the relationship between personality traits and brand loyalty
TRANSCRIPT
1
University of Amsterdam Faculty of Economics and Business
The relationship between personality traits and brand loyalty.
An empirical analysis among Greek consumers.
Author: Iliana Tzanaki (10846344) University of Amsterdam Faculty of Economics and Business MSc. In Business Administration – Marketing Track Academic Year: 2014-2015 Under the Supervision of: Dr. Antoon Meulemans Second assessor: Dr. J.H.J.P. Tettero
2
Acknowledgements
This master thesis is submitted as the final requirement of my Masters of Science
degree in Business Studies at the Amsterdam Business School, University of
Amsterdam.
This master thesis would not have been possible without the support of many
people. I would like to acknowledge the advice and guidance of my supervisor Dr.
Toon Meulemans, whose constructive feedback and suggestions made possible the
exploration and understanding of the constructs of lifestyle branding.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, without whose moral and financial support,
the completion of this master thesis and the realization of my aspirations and
ambitions would not have been possible.
3
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Iliana Tzanaki who declares to take full responsibility for
the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this
document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and
its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business
is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the
contents.
4
Contents
Table of Exhibits ....................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 7
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Research question......................................................................................... 11
1.2 Structure of the study .................................................................................... 12
2. Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 13
2.1 Traditional and Lifestyle Brands .................................................................... 13
2.2 Brand Loyalty ................................................................................................ 17
2.3 Big Five Personality Traits ............................................................................. 22
2.4 Gender differences ........................................................................................ 27
LOYALTY AND GENDER ....................................................................................... 28
2.5 Hypothesis Development ............................................................................... 29
2.6 Conceptual Framework. ................................................................................. 31
3. Research method ................................................................................................ 32
3.1 The Sample ................................................................................................... 32
PRE TESTING .................................................................................................... 34
3.2 The Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 34
TRANSLATION PROCEDURE ................................................................................ 36
3.3 Measurement of variables ............................................................................. 36
LIFESTYLE BRANDS............................................................................................ 36
BIG 5 PERSONALITY TRAITS .............................................................................. 37
BRAND LOYALTY ............................................................................................... 39
CONTROL VARIABLES......................................................................................... 39
4. Results & Analysis .............................................................................................. 41
4.1 Factor Analysis .............................................................................................. 41
4.2 Skewness & Kurtosis ..................................................................................... 45
4.3 Reliability ....................................................................................................... 46
4.4 Multiple Hierarchical Regressions .................................................................. 47
POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON
BRAND LOYALTY OF TRADITIONAL BRANDS : ........................................................ 47
POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON
BRAND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ............................................................. 49
4.5 Moderation .................................................................................................... 51
5
MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRAVERSION
AND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ................................................................ 51
MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS
AND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ................................................................ 52
5. Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................ 54
5.1 Summary of results........................................................................................ 54
5.2 Theoretical and Managerial Implications........................................................ 56
5.3 Limitations and Further Research .................................................................. 58
5.4 Further Research .......................................................................................... 59
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 60
Appendix ................................................................................................................. 65
Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 65
Factor Analysis .................................................................................................... 70
Regressions ........................................................................................................ 72
6
Table of Exhibits
Table 1. Life Style Dimensions (Plummer,1974) ..................................................... 14
Table 2: Loyalty Phases (Oliver, 1999) ................................................................... 18
Table 3: Model of loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994) ......................................................... 19
Table 4: Ten key gendering issues (Alreck, 1994) .................................................. 28
Table 5: Big 5 Personality Traits Items .................................................................... 38
Table 6: Loyalty items ............................................................................................. 39
Table 7: Eigenvalues .............................................................................................. 42
Table 8: Pattern Matrix ............................................................................................ 44
Table 9: Skewness and Kurtosis ............................................................................. 45
Table 10: Means, standard deviations and correlations. ......................................... 47
Table 11: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on
Loyalty of Traditional brands. .................................................................................. 48
Table 12: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on
Loyalty of Lifestyle brands. ...................................................................................... 50
Table 13: KMO and Bartlett's Test .......................................................................... 70
Table 14: Eigenvalues with four components .......................................................... 70
Table 15: Skewness and Kurtosis for all items ........................................................ 71
Table 16: Regressions for loyalty of traditional brands ............................................ 72
Table 17: ANOVA for loyalty of traditional brands ................................................... 72
Table 18: Coefficients for traditional brands ............................................................ 73
Table 19: Regression for lifestyle brands ................................................................ 73
Table 20: Anova for lifestyle brands ........................................................................ 74
Table 21: Coefficients for lifestyle brands ................................................................ 75
7
Executive Summary
Human personality is an interesting area for marketers attempting to predict
consumer behavior. Nowadays, the Big Five is the most common frame to describe
personality, which helps marketers categorize consumers into different target groups
based on personality traits. Consequently, marketers start to conform their products
in order to appeal to the traits of a consumer group and tailor them to increase
consumer loyalty. Nevertheless, although research on personality traits and their
relation to brand loyalty has been done, research on the connection to loyalty for
lifestyle brands is limited. This thesis attempts to cover this gap in literature. The
central research question is “Do personality traits influence brand loyalty in the cases
of traditional and lifestyle brands?”.
Previous literature supports satisfaction as a main driver in purchase intention and
creation of brand loyalty. Furthermore, congruence between consumers’ personality
traits and brand’s personality has been shown to increase levels of loyalty. This
research is based on both traditional and lifestyle brands and provides feedback for
companies on how and under which conditions should consumers’ personality traits
be taken into account for long-term relationship creation.
Brand loyalty of lifestyle brands was expected to be higher, when there is
congruence between the lifestyle promoted and consumers’ personality traits.
Indeed, mean scores between brands differ, with lifestyle brand generating higher
levels but not significantly higher. Furthermore, an attempt was made to use gender
as moderator of the relationship which did not bare any results. At last, the
consciousness personality trait seems to be a predictor of brand loyalty in the case
of traditional brands only providing an area of focus for marketers.
8
1. Introduction
In the era of technology, individualism and fast moving environments people are
disconnected with each other and seek for more experiences than physical products.
Life is about experience and people always seek for more. Today’s lifestyle brands
are trying to deliver bigger, better and more distinct experiences to the consumers.
An increasing number and variety of brands in lifestyle flourished, by the time brands
realized the impact lifestyle has to consumers’ life.
Polo Ralph Lauren is one of the pioneers of the lifestyle movement, giving us an
aspirational representation to work with. Traditional brands are defined as a name,
sign, symbol or design or even a combination of them attempting to differentiate their
offerings from the competitors according to American Marketing Association
Dictionary (AMA). However, lifestyle branding is not only promoting new styles or
trends but actually a way of living. In other words, “it is the achievement of the
offerings of a brand to form an emotional attachment between the consumer and a
specific lifestyle” (Roumeliotis, 2011). Lifestyle brands are symbolic brands with a
distinct philosophy, a clearly defined image with a specific set of values, according to
my opinion. If marketing is successful, these values are communicated clearly on the
consumers’ minds, bringing them closer to the brand. The shift and the promising
future of lifestyle brands are moving so fast, that even a recent article at Forbes
mentions the freely spending of consumers from emerging markets like Asia and
China on them. Consumers from these markets are of high importance since their
net wealth is increasing at an accelerated pace, they are emotionally connected to
the brands and they are very ambitious (De Marco, 2012). Furthermore, there has
been specific research with regards to brands in which brands are treated as if
having their own personality. A clear example is the research of Jennifer Aaker and
9
Susan Fournier (1995) who having realized the magnitude and importance of brands
conducted a research studying the brand as a character, partner and person
regarding different types of brand personalities. As we expect from our friends to
enrich our lives, we have the same expectation from brands.
One of the main reasons that companies develop this sustainable emotional long-
term relationship with their consumers is to increase loyalty as well as to benefit
financially with premium prices. Especially, popular and favorable lifestyle brands
can also benefit from their existing brand name and brand identity. Several studies
reveal how brands indicate means of self-expression as consumers' identify
themselves through multiple brand identities and personalities (Chernev, Hamilton &
Gal, 2011). Another previous research argues that "the brand may serve as an
expressive device by the individual, individuals will therefore prefer brands whose
image is closest to their own self-images” (Holman, 1980). Moreover, many
companies achieved to become lifestyle brands by associating their products with
either a culture or a group of people that shares the same beliefs and interests, such
as Harley Davidson, which has also succeeded in creating a strong brand
community. A few more examples of lifestyle brands from the existing literature
include Gap, Laura Ashley, Benetton and Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie & Fitch, and
Martha Stewart (Chernev et al. 2011). Also, surprisingly in the electronic industries
Apple has become successfully a lifestyle brand, with some of its customers being in
the point of obsession. Remarkable is the fact that some lifestyle brands have
entered also in the luxury market Armani, BMW, Louis Vuitton and Rolex. In my
opinion an additional interesting way of building lifestyle brands is by promoting the
latest trend of self-branding celebrities. Representatively examples are Gwyneth
Paltrow’s lifestyle brand Goop and Jessica Alba’s The Honest Company.
10
However, after all these discussed above, a question arises: Should we embrace
lifestyle branding? In order to give an answer to this question there are multiple
aspects and consequences that should be taken into account. Brand loyalty is one of
them, providing tangible evidence of the success or failure of a brand and the overall
relationships between the consumer and the brand.
Nevertheless, which are the factors that influence the creation and development of
brand loyalty? Academics suggest that consumers’ personality play a major role in
the brand preferences and consequently in the loyalty levels. In this research focus
was given to whether personality traits can indeed influence consumers’ loyalty
towards lifestyle brands. Loyalty levels were measured also for traditional brands in
order to test possible differences. Given the fact that two (extraversion and
consciousness) out of the five personality traits (extraversion, consciousness,
openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness) are most important for the
content of this study, these two traits were used to predict consumers’ levels of
brand loyalty. Especially, we could argue that extroverted and conscious people are
expected to have higher levels of loyalty. Taken into consideration the extrovert
people, lifestyle branding should embrace their outgoing and sociable nature.
Moreover, for people characterized by consciousness reliability in the product
offerings should be what matters most.
The importance of having up-to-date studies, which can provide some evidence of
how lifestyle brands affect consumers’ loyalty, is higher due to the growing trend of
lifestyle branding. Consumers' loyalty of lifestyle brands in Greece maybe can fill the
gap in literature in sense of lifestyle topic and its focus area. In this research,
consumers’ loyalty in both traditional and lifestyle brands was measured, in order to
provide evidence if lifestyle branding, indeed increases consumers’ levels of loyalty.
11
The study was made in the Greek market. Despite the fact that the Greek population
is not significantly large, the diversity of Greek consumers' is a promising area.
Therefore, there is a high possibility of concluding in unique and contributing findings
at the end of my study.
1.1 Research question
The aim of this research is to address the above literature gap mentioned, by
identifying and quantitatively testing the extraversion and consciousness personality
trait’s influence on consumers’ loyalty levels. Put differently, the impact of those two
personality traits on consumers’ decision-making (attitudinal) and purchase
(behavioral) behaviors. The objectives of this research are: 1) identifying potential
differences between traditional and lifestyle brands’ loyalty levels, 2) to determine
the extent to which those two personality traits influence consumers’ decisions to
form long term relationships with traditional as well as lifestyle brands (consumers’
brand loyalty), and 3) to examine, whether the gender moderates the relationship
between these two personality traits and consumers’ loyalty of lifestyle brands.
The research model is being tested empirically with an online survey study among
Greek consumers. The purpose of this study will attempt to enlighten the topic of
lifestyle brands. Since, the research in this area has been limited to specific
objectives, regarding my knowledge and investigation on the topic, findings with
respect to consumers' loyalty towards lifestyle brands will provide more insights.
Managerial contributions are likely to guide segmentation, targeting and position
marketing strategies. Moreover, branding implications will suggest under which
conditions lifestyle branding should be adopted and how consumers' personality
traits can influence the levels of loyalty towards lifestyle brands.
12
1.2 Structure of the study
This research is organized in the following way: in chapter 2 the theoretical
framework is being presenting as well as the hypotheses proposed and the
conceptual framework. Moreover, the method of the data collection, the sample and
the questionnaire that was used for the data collection is presented in chapter 3. The
data analysis is presenting in chapter 4 and the discussion regarding the meaning of
the results as well as implications and limitations of this study can be found in
chapter 5. Therefore, the following chapter contains the previous literature upon the
conceptual framework was built in order to address the research question.
13
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Traditional and Lifestyle Brands
Recently, lifestyle brands have received a lot of attention. Both academics and
marketers realize that lifestyle branding is an effective strategy in the current
dynamic marketplace. In order to understand lifestyle brands; what they are, how
they are structured and why they are so successful, the key is to understand the
relationships between markets, consumers and the differences between human
personality traits.
Nowadays, personal style such as clothing is a way for people to position
themselves in a society, and communicate their personal background to others.
Brands are commonly used for status signalizing in every day circumstances. Susan
Fournier (1998) conducted an empirical work for a better understanding of the
relationship between the consumers and their brands. This research enlightens the
phenomenon of the consumer-brand relationship in a marketing context, suggesting
“consumer-brand relationships are more a matter of perceived goal compatibility
than congruence between discreet product attributes and personality trait images”
(Fournier, 1998). Furthermore, she states that “ thematic connections operate not
just across brands within a category, or within role-related product constellations
assembled for the expression of social lifestyles, but across the entire collectivity of
disparate brands and categories marshaled in pursuit of a full range of goal-related
tasks” (Fournier, 1998). People are consuming brands not only for their basic living
needs but also in order to give meaning to their lives. Eventually consumers not only
choose brands but more important they choose lives. The main contribution of
Fournier’s article for the marketers is to understand that in the construction of brand
14
relationships what matters the most is what consumers gain from the brands in order
to add meaning and value in their lives as Susan Fournier (1998) suggests. The term
of “lifestyle” originates from the area of psychology. The relation between lifestyle
and consumption is strong since throughout their life people consume in a daily basis
any kind of products or services communicating their way of living.
Activities Interests Opinions Demographics
Work Family Themselves Age
Hobbies Home Social Issues Education
Social Events Job Politics Income
Vacation Community Business Occupation
Entertainment Recreation Economics Family Size
Membership Fashion Education Dwelling
Community Food Products Geography
Shopping Media Future City size
Sports Achievements Culture Stage in life cycle
Table 1. Life Style Dimensions (Plummer,1974)
According to Plummer lifestyle patterns were defined as a systems concept. “It refers
to a distinctive mode of living in its aggregate and broadest sense. It embodies the
patterns that develop and emerge from the dynamics of living in a society” (Plummer,
1974). Over the past, various constructs have been developed in order to
understand the consumer’s behavior, for example constructs based on
15
psychographics or demographics. Lifestyle patterns are used to segment consumers
providing a combination of the existing constructs mentioned above. A commonly
accepted approach to measure lifestyle patterns is the AIO (activities, interests,
opinions) rating statements. As Plummer states “the basic premise of life style
research is that the more you know and understand about your customers the more
effectively you can communicate and market to them’’ (Plummer, 1974). Some of the
main benefits of lifestyle segmentation mentioned in his article are a better
development of marketing, media strategies, communication and product
opportunities.
Lifestyle branding is a topic of scare research and without a clear defined theoretical
framework in my opinion. In the existing literature, lifestyle branding is defined as
“the tailoring of a retail offer or a portfolio of retail offers closely to the lifestyles of
specific market segments” (Chernev et al., 2011). The dimensions of lifestyle brands
as mentioned in the introduction are: distinct philosophy, a clearly defined image and
a specific set of values. Solomon (1994) suggests in his book that lifestyle products
are related to social situations, since people generally are buying and signalizing
products associated with a specific lifestyle. According to Solomon “consumers use
consumption constellations to define, communicate and perform social roles”
(Solomon, 1994, p. 379). In return, the brand is creating more loyal and engaged
customers.
People have their own identities, values and beliefs, thus they consume specific
branded products as a decision to express themselves though the identity of these
brands. Polo Ralf Lauren, Nike, and Apple are currently some of the most common
brands related to “lifestyle” notion and the consumers of these brands state that “this
brand embodies my lifestyle”. Helman and Chernatony explore in their paper the
16
development of lifestyle retail brands (LRB). “A lifestyle retail brand (LRB) is a
focused retail brand, targeted at a specific market segment defined by lifestyle”
(Helman & De Chernatony, 1999). The main contribution of their paper was to
provide new insights in retail branding by achieving a better fit between customer’s
lifestyle needs and retail brand’s offerings. Helman and Chernatony suggest: “The
basic retail proposition is augmented with a set of added values that have symbolic
value and meaning for the lifestyles of a specific consumer group” (Helman & De
Chernatony, 1999).
In the commercial industry, a study by Solomon and Englis explores “the degree to
which consumers’ judgments of the consumption patterns associated with defined
lifestyle groups correspond to actual market data” (Englis & Solomon, 1995). Ralph
Lauren's advertising campaigns indicate a successful example that achieved to
capture the idealized lifestyle of the traditional American world. Despite the fact that
only a few participants of the study could actually identify themselves with this
suggested way of living, campaign’s images of affluence and sophistication are
accepted as real. Clearly, consumers’ product choices are often driven by a desire to
identify or even to avoid idealized lifestyles. Thus, creating meaningful social types
for the targeted group is one of the key points in lifestyle advertising. A more recent
paper by Chernev, et al (2011) is investigating the competition for consumer identity
in lifestyle branding. The authors suggest, “consumers’ need for self-expression
through brands is finite and can be satiated when consumers are exposed to self-
expressive brands” (Chernev et al, 2011). Need satiation is very important on
consumer behavior. Moreover, “consumers need for self-expression can be satiated
not only by using certain brands but also by other available means of self-
expression” (Chernev et al. 2011).
17
Most of the previous attempts to investigate lifestyle brands have been limited to
self-expression theories and approaches used to segment consumers, enlightening
our knowledge about their values and beliefs. Nevertheless, not enough research
has yet investigated the relationship between lifestyle brands and brand loyalty.
2.2 Brand Loyalty
Considering the rise of relationship marketing and the increasing interest in
customer’s loyalty, the brand loyalty concept requires further research. “The shift
from the transaction-focused marketing to relationship marketing provides a clear
evidence of the passage from traditional brands to lifestyle brands” (Grönroos,
1994). There is a concurrence that loyal consumers are the key for the future of the
brands. Having loyal consumers provides better profits, word of mouth and improves
the overall image of the brand. Moreover, loyalty offers the basis for competitive
advantage, an advantage that can be realized through marketing (Dick and Basu
1994). A research has indicated the causal link between lifestyle brands and
consumers loyal behavior in the beer industry. More specifically, Goldberg concluded
that “lifestyle has a differential effect on brand loyalty for different consumer
segments” Goldberg (1982). Thus, in advertising, lifestyle should be very careful, as
it may also cause even negative responses to those who do not support the
promoted lifestyle.
One of the oldest and repeatedly used definition of loyalty comes from Jacoby and
Kyner, who described loyalty as “a biased behavioral response expressed over time
by a decision making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set
of brands and being a function of psychological processes” (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973).
Oliver gives a developed definition by describing loyalty as “a deeply held
18
commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the
future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite
situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching
behavior” (Oliver, 1999). Oliver’s framework consists of four loyalty phases:
cognitive, affective, conative and action loyalty.
Stage Identifying Marker
Cognitive Loyalty to information such as prices, features and so
forth.
Affective Loyalty to as liking: “I buy it because I like it”
Conative Loyalty to an intention: “I am committed to buying it”
Action Loyalty to action inertia, coupled with the overcoming of
obstacles.
Table 2: Loyalty Phases (Oliver, 1999)
Cognitive loyalty is the first phase and focuses on aspects related to brand
performance. Affective loyalty relates to a favorable attitude in consumers mind,
cognition and affect contribute to liking the brand. In the third phase, conative loyalty
refers to behavioral intention or “a brand-specific commitment to repurchase” (Oliver
1999). However, the true loyalty lies only on the final phase, action loyalty. As
obstacles to loyalty, consumer idiosyncrasies and switching incentives are
suggested by the author. Moreover, he investigates the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty, proposing that “satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty
formation but becomes less significant as loyalty begins to set through other
mechanisms’’ (Oliver, 1999), mechanisms such as personal determinism and social
19
bonding with the brand. For marketers it is very important to achieve both personal
determinism (self-isolation) and social bonding (brand communities) in order to
achieve the highest level of consumers’ loyalty.
The American Marketing Association extents the existing definition of brand loyalty to
“the situation in which a consumer generally buys the same manufacturer- originated
product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from multiple suppliers
within the category” or “the degree to which a consumer consistently purchases the
same brand within a product class” (AMA). Today, brand loyalty is categorized into
two major approaches: attitudinal and behavioral both of which have been studied
extensively.
Attitudinal loyalty is a systematically favorable expression of preference for the
brand (Dick & Basu, 1994). An emotional attachment between the consumers and
their brands that creates a commitment to repurchase. The framework suggested in
their paper points out social norms and situational factors as moderators of the
relationship between attitude and behavior (Dick & Basu, 1994). Dick and Basu’s
study identifies search for motivation, resistance to counter-persuasion, and word of
mouth as the consequences of loyalty. This type of loyalty represents the long-term
impact of loyal consumers to a certain brand.
Repeat Purchase Possibility
High Low
Related
Attitude
High True Loyalty Latent Loyalty
Low Spurious Loyalty No Loyalty
Table 3: Model of loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994)
20
On the other hand, “behavioral loyalty refers to the consumers tendency to
repurchase a brand, where consumers commitment becomes meaningful and
profitable for the firm” (Anatolevena Anisimova, 2007). Commonly, behavioral loyalty
can be measured by observation of a repeating purchasing behavior. In this paper
the author investigates the influence of the corporate brand on attitudinal and
behavioral consumer loyalty. According to the findings “corporate values, corporate
brand personality and functional consumer benefits are the most critical and
consistent predictors of both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty” (Anatolevena
Anisimova, 2007). The main contribution of this research was to help marketers
develop corporate branding strategies while at the same time build both attitudinal
and behavioral consumer loyalty.
At this point, it is important to distinguish loyal purchase behavior from inertia.
Repurchasing the same brand may be attributed in two different ways. Either it is a
result of brand commitment or inertia of purchase which refers to “a repeated
purchasing of the same brand without true motive of this choice’’ (Odin & Valette-
Florence, 2001). Regarding consumer-brand identification theories, a fruitful
research explores the effects of brand personality and brand identification on brand
loyalty. In general, a lot of theories have been developed in social psychology
regarding social identification, suggesting that people identify themselves through
certain groups. In an article regarding the cell phone industry, the authors focus on
the identification of the consumer and the brand. The study suggests that a “careful
management of brand personality helps consumers to develop a favorable image of
the company’’ (Kim, Han & Park, 2001). The conceptual framework that authors built
consists of the following variables: the attractiveness of the brand personality, the
distinctiveness of the brand personality, the self-expressive value of the brand
21
personality, the positive word of mouth reports of the brand and brand loyalty (Kim et
al, 2001).
Positive relationships between distinctiveness, attractiveness and self-expressive
value of brand personality are having remarkable effects on consumers’ identification
with the brand. Regarding brand loyalty, consumer-brand identification has an
indirect effect, contributing in the existing literature. Kim, Han and Park through their
study point out how important brand personality is in the consumers’ minds for the
generation of brand identification and the long-term benefits of this relationship.
Recently, another paper explores the concept of brand experience and provides
evidence about its relationship with brand loyalty. The scale of brand experience
consists of four dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral, a
conclusion reached through six in depth studies. “Brand experience is
conceptualized as sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses
evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand's design and identity,
packaging, communications, and environments” (Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello,
2009).
So how does brand experience affect loyalty? There is a direct effect of brand
experience on consumer satisfaction and an indirect effect on brand loyalty, through
multiple brand personality associations. However, Brakus et al in their study suggest
that these effects are only short-term consequences. Specifically, one of the studies
from this paper focuses on using brand experience to predict consumer behavior in
satisfaction and loyalty. Seems like brand experience can be a strong predictor of
actual buying behaviors. The authors suggest “if a brand stimulates the senses,
makes the person feel good, and engages the mind and body, a stimulation seeking
organism may strive to receive such stimulation again” (Brakus et al, 2009). Despite
22
the several ways that have been used to explore consumer’s brand loyalty, not
enough attention has been given whether consumers’ personality traits have a direct
or indirect effect in the formation of loyalty bonds. Oliver (1999) identifies the effect of
consumer’s idiosyncrasies on loyalty but did not explore it any further.
2.3 Big Five Personality Traits
Personality traits play a significant role not only on the brand choice but also on the
brand loyalty. People, who identify themselves with a certain brand, share the same
values and beliefs may be led to greater levels of brand loyalty. In the marketing
research, personality traits have been used in order to study a variety of emotional
responses such as customers’ satisfaction (Oliver, 1999). The most widely used
approach to study the personality traits is The Big Five model. In this research we
will focus on two out of five personality traits and the positive or negative effect they
have on brand loyalty. Namely the two personality traits tested to predict levels of
brand loyalty are extraversion and consciousness. Traditionally, the big five
personality traits have been developed to predict behavior. Most of the researches
use personality traits to understand and manipulate behaviors regarding health,
psychology or social issues.
A recent study investigates the Big Five personality traits and the prediction of
consequential outcomes. Especially, using the Big Five personality factors the
authors identify numerous consequential relations associated at an individual,
interpersonal and social institutional level (Ozer & Benet-Martınez, 2006). At an
individual level (happiness, physical and psychological health, spirituality, and
identity) extraversion is positively related with happiness and subjective well-being.
Regarding the interpersonal level (relationships with peers, family and romantic)
23
extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness seems to have positive
outcomes regarding peer and family relations. Finally, at the social institutional level,
interesting outcomes suggest that only extraversion is positively related to
occupational choice & performance (social and enterprising interests, satisfaction,
commitment), while the other four personality traits have mostly negative outcomes
(Ozer & Benet-Martınez, 2006). Through this mechanism the authors identify
consequential outcomes related to personality traits and processes. However there
is a controversy regarding whether personality stays consistent over time and
context.
For a better understanding, the Big Five personality traits offer a taxonomy by which
personality can be consistently measured and defined. Norman described the five
factors as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and
Culture (Norman, 1963). However, there have been some concerns about the
meaning of these constructs over the past. For the current study, the scheme that
will be used is based on the Big Five taxonomy as defined by McCrae and Costa
(1987). More specifically, extraversion defines a person who is “sociable, fun-loving,
affectionate, friendly, and talkative”. Openness to experience is associated with
being “original, imaginative, broad interests and daring”. Agreeableness is
associated with being cooperated, forgiving, good natured and generous.
Conscientiousness describes a person who “should be dutiful, scrupulous, and
perhaps moralistic”. Some more characteristics could be hardworking, ambitiousness
and willingness to achieve. Neuroticism is associated with “negative emotionality, the
propensity to experience a variety of negative effects, such as anxiety, depression,
anger, and embarrassment” (McCrae and Costa, 1987).
24
As it was mentioned earlier, for the purpose of this study the focus was given on the
extraversion and consciousness personality traits. One more previous and well-
known study has investigated the relation of the Big Five personality dimensions and
job performance. There have been used three job performance criteria: job
proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data for five occupational groups:
professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled (Barrick & Mount,
1991). The results indicate that conscientiousness shows consistent relations with all
of the three job performance criteria and for all occupational groups. Furthermore,
extraversion and openness to experience seems to be valid predictors of the training
proficiency criterion across occupations. In general, the study highlights the benefits
that may occur using the five-factor model of personality in order to assemble and
communicate strong and valid empirical findings.
Particularly in the branding concept, there’s a study which investigates the impact of
consumer personality on preferences towards a brand personality (Mulyanegara,
Tsarenko & Anderson, 2009). Using also a five-scale measurement of brand
personality the authors categorize brand personality as follows: emotive, trusted,
sociable, exciting and sincere. Insights are provided whether indeed there is a
relationship between consumers’ personalities and brands personalities. Considering
the differences between genders, the authors suggest that “male consumers are
more self-expressive in their brand preferences compared to female consumers”
(Mulyanegara et al, 2009). Consistency between the results of this study and the
previous ones support that indeed consumers use brands to express their
personality. For consumers who have been characterized by conscientiousness,
reliability seems to be what they are looking for so trusted brands are preferable. On
the other hand, sociable brands are preferred by extroverts reflecting their outgoing
25
nature and by consumers characterized by neuroticism trying to reduce their anxiety.
In Taiwan a year later, an empirical study explored the relationship between
consumer’s personality traits, brand personality and brand loyalty (Lin, 2010). The
study used also the Big Five model to measure human personality and the newly
established brand personality scale which consist of the following five dimensions:
excitement, competence, peacefulness, sincerity and sophistication.
Referring to brand loyalty, both attitudinal and behavioral have been measured,
providing some fruitful findings. There is a “significantly positive relationship between
extroversion personality trait and excitement brand personality as well as between
agreeableness personality trait and excitement brand personality, sincerity brand
personality and competence brand personality” (Lin, 2010). Agreeableness and
openness of personality traits, competence and sophistication of brand personality
dimensions have a significant positive influence on affective (attitudinal) loyalty. In
addition, agreeableness and openness human personality traits as well as
competence, peacefulness and sophistication brand personality dimensions proved
to have significantly positive influence on action (behavioral) loyalty (Lin, 2010).
Extraversion and consciousness did not yield significant results in that research.
Since action loyalty measures the actual purchasing behavior, this study contributed
academically in the existing literature but more important managerially for the
marketers.
Another research provides more insights exploring the relationship among two
personality traits (extraversion and openness), hedonic value, brand affect and
loyalty (Matzler, Bidmon & Grabner-Kräuter, 2006). The findings propose that these
two personality traits are positively related to hedonic product value. Moreover,
“personality traits directly (openness) and indirectly (extraversion, via hedonic value)
26
influence brand affect which in turn drives attitudinal and purchase loyalty” (Matzler
et al, 2006). Consequently, people characterized by extraversion and openness tend
to respond stronger to affective stimulus. The findings of this study are of high
importance for marketers who want to create strong and long-term bonds with their
consumers.
Taking all the above into consideration it could be argued that differences in
consumers’ personality traits are those who make their relationship with the brands
as well as their loyalty more or less strong. To sum up, sociable brands are preferred
by extroverts and reliable brands by people characterized by consciousness. Given
the fact that this research was made for mainly clothing brands, extraversion and
consciousness are considered as the most appropriate traits to test for. Especially in
clothing, since people use clothes to express themselves and signalize their style or
even their psychological condition through their personal style of clothing. Previous
empirical evidence supports that there is a relation between personality traits and
loyalty for the traditional brands, indirectly via brand affect (Matzler et al, 2006).
Consequently, what might happen when we move from traditional brands to lifestyle
brands?
The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence that lifestyle branding can
improve brand loyalty taking into account the different types of human personality
traits. This leads to the following question: What is the relationship between
extraversion and consciousness personality traits and brand loyalty of lifestyle
brands?
27
2.4 Gender differences
Gender as a definition can include a variety of things like stereotypes, differences in
abilities and decision-making, and the list goes on. Costa describes genders as “the
way members of the two sexes are perceived, evaluated and expected to behave”
(Costa, 1994, p. 5). Biological theory argues that differences depend on biological
factors and social psychological suggest that gender differences depend on gender
roles. In general, gender roles depend on many factors since people are being
affected a lot by their culture.
Greece is a county where the gender roles are well defined and we could argue that
women are highly involved in household shopping, as well as shopping for their
children and husband. Therefore a lot of attention has been given to female Greek
consumers since their involvement is significantly higher than men. In fact, a lot of
products can be associated with a specific sex (Costa, 1994). “Gendering a product
or brand simply means imbuing it with a masculine or a feminine image and identity”
Alreck, (1994). According to Alreck (1994) there are ten key issues that companies
should consider when examining the market potential of a gendered product.
1. Basic Gender Attributes Masculine strength, feminine gentleness.
2. Basic Gender Concerns Feminine attachment, masculine freedom.
3. Sex Role Requirements Acting like a lady for women, being strong for
men.
4. Sex Role Prohibitions Are only important if the target market is likely to
adhere closely to traditional sex roles.
5. Negative Reactions When a gendered product avoids the sex roles
prohibitions of the traditional adherences.
6. Opposite Sex Rejection When men use sometimes products even though
28
they have feminine identity.
7. The Age Threshold The order the buyers, the more likely they are to
ascribe to traditional roles.
8. Social Class Effects The social class of the consumers has strong
effect on sex role adherence and acceptance of
gendered brands.
9. Subtle Gender Symbols Contradictions between the phrases and words
that a gender product should avoid.
10. Gender Credibility Whether a brand has the ability to convince the
consumer that the re is feminine or masculine
identity about the brand.
Table 4: Ten key gendering issues (Alreck, 1994)
LOYALTY AND GENDER
Especially in marketing, high focus is given on these two segments, men and
women. During the last years there have been not a lot of research regarding gender
differences in brand loyalty. Ndubisi (2006) in his study investigates the role of
gender in the relationship between four marketing underpinnings and customer
loyalty for the banking services in Malaysia. The four underpinnings of relationship
marketing are: “trust, commitment, communication and conflict handling” Ndubisi
(2006). The findings showed that all of the four underpinnings of relationship
marketing indeed do contribute significantly to customer loyalty. Trust, commitment,
communication and conflict handling together, predict 29% of the variance in
customer loyalty. “Significant gender difference exists in the trust-loyalty
relationship”, according to Ndubisi (2006). One of the most important findings of this
research was that women are more loyal then men for higher levels of trust towards
the bank. Gender moderates the relationship between trust and customer loyalty,
29
while there is no supporting evidence that gender moderates the relationship
between the rest three underpinnings and customer loyalty.
Another previous research focused on gender differences, tried to explore whether
women are more loyal customers than men. More specifically, the authors based
their research on differences in self-construal (Melnyk, Osselaer & Bijmolt, 2009).
Specifically they argue that “the difference between genders’ self-construal is not in
terms of dependent versus interdependent”, like previous research has shown
(Melnyk et all, 2009). However, the difference between the self-construal of genders
is in terms of relational versus collective interdependence. The authors suggest:
“female consumers tend to develop and maintain loyalty to individuals, whereas male
consumers tend to be more loyal to groups” (Melnyk et all, 2009). Consequently,
women are more loyal to individual service providers while men are more loyal to
companies. However, due to changes in our society, the traditional gender
stereotypes have changed the past years and new gender roles have emerged. As
Alreck states, “from these changes new consumers have surfaced and it is vital for
companies to understand the new consumers so that advertising and brands are
adjusted to appeal to the modern consumer” (Alreck, 1994).
2.5 Hypothesis Development
This study was designed to test the relationship between extraversion and
consciousness personality traits and brand loyalty, regarding both traditional and
lifestyle brands. A brand can be perceived as a lifestyle if is attractive and at the
same time helps the consumer to express himself. Thus, the more clear and distinct
a lifestyle brand philosophy and consequently personality is, the more consumers
can find themselves identified with the brand. However, a lifestyle has different
30
effects considering different consumer segments Goldberg (1982). Nevertheless,
congruence between a human personality trait and a brand personality is not enough
to achieve brand loyalty. Considering the variability of consumers’ idiosyncrasies,
the relationship between extraversion and consciousness personality trait and brand
loyalty maybe be weaker or stronger for both type of brands (traditional & lifestyle).
In terms of brand loyalty Matzler, et al said “personality traits directly and indirectly
influence brand affect which in turn drives attitudinal and purchase loyalty” (Matzler
et al, 2006). Taking into consideration the review of the literature, further empirical
research needs to be done in this topic. Therefore, the hypotheses of this study can
be developed as follows:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality
trait and loyalty of traditional brands.
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality
trait and loyalty of traditional brands.
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality
trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands.
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality
trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands.
Nevertheless, gender differences play also important role on the formation of either
short term or long-term relationships between the consumer and the brand. Previous
research has shown that gender plays an important role in the relationship between
trust and loyalty (Ndubisi, 2006). But what is the role of gender on the relationship
between personality traits and brand loyalty? The statements that arise based on
gender differences could be summed up as follows:
31
Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and
loyalty of lifestyle brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for male than
for female consumers.
Hypothesis 6: The positive relationship between consciousness personality trait
and loyalty of lifestyle brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for male
than for female consumers.
2.6 Conceptual Framework.
Extraversion
Brand Loyalty
Gender
H1,3
H2,4
H6
H5 Consciousness
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
32
3. Research method
So as to test the six hypotheses mentioned above, a positivism research philosophy
was adopted. The use of a questionnaire was considered as the most appropriate
decision for the purpose of this study. The main advantage of this method is its
ability to gather a large amount of data. Nevertheless, one of the main
disadvantages of this method is the lack of answer flexibility, which may drive forced
answers. In the last chapter this disadvantage will be discussed on the limitation
section. The sample, the questionnaire that was developed and the measurement of
the variables are presented below.
3.1 The Sample
A non-probability, convenience sampling technique was used to select participants.
This technique could be susceptible to biased selection, although, this choice was
made for practical constraints. The sample of the study was drawn from the area of
Athens, Greece. The age range of the participants varies among 20-35 years. The
sample consists of 147 Greek consumers, 50% males and females in order to
maximize the validity of the results. Specifically, from the 147 participants, 74 were
males and 73 females. Moreover, the sample comprises a broad range of
educational backgrounds of the respondents. Specifically, there was diversity among
the different levels of educational background within the respondents. Most of them
(N=91) hold a university degree, while there is a significant number of participants
(N=42) that hold a master degree. Only few participants have completed high school
(N=5) and IEK (technical school in Greece) (N=9) concluding that most of the
participants were highly educated.
33
The objective of this research was to test the effect of consumers’ extraversion and
consciousness personality trait on their loyalty towards traditional and lifestyle
brands. Consequently, by recruiting respondents aged from 20 to 35, it was ensured
that all the participants were familiar especially with the concept of lifestyle brands
and were consumers of these clothing brands. Almost half of the sample (N=75)
was between 20-25 years old, with the rest (N=54), aged between 25-30. Only a few
were above 30 years old, suggesting that the sample was a good representative of
the youth Greek consumers. In this way, the representativeness of the sample was
guaranteed. Greece’s geographical location makes it a very interesting case study.
Greek has a mix market, which consists of a variety of consumers with diverse levels
of perceptions and behaviors. In general, Greeks are highly affected by remarks
made from friends and relatives (Barbonis & Laspita, 2005). Historically they are
characterized by high levels of fashion consciousness and style. Therefore, the new
fashion and lifestyle trends are being adopted quickly in such a market. This factor
makes the research even more interesting within the Greek market as fruitful results
are expected regarding lifestyle brands.
According to a previous research, Greeks prefer and purchase imported high fashion
apparel over local designers. “Better aesthetics, better lines and better quality
compared to the domestic ones is the cause of this phenomenon” (Kamenidou,
Mylonakis & Nikolouli, 2007). The large number of appeal, fashion and lifestyle
brands available in the Greek market gives many options to the consumers. As a
consequence, higher signals of loyalty towards lifestyle brands are expected
regarding Greeks’ consumer behavior.
34
PRE TESTING
A pre testing, before the final distribution of the questionnaire, was conducted for two
main reasons. The first reason was to ensure the validity of the questions in order to
avoid any misunderstanding in answering them. After the completion of the
questionnaire respondents were asked two additional questions. At first, they were
asked to name five traditional and five lifestyle brands of their own choice. Later, the
participants were asked to justify their selection of these brands by shortly explaining
what does lifestyle means to them regarding the choice they made and consequently
give their own dimensions to the concept of lifestyle brands. Using these two
additional questions the validity of the appropriate selection of both traditional and
lifestyle brands used in questionnaire was ensured and the second reason of the pre
testing was achieved.
