Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing an intended brand personality: a dyadic perspective

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors examine the transformation of an intended brand personality (i.e., the way brand management would like consumers to perceive the brand’s personality) into a realized brand personality (i.e., the consumer’s actual perception of the brand’s personality). Drawing on the results of a dyadic empirical cross-industry study of 137 brand managers and 3,048 consumers, the authors show that the singularity of the brand personality profile, the competitive differentiation of the brand, the credibility of brand communication, consumers’ depth of product involvement, and consumers’ prior brand attitude all affect the degree to which the realized brand personality resembles the intended brand personality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: The Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, D. A., & Shansby, J. G. (1982). Positioning your product. Business Horizons, 25, 56–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martínez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 492–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, C. T., Fournier, S., & Miller, F. (2008). Brands and their meaning makers. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 781–822). New York: Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambler, T. (1997). Do brands benefit consumers? International Journal of Advertising, 16, 167–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J. C., & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 7, 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J. C., Durvasula, S., & Akhter, S. H. (1990). A framework for conceptualizing and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research. Journal of Advertising, 19, 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assael, H. (1998). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Cincinnati: South-Western College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ataman, M. B., Mela, C. F., & van Heerde, H. J. (2008). Building brands. Marketing Science, 27, 1036–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aufreiter, N. A., Elzinga, D., & Gordon, J. W. (2003). Better branding. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 28–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldinger, A. L., & Rubinson, J. (1996). Brand loyalty: The link between attitude and behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 22–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Cognitive psychology: an overview. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: the moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2006). An extended paradigm for measurement analysis of marketing constructs applicable to panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 431–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthon, P., Pitt, L. F., & Campbell, C. (2009). Does brand meaning exist in similarity or singularity? Journal of Business Research, 62, 356–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonoma, T. V. (1984). Making your marketing strategy work. Harvard Business Review, 62, 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, J., & Hutton, R. B. (2007). New consumers need new brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16, 342–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnkrant, R. E., & Sawyer, A. G. (1983). Effects of involvement and message content on information-processing intensity. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Information processing research in advertising (pp. 43–64). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 3–52). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: the dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. B., & Basu, K. (1987). Alternative models of categorization: toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 455–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: the role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58, 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Court, D. C., Freeling, A., Leiter, M., & Parsons, A. J. (1997). If Nike can “just do it”, why can’t we? McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 24–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. D. (1991). Intelligence, task complexity, and the distinction between automatic and effortful mental processing. In H. A. H. Rowe (Ed.), Intelligence: Reconceptualization and measurement (pp. 119–144). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekimpe, M. G., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Mellens, M., & Abeele, P. V. (1997). Decline and variability in brand loyalty. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 405–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G., & Grime, I. (2005). The impact of brand extensions on brand personality: Experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 168–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: the role of attitude accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153–179). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M., Voelckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2010). How important are brands? A cross-category, cross-country study. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. L. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & T. E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 167–203). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (1994). A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategic brand management. PhD Dissertation. University of Florida.

  • Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (2001). Building brand community on the Harley-Davidson posse ride. Harvard Business School Note No. 5-501-052 (pp. 1–20). Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L. (1979). A cognitive-attributional analysis of stereotyping. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 53–84). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Cognitive representations of persons. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 135–160). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, W. A., & Robey, K. W. (1936). The sampling distribution of the coefficient of variation. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 7, 129–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Interbrand. (2006). Best global brands: 2006 ranking. http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx?year=2006&langid=1003

  • Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. (1978). Brand loyalty measurement and management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janiszewski, C. (1998). The influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 290–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. E., & Mervis, C. B. (1997). Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 248–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y.-S., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Beauty and the beholder: toward an integrative model of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E. (1957). The two step flow of communication: an up-to-date report of a hypothesis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192–238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanhouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1–26). Morristown: General Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A. (1990). The effect of perceived advertising costs on brand perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 160–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1995). Simplicity as a strategy-making process: the effects of stage of organizational development and environment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1386–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, Ch, & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55, 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J. (1991). Elaborating on elaboration: the distinction between relational and item-specific elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 358–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Peracchio, L. A. (1995). Understanding the effects of color: how the correspondence between available and required resources affects attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2004). When are broader brands stronger brands? An accessibility perspective on the success of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24, 934–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A. A. (1979). Involvement: A potentially important mediator of consumer behavior. In W. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 191–196). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., et al. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57, 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: developing and testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing, 63, 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1986). Consumer response to television commercials: the impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H., Arndt, J., & Reder, L. M. (2006). A contextual interference account of distinctiveness effects in recognition. Memory & Cognition, 34, 743–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piercy, N. F. (1998). Marketing implementation: the implications of marketing paradigm weakness for the strategy execution process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 222–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, J. T. (1984/1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and noncomparative advertising: attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising, 23, 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragas, M. W., & Bueno, R. J. (2002). The power of cult branding: How 9 magnetic brands turned customers into loyal followers (and yours can, too!). New York: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: the temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richins, M. L., Bloch, P. H., & McQuarrie, E. F. (1992). How enduring and situational involvement combine to create involvement responses. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riegner, C. (2007). Word of mouth on the web: the impact of Web 2.0 on consumer purchase decisions. Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 436–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries, A., & Ries, L. (2002). The 22 immutable laws of branding. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 532–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–47). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rota, L. M., & Zellner, D. A. (2007). The categorization effect in hedonic contrast: Experts differ from novices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 179–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallman, R., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Preference invites categorization. Psychological Science, 19, 1228–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1997). A cross-national comparative study of new product development processes: Japan and the United States. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-based view and marketing: the role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27, 777–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stayman, D. M., Alden, D. L., & Smith, K. H. (1992). Some effects of schematic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmation judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 240–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternthal, B., Phillips, L. W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: a situational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 285–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swasy, J. L., & Munch, J. M. (1985). Examining the target of receiver elaborations: rhetorical question effects on source processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 877–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triplett, T. (1994). Brand personality must be managed or it will assume a life of its own. Marketing News, 28, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ülkümen, G., Chakravarti, A., & Morwitz, V. G. (2010). Categories create mind-sets: the effect of exposure to broad versus narrow categorizations on subsequent, unrelated decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Trijp, H. C. M., Hoyer, W. D., & Inman, J. J. (1996). Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role of brand personality in charitable giving: an assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wentzel, D. (2009). The effect of employee behavior on brand personality impressions and brand attitudes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Marketing and Management, University of Bern, Engehaldenstrasse 4, 3012, Bern, Switzerland

    Lucia Malär, Bettina Nyffenegger & Harley Krohmer

  2. Department of Marketing, McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, One University Station B6700, Austin, TX, 78712-1176, USA

    Wayne D. Hoyer

Authors
  1. Lucia Malär
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bettina Nyffenegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harley Krohmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wayne D. Hoyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucia Malär.

Additional information

The authors thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for financially supporting this research project.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Brand personality measurement scale and psychometric properties
Full size table
Table 3 Other measurement scales and psychometric properties
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Malär, L., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H. et al. Implementing an intended brand personality: a dyadic perspective. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 40, 728–744 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0251-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0251-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation