwohl (1967), self-image is of value to aconsumer, and thus, behavior is motivated toprotect and enhance it; therefore, the purchaseand display of products/brands act as symbols tothe individual as well as his or her close others.Thus, the symbolic aspect of a brand, such asbrand personality, is considered more importantto self than the brand’s functional side. In China,auto purchase, which is highly appreciated byChinese consumers (Zhou & Belk, 2004) indi-cates that the buyer possesses more wealth andeven higher social status than a nonpurchaser.Hence, the symbolic dimension of a brand out-weighs the importance of functional elements in

1We owe this idea, in large part, to one of theanonymous reviewers.

affecting auto product purchase intention in theChinese mainland.

Moreover, marketing literature offers evi-dence for the effect of self-image congruenceon brand choice, preference, and loyalty (e.g.,Ericksen & Sirgy, 1992; Sirgy, 1985; Sirgyet al., 2000; Sirgy & Johar, 1999). Some stud-ies have investigated the congruence betweenstore image and self-image on product per-ception and purchase intention (e.g., Bloemer& Oderkerken-Schroder, 2002; D’Astous &Gargouri, 2001). However, substantive evidenceis lacking regarding self-image congruence withproduct-brand personality. A considerable num-ber of prior studies have suggested that self-image congruence results in better productevaluation, greater satisfaction, and even higherpurchase intention (e.g., Ericksen & Sirgy,1992; Sirgy, 1985; Sirgy et al., 2000; Sirgy &Johar, 1999). Hence, consistent with prior re-search on the positive impact of self-image con-gruence on purchase intention, we hypothesizethat:

H5: The higher the perceived degree ofself-image and company-brand personalitycongruity, the more likely is the purchaseintention toward the brand.

H6: The higher the perceived degree of self-image and product-brand personality con-gruity, the more likely is the purchase in-tention toward the brand.

When the company-/product-brand person-ality is judged to be conceptually matched toself-image, consumers are more likely to useinformation and perceptions about company-/product-brand personality in subsequent pur-chase decision making (Taylor & Bearden,2002). In contrast, if consumers perceive thatcompany-/product-brand personality is mis-matched to their self-image, they may beless likely to make use of company-/product-brand personality information in their deci-sion making. Thus, company-/product-brandpersonality tends to exert a larger positive ef-fect on purchase intention of self-image con-gruity than does self-image incongruity. Thatis, in a context of high self-image congruity,company-/product-brand personality may exert



a stronger influence on purchase intention;while, when low congruity occurs, this influencetends to be minimal. Therefore, we hypothesizethat:

H7: Self-image congruity with company-brand personality tends to act as a moder-ating variable in the relationship betweencompany-brand personality and the pur-chase intention toward the brand.

H8: Self-image congruity with product-brandpersonality tends to act as a moderat-ing variable in the relationship betweenproduct-brand personality and the pur-chase intention toward the brand.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Two types of brand personality measures canbe found in existing literature: general scales(i.e., those borrowed directly from personal-ity psychology without validation for brands)and brand-specific measures. Only a few stud-ies have specifically developed measures forbrand personality, including Aaker (1997). Shedevelops a five-dimensional scale, includingsincerity (inclusive of down-to-earth, honest,wholesome, and cheerful), excitement (daring,spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date), compe-tence (reliable, intelligent, and successful), so-phistication (upper class and charming) andruggedness (outdoorsy and tough). However,brand personality components may vary acrossdifferent industries and across different coun-tries or areas. For instance, the components ofbrand personality in catering services may differfrom those in the automotive industry. Rojas-Mendez, Erenchun-Podlech, and Silva-Olave(2004)’s study, which investigates the Ford brandpersonality in Chile, finds that the componentof “ruggedness” in Aaker (1997)’s scale doesnot result in acceptable reliability and validity.Hence, a uniform instrument might threaten atest’s reliability and validity. Therefore, it is de-sirable to examine and validate dimensions ofbrand personality for different industries and indifferent countries before application.

We chose the Chinese Mainland automobileindustry as our research setting for two reasons.

First, since inception of the open-door pol-icy in China, many famous foreign automobilecompanies, such as Volkswagen and GeneralMotors, have come to China to establish jointventures (hereafter JVs) with local Chinese au-tomobile companies. Foreign-branded cars nowoccupy almost 70% of the domestic automobilemarket, which, with many other local-brandedcars, could furnish an ideal setting to studybrand perceptions. Second, in view of the im-pressively consistent growth patterns of China’seconomy, Chinese demand for automobiles hasbeen growing at the astounding annual rate ofover 20% (www.gasgoo.com, Oct. 21, 2008).In fact, China is expected to become the thirdlargest automobile market in the world, with aprojected 6% global automobile market share in2010, account being taken of the potentially ad-verse impact of the current financial crisis. Fur-ther, in 2020, assuming the crisis has abated, au-tomobile demand in China is anticipated to reach20.74 million units (www.chinadaily.com.cn,Oct. 21, 2008). Given the scale of China’stremendous growth in the automobile mar-ket, it is desirable and important to delve in-sightfully into the primary factors influenc-ing Chinese consumers’ automobile purchasebehavior.

Data Collection and Sample

The survey was conducted in four majorChinese Mainland cities, i.e., Beijing, Shang-hai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu. These four citiesenjoy a higher income per capita and a betterstandard of living than other cities in the Chi-nese Mainland; therefore, there are more poten-tial automobile buyers and owners in these loca-tions, providing a more solid statistical foun-dation. Survey brands included two sets, i.e.,company brands (including FAW Volkswagen,Shanghai General Motors, Guangzhou Honda,Tianjin Toyota, Dongfeng Nissan, FAW Mazda,BHMC, Dongfeng Citroen, Changan Ford,Shanghai Volkswagen, and Dongfeng Peugeot,which constitute the major auto company brandsin China) and corresponding product brands (in-cluding Passat, Bora, Santana 3000, Excelle,Vios, Bluebird, Sunny, Sonata, Elantra, Familiar,Corolla, Mazada 6, Elysee, Accord, and Peugeot



307). A well-trained interviewer was requiredto ask each respondent, in person, all questionscontained in the questionnaire, and, on comple-tion of this task, each respondent received 100RMB as nominal compensation.

The sample respondents were recruited by alarge research agency in China. A total of 800questionnaires were distributed in this study. Fi-nally, 477 usable cases with a response rate of59.6% were collected. There were 225 female(47.2%) and 252 male respondents (52.8%).The respondents’ ages were mainly above 30years old (69.8%). Most of them had juniorcollege diplomas or higher (66.0%). Their ca-reers primarily fell into two categories: busi-ness and research. Most respondents had a per-sonal monthly income of more than 5,000 RMB(45.8%) and a monthly household income ofmore than 8,000 RMB (53.4%).

Measurement Development and Validation

Initially, we held six focus groups, each last-ing about 55 minutes, with six respondentsin each group to qualitatively document con-sumers’ perception of the major automobilecompanies as well as their corresponding brandsin China. Two focus groups were conductedin Beijing and Shanghai respectively, one inGuangzhou, and another in Chengdu. Beijingand Shanghai, to a certain extent, are highly ad-vanced and more complicated than Guangzhouand Chengdu in terms of economy and poli-tics, thus we believe consumers in Beijing andShanghai may display larger variations in termsof automotive perceptions. Consequently, weconducted two focus groups in each of thesetwo cities. To increase generalizability, we alsoconducted one focus group in Guangzhou andChengdu, respectively. We believe results fromthese six groups are sufficiently representa-tive to qualitatively describe consumers’ per-ceptions of automobiles. Group members wererecruited by a research agency. They all pos-sessed respectable jobs such as university teach-ers, lawyers, and physicians with a monthlyincome of, or higher than, 5,000 RMB. Dur-ing each of the focus group sessions, respon-dents were first asked whether they currentlyowned a car or would buy a car in the near

future; and, then, they were asked, if they wantedto buy another car, what brand would it beand why they selected that brand. In their dis-cussion, we found that certain brand personal-ity characteristics, such as status, fashion, andprestige, were frequently mentioned by respon-dents. Two bilingual assistants translated allavailable written materials into English. Oneauthor corrected and verified these translations.Then, each author conducted independent read-ings on, and analyses of, consumer perceptionof the major auto brands in China and themain factors influencing consumers’ purchaseintention. These separate analyses were thencategorized through further discussion. Someitems in Aaker (1997)’s scale appear, such asleader, technical, corporate, and down-to-earth;others that we identified, not on her scale, in-cluded modern, formal, humanized, practical,exquisite, sporty, proud, optimistic, and self-affirmative.

For company-brand personality, the qualita-tive analysis identified 15 dimensions, whichwere sorted into three groups: (1) quality-relatedfacets (inclusive of leader, technical, down-to-earth, upper class, modern, formal, humanized);(2) performance-related facets (reliable, secure,practical, friendly, trustworthy, honest); and (3)design-related facets (attractive and intelligent).For product-brand personality, the qualitativeanalysis identified 20 dimensions, which werenarrowed down to two operative factors: (1)a design-related factor (attractive, intelligent,leader, technical, down-to-earth, exquisite, con-siderate, friendly, upper class, sporty, modern,formal, proud, optimistic, humanized); and (2)a performance-related factor (reliable, secure,practical, self-affirmative, trustworthy).

The final pool of measurement items was de-termined by using the results achieved from thefocus groups and, at the same time, by solicitingsuggestions from experts in this field. Subse-quently, we conducted a survey in the four pre-viously selected Chinese cities. Data from thissurvey was then subjected to confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) in order to check the reliabilityand validity of each construct. Some insignifi-cant items were excluded from the final dataset.Hence, the pool of measurement items was ulti-mately determined.



Reliability and Validity of Company-BrandPersonality

The reliability of each factor was tested byusing its Cronbach’s Alpha, which producedreadings of .95, .94, and .91, respectively, allgreater than .7, as Nunnally and Bernstein (1994)propose. The t-values of all indicator loadingswere larger than the critical value (2.78) at thep < .01 level, suggesting that each indicator washighly relevant and acceptable. The CFA allowsfor a validity assessment of the measures used.The fit indices in Table 1 (χ2/df = 2.54, p =.000, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = .85, confir-matory fit index [CFI] = .96, normed fit index[NFI] = .93, root mean square error of approx-imation [RMSEA] = .095) suggest a good fitof the measurement model. Therefore, evidenceof trait validity is provided for the dependentmeasures (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

Reliability and Validity of Product-BrandPersonality

The reliability of each factor in product-brandpersonality was tested by using Cronbach’s Al-pha, which resulted in .91 and .96, respec-tively, both greater than .7. Consistent with theprior methodology used for validity checks oncompany-brand personality, confirmatory fac-tor analysis (CFA) was utilized. The fit indices(χ2/df = 1.95, p = .000, GFI = .88, CFI = .97,NFI = .95, RMSEA = .05) suggest a good fit ofthe measurement model.

Thus, the final questionnaire consisted of twoparts; one part was focused on four sets ofmeasures: company-brand personality, product-brand personality, self-image congruence, pur-chase intention and a control variable of prod-uct knowledge; whereas, the other part wasto collect demographic information such asage, gender, income level, etc. Company-brandpersonality and product-brand personality weremeasured by using the two scales developed pre-viously. The importance to consumers of eachdimension in the two brand personality scaleswas measured by using a 7-point semantic dif-ferential scale to respond to the sentence “pleasecircle one of the numbers below to describethe importance of each item to you for brand

evaluation” with the anchors being “not at all im-portant” and “extremely important.” Self-imagecongruence was measured by adapting Sirgyet al. (1997)’s 7-point scale with a Cronbach’scoefficient alpha of .89, which has been exten-sively used in prior research (e.g., O’Cass &Grace, 2008). Respondents were asked to useeach of the company/product brands as a frameof reference in responding to the self-image con-gruence scale items, which include “the brandimage is consistent with my self-image,” “thebrand image reflects who I am,” “people similarto me use such a brand,” “other users are verymuch like me” and “this brand image is a mir-ror image of me.” The CFA fit indices for self-image congruence (χ2/df = 1.82, p = .000, GFI= .87, CFI = .95, NFI = .96, RMSEA = .05)suggest a good fit of the measurement model. A7-point Likert item with 1 meaning “absolutelyimpossible” and 7 “absolutely possible” was em-ployed to measure purchase intention (Doddset al., 1991).

Product knowledge refers to consumer mem-ories and/or understanding related to the prod-uct (Brucks, 1985). As pointed out by Petty andCacioppo (1981), when a consumer is highly in-volved in purchasing a product, s/he would be in-clined to engage in a detailed information searchabout product pros and cons, which can posi-tively affect his/her decision making as well aspurchase intention (Rao & Sieben, 1992). Sinceproduct knowledge has been identified as a po-tential factor influencing purchase intention, weincluded it as a control variable. Product knowl-edge was measured by using a 7-point seman-tic differential scale to respond to the sentence“please circle one of the numbers below to de-scribe your familiarity with cars” with the an-chors being “not at all familiar” and “extremelyfamiliar” (Brucks, 1985).

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Congruity is the opposite of difference. Thus,we used difference measures to reflect con-gruity in this study. That is, the congruitywas computed from the difference betweenthe composite average of company-brand per-sonality ratings and the composite average of



product-brand personality ratings. Therefore,difference between importance of product-brandpersonality and importance of company-brand personality was computed by subtract-ing company-brand personality ratings fromproduct-brand personality characteristics rat-ings. Regression analysis was then employedto compare the extent of significance of thetwo types of importance on purchase inten-tion, after controlling for gender, age, educationlevel, personal/household monthly income, ca-reer/industry, and product knowledge. Gender,education, and industry were dummied in the re-gression analysis. The averages of scale items ofeach construct were used as inputs in the regres-sion analysis.

To test the assumption of linearity, we plottedthe observed versus predicted values and foundthat most of the points were symmetrically dis-tributed around a diagonal line, thus meeting thelinearity assumption. Results also revealed thatall the VIFs (Variance Inflation Factor) of the IVswere between 3 and 5, lower than the standardof 10 in practice (e.g., Marsh et al., 2004), thusindicating that the assumption of noncollinear-ity was met. We then plotted the fractiles of er-ror distribution versus the fractiles of a normaldistribution having the same mean and varianceand found that the points fell close to the di-agonal line, indicating that the distribution wasnormal.

Data analysis results show that only prod-uct knowledge is statistically significant at thep < .05 level. The reason that other control vari-ables (age, gender, income, and career/industry)were not significant may be that these variableswere not as important as other independent vari-ables (e.g., product-brand personality) in affect-ing purchase intention toward the brand.

It was hypothesized in H1 that brand person-ality tends to be positively related to purchaseintention. According to Table 1, regression re-sults showed that only product-brand personal-ity exerted significant positive influence on pur-chase intention. Company-brand personality didnot generate significant results, although its di-rection is positive in influencing purchase inten-tion. Thus, H1 is partially supported.

H2 predicted that the importance of product-brand personality is likely to be more significant

in affecting purchase intention than is impor-tance of company-brand personality. As shownby models 4 and 5 in Table 1, regression re-sults revealed that importance of product-brandpersonality characteristics produced a moresignificant positive standardized coefficient onpurchase intention (.29) at the p < .05 level,than did the importance of company-brand per-sonality (.14), indicating that, to consumers, theimportance of product-brand personality couldexert more significant positive influence on pur-chase intention than could the importance ofcompany-brand personality; thus, H2 is sup-ported.

H3 and H4 hypothesized that congruity be-tween company-brand personality and product-brand personality would act as moderatingvariables in the relationship between company-/product-brand personality and purchase inten-tion. According to models 8 and 9 in Table 1, theinteraction effects between company-/product-brand personality and purchase intention areboth statistically significant at the p < .05 level.Therefore, H3 and H4 are both supported. Theinteraction effects are also presented in Figures 2and 3. Based on the two figures, the direction ofthe relationships is not moderated by congruity,but the effects are more pronounced for respon-dents with high congruity than for those withlow congruity.

H5 and H6 predicted that the perceived de-gree of self-image congruence with company-/product-brand personality would be positivelyassociated with purchase intention toward thebrand. Based on models 6 and 7 in Table 1,self-image congruence produced significant pos-itive standardized coefficients on purchase inten-tion for company-brand personality (.31) and forproduct-brand personality (.33), both of whichare significant at the p < .05 level. Hence, H5and H6 are supported.

H7 and H8 hypothesized that self-image con-gruity with company-/product-brand personal-ity would moderate the relationship betweencompany-/product-brand personality and pur-chase intention. According to models 10 and11, the interaction effects between company-/product-brand personality and purchase inten-tion are statistically significant at the p < .05level. Therefore, H7 and H8 are both supported.


TAB

LE1.

Hie

rarc

hica

lReg

ress

ion

Ana

lysi

sR

esul

ts(D

V:P

urch

ase

Inte

ntio

n)

IVs

Mod

el1

Mod

el2

Mod

el3

Mod

el4

Mod

el5

Mod

el6

Mod

el7

Mod

el8

Mod

el9

Mod

el10

Mod

el11

Age

a√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

Gen

dera

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√E

duca

tiona

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√In

dust

rya

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√P

MIb

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√H

MIc

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√P

Kd

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√C

BP

e√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√(.

09)1

(.07

)1(.

07)1

(.08

)1(.

09)1

(.07

)1(.

09)1

(.08

)1(.

08)1

(.07

)1

PB

Pf

√√

√√

√√

√√

√(.

37)1∗

(.36

)1∗(.

36)1∗

(.33

)1∗(.

31)1∗

(.32

)1∗(.

31)1∗

(.30

)1∗(.

30)1∗

ICB

Pe

′√

√√

√√

√√

√(.

14)1∗

(.12

)1∗(.

12)1∗

(.10

)1∗(.

11)1∗

(.10

)1∗(.

09)1∗

(.09

)1∗

IPB

Pf′

√√

√√

√√

√(.

29)1∗

(.28

)1∗(.

26)1∗

(.25

)1∗(.

25)1∗

(.23

)1∗(.

22)1∗

SIC

with

√√

√√

√√

CB

Pg

(.31

)1∗(.

29)1∗

(.27

)1∗(.

28)1∗

(.29

)1∗(.

25)1∗

SIC

with

√√

√√

√P

BP

g(.

33)1∗

(.30

)1∗(.

29)1∗

(.29

)1∗(.

28)1∗

Con

grui

tyh

√√

√√

×CB

P(.

32)1∗

(.30

)1∗(.

29)1∗

(.28

)1∗C

ongr

uity

×√

√√

PB

P(.

30)1∗

(.26

)1∗(.

25)1∗

SIC

with

√√

CB

P×C

BP

(.28

)1∗(.

26)1∗

SIC

with

√P

BP

×PB

P(.

27)1∗

Con

stan

t2.

872.

113.

523.

176.

328.

778.

908.

127.

5010

.14

11.1

0F

6.41

26.

962

9.22

211

.542

14.1

2217

.182

19.2

0221

.972

23.6

5226

.772

29.3

02

R2

.11

.12

.21

.27

.33

.40

.44

.50

.54

.56

.58

R2ch

ange

.11∗

.01

.09∗

.06∗

.06∗

.07∗

.04∗

.06∗

.04∗

.02∗

.02∗

Adj

.R2

.10

.10

.19

.25

.33

.43

.43

.49

.53

.55

.57

pva

lue

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

Not

e.are

pres

ents

that

the

varia

ble

was

dum

mie

dbe

fore

data

anal

ysis

;bis

pers

onal

mon

thly

inco

me;

c is

hous

ehol

dm

onth

lyin

com

e;dis

prod

uctk

now

ledg

e;e i

sco

mpa

ny-b

rand

pers

onal

ity;f

ispr

oduc

t-br

and

pers

onal

ity;e

′ isim

port

ance

ofco

mpa

ny-b

rand

pers

onal

ity;f′

isim

port

ance

ofpr

oduc

t-br

and

pers

onal

ity;g

isse

lf-im

age

cong

ruen

ce;h

isco

ngru

ityof

com

pany

-/pr

oduc

t-br

and

pers

onal

ity;1

isth

est

anda

rdiz

edre

gres

sion

coef

ficie

nt.

*p<

.05.

209



FIGURE 2. Company-Brand Personality by Congruity of Company-/Product-Brand PersonalityInteraction on Purchase Intention

The interaction effects of self-image congruityare presented in Figures 4 and 5. According tothese two figures, the direction of the relation-ships is not moderated by congruity, but the ef-fects are more pronounced for respondents withhigh self-image congruity than for those withlow self-image congruity.

DISCUSSION

The principal focus of this study was tocompare the importance of product- withcompany-brand personality, their congruity,and self-image congruence on purchase inten-tion, specifically in the Chinese Mainland’s

FIGURE 3. Product-Brand Personality by Congruity of Company-/Product-Brand PersonalityInteraction on Purchase Intention



FIGURE 4. Company-Brand Personality by Self-Image Congruity Interaction on Purchase Intention

automobile industry. Results indicate thatproduct-brand personality is more signifi-cant in affecting purchase intention than iscompany-brand personality. Congruity betweenproduct-brand personality and company-brandpersonality acts as a moderating variable be-tween product/company-brand personality andpurchase intention. In addition, self-image

congruence with product-/company-brand per-sonality is found to positively affect purchaseintention, at a statistically significant level,and plays a moderating role between product-/company-brand personality and purchaseintention.

It is surprising that the importance ofcompany-brand personality does not affect

FIGURE 5. Product-Brand Personality by Self-Image Congruity Interaction on Purchase Intention



consumers’ purchase intention. The reason maybe that, although consumers do consider com-pany brands when buying a car, they rely moreheavily on product brands, reflecting the over-riding value of consumer pragmatism in today’sChina, as determined by our focus group results.JV companies need to note that it is no longersufficient to attract consumers merely with theirforeign partner’s global image in the automo-bile industry. Indeed, a foreign manufacturer’sglobal image is not necessarily as significant asmight have been assumed in current-day China.By way of contrast, product brands are increas-ingly valued in terms of design and performance.As described by one of the respondents:

I first look at the functions and quality ofthe specific car type instead of the com-pany information. Because many of theauto companies in China now are joint ven-tures and, at the same time, the local autocompanies are more and more competitive,the differences between them are not sig-nificant to me. Of course, I also emphasizecompany images, but I do not rely only onthe auto companies’ global images to makea decision.

Our study also revealed that the more impor-tant and positive the product-brand personalityis, the higher the purchase intention tends to be.When a brand’s personality is perceived to bestrong and positive, which is important for prod-uct evaluations, consumers tend to remember thebrands more easily and typically demonstratehigher purchase intention toward the brandedproducts (Sirgy, 1982). A strong and positiveproduct-brand personality could help consumersto differentiate among the multitudinous prod-ucts on the market (Biel, 1993; Keller, 2003),and enable companies to occupy a more com-petitive market position.

It is also found that congruity betweencompany-brand personality and product-brandpersonality exerts a significant positive mod-erating effect between company-/product-brandpersonality and purchase intention, althoughtheir direct effect on purchase intention is notstatistically significant. As elaborated by oneof our respondents: “I don’t care whether the

product brand personalities fit in with the com-pany brand personalities, unless I find thecompany-/product-brand personalities are at-tractive to me,” thus showing the reason thatthe direct effect of congruity between company-brand personality and product-brand personal-ity is seldom significant in influencing pur-chase intention. Specifically, in the presence ofhigh company-/product-brand personality con-gruity, company-/product-brand personality ex-erts a stronger influence on purchase intention;while in a low congruity context, the influencewould tend to be weaker.

In line with prior research, self-image con-gruity with company-/product-brand personal-ity is found to significantly positively affectpurchase intention (e.g., Chebat et al., 2006;Sirgy, 1985). The higher the congruence of self-image with company-/product-brand personali-ties, the greater is the purchase intention. Themarketing literature addressing this issue alsoprovides similar evidence on the effects of self-image congruence on brand preference, loyalty,and satisfaction (e.g., Ericksen & Sirgy, 1992;Sirgy, 1985; Sirgy et al., 2000; Sirgy & Johar,1999). For instance, Chebat, Sirgy, and St-James(2006) recently suggested that shopping mallmanagers should customize the mall’s imageto match the self-image of the target audience.Self-image congruity with company-/product-brand personality is also found to positivelymoderate the relationship between company-/product-brand personality and purchase inten-tion. Under a scenario of high self-image con-gruence with company-/product-brand personal-ity, company-/product-brand personality wouldhave a stronger impact on purchase intention;while, when low congruity occurs, this impact islikely to be small.

In addition, we developed company- andproduct-brand personality scales, specifically inthe Chinese Mainland’s automobile industry.Brand personality components may vary acrossdifferent industries and across different countriesor areas. For instance, Sung and Tinkham (2005)observe that brand personality structures in theUnited States and Korea possess both commonand culture-specific factors. In the Korean brandpersonality construct, two culture-specific fac-tors, i.e., passive likeableness and ascendancy



related to Confucian values, emerge while in theU.S. brand personality construct, white collarand androgyny are specified as culture-specific,reflecting cultural values related to occupationalstatus and gender roles. Importantly, in lightof the foregoing findings, this study developstwo brand personality scales in the ChineseMainland’s automobile industry, both of whichachieve acceptable reliability and validity.

Managerial Implications

Our results also generate useful applica-tions for companies. First, a strong and posi-tive product-brand personality can exert signifi-cant influence on consumer purchase intention.Thus, designing a competitive branding strat-egy and effectively communicating strong brandpersonalities through ads and/or websites couldenhance consumers’ purchase intention. One ef-fective measure is to establish chat rooms orWeb-pages to introduce and promote productsby providing consumers with a virtual discussionforum, since many potential consumers turn tothe internet for relevant information about spe-cific products. This could familiarize consumerswith the company’s product brands, which, inturn, might enhance their purchase intention.

Furthermore, it is important for companiesto emphasize the importance of product-brandpersonality characteristics by means of targetingthe appropriate consumer segments. Improperpositioning could result in a significant decreasein purchase intention, as shown by our results.In addition, since brand personality is part ofthe brand’s overall image, it is also importantto build strong, favorable, and unique brand im-ages. One way is to use appropriate advertisingendorsers to establish desirable brand associa-tions. For instance, if a product is targeted at anupper-class consumer segment, using a foreigncelebrity endorser (typically from a developedcountry) could produce better results than em-ploying a local noncelebrity endorser in emerg-ing economies such as Chinese Mainland (Zhou& Belk, 2004).

At the same time, strong company brands canalso be helpful in increasing product brands’images via a variety of strategies, for exam-ple, through prominent logo displays on product

packaging. Such company-brand endorsementstrategies have often been utilized to addstrength, favorability and uniqueness of prod-uct brands. One point deserving attention is thatcompanies need to be extremely prudent in man-aging product brands, because failure will harmcompany brand images, and may also tarnish theimages of remaining products under the samecompany brand.

Importantly, it is essential for managers to re-alize the importance of self-image congruenceon purchase intention. They should pay closeattention to the meaning of product brand ele-ments aimed at specific target markets througheffective advertising. Specifically, in the ChineseMainland’s auto market, the desired elements ofa car brand should contain those brand associ-ations that Chinese consumers feel a car brandshould possess, such as prestige, patriotism, orfashion. In this regard, studies in different localChina markets appear necessary to offer helpfulguidance.

To further illustrate the strategic implicationsof our research findings, we present a small casein practice. Haier is one of the major home-appliances manufacturers in the Chinese Main-land. Haier, as a strong company brand acrossthe world, can improve its sub-brand’s equity byadding strength, favorability and uniqueness. Italso creates new names for its products, such as“Little Prince” for one of its refrigerator mod-els. Consumers buy “Little Prince” not only be-cause it is a Haier product, but also because ithas desirable functions and high performance.Moreover, young consumers prefer to buy“Little Prince” because its image is consideredas modern and fashionable, which especially ap-peals to the image of young couples, showing thesignificance of self-image congruence in affect-ing consumers’ purchase behavior.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURERESEARCH

Limitations of this study as well as direc-tions for future research need to be noted. Wedid not include product involvement as a controlvariable, which has been identified as a poten-tial factor that influences consumers’ purchase



decisions. Since the research setting of this studyis the automobile industry and auto purchasein itself is a high-involvement situation, weassume consumers are highly involved in thedecision-making process. However, there mightexist different degrees of product involvement,which could result in different attitudes in in-fluencing purchase behavior. Some respondentsmay be highly involved in and hold favorableattitudes toward the car brand in use, whichmay bias the sample. Therefore, future researchshould further investigate the effect of productinvolvement and exclude the bias sample effect.It is also possible that respondents might havefelt reluctant to evaluate the full range of brandand company stimuli, which may have nega-tively affected our survey quality. In addition,although using averages in regression analysisis acceptable (e.g., Taylor & Bearden, 2002),use of such an approach might have resulted inloss of some analytical detail.

We did not include pricing data or word-of-mouth dynamics in our study. Price is an impor-tant factor when consumers purchase valuables.Moreover, word-of-mouth may also exert influ-ence in the buying process. For instance, an in-dividual’s decision could be influenced by his orher friends who already own that product. There-fore, price and word-of-mouth effects should beexamined in future research.

Furthermore, we recognize that there are sev-eral largely unexplored factors influencing con-sumer purchase intention, such as personalitycharacteristics, social contexts, and peer pres-sure. Future research should also include addi-tional relevant variables to provide a more com-prehensive picture of consumer behavior in thisregard.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizingon the value of a brand name. New York: The FreePress.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.

Ahluwalia, R., & Gurhan-Canli, Z. (2000). The effects ofextensions on the family brand name: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Re-search, 27(December), 371–381.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structuralequation modeling in practice: a review and recom-mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,103(3), 411–423.

Barich, H., & Philip, K. (1991). A framework for imagemanagement. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 94–104.

Belk, R. W., Kenneth, D. B., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Devel-opmental recognition of consumption symbolism. Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 4–17.

Biel, A. (1993). Converting image into equity. In D. A.Aaker & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity and advertising(pp. 67–82). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bloemer, J., & Oderkerken-Schroder, G. (2002). Store sat-isfaction and store loyalty explained by customer- andstore-related factors. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 15, 68–80.

Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledgeon information search behavior. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12(2), 1–16.

Chebat, J., Sirgy, M. J., & St-James, V. (2006). Upscale im-age transfer from malls to stores: A self-image congru-ence explanation. Journal of Business Research, 59(12),1288–1296.

Czellar, S. (2003). Consumer attitude toward brand exten-sions: An integrative model and research propositions.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 97–115.

D’Astous A., & Gargouri, E. (2001). Consumer evaluationsof brand imitations. European Journal of Marketing,35(1/2), 153–160.

Dodds, B. K., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effect ofprice, brands, and store information on buyers’ productevaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.

Ericksen, M. K., & Sirgy, M. J. (1992). Employed females’clothing preference, self-image congruence, and careeranchorage. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(5),408–422.

Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Maasland, M. (2005). Re-visiting the malleable self: Brand effects on consumerself-perceptions of personality traits. Advances in Con-sumer Research, 32, 371–377.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Develop-ing relationship theory in consumer research. Journalof Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.

Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empiricalanalysis of the brand personality effect. The Jour-nal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 404–413.

Govers, P. C. M., & Schoormans, F. P. L. (2005). Productpersonality and its influence on consumer preference.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4/5), 189–197.

Gregory, J. (1997). Leveraging the corporate brand.Chicago: NTC Press.



Grubb, E., & Grathwohl, H. (1967). Consumer self-conceptand significant others. Journal of Marketing Research,8(3), 382–385.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand imagethrough event sponsorship: The role of image transfer.Journal of Advertising, 38(4), 47–57.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal rela-tions, New York: Wiley.

Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persua-sion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 17(March), 454–462.

Hsieh, M. H., Pan, S. L., & Setiono, R. (2004). Product-,corporate-, and country-image dimensions and purchasebehavior: A multicountry analysis. Journal of Academyof Marketing Science, 32(3), 251–270.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and man-aging customer-based brand equity. Journal of Market-ing, 57(2), 1–22.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management (2nd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Keller, K. L., & Richey, K. (2006). The importance ofcorporate brand personality traits to a successful 21stcentury business. Brand Management, 14(1/2), 74–81.

Kralingen, R. V. (1999). Superbrands: Myth or reality. Cor-porate Reputation Review, 2(2), 178–187.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F.Huber, S., & Lee, D. J. (2006). Direct and indirect ef-fects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journalof Business Research, 59(9), 955–964.

Manrai, L. A., Manrai, A. K., Lascu, D. N., & Ryans, J. K.,Jr. (1997). How green-claim strength and country dis-position affect product evaluation and company image.Psychology & Marketing, 14(5), 511–537.

Marsh, H.W., Dowson, M., Pietsch, J., & Walker, R. (2004).Why multicollinearity matters: A reexamination of re-lations between self-efficacy, self-concept, and achieve-ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 518–521.

McCraken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoret-ical account of the structure and movement of culturalmeaning of consumer goods. Journal of Marketing Re-search, 13(1), 71–84.

Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., & Moscardo, G. (2007).Linking travel motivation, tourist self-image, and desti-nation brand personality. Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 22(2), 45–59.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometrictheory. New York: McGraw-Hall.

O’Cass, A., & Grace, D. (2008). Understanding the roleof retail store service in light of self-image-store imagecongruence. Psychology & Marketing, 25(6), 521–537.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persua-sion: Classic and contemporary approaches, Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

Rao, A. R., & Sieben, A. W. (1992). The effect of priorknowledge on price acceptability and the type of in-formation examined. Journal of Consumer Research,19(2), 256–270.

Rojas-Mendez, J. I., Erenchun-Podlech, I., & Silva-Olave,E. (2004). The Ford brand personality in Chile. Corpo-rate Reputation Review, 7(3), 232–251.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior:A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3),287–301.

Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Self-image/product image congruityand consumer decision-making. International Journalof Management, 2(4), 49–63.

Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., & Mangleburg, T. F. (2000). Re-tail environment, self-image congruence, and retail pa-tronage: An integrative model and a research agenda.Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 127–138.

Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J., Chon,K., Claiborne, C., Johar, J.S., & Berkman, H. (1997).Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of mea-suring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 25(3), 229–241.

Sirgy, M. J., & Johar, J. S. (1999). Toward an integratedmodel of self-image congruence and functional con-gruence. European Advances in Consumer Research, 4,252–256.

Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personalitystructure in the United States and Korea: Common andculture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychol-ogy, 15(4), 334–350.

Sweeney, J. C., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality:Exploring the potential to move from factor analyticalto circumplex models. Psychology & Marketing, 23(8),639–663.

Taylor, V. A., & Bearden, W. O. (2002). The effects of priceon brand extension evaluations: The moderating roleof extension similarity. Academy of Marketing Science,30(2), 131–140.

Veryzer, R. W. (1995). The place of product design andaesthetics in consumer research. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 22, 641–645.

Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2008). Does country-of-origin mat-ter in the relationship between brand personality andpurchase intention in emerging economies? Evidencefrom China’s auto industry. International Marketing Re-view, 25(4), 458–474.

Zhou, N., & Belk, R. W. (2004). Chinese consumer read-ings of global and local advertising appeals. Journal ofAdvertising, 33(3), 63–76.


The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention - Evidence From the Chinese...

Documents

Transcript of The Impacts of Brand Personality and Congruity on Purchase Intention - Evidence From the Chinese...