3.2 The Questionnaire
To answer the research question of the current paper quantitative method was
employed. An online survey was designed for the measurement of the variables
presented in the conceptual framework. The data was collected with an online
questionnaire, which was sent to the participant’s email address. Originally the form
of the questionnaire was in English but it was translated to Greek in order to avoid
misconceptions since the sample consist of Greek respondents. The meaning and
the structure of the questions were clearly and carefully constructed. The purpose
was to provide an easy method for the respondent while answering and at the same
time to avoid forced responses. Divided into three sections the questionnaire at first
collected respondents’ demographics. Specifically, age, gender and educational
background were asked. Subsequently, the second section consisted of 30
questions regarding personality traits in a five-point scale (1 being “strongly
35
disagree”, 5 being “strongly agree”). The Big Five personality trait is the most
commonly used model of personality in psychology and its validity has been proven
in the past. The third and last section of the questionnaire form measured the levels
of participants’ loyalty towards suggested brands.
For maximizing the theoretical and managerial contribution of this study, loyalty was
measured towards both non-lifestyle (traditional) and lifestyle brands. Specifically,
the aim of this research was to provide empirical evidence whether lifestyle brands
are able to achieve higher levels of loyalty. Participants after choosing one of the
suggested non-lifestyle (traditional) brands were asked to answer four additional
questions regarding their loyalty towards them in a seven-point scale (1 being
“strongly disagree”, 7 being “strongly agree”). Afterwards, the same procedure was
followed by choosing a suggested lifestyle brand. As mentioned above a pre-test
was made to ensure the appropriateness of the selection of the two types of brands
used in the questionnaire.
The results of the pre-test were consistent with the dimensions of the lifestyle brands
that have been developed in the previous sections (chapter 1 and 2). As lifestyle the
participants have chosen the brands with a distinct philosophy and values that are
promoting a certain lifestyle. Participants who consume lifestyle brands not only
become loyal towards them but also share the same values and follow the promoted
lifestyle those brands promote in all the aspects of their life. Therefore, lifestyle
brands were expected to have higher levels of brand loyalty than the traditional
brands.
36
TRANSLATION PROCEDURE
Since the sample of this research was drawn from the area of Athens a translation of
the original questionnaire from English to Greek was needed. The originality of the
measurements that were used was in English; therefore the English version was
developed first. Two Greek native speakers, graduates of English Philology
translated the questionnaire from English to Greek, ensuring that the questionnaire is
well structured and understood.
3.3 Measurement of variables
Existing measurement scales developed by previous research and taken from the
literature were used to test the hypotheses, maximizing the validity of the constructs.
LIFESTYLE BRANDS
The aim of this research was to measure consumers’ loyalty of traditional as well as
lifestyle brands. Therefore, both traditional and lifestyle brands that was chosen are
referring to the same industry, clothing. The reason that those 10 (traditional +
lifestyle) brands have been chosen, as mentioned above was due to the pre-test.
Especially, regarding the lifestyle brands, it should be clear that each one of them
represented a different lifestyle. In chapter 2, dimensions for a lifestyle brand have
been given (symbolic brand with a distinct philosophy, clearly defined image, specific
set of values). Tommy Hilfiger, Gap, Levi’s, Benneton, Polo Ralf Lauren were chosen
regarding lifestyle brands and Zara, H&M, Topshop, Oxford Company, Esprit
regarding traditional. The traditional brands are big corporations except Oxford
Company, which is a famous Greek brand. Zara, Topshop, etc. are representing the
mass clothing production with medium price and quality. However, those lifestyle
brands represent a medium price with high quality. The price range is relatively the
37
same between the two types of brands (traditional and lifestyle) in order to have
equality in the questionnaire and to avoid any biased answers. Tommy Hilfiger and
Polo Ralf Lauren are two of the most widely spread clothing brands in Greece for a
casual and chic style. Benneton, Gap and Levi’s are more sportive and casual
brands, being supported by youth and younger ages in general. At last, most of the
brands used in the questionnaire (Gap and Benneton for instance) are based on
previous literature (Helman and De Chernatony, 1999).
BIG 5 PERSONALITY TRAITS
This study used the Big Five personality model to measure respondents’ personality
traits as proposed by Costa and McCrae (1987,1992). Participants were asked to
answer 30 questions regarding their beliefs, values and psychological state
developed by an online test (Loner Wolf, 2014) (1 being “strongly disagree”, 5 being
“strongly agree”), originally developed by McCrae&Costa (1992). The decision of
using this online test was made for minimizing the length of the questionnaire.
Several additional tests are available online as well as on the literature but the
majority consists of 50 question, length that was considered too long for the structure
of this questionnaire. The aim was to avoid effects that could influence participants’
answers and consequently the validity of the results, since the vast majority would be
unpleased to spend more than 10-15 minutes in the procedure. An example item
was “I believe that others have good intentions”. Table 5 is presenting the total items
of the Big five personality traits. The 12 items used for the regression analysis for the
measurement of extraversion and consciousness are highlighted.
38
Big 5 Personality Traits
⎯ I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities.
⎯ I love to help others.
⎯ I’m very self-disciplined.
⎯ I complete tasks successfully.
⎯ I often feel blue.
⎯ I have a vivid imagination.
⎯ I go on a lot of binges.
⎯ I prefer variety to routine.
⎯ I love large parties.
⎯ I panic easily.
⎯ I like to tidy up.
⎯ I often lack energy and have difficulty initiating
activities.
⎯ I forgive people easily.
⎯ I worry about things.
⎯ I love to read challenging material.
⎯ I enjoy challenging authority.
⎯ I am always prepared.
⎯ I believe in the importance of art.
⎯ I radiate joy.
⎯ I long to explore the world and travel.
⎯ I trust others.
⎯ I’m usually very thoughtful with others.
⎯ I make friends easily.
⎯ I take my time and am cautious when making
decisions.
⎯ I like to take charge.
⎯ I live a fast-paced, busy life.
⎯ I keep my promises.
⎯ I believe that others have good intentions.
⎯ I’m modest and don’t like taking credit for my work.
⎯ I get angry easily.
Adapted from an
online personality traits
test (Loner Wolf, 2014)
Original developed by
McCrae & Costa
(1992).
Table 5: Big 5 Personality Traits Items
39
BRAND LOYALTY
In the literature two groups measuring brand loyalty have been developed: attitudinal
and behavioral measures, since the aim was to measure consumers’ preferences for
traditional and lifestyle brands (attitudinal loyalty) as well as consumers’ purchasing
behavior (behavioral loyalty). Therefore brand loyalty was measured with four
questions on a seven-point scale based on a method modified by Kim (1998), which
according to her was originally developed simultaneously by Aaker (1996) and
Ratchford (1987) (1 being “strongly disagree”, 7 being “strongly agree”) (Kim et al,
2001). An example item is “I would buy additional products and service of this
brand”.
Brand Loyalty
⎯ I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and
acquainted with the brand
⎯ I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals
⎯ I would buy additional products and service in this brand
⎯ I prefer the brand to others
Adapted from Kim et al
(2001)
Table 6: Loyalty items
CONTROL VARIABLES
The first three questions of the questionnaire asked participants to indicate their
gender, age and educational level. Since the gender variable was used as a
moderator of the relationship between extraversion and consciousness personality
trait and brand loyalty, the sample was controlled for the age and education
variables. Recapitulating, the questionnaire consisted of 43 questions in total. In the
40
beginning, there were 3 questions regarding participants’ demographics.
Additionally, the questionnaire contained 30 rating questions ranging from 1(strongly
disagree) to 5(strongly agree) about big 5 personality traits and 10 rating questions
ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) about loyalty. A detailed
overview of the questionnaire can be seen in the appendix.
41
4. Results & Analysis
In the first steps, the frequencies of the variables were tested, crosschecking if there
were any missing values or coding errors. Three questionnaires were totally empty
and were excluded from the data set and after that, there were no missing values.
After conducting the missing values analysis, excluding the three empty
questionnaires, the sample was 147, three participants less than the original sample
(N=150). Moreover, the data file tested whether there are counter indicative items.
No counter indicative items were spotted, therefore no item was recorded.
4.1 Factor Analysis
The next step was to examine the factorability of the 12 items regarding the two
independent variables (6 items for extraversion and six items for consciousness).
Firstly, the correlations among the 12 items were tested, with 4 of the 12 items
correlated at least .3 sphericity (2 (66) = 193.412, p < .05) (Table 13: KMO and
Bartlett's Test). Secondly, all the diagonals of the anti-image rest around .2.
Moreover, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .67, which is
above the sufficient value of .6. Significant was the Bartlett’s test of correlation matrix
were over .5, which supports the inclusion of the items in the factor analysis. Lastly,
all the communalities were above .30 except one item “I keep my promises”. Overall,
after all these indicators the factor analysis was conducted with the original 12 items.
At first, a principle components analysis was used since the aim was to reduce the
large set of variables into a smaller (called principle components).
Eigenvalues
The first factor explained 19% of the variance, the second factor 14% of the variance
and the third explained 10% of the variance, as the initial eigenvalues showed. The
42
fourth factor had eigenvalue just above one, explained 9% of the variance. Together,
the four factors explained 53.643 of the variance. Three and two factor solutions
examined by using oblimin rotations and varimax option, with the two-factor solution
being preferred. There was not significant difference between oblimin rotations and
the varimax. Therefore, before deciding an oblimin rotation for the final solution, both
of them were examined. Consequently, a principle components analysis of the 12
items was conducted, using oblimin rotation, with the two factors together explaining
33% of the variance.
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums
of Squared Loadings
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
Total
1 2.369 19.740 19.740 2.369 19.740 19.740 2.289
2 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.808
3 1.280 10.663 44.514
4 1.096 9.129 53.643
5 .959 7.996 61.639
6 .869 7.242 68.881
7 .768 6.403 75.285
8 .673 5.607 80.892
9 .652 5.435 86.327
10 .626 5.213 91.539
11 .535 4.461 96.001
12 .480 3.999 100.000
Table 7: Eigenvalues
Oblimin Rotation
The oblimin rotation method was the best defined structure for factor analysis.
During several steps, two items (“I keep my promises”, “I enjoy exciting and
stimulating activities”) did not meet the criteria of having a factor loading .04 or
above, which after the factor analysis did not excluded. The decision of not excluded
43
these two items was made for reliability reasons, which will be discussed later in the
reliability analysis. Therefore, all the six items was kept for the measurement of the
two personality traits. In the pattern matrix below all of the items with their loadings
are presented.
Pattern Matrix
In the first component, three items are loading high, above .5. The item “I am always
prepared” item is loading above .5, specifically .592 and the item “I am very self-
disciplined”, item with the highest loading (.65). These two items are referring to the
consciousness personality trait, with the third item loading high in the first component
referring to the extraversion personality trait. This item is the “I like to take charge”
and is loading with .50. In the second component two are the items that load highest
for the extraversion personality trait. The item “I radiate joy” is loading with .65 and
the item “I make friends easily” is loading with .79, almost .80, indicating that this
item is of high importance. The reason of this correspondence between those two
personality traits, extraversion and consciousness could be explained based on
previous literature and theory. Concluding, two out of six items are highly important
for the consciousness personality trait and three out of six items are highly important
for the extraversion personality trait. Therefore, those items are the most important
questions that we should take into account in order to determine how extraverted
and conscious the participant is. The factor loading matrix (or pattern matrix) is
presented in Table 5.
44
Component
1 2
I’m very self-disciplined .652
I am always prepared. .592
I like to take charge. .502
I like to tidy up. .491
I complete tasks
successfully.
.483
I live a fast-paced, busy
life.
.459
I take my time and am
cautious when making
decisions.
.457
I keep my promises. .385
I make friends easily. .798
I radiate joy. .651
I love large parties. .487
I enjoy exciting and
stimulating activities.
.357
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Table 8: Pattern Matrix
45
4.2 Skewness & Kurtosis
Additionally, normality, skewness and kurtosis test were conducted for the means of
the variables, concluding that one of the items had a normal distribution. The mean
for loyalty of traditional brands has a skewness of -.105, which is a moderate
negative skewness. Moreover, the mean of loyalty for lifestyle brands has a
skewness of -1.229, which indicates that has a substantially negative skewness. For
the extraversion mean, the skewness is -.101, which indicates that the distribution
was moderately negative. At last, the mean of consciousness personality trait has
skewness .112, therefore this variable is normal distributed. For the three variables
the kurtosis is positive except the extraversion, which is negative. At Table 15:
Skewness and Kurtosis for all items are presented. Below you can see the skewness
and kurtosis for each item of the means of the variables.
N Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
EX_TOT 147 -.101 .200 -.404 .397
CO_TOT 147 .112 .200 .180 .397
LT_TOT 147 -.105 .200 2.612 .397
LL_TOT 147 -1.229 .200 3.579 .397
Valid N (listwise) 147
Table 9: Skewness and Kurtosis
46
4.3 Reliability
Reliability analysis regarding the scales was measured. The reliability of the two
personality traits extraversion and consciousness did not generate the expected
results. In both scales a Cronbach a less .70 was found (Extraversion a=.536,
Consciousness a=.536). Even after excluding some of the items in each scale, the
Cronbach would not increase or increase only from a=.536 to a=.554 for extraversion
scale. Therefore, no items were deleted, with the trait scales remaining with the six
original items for each. Considering that a Cronbach a above .70 is needed to
ensure the reliability of the scales, the reliability of these two traits is acceptable but
partially satisfactory. However, these findings are not surprising, as other
researchers have reported comparable results of the NEO-FFI scales (MCrae &
Costa, 1992). The other two constructs regarding brand loyalty showed very
satisfactory reliability results (Loyalty for traditional brands, a=721, Loyalty for
lifestyle bands, a=774), ensuring the reliability of the scales. Additionally, the
corrected item-total correlation was above .30 for all items, ensuring that the scales
for loyalty were good. At last, you can see in table 7 the means, standard deviations
and correlations of the variables.
47
Variables Mea
n
SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Age 1.61 0.70 -
Education 4.16 0.68 0.57 -
Gender 1.50 0.50 .29** .10 -
Extraversion 3.83 0.47 0.75 .04 .08 - (.54)
Consciousnes
s
3.77 0.42 0.38 -.01 -.02 .17* - (.54)
Loyalty Trad. 4.18 0.77 -.02 .15 -.10 .06 .22** - (.72)
Loyalty Lif. 4.26 0.79 -.02 .12 -.02 .09 .14 .44** - (.77)
Table 10: Means, standard deviations and correlations. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Listwise N=214
4.4 Multiple Hierarchical Regressions
POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON BRAND
LOYALTY OF TRADITIONAL BRANDS:
Hierarchical multiple regression was performed to test the capability of the
extraversion and consciousness personality trait to predict levels of loyalty of
traditional brands, after the controlling for age and education. The first step of
hierarchical multiple regression entered two predictors; age and education. The
control of these two variables achieved to ensure that the effect of extraversion and
consciousness personality trait on loyalty of traditional brands was free of the effect
of age and education. The results of the hierarchical multiple regression are
presented in the table below (Table 11).
48
R 𝑹𝟐
𝑹𝟐Chang
e
B SE Beta t
Step1 .154 .024 .010
Age -.028 .091 -.025 -.304
Education .173 .093 .153 1.856
Step2 .267 .071 .045
Age -.038 .089 -.035 -.426
Education .173 .091 .154 1.894
Extraversio
n
.026 .136 .016 .195
Conscious
ness
. 396 .151 .215* 2.624
Table 11: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on Loyalty of Traditional brands. Statistical significance *p<0.05 ;**p<.01
The model was not statistically significant F(2,144)=1,743; sig.=.179 and explained
2,4% of variance on loyalty of traditional brands, in the first step. At the second step,
after the entry of extraversion and consciousness personality traits the total variance
explained by the model was 7,1% F(4,142)=2.727; sig. =.032<0.05. Introducing
extraversion and consciousness personality trait explained additional 4,7% variance
on loyalty of lifestyle brands, after controlling for age and education (R2 Change=.048
; F(2,142)=3.647; sig.=.029<0.05). One out of four predictors was significant in the
final model, the consciousness personality trait (beta=.215, sig.=.010<0.05). The
linear relationship between extraversion personality trait (beta=.016, sig.= .845) and
49
loyalty of traditional brands was not significant. Therefore, the consciousness
personality trait was shown to have a positive effect on loyalty of traditional brands.
This indicates that for higher levels of consciousness personality trait, loyalty of
traditional brands is increased.
H1 “There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and
loyalty of traditional brands” is rejected at 5% significance level
H2 “There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality
trait and loyalty of traditional brands” is accepted at 5% significance
level.
POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON BRAND
LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS:
Same procedure was followed for predicting the linear relationship between
extraversion and consciousness personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands. The
results of the hierarchical multiple regression can be seen in Table 12.
R 𝑹𝟐
𝑹𝟐Chang
e
B SE Beta t
Step1 .121 .015 .001
Age -.035 .094 -.031 -.376
Education .138 .097 .118 1.429
Step2 .196 .038 .011
Age -.047 .094 -.041 -.498
50
Education .136 .096 .116 1.412
Extraversi
on
.121 .143 .071 .846
Consciou
sness
. 241 .159 .126 1.514
Table 12: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on Loyalty of Lifestyle brands. Statistical significance *p<.05 ;**p<.01
Similarly, in the first step the model was not statistically significant F(2,144)=1,064;
sig.=.348) and explained 1,5% of variance on loyalty of lifestyle brands. At step 2,
after the entry of extraversion and consciousness personality trait the variance
explained by the model as a whole was 3,8% (F(2,142)=21.764 ; sig.=.175). The
introduction of extraversion and consciousness personality trait explained additional
2,3% variance on loyalty of lifestyle brands after controlling for age and education.
None of the predictors were significant in the final model. Specifically, the two
independent variables, extraversion personality trait (beta=.071, sig.=.399) and
consciousness personality trait (beta=.126, sig.=.132) were not significant.
H3 “There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and
loyalty of lifestyle brands” is rejected at 5% significance level.
H4 “There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality
trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands” is rejected at 5% significance
level.
51
4.5 Moderation
MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRAVERSION AND
LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS:
Furthermore, the moderating effect of gender was tested. Using the process method,
developed by Andrew F. Hayes the conditional effect of gender was tested in
moderated multiple regression. The means of the independent and dependent
variables did not require cantering or standardization, as Andrew F. Hayes suggests
(Hayes, 2014). Adding gender as moderator, the model could explain 2,4% of the
variance in loyalty of lifestyle brands. Overall the model was not significant:
F(3,143)= 1.3808, sig.=.2511. Thus, it could be marked that for a level of confidence
of 95%, there was not a significant (beta=.4243, sig.=.1040) moderating effect of
gender on the relationship between extraversion personality trait and loyalty of
lifestyle brands. The table below presents the results of the moderating effect of
gender.
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.1578 .0249 1.3808 3.0000 143.0000 .2511
Conditional effects of X on Y at values of the moderator(s)
Gender Effect se t p
1.0000 -.0411 .1766 -.2329 .8162
2.0000 .3831 .1899 2.0176 .0455*
52
Loyalty of traditional brands
Interaction Variables Beta SE t
Gender -1.6737 1.0089 -1.6590
EX_TOT -.4654 .4010 -.1.1605
EX_TOT x Gender .4243 .2593 1.6360
Statistical significance *p<.05 ;**p<.01
H5 “The positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and
loyalty of traditional brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for
male than for female consumers”, is rejected at 5% significance level.
MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS AND
LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS:
In addition, the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between
consciousness personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands was tested. The results
were similar, indicating that gender did not have significant effect as moderator on
the relationship between consciousness and loyalty of lifestyle brands. The model
was able to explain 2,8% of the variance in loyalty of lifestyle brands, after adding
gender as moderator. Overall the model was not significant: F(3,143)= .7288,
sig.=.5364. Thus, it could be reported that for a level of confidence of 95%, there
53
was not a significant (beta=-.3708, sig.=.3653) moderating effect of gender on the
relationship between consciousness personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands.
The table below presents the analysis results of the moderating effect of gender on
the relationship between consciousness and loyalty of lifestyle brands.
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.1687 .0284 .7288 3.0000 143.0000 .5364
Conditional effects of X on Y at values of the moderator(s)
Gender Effect se t p
1.0000 .4494 .3161 1.4219 .1572
2.0000 .0787 .2584 .3044 .7613
Loyalty of lifestyle brands
Interaction Variables Beta SE t
Gender 1.3652 1.5688 .8702
CO_TOT .8202 .6829 1.2010
CO_TOT x Gender -.3708 .4082 -.9082
Statistical significance *p<.05 ;**p<.01
54
H6 “The positive relationship between consciousness personality trait and
loyalty of lifestyle brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for male
than for female consumers”, is rejected at 5% significance level.
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1 Summary of results
Previous research on personality traits is well developed, contributing on how they
directly affect consumers’ preferences, identification, and how they indirectly affect
consumers’ commitment to a brand. In addition, loyalty and more specific brand
loyalty have also been researched by many academics. However, with regards to
lifestyle brands research is recent and offers limited insights. The proposed model
indicates that consciousness as a personality trait can affect the formation of long-
term relationships with a brand, but only for traditional brands. At first, in this
research two different types of personality traits were tested extraversion and
consciousness, however, only the consciousness trait achieved to predict
consumers’ level of loyalty. Secondly, the moderating effect of gender was tested
only for the loyalty of lifestyle brands. Results showed that gender did not play a
significant role in the linear relationship between those two personality traits and
lifestyle brands. The general scores of both loyalties on the traditional and lifestyle
brands are discussed and the gender differences are evaluated.
The regression models in this research failed to confirm the hypotheses tested
except from Hypothesis1 (positive relationship between consciousness personality
55
trait and loyalty of traditional brands). In contrast, extraversion did not achieve to
predict consumers’ levels of loyalty either for traditional or for lifestyle brands. These
findings are not in line with my expectations that personality traits can play an
important role in the formation of short as well as long-term relationships between
the brand and the consumer. Especially for lifestyle brands it was expected that
personality characteristics would be the basic aspects for the preference and
purchase of a brand.
Overall ratings of loyalty were higher for lifestyle brands than for traditional.
However, the mean scores did not differ significant with the loyalty of lifestyle brands
overall score standing at 4.26 and for traditional at 4.18 (mean scores in a seven-
point scale). Therefore, it can be argued that lifestyle branding can increase
consumers’ loyalty but not significantly. The highest scores regarding brand loyalty
were in two out of the four questions. The item “I will continue to buy this brand
because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand” and “I would buy additional
products and service in this brand” scored the highest rates. This finding indicates
that satisfaction is needed in order to achieve loyalty. In terms of satisfaction Oliver
said “satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty formation but becomes less
significant as loyalty begins to set through other mechanisms’’ (Oliver, 1999). In
addition, in the process of relationship formation between the consumer and the
brand, familiarity of the brand and the product offerings plays an important role as
the results propose. At last, consumers’ willingness to buy additional products of the
brand (behavioral loyalty) scored higher for lifestyle brands. Thus, brand knowledge
as well as brand awareness are increasing, in the case of lifestyle brands, while
positive word of mouth is likely to appear also from loyal consumers/customers.
56
Finally, the moderating effect of gender was tested for the relationship between
personality traits and lifestyle brands. The results indicate that gender differences do
not play a significant role in the formation of loyalty bonds. It was expected that
female consumers could yield higher levels of loyalty especially in the context of
lifestyle brands. These results suggest that gendered products might be a good
option for marketers in the segmentation process but not in the creation of long-term
bonds. Gendering products will be discussed in detail in the next section.
5.2 Theoretical and Managerial Implications
From a theoretical perspective, this study attempted to enlighten the topic of lifestyle
brands. After having analysed consumers’ personality traits as predictor of brand
loyalty of lifestyle and traditional brands, the results indicate that loyalty of lifestyle
brands does not depend on consumers’ personality traits. However, regarding
traditional brands, consciousness is a personality trait that plays an important role in
the creation of long-term bonds. Therefore, theoretical implications arise with regards
to the consciousness personality trait and its positive relationship with loyalty in the
case of traditional brands. More research needs to be done to explore why this trait
is significant in the creation of loyalty bonds and how companies could benefit from
conscious consumers. In previous marketing research, personality traits have been
used to predict consumers’ satisfaction or consumers’ preference towards a brand
personality (Oliver, 1999, Mulyanegara et al, 2009). Thus, this study points out the
promising area of personality traits regarding loyalty bonds.
Considering the managerial implications that this study can provide, brands should
take into account conscious consumers, who are loyal to the brand. If the brand
57
stays consistent over time and provides reliable offerings, these consumers’ are
wiling to buy additional products, ignoring competitors attempts to attract them. In
addition, regarding lifestyle brands their self-expression nature seems to be one of
the most important factors to attract and maintain consumers. In terms of self-
expression Wallace, Buil and Chernatony said that “consumers who engage with
inner self-expressive brands are more likely to offer WOM for that brand” (Wallace,
Buil, & Chernatony, 2014). Moreover, marketers should take into consideration
gender differences in order to commercialize their product or services offerings.
However, this implication will have an impact on consumers’ preferences and
purchases but not in the creation and maintenance of loyalty bonds.
As a previous research states, male consumers are more self-expressive
(Mulyanegara et al, 2009). Therefore lifestyle brands should focus more on male
consumers who nowadays are getting more involved in shopping either for personal
items, such as clothing, or for household spending. Gender roles are changing over
time and since more male consumers are entering the market, all types of brands
could benefit from this segment. At last, the results of this research showed that
behavioral loyalty generates the highest levels of loyalty, thus the tough part for the
brands is to approach and attract new consumers. Today, the marketplace is getting
bigger and bigger, with online and offline tools entering incessantly. If a brand
achieves to identify its personality and product/service offerings with the consumer
it’s a matter of the right marketing strategy to retain him and add him to its customer
lifetime value. Whether embracing lifestyle branding would make this process more
efficient remains unanswered.
58
5.3 Limitations and Further Research
The limitations of this research could be related to sampling, validity & number of
constructs tested and the research approach.
The sample consisted of the Greek youth segment aged from 20-35 years old. Thus,
a different segment could have given different results regarding loyalty levels.
Especially in the case of lifestyle brands an older age segment could have revealed
higher levels of loyalty due to their higher average buying power. In addition, the
older age group due to its seniority could have adopted a more sophisticated style in
their work environment and day to day social interactions that could potentially
further increase their loyalty in lifestyle brands. Concerning the convenience
sampling technique that was used to recruit the participants, it could be argued that it
is susceptible to biased selection. This issue may have skewed the results
distribution in certain questions in favour of answers that are closer to my social
environment’s lifestyle..
Regarding the validity of the constructs, the reliability analysis of the two personality
traits showed a Cronbach a that was less than .70 (A Cronbach a that is higher than
0.70 is considered to be reliable). Therefore, more reliable constructs for the
measurements could have been used since any manipulations that were applied to
improve the reliability of the constructs did not manage to increase their Cronbach a.
Furthermore, two out of five personality traits were used to predict consumers’ levels
of loyalty. This choice was made due to the context of this research since it was
made for clothing brands and the aim was to test consumers’ levels of loyalty
towards them.
59
Finally, concerning the research approach, the experiment did not take into account
the different lifestyles of the promoted brands asked in the questionnaire as well as
the different lifestyles of the participants. Specifically, the questionnaire could have
more questions regarding consumers’ lifestyle dimensions, such as activities,
interests and opinions (Plummer, 1974). This could have given more insights
regarding higher levels of loyalty on lifestyle brands compared to traditional due, for
example, to the congruence between the participant’s lifestyle and the promoted
brand’s lifestyle amongst other factors.
5.4 Further Research
This research focused on extraversion and consciousness as a factor driving loyalty
in lifestyle as well as traditional brands. An interesting area to explore would be to
study shifts in consumers’ lifestyles and compare them with their personality traits in
order to predict levels of loyalty. This could provide deeper insights for the change in
loyalty towards specific brands and allow to marketers use more effective
segmentation strategies. In addition, examining whether a well-known brand
compare to a less known would drive to different effects of loyalty, for both types of
brands. Further research could also test if self-expressive brands achieve to
generate higher levels of loyalty.
Regarding the product offerings and gender differences, marketing research has no
conclusive answer whether gendered products outperform unisex products. Since
this research suggested that gender differences do not affect the consumer’s loyalty,
more research can be made in order to observe whether gender differences do act
as drivers of other marketing aspects of the product, guiding marketers into
embracing more effective gender based strategies.
60
6. REFERENCES
-Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person:
three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in consumer
research, 22, 391-391.
-Alreck, P. L. (1994). Commentary: A new formula for gendering products and
brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 3(1), 6-18.
-American Marketing Association Dictionary. Retrieved 2015-03-21 from
https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx.
-Anatolevena Anisimova, T. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on
attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of consumer marketing, 24(7),
395-405.
-Barbonis, P. A., & Laspita, S. (2005, September). Some factors influencing adoption
of e-commerce in Greece. In Engineering Management Conference, 2005.
Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International (Vol. 1, pp. 31-35). IEEE.
-Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta‐ analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
-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(3), 52-68.
-Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: Limits
to self-expression and the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 66-
82.
61
-Costa, J. A. (1994). Gender issues and consumer behavior. Thousands Oaks, CA:
Sage.
-Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R.. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
-De Marco Anthony (2012). PPR’s Shifts to Luxury, Sports and Lifestyle Is The
Result of Dramatic Consumer Growth In Asia. Retrieved 2015-04-11 from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonydemarco/2012/12/07/pprs-shift-to-luxury-sports-
and-lifestyle-is-the-result-of-dramatic-consumer-growth-in-asia/.
-Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 22(2), 99-113.
-Englis, B. G., & Solomon, M. R. (1995). To be and not to be: lifestyle imagery,
reference groups, and the clustering of America. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 13-28.
-Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 24(4), 343-353.
-Goldberg, S. M. (1982). An empirical study of lifestyle correlates to brand loyalty
behavior. Advances in consumer research, 9(1), 456-460.
-Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a
paradigm shift in marketing. Management decision, 32(2), 4-20.
-Hayes F. Andrew (2014). Comparing Conditional Effects in Moderated Multiple
Regression: Implementation using PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved 2015-
06-02 from http://www.afhayes.com/public/comparingslopes.pdf.
62
-Helman, D., & Chernatony, L. D. (1999). Exploring the development of lifestyle retail
brands. Service Industries Journal, 19(2), 49-68.
-Holman, R. H. (1980). A sociological approach to brand choice: the concept of
situational self image. Advances in consumer research, 7, 610-614.
-Jacoby, J., & D. B. Kyner (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing
behavior. Journal of Marketing research, Vol. 10, No 1, pp. 1-9.
-Kamenidou, I., Mylonakis, J., & Nikolouli, K. (2007). An exploratory study on the
reasons for purchasing imported high fashion apparels: The case of Greece. Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 11(1), 148-160.
-Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand
identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese
Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206.
-Lin, L. Y. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality
and brand loyalty: an empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 19(1), 4-17.
-Loner Wolf. (2014). Big 5 Personality Traits Test. Retrieved 2015-03-30 from http
//lonerwolf.com/big-5-personality-test/
-Matzler, K., Bidmon, S., & Grabner-Kräuter, S. (2006). Individual determinants of
brand affect: the role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to
experience. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(7), 427-434.
63
-McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of
personality across instruments and observers. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 52(1), 81.
-Melnyk, V., Van Osselaer, S. M., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2009). Are women more loyal
customers than men? Gender differences in loyalty to firms and individual service
providers. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 82-96.
-Mulyanegara, R. C., Tsarenko, Y., & Anderson, A. (2009). The Big Five and brand
personality: Investigating the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards
particular brand personality. Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 234-247.
-Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:
Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574.
-Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual and operational
aspects of brand loyalty: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business
Research, 53(2), 75-84.
-Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty?. the Journal of Marketing, 33-44.
-Oly Ndubisi, N. (2006). Effect of gender on customer loyalty: a relationship
marketing approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 48-61.
-Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of
consequential outcomes. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 401-421.
-Plummer, J. T. (1974). The concept and application of life style segmentation. the
Journal of Marketing, 33-37.
64
-Roumelioris D. James. (2011). Lifestyle Branding: Engagement and the Total
Experience. Retrieved 2015-03-25 from
http://savvychicksmedia.com/topic/business/lifestyle-branding-engagement-and-the-
total-experience/.
-Solomon, M.R. (1994) Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, Being. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
- Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2014). Consumer engagement with self-
expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 23(1), 33-42.
65
Appendix
Questionnaire
What is your age?
1. 20-25 2. 25-30 3. 30-35
What is your gender?
1. Female 2. Male
Specify your educational background
1. Primary school / 2.High school / 3. IEK/Technical School / 4.University / 5. Master
/ 6. Phd
I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I love to help others.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I’m very self-disciplined.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I complete tasks successfully.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I often feel blue.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
66
I have a vivid imagination.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I go on a lot of binges.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I prefer variety to routine.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I love large parties.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I panic easily.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I like to tidy up.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I often lack energy and have difficulty initiating activities.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I forgive people easily.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I worry about things.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I love to read challenging material.
67
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I enjoy challenging authority.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I am always prepared.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I believe in the importance of art.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I radiate joy.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I long to explore the world and travel.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I trust others.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I’m usually very thoughtful with others.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I make friends easily.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I take my time and am cautious when making decisions.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
68
I like to take charge.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I live a fast-paced, busy life.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I keep my promises.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I believe that others have good intentions.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I’m modest and don’t like taking credit for my work.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
I get angry easily.
Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree
Choose one of the brands above that you are more familiar with and answer the 4
additional questions regarding your choice :
1. ZARA 2. H&M 3. ESPRIT 4. Topshop 5. Oxford Company
I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand
Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree
I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals
Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree
69
I would buy additional products and service in this brand
Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree
I prefer the brand to others
Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree
Now choose one of the lifestyle brands above that you are more familiar with and
answer the 4 additional questions regarding your choice :
1. Abercrombie & Fitch 2. GAP 3. Ralf Lauren 4. Diesel 5. Benetton
I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand
Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree
I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals
Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree
I would buy additional products and service in this brand
Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree
I prefer the brand to others
Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree
70
Factor Analysis
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .663
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 193.412
df 66
Sig. .000
Table 13: KMO and Bartlett's Test
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums
of Squared Loadings
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
Total
1 2.369 19.740 19.740 2.369 19.740 19.740 1.976
2 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.706
3 1.280 10.663 44.514 1.280 10.663 44.514 1.770
4 1.096 9.129 53.643 1.096 9.129 53.643 1.290
5 .959 7.996 61.639
6 .869 7.242 68.881
7 .768 6.403 75.285
8 .673 5.607 80.892
9 .652 5.435 86.327
10 .626 5.213 91.539
11 .535 4.461 96.001
12 .480 3.999 100.000
Table 14: Eigenvalues with four components
71
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std.
Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error
Statistic Std. Error
I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities
147 4.27 .647 -.330 .200 -.699 .397
I’m very self-disciplined 147 3.53 .886 -.543 .200 .206 .397
I complete tasks successfully 147 3.97 .656 -.113 .200 -.213 .397
I like to tidy up 147 3.92 .798 -.507 .200 -.001 .397
I radiate joy 147 3.96 .810 -.317 .200 -.158 .397
I love large parties. 147 3.57 .929 -.186 .200 -.337 .397
I am always prepared 147 3.29 .778 .055 .200 -.452 .397
I make friends easily 147 3.55 .987 -.338 .200 -.589 .397
I take my time and am cautious when making decisions.
147 3.76 .822 -.432 .200 -.186 .397
I keep my promises 147 4.12 .572 .006 .200 -.027 .397
I like to take charge 147 3.75 .792 -.690 .200 .698 .397
I live a fast-paced, busy life 147 3.90 .878 -.427 .200 -.522 .397
I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand
147 4.60 .984 -.345 .200 2.579 .397
I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals
147 3.45 1.118 .115 .200 .743 .397
I would buy additional products and service in this brand
147 4.37 .937 -.089 .200 1466 .397
I prefer the brand to others 147 4.32 1.104 -.230 .200 1756 .397
I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand
147 4.57 .914 -1.496 .200 3.841 .397
I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals
147 3.65 1.163 -.404 .200 -.189 .397
I would buy additional products and service in this brand
147 4.50 .924 -.907 .200 2.476 .397
I prefer the brand to others 147 4.33 1.093 -.649 .200 1.783 .397
Valid N (listwise) 147
Table 15: Skewness and Kurtosis for all items
72
Regressions
Model Summary
Model R R
Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
Change Statistics Change Statistics
Durbin-Watson R Square Change
F Change
df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .154a .024 .010 .76213 .024 1.743 2
a 144 .179
2 .267b .071 .045 .74849 .048 3.647 2
b 142 .029 2.198
a. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background, What is your age?
b. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background , What is your age?, CO_TOT, EX_TOT
c. Dependent Variable: LT_MEAN
Table 16: Regressions for loyalty of traditional brands
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 2.025 2 1.012 1.743 .179b
Residual 83.641 144 .581
Total 85.666 146
2
Regression 6.111 4 1.528 2.727 .032c
Residual 79.554 142 .560
Total 85.666 146
a. Dependent Variable: LT_MEAN
b. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background, What is your age? c. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background ,What is your age?, CO_TOT, EX_TOT
Table 17: ANOVA for loyalty of traditional brands
73
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients t
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 3.511 .410 8.558
What is your age? -.028 .091 -.025 -.304
Specify your Educational Background .173 .093 .153 1.856
2
(Constant) 1.934 .796 2.430
What is your age? -.038 .089 -.035 -.426
Specify your Educational Background .173 .091 .154 1.894
EX_TOT .026 .136 .016 .195
CO_TOT .396 .151 .215 2.624
Table 18: Coefficients for traditional brands
Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics Change Statistics
Durbin-Watson R Square Change
F Change
df1 df2 Sig. F
Change
1 .121a .015 .001 .79389 .015 1.064 2
a 144 .348
2 .196b .038 .011 .78971 .024 1.764 2
b 142 .175 1.959
a. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background, What is your age?
b. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background ,What is your age?, CO_TOT, EX_TOT
c. Dependent Variable: LL_MEAN
Table 19: Regression for lifestyle brands
74
ANOVA
Model
Sum of Squares
df Mean
Square F Sig.
1
Regression 1.341 2 .671 1.064 .348b
Residual 90.757 144 .630
Total 92.098 146
2
Regression 3.542 4 .885 1.420 .230c
Residual 88.556 142 .624
Total 92.098 146
a. Dependent Variable: LL_MEAN
b. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background, What is your age?
c. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background ,What is your age?, CO_TOT, EX_TOT
Table 20: Anova for loyalty of lifestyle brands
75
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error
Beta Tolerance VIF
1
(Constant) 3.746 .427 8.766 .000
What is your age?
-.035 .094 -.031 -.376 .708 .997 1.003
Specify your Educational Background
.138 .097 .118 1.429 .155 .997 1.003
2
(Constant) 2.403 .840 2.861 .005
What is your age?
-.047 .094 -.041 -.498 .619 .991 1.009
Specify your Educational Background
.136 .096 .116 1.412 .160 .995 1.005
EX_TOT .121 .143 .071 .846 .399 .966 1.035
CO_TOT .241 .159 .126 1.514 .132 .971 1.030
a. Dependent Variable: LL_MEAN
Table 21: Coefficients for loyalty of lifestyle brands