Cross-Cultural Brand Personality and Brand Desirability: An Empirical Approach to the Role of Culture on this Mediated Interplay [1st ed.] 9783658311773, 9783658311780

Citation preview

Corinna Colette Vellnagel

Cross-Cultural Brand Personality and Brand Desirability An Empirical Approach to the Role of Culture on this Mediated Interplay

Markenkommunikation und Beziehungsmarketing Series Editor Cornelia Zanger, Technische Universität Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Deutschland

In den letzten Jahren sind am Lehrstuhl für Marketing und Handelsbetriebslehre an der TU Chemnitz über 30 Dissertationen zu verschiedenen Forschungsgebieten im Marketing entstanden, die zum Teil bei Springer Gabler veröffentlicht werden konnten. Einen Schwerpunkt stellten Studien zu innovativen Fragen der Markenkommunikation wie Eventmarketing, Sponsoring oder Erlebnisstrategien dar. Ein weiteres zentrales Thema waren Arbeiten zum Beziehungsmarketing, die sich beispielsweise mit jungen Zielgruppen, der Entstehung von Vertrauen und mit der Markenbeziehung beschäftigten. Mit dieser Reihe sollen die Forschungsarbeiten unter einem thematischen Dach zusammengeführt werden, um den Dialog mit Wissenschaft und Praxis auszubauen. Neben Dissertationen, Habilitationen und Konferenzbänden, die am Lehrstuhl der Herausgeberin entstehen, steht die Reihe auch externen Nachwuchswissenschaftlern und etablierten Wissenschaftlern offen, die empirische Arbeiten zu den Themenbereichen Markenkommunikation und Beziehungsmarketing veröffentlichen möchten.

Reihe herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Cornelia Zanger Technische Universität Chemnitz Deutschland

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/12687

Corinna Colette Vellnagel

Cross-Cultural Brand Personality and Brand Desirability An Empirical Approach to the Role of Culture on this Mediated Interplay

Corinna Colette Vellnagel BMW AG Munich, Germany

Dissertation Technische Universität Chemnitz, 2019

ISSN 2626-0263 ISSN 2626-028X  (electronic) Markenkommunikation und Beziehungsmarketing ISBN 978-3-658-31177-3 ISBN 978-3-658-31178-0  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31178-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Responsible Editor: Carina Reibold This Springer Gabler imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Foreword

Seit den grundlegenden Studien von Hofstede in den 1980er Jahren ist in der Wissenschaft unstrittig, dass die nationale Kultur einen wichtigen Einfluss auf Organisation und Führung von Unternehmen hat. Die Kulturdimensionen von Hofstede fanden eine breite wissenschaftliche Reflektion, führten zu Folgeuntersuchungen und beeinflussten die Forschung u. a. auch im Feld des internationalen Marketings. Soll internationales Marketing erfolgreich sein, dann muss es immer interkulturelles Marketing sein und den landesspezifischen Hintergrund der Zielgruppen beachten. Dies gilt in besonderem Maße auch für das Markenmanagement, d. h. die Positionierung von Marken im internationalen Kontext. Während der Prozess des internationalen Markenaufbaus aus Managementsicht und aus rechtlicher Perspektive intensiv betrachtet wurde, sind verhaltenswissenschaftliche Aspekte eher unterbelichtet. Im Zuge der Globalisierung stellt sich jedoch gerade für Marken, die auf internationalen Märkten erfolgreich sein wollen, die Frage nach der Wahrnehmung der eigenen Marke durch die Konsumenten aus dem Blickwinkel unterschiedlicher Kulturen. An dieser vor dem Hintergrund der fortschreitenden Globalisierung wichtiger werdenden Fragestellung setzt die wissenschaftliche Arbeit der Autorin an. Sie stellt sich das Ziel, zentrale Konstrukte der verhaltenswissenschaftlichen Markentheorie—Markenpersönlichkeit, Marken-Selbst-Kongruenz und Markenbegehrlichkeit—in ihrem Zusammenhang mit den Kulturdimensionen nach Hofstede zu untersuchen. Die Autorin bearbeitet damit ein aktuelles wissenschaftliches Forschungsfeld. Es gelingt ihr auf Basis verhaltenswissenschaftlicher Theorien ein eigenständiges Erklärungsmodell (Basismodell und erweitertes Basismodell) für die o. g. Zusammenhänge zu entwickeln und empirisch zu überprüfen. Für die Unternehmenspraxis besonders spannend ist dabei, dass die empirische Hauptuntersuchung

v

vi

Foreword

am Beispiel einer deutschen Automobilmarke (BMW M) erfolgt und dass mit Deutschland, den USA und China drei Kernmärkte der Automobilindustrie in ihren kulturellen Unterschieden bzgl. der Markenwahrnehmung betrachtet werden. Die vorliegende Dissertation liefert tiefergehende wissenschaftliche Einsichten in die Markenwahrnehmung im interkulturellen Kontext und ist deshalb sowohl für die Wissenschaft als auch die Praxis von herausragender Bedeutung. Mit den vorgelegten wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen kann der Autorin einen bedeutenden Beitrag zur Weiterentwicklung der Konsumentenverhaltensforschung in Bezug auf die Markenwahrnehmung im interkulturellen Kontext leisten. Besonders wertvoll sind aber auch die Implikationen, die sich für die Praxis des Markenmanagements in internationalen Märken ergeben. Die Handlungsempfehlungen dürften eine Fundgrube an Ideen für die Verantwortlichen im Bereich der Automobilindustrie aber auch in vielen anderen Bereichen, in denen Premiummarken entwickelt und gepflegt werden. Ich wünsche dem Buch sowohl von Seiten der Wissenschaft als auch aus der Praxis die große Resonanz, die diese tiefgründige Arbeit verdient und hoffe, dass es den weiteren Diskurs zum Markenmanagement in internationalen Märkten in Wissenschaft und Praxis befruchten kann. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Cornelia Zanger

Acknowledgements

I thank all those who have supported me during the writing of my dissertation. Sincere thanks go out to my doctoral supervisor, Prof Dr Cornelia Zanger, who was not only involved in sparking my interest in pursuing a doctoral degree, but also supported me and believed in me during the entire process of my PhD. Her openness, patience and broad knowledge created an ideal working atmosphere. Special thanks are directed to my second examiner, Jun-Prof Dr Mario Geißler, with whom I was able to have interesting conversations on and off-topic. Moreover, he was a great consultant with regards to sharpening the research focus of my PhD. I also direct great gratitude to Dr Sebastian Pyka who supported me with all his professional competence during the model development. Additionally, I thank the participants of the biannual research colloquium for their constructive feedback, as well as interesting and new approaches. I am speaking out sincere gratitude to Dominique Gargiulo who made my participation in the BMW Group ProMotion Programme possible. I also express deep gratitude to Wigand Kraus who supported me during the final phase of my PhD. Special thanks also go to my friends as well as current and former colleagues. A positive working climate and the right friends around were a major backing during this period. I particularly express my profound thankfulness to my fellow PhD students at the BMW Group, Dr Franziska Ferdinand and Sina Unger, for supporting me both professionally and emotionally. Our regular ‘Brand Jour Fixe’ often lit the light at the end of the sometimes-dark PhD tunnel without ever losing the fun. Whenever I needed a break from the PhD project, it was my beloved friend Julia Lerch who carried me away from the BMW and research world. She always believed in me and emboldened me to keep working hard. A huge thank goes out to her.

vii

viii

Acknowledgements

Very special thanks to my parents Karin and Dr Ulrich Vellnagel who have always encouraged me to follow my goals and stood up for opening any possible door. They paved the way for me to have this excellent education and supported me with their unconditional backing my entire life. Ich danke euch! Heartfelt thanks from the bottom of my heart go out to my husband Jonas D’haen. In moments of doubt, frustration but also success, it was him who was always there for me to either build me up, get rid of any doubts or celebrate important milestones. It is a blessing having such a partner in crime by my side who just understands. Dank je wel!

Contents

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Research Problem and Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Theoretical Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 Brand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.1 Brand Personality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2 From Self-Concept to Brand-Self-Congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1.3 Brand Desirability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 1.4 Brief Summary Around the Thematic Block of Brand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2 Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.1 Culture as an Influencer in Brand Management. . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.2 Critical Appraisal of the Cultural Approaches and Model Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.4 Brief Summary Around the Thematic Block of Culture . . . . 49 3 Interim Conclusion and Critical Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3 Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship Between Brand Personality and Brand Desirability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 1 Development of a Reference Framework for the Model Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2 Presumed Relationships Between Brand Personality and the Endogenous Constructs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

ix

x

Contents

3 4 5 6

2.1 Brand Personality and Brand Desirability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2.2 Brand Personality and Brand-Self-Congruity . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Presumed Mediating Effect of Brand-Self-Congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Presumed Relationships Between the Endogenous Constructs: Brand-Self-Congruity and Brand Desirability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Presumed Role of Culture as a Moderator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Summary of the Hypotheses Framework and Explanatory Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4 Model Testing and Empirical Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 1 Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method and Evaluation Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 1.1 Reliability and Validity as Quality Criteria for the Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 1.2 Structural Equation Modelling with the PLS-Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 1.3 Appraisal of the Structural Equation Modelling with the PLS-Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 1.4 Quality Criteria of Structural Equation Modelling with the PLS-Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 1.5 Mediation Analysis with the Bootstrap Approach. . . . . . . . . 92 1.6 Moderated Mediation Analysis with the Bootstrap Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2 Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.1 Objective of the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.2 Operationalisation of the Constructs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 2.2.1 Operationalisation of the Exogenous Construct Brand Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2.2.2 Operationalisation of the Endogenous Constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 2.2.2.1 Operationalisation of Brand-Self-Congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 2.2.2.2 Operationalisation of Brand Desirability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 2.2.3 Overview of the Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 2.3 Procedure of Data Collection and Data Entry. . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Contents

xi

2.4

3

Survey Results and Hypotheses Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 2.4.1 Verification of the Quality Criteria and Critical Assessment of the Measurement Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 2.4.2 Testing of Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 2.5 Summary of the Pre-test and Derivation of the Research Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Main Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 3.1 Objective of the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 3.2 Operationalisation of the Constructs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 3.2.1 Operationalisation of the Exogenous and Endogenous Constructs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 3.2.2 Operationalisation of the Moderator Variable. . . . 129 3.3 Cross-Cultural Equivalence Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 3.4 Procedure of Data Collection, Data Entry and Sample Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 3.5 Empirical Causal Analysis for Research Model Testing . . . . 144 3.5.1 Assessment of the Quality Criteria and Optimisation of the Measurement Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 3.5.2 Hypotheses Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 3.5.3 Mediator Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 3.5.4 Moderation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 3.5.5 Moderated Mediation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 3.6 Summary and Discussion of the Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

5 Summarised Evaluation, Conclusion and Critical Reflection. . . . . . . . 205 1 Summary of the Research Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 2 Evaluation of the Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 2.1 Conclusion on the Theoretical Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 2.2 Managerial Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 3 Conclusive Criticism and Future Need for Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Abbreviations

ACL Adjective Check List AMA American Marketing Association AVE Average Variance Extracted BD Brand Desirability BMW Bayerische Motoren Werke (Bavarian Motor Works) BP Brand Personality BSC Brand-Self-Congruity cf. confer CHN China COM Competence e.g. example given et al. et alia (and others) EXC Excitement GER Germany H Hypothesis HC High Context HTMT Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio IDV Individualism IND Indulgence KFC Kentucky Fried Chicken LC Low Context LTO Long-Term Orientation MAS Masculinity MBA Master of Business Administration MGA Multi-Group Analysis p. page

xiii

xiv

PD Power Distance PhD Doctor of Philosophy PLS Partial Least Squares pp. pages RUG Ruggedness SEM Structural Equation Model SIN Sincerity SOP Sophistication UA Uncertainty Avoidance US(A) United States (of America) vs. versus VSM Value Survey Module WOM word-of-mouth

Abbreviations

Symbols

α Cronbach’s Alpha η Sample Size b b-value (unstandardized regression coefficient) CI 95% 95% Confidence Interval f2 Effect Size M Mean p path p p-value Q2 Stone-Geisser Criterion R 2 Coefficient of Determination SD Standard Derivation t t-value

xv

List of Figures

Chapter 1 Figure 1 Outline of examination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Chapter 2 Figure 1 Aaker’s brand personality dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 2 Brand personality as the independent variable in consumer behaviour research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 3 Iceberg model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Chapter 3 Figure 1 Research model on the influence of brand personality on brand desirability mediated by brand-self-congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Figure 2 Research model on the influence of culture on the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. . . . . . . . . . 76 Chapter 4 Figure 1 General Mediation model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Figure 2 Conceptual model of a moderated mediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 3 Brand personality dimensions according to Jennifer Aaker (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Figure 4 SEM results of the mediated brand personality—brand desirability—relationship (Mini). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Figure 5 SEM results of the mediated brand personality—brand desirability—relationship (Apple). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

xvii

xviii

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

List of Figures

Hofstede’s cultural classification for China. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Hofstede’s cultural classification for Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Hofstede’s cultural classification for the USA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 A three-country comparison (Germany, China and the USA) of Hofstede’s cultural classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Data set funnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 SEM results of the mediated brand personality—brand desirability—relationship (overall sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 SEM results of the mediated brand personality—brand desirability—relationship (German sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 SEM results of the mediated brand personality—brand desirability—relationship (US sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 SEM results of the mediated brand personality—brand desirability—relationship (Chinese sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Overview of the SEM-results of the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through ­brand-self-congruity for Germany, the USA and China. . . . . . . 174 Slope plot for the moderating effect of uncertainty avoidance on the relationship between ruggedness and brand desirability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Slope plot for the moderating effect of power distance on the relationship between sincerity and brand-self-congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Slope plot for the moderating effect of individualism on the relationship between sincerity and brand-self-congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Slope plot for the moderating effect of individualism on the relationship between competence and brand-self-congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Slope plot for the moderating effect of individualism on the relationship between sophistication and brand-self-congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Slope plot for the moderating effect of uncertainty avoidance on the relationship between sophistication and brand-self-congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

List of Figures

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25

Figure 26

Figure 27

Figure 28

Figure 29

Figure 30

Figure 31

Figure 32

Figure 33

xix

Slope plot for the moderating effect of long-term orientation on the relationship between sincerity and brand-self-congruity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Slope plot for the moderating effect of individualism on the relationship between brand-self-congruity and brand personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Slope plot for the moderating effect of uncertainty avoidance on the relationship between brand-self-congruity and brand personality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Slope plot for the moderating effect of long-term orientation on the relationship between brand-self-congruity and brand personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Conditional indirect effect of sincerity on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by individualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Conditional indirect effect of sincerity on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by long-term orientation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Conditional indirect effect of excitement on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by power distance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Conditional indirect effect of excitement on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by uncertainty avoidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Conditional indirect effect of sophistication on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by individualism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Conditional indirect effect of sophistication on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by uncertainty avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Conditional indirect effect of ruggedness on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by individualism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Conditional indirect effect of ruggedness on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by uncertainty avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

xx

Figure 34

Figure 35 Figure 36

List of Figures

Conditional indirect effect of ruggedness on brand desirability through the mediator brand-self-congruity induced by long-term orientation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Graphic illustration of the SEM-results for the overall sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Graphic illustration of the SEM-results for Germany, the USA and China. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

List of Tables

Chapter 2 Table 1 Literature overview of brand personality in an intercultural context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2 Brand personality dimensions in previous research. . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 3 Literature overview of culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Chapter 3 Table 1 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in a nutshell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Chapter 4 Table 1 Quality criteria to assess reliability including their thresholds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table 2 Quality criteria to assess validity including their thresholds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Table 3 Quality criteria of the PLS-approach to measure the structural model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Table 4 Overview operationalisation (pre-test). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Table 5 Sample size recommendation in PLS-SEM following the minimum R-squared method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Table 6 Demographic data of the pre-test samples (Mini & Apple). . . . . 109 Table 7 Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (Mini). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Table 8 Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (Apple). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Table 9 HTMT values of the brand Mini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Table 10 HTMT values of the brand Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

xxi

xxii

Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32

List of Tables

Means, standard derivations and inter-item correlations (Mini). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Means, standard derivations and inter-item correlations (Apple). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Indirect and direct effects of the five brand personality dimensions on brand desirability (Mini). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Indirect and direct effects of the five brand personality dimensions on brand desirability (Apple). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Overview testing of Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 (pre-test). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Overview operationalisation (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Demographic profiles of respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Pre-elimination results of the measurement instruments (Overall sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Pre-elimination results of the measurement instruments (German sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Pre-elimination results of the measurement instruments (US sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Pre-elimination results of the measurement instruments (Chinese sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Exemplary procedure of item elimination for the brand personality dimension excitement (overall sample). . . . . . . . . . . 154 Exemplary procedure of item elimination for the brand personality dimension sincerity (German sample). . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (overall sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (German sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (US sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (Chinese sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 HTMT values (overall sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 HTMT values (Germany). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 HTMT values (USA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 HTMT values (China) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Means, standard derivations (overall sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

List of Tables

Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41

Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52

xxiii

Inter-item correlations (overall sample) including moderator variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Means, standard derivations and inter-item correlations (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Means, standard derivations and inter-item correlations (USA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Means, standard derivations and inter-item correlations (China). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Indirect, direct and total effects of brand personality dimensions on brand desirability (overall sample) . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Indirect, direct and total effects of brand personality dimensions on brand desirability (German sample) . . . . . . . . . . 169 Indirect, direct and total effects of brand personality dimensions on brand desirability (US sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Indirect, direct and total effects of brand personality dimensions on brand desirability (Chinese sample) . . . . . . . . . . 172 Overview of the significant moderation effects from culture on the brand personality—brand-selfcongruity—relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Multi-group analysis results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Overview testing of Hypothesis 1 and its sub-hypotheses (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Overview testing of Hypothesis 2 (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Overview testing of Hypothesis 3 (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Overview testing of Hypothesis 4 (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Overview testing of Hypothesis 5 (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Overview testing of Hypothesis 6 (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Overview testing of Hypothesis 6a (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Overview testing of Hypothesis 6b (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Overview testing of Hypothesis 6c (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Overview testing of Hypothesis 6d (main study). . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Chapter 5 Table 1 Overview of complete hypotheses testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

1

Introduction

A brand that captures your mind gains behaviour. A brand that captures your heart gains commitment. – Scott Talgo, brand strategist.

1 Overview Throughout the last couple of years, an increasing interest with regards to culturally based consequences towards marketing, advertising and branding has been seen. Globalisation and technology significantly contribute to the so-called commoditisation of any kind of product, while brands function as bridges between products and consumers. Thus, brands act a part in establishing customer relationships and contribute to a company’s success (e.g. Rao, Agarwal and Dahlhoff, 2004; Schau, Muñiz Jr and Arnould, 2009; Sprott, Czellar and Spangenberg, 2009; Eisingerich and Rubera, 2010). At the same time, new competitors enter the markets which are seeking for lower labour costs while introducing alternative technologies and approaches. In order to maintain exclusivity, remain at the forefront and keep differentiation, well thought-out brand management is a mean to fight this trend (cf. Trompenaars and Woolliams, 2004, pp. 163). Thus, the employment of global brand and communication strategies has received greater attention in order to effectively coordinate global activities. An opportunity for this effective coordination is the adaption of global brand and communication strategies following cultural nuances (cf. Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010, p. 64).

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 C. C. Vellnagel, Cross-Cultural Brand Personality and Brand Desirability, Markenkommunikation und Beziehungsmarketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31178-0_1

1

2

1 Introduction

However, managing global brands has been found to also entail risks (cf. Schuiling & Kapferer, 2004, p. 101). Every day, consumers are confronted with innumerable brands and they create their very own brand perceptions. These perceptions are on the one hand, based on the values, “name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature” (AMA, 2017) communicated by a company, and on the other hand, also based on the consumer’s own value system. Those brand values are not added to a brand but rather integrated and besides that, they lead to different perceptions amongst consumers. Consequently, marketers are facing serious dilemmas when converting their brands around the world. In this context, it has been found that consumers with different cultural backgrounds ascribe different brand personality dimensions to the same global brand (cf. Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2011, p. 184). Exemplarily, even though the brand identity of the brand Red Bull has been positioned identically across six countries, consumers perceived the brand differently (cf. Foscht, Maloles, Swoboda, Morschett, & Sinha, 2008, p. 137). In fact, Red Bull heavily pushed the brand personality dimensions competence and excitement in their advertising campaigns, however their brand personality perception of the brand Red Bull differed strongly (cf. Foscht et al., 2008, p. 136). Fast food chains like McDonald’s or Burger King have also struggled developing their business and brand in c­ ertain countries such as Vietnam, despite having great success in other Asian markets like China or Japan (e.g. CNBC, 2018). The brand perception as well as value proposition of McDonald’s does not match the needs and desire of the Vietnamese people. McDonald’s does not manage to satisfy the Vietnamese customers as they do not provide a family-style serving experience and therewith, the cuisine is not exciting for Vietnamese. Even though they have started adopting their menu, McDonald’s has still not received the attention desired. This also gets underlined by research results on the differing brand personality perception of McDonald’s and KFC in Japan and the USA. Overall, the Japanese perceived the brand personality of both fast food brands as more positive than the US Americans (cf. Murase & Bojanic, 2004, p. 108). This shows, that brands are facing the culture challenge. Besides that, brands may also face marketing blunders when not setting up their brand, marketing and communications strategy carefully. These blunders may on the one hand be based on macro-environment related factors such as symbols, colours, religion, time preferences, business practices and traditions or economic factors, or on the other hand on strategy and management related factors like poor adaption, communication, translation, mismatched marketing mix, market intelligence, off target, or inappropriate marketing objectives (cf. Dalgic & Heijblom, 1996, p. 83). Additionally, failures may be of different origin such as the idea, the extension, the PR, the culture, the people, the rebranding, the

2  Research Problem and Objective

3

internet and new technologies or simply tired brands (cf. Haig, 2005, pp. v). The misperception of brand personalities across cultures has in the past already led to lapses of big brands. Following up on that, blunders do not spare big brands. Thus, brands such as Coca-Cola, SONY or McDonald’s have already dealt with blunders. In 1985, the Coca-Cola Company replaced its original coke by creating ‘New Coke’, a soft drink with a new formula, and therewith reversed its brand image in order to overlap with Pepsi’s brand image. This measure ended in low sales numbers of ‘New Coke’ and high public outrage as the original product was no longer sold. Only a few months later they had no other choice than bringing back the original formula and brand. The Coca-Cola Company was not aware of the abiding and deep emotional attachment as well as passion consumers felt for the original Coca-Cola soft drink. In the consumers’ mind the ‘New Coke’ did not mirror the original brand personality aspects of the original Coca-Cola (Haig, 2005, p. 13; cf. Schindler, 1992, p. 22). These examples and previously conducted research around the brand personality effect (e.g. Freling & Forbes, 2005) support that developing a strong and favourable brand is key in order to create familiarity, desirability and involvement which in the end is expected to lead to purchase intention and long-term brand commitment. Moreover, the decision-making styles and processes of consumers have been found to vary across cultures (cf. Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2011, p. 188). Consequently, it is of utmost importance for brands to understand the needs, as well as desires and mind-sets of their customers in each market around the world.

2 Research Problem and Objective Any brand from any sector might be recognised and valued in various cultures for different reasons. This assumption might not just be a gut feeling by many members of society, but research has determined that one and the same brand communication approach does not necessarily lead to the same brand perception across different cultures. The brand Red Bull, for example, stands for different brand personality dimensions in a six-country comparison. One culture associates Red Bull only with sophistication whether another culture perceives the brand as exciting, competence and sophisticated. Thus, the brand and communication strategies applied missed the mark (cf. Foscht et al., 2008, p. 136). This underlines the theoretical and practical demand for clarifying the cross-cultural impact of brand personalities. In this context it is also crucial to know what a certain brand personality achieves in the behaviour or attitude of a consumer? Does a well-established brand personality increase positive consumer behaviour? And which brand values are

4

1 Introduction

important and honoured across different cultures? This then leads to the deliberations of what are the attributes a brand needs to communicate and live in order to be successful across different countries? Without a doubt, brands cannot easily change their value propositions per market, but as long as they are aware of the varying perceptions, an adequate brand strategy and suitable brand communication means can be initiated. In general, a strong brand will find it easier and therefore requires less effort to conquer new customers and to also maintain or even grow customer loyalty (cf. Diehlmann and Häcker, 2013, p. 9). Knowing that, how can a strong brand be defined and what are the traits that make a brand a strong brand? Extending this thought, every strong brand needs to have a clear focus, be emotional and show continuity (cf. Adari, Thrane and Taube, 2004, p. 66). Based on these expositions and according to previously conducted studies, the necessity of considering an adaption of brand and marketing strategies to the consumers’ culture has become more and more relevant and should be considered by marketers (e.g. de Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). However, a general statement on this topic has not been made and therewith, a research gap can be identified. Even though multi-country studies are fairly rare in the field of marketing, a few researches have looked into the relevance of adapting marketing strategies in order to perform more effectively (e.g. Calantone et al., 2006; Okazaki, Taylor and Zou, 2006; Yin Wong and Merrilees, 2007). Consumer behaviour is influenced by multiple external and internal factors. When it comes to brands, people create their own image. This image is based on the brand’s personality transferred. Thus, a brand’s personality has been proven to lead to certain consumer behaviours such as brand loyalty (e.g. C. K. Kim, Han, & Park, 2001), purchase intention (e.g. Freling and Forbes, 2005; Wang and Yang, 2008; Wang, Yang and Liu, 2009) or brand attachment (e.g. Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011). However, a consumer behaviour which so far has not received a lot of attention and which has also not been linked with brand personality dimensions, is brand desirability, the desire of owning something of a certain brand. This brand behaviour is backed by emotionality and a relationship-like link. An intriguing aspect about brand desirability is that it does not require the financial resources like purchase intention and could therefore rather be prepended to purchase intention. High-end brands often face the challenge that currently financial barriers might exist in order to pursue purchase intention. Nevertheless, the brand could still be favoured and there might be a desire to now or later become an owner of a product or service of the brand. Therefore, fairly un-researched consumer behaviour brand desirability is of great interest and calls to fill a research gap in consumer research. Additively, existing research also pointed out that the previous assessed models could or rather should

2  Research Problem and Objective

5

be extended by moderators (e.g. consumers with different demographic characteristics) or additional mediators (cf. Roy, Khandeparkar, & Motiani, 2016, p. 110). Many internal and external factor influence the decision whether a consumer considers a brand as attractive and feels the desire to be a brand owner or user. In that respect, researchers (Kressmann et al., 2006; e.g. M. Sirgy, 1982; M. Joseph Sirgy, Lee, Johar, & Tidwell, 2008) have pointed out that consumers are more likely to sympathise with brands which are similar to themselves. The phenomenon of the so-called self-congruity concept has found a lot of attention in the surrounding of consumer behaviours (Jennifer L. Aaker, 1999; Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Malhotra, 1988; e.g. M. Sirgy, 1982; M. Joseph Sirgy et al., 2008). Further, researchers successfully examined the self-congruity concept on its mediating role within effect mechanisms in consumer behaviour (e.g. Matzler, Strobl, ­Stokburger-Sauer, Bobovnicky, & Bauer, 2016). Consequently, if a consumer sees a match between his/her own personality and the personality of a brand, he/she is expected to favour it, buy it, recommend it, etc. Following up previous research, brand-self-congruity is an important trigger in consumer research. It has however not been linked with brand desirability and therefore provides great potential to extend the current state of research. The present research seeks to investigate the role of brand-self-congruity within a new frame and aims to fill the gap. This chapter started off with the culturally diverging brand perceptions of the brand Red Bull. Brands can be consumed all around the world and once companies operate internationally their brands face the challenge of globalisation. Therefore, the importance of culture in the field of business and consumer related research is highly significant and has already received a great deal of attention. Nevertheless, the research around the influence of culture is not saturated. With the field of brand desirability in particular being relatively new, culture has not yet been associated with this consumer behavioural pattern which is an interesting and highly relevant task to step on. Further, the highly complex research model targeted in the present work gives completely new insights to the role of culture in cross-cultural branding and consumer research. Based on the just specified research gaps, the theoretical aim of the present work finds itself in examining the importance and effect of culture on the relationship between brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability. Thus, the aim is to firstly assess whether brand personality dimensions directly and/or indirectly lead to brand desirability. Indirectly, as the brand desirability could be steered by brand-self-congruity. Additionally, the influence of culture on those direct and/or indirect effects shall be verified. Do cultural dimensions influence the brand perception and thus, have an effect on the brand desirability caused by brand personality dimensions? The present work has the aim of contributing to the research around cross-cultural marketing and consumer research.

6

1 Introduction

Even though consumer behaviour has been attached with great importance, the level of knowledge around brand desirability is still fairly low. Thus, introducing brand desirability in the present context, seeks to gain a deeper understanding on brand behavioural patterns while extending those by a substantial resource. Managerial implications follow the theoretical and empirical findings of this work. Thus, recommendations with regards to brand management across different cultures shall be derived. Knowing a brand’s market and its target groups is crucial for any brand and marketing manager. Therefore, the outcome of the present work provides a better understanding of how brand behaviour varies across different markets and therewith, is steered by cultural differences. Previously conducted research has already highlighted an increase in the managerial focus with regards to maximising the value of a brand by creating stronger and deeper relationships between the customers and the brand on a worldwide level (e.g. Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 1999; Hsieh, 2002; Austin, Siguaw and Mattila, 2003; Schau, Muñiz Jr and Arnould, 2009; Eisingerich and Rubera, 2010). By implication, the aim is to indicate whether a company should apply a single brand strategy across all their target markets or whether it is advisable to adapt the brand strategy cross-culturally. In this context, the aim is to provide guidance for brand managers with regards to market-specific brand strategial approaches. In the case that different brand personality dimensions lead to brand desiriability, the brand strategy should be adopted accordingly. Relevant brand personality dimensions should receive more emphasis, while those dimensions not leading to the desired outcome should rather be neglected. Thus, the results of the present work seek to not only improve a brand’s communication strategy following the consumers’ requirements, but ultimatively also increase brand desirability across target markets.

3 Methodology The overarching objective of the present work is the assessment of the role of culture within the brand personality—brand-self-congruity—brand desirability relationship. Thus, the objective is to conduct a profound impact analysis of culture with regards to the direct and indirect effects of brand personality on brand desirability. In order to examine this objective, this dissertation is divided in five chapters. After Chapter 1 just covered the research problem and objectives, Chapter 2 provides an overview on the current state of research regarding the brand personality—brand desirability relationship and serves as the basis for the classification of culture within the research context. This includes the processing and analysis of the underlying literature. Coming from latest knowledge in the fields of brand

3 Methodology

7

and consumer research, more precisely consumer behaviour, the significance of brand personality for brand desirability is highlighted. Moreover, the phenomenon of brand-self-congruity is evaluated within this context. Thus, following these theoretical considerations, the derivation of a possible effect mechanism takes place. This effect mechanism integrates brand-self-congruity as an intervening factor between brand personality and brand desirability. Based on theoretical and empirical knowledge, the suitability of this mediator is outlined. Additionally, the complexity and importance of culture are identified. This also includes the theoretical derivation of the moderating role of culture within the proposed mediated effect mechanism. In accordance with theoretical and empirical findings, the presumed role of culture is outlined. Chapter 3 consolidates culture and the brand personality—brand desirability relationship extended by the mediator brand-self-congruity. Thus, two explanatory models (base model and extended model) building up on each other are designed based on the developed reference framework. Firstly, based on explanatory approaches, the presumed relationship between brand personality and brand desirability is pointed out. The choice of brand-self-congruity as a mediator variable rests on a systematic and theoretical treatment of the state of knowledge of research in the field of consumer behaviour. The second explanatory model includes the variable culture. Based on key findings, any conduct is grounded in a person’s culture. Thus, culture in terms of cultural dimensions is examined in light of its moderating role on the direct and mediated relationship between brand personality and brand desirability. At the end of this chapter, hypotheses reflecting the links between the exogenous brand personality variable and the endogenous brand desirability variable, as well as the role of mediator variable brand-self-congruity are proposed. Additionally, the role of culture on the entire construct is presented in hypotheses. After the development of the explanatory model, the empirical testing follows in Chapter 4. Therefore, two classic fully standardised online survey (­pre-test and main study) are carried out. The pre-test refers to the examination of the mediator model of the brand personality—brand-self-congruity—brand desirability relationship. The moderating role of culture on the mediator model is assessed in the main study. For a better clarity, the respective objective as well as the analytical method and their assessment criteria are outlined at first. Collectively, the quality criteria for the measurement (reliability and validity), the variance-based structural equation analysis and the conditional process analysis are described. Subsequently, the operationalisation of the model variables takes place and the respective examination procedure as well as the relevant sample are outlined. Conclusively, the hypotheses are tested followed by a discussion on the examination results obtained.

8

1 Introduction

Chapter 5 gives a summary of the findings gained and contains conclusions with regards to the theoretical objectives and managerial implications. Therewith, recommendations for action are derived and in the course of a critical appraisal, possible starting points for future research projects are pointed up. The subsequent figure visualises the course of examination schematically (Figure 1).

Figure 1   Outline of examination. Source author’s own

2

Theoretical Background

1 Brand Brands are ever-present in today’s society and we are surrounded by brands in our everyday life (cf. Albert, Merunka and Valette-Florence, 2008, p. 1065; Kapferer, 2012, p. 7). But what is a brand? How can a brand be defined and what are the criteria of a brand? Based on the definition of the American Marketing Association, a brand is a “name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition” (AMA, 2017). In research, different approaches and angles with regards to a definition exist. Thus, each brand expert introduces a definition of brand with individual nuances. In accordance, brands are defined as a set of perceptions (cf. Kapferer, 2012, p. 8) or they are seen as tangible assets which are capable of creating benefits for all internal and external stakeholders involved (cf. Wood, 2000, p. 662; Srivastava, Fahey and Christensen, 2001, p. 1). This is only a small selection of the manifold angles that exist to define the phenomenon brand. Consequently, this diversity in brand definitions proposes that different perspectives such as the company-related or ­consumer-related perspective need to be considered when investigating the world of brand. From a company’s point of view, branded articles are devices which aim to create a type of imperfect competition. Thus, a product can be distinguished or not distinguished by intrinsic attributes. An example to reach a better understanding would be a pen. Pens are used to take notes. But what are the differences between different pens? Companies make use of a brand name, a logo and/ or other extrinsically anchored attributes such as the packaging or the price. All © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 C. C. Vellnagel, Cross-Cultural Brand Personality and Brand Desirability, Markenkommunikation und Beziehungsmarketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31178-0_2

9

10

2  Theoretical Background

these components are required in order to create a brand. Summarised, a brand combines what a company’s offer range stands for and what it is like (cf. Güse, 2011, p. 15). Generally, a successful brand manages to convince its customers that its offerings, which are sold under its name and logo, show a clear difference to other offerings within the same segment or market. Ideally, customers perceive the offering as unique. Consequently, brands are required to create vital resources so that companies can secure a decisive competitive advantage over their respective competitors (cf. Hunt, 1999, p. 142). Brands are considered as intangible assets which contribute to a company’s success. Besides that, brands also show psychological effects like brand awareness, brand trust and brand liking as well as consumer-behavioural effects such as brand loyalty or purchase intention (e.g. Ambler, 1997; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Molinillo et al., 2017). From the consumer point of view, brands are defined as a set of perceptions (cf. Guthrie and Kim, 2009, p. 130; Kapferer, 2012, p. 130) or used as a “specific branded versions of particular product classes” (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, p. 82). Every consumer has different types of information regarding a brand in his/her head. This information may be visual, verbal or contextual. Depending on a company’s marketing activities as well as personal brand experiences, every individual develops a specific brand perception (cf. Romaniuk and Nicholls, 2006, p. 178). On the other side, it is essential for marketers to understand the patterns of brand perception which is based on the type of brand and consumer. This then provides key information in order to formulate marketing strategies according to brand images and appeals (cf. Guthrie and Kim, 2009, p. 130). Even beyond a specific marketing strategy, it has already been acknowledged that brands are said to have their own personality just like any human being has its personality (cf. Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, p. 143). It has been proven that consumers are able to easily answer metaphorical questions such as “suppose the brand is a person, what kind of person would he/she be, with what personality?” (cf. Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, p. 143). Thus, consumers indeed perceive brands as if they have a personality and therefore, brand personality plays an important role with regards to constructing or managing brands.

1.1 Brand Personality Behind every product stands a brand and each brand has its own personality, just like any human being. Thus, a brand’s personality is amongst the most universally and frequently mentioned brand features (cf. Phau and Lau, 2000, p. 54). Contrary to product-related features, which rather hold a utilitarian function for its

1 Brand

11

consumers, brand personality holds a symbolic function (cf. Keller, 1993, p. 4). Even though a huge amount of research in the field of personality psychology and with that the identification of the ‘Big Five’ has been conducted in the second half of the 20th century, it had not been until the 1980s that consumer behaviour research focused on the personality of brands. Ever since the brand personality concept was evolved, more than four decades ago, burgeoning interest by academicians as well as practitioners has arouse (Jennifer L. Aaker, 1997; Kassarjian, 1971; e.g. Levy, 1959; Plummer, 1985; M. Sirgy, 1982). Already in 1958, Pierre Martineau published his work ‘The Personality of the Retail Store’ and therein made use of the term ‘brand personality’ in the context of retail stores. He referred to the non-materialistic dimensions which make a retail store special—as it were, its character. Later, researchers concentrated on how a brand’s personality allows its consumer to show his/her own self (e.g. Belk, 1988), an in their opinion ideal self (e.g. Malhotra, 1988) or even certain scales of his/ her self (e.g. Kleine, Kleine Schultz and Kernan, 1993). Brand personality has also been linked to media choice, segmentation, social influence, fear, innovation, risk taking, product choice, opinion leadership, attitude change, and nearly anything else one could think of (Kassarjian, 1971, p. 409). Besides that, literature also states that brands can represent the beliefs and values of a culture (cf. Wang, Wang, Fang, & Jiang, 2018, p. 89). This finds additional support in research by Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera (2001). They found that the US and Japan have certain brand personality dimensions in common. Sung and Tinkham (2005) identified that Korea and the US share a set of six brand personality dimensions while there are two culture-specific dimensions. Moreover, brand personality is a sort of brand association explaining the emotional connections as well as the symbolic consumption established between consumers and the brand (e.g. Aaker and Fournier, 1995; Aaker, 1997, 1999; Aaker, Fournier and Brasel, 2004). Accordingly, marketing scholars started paying more and more attention to not only understanding the symbolic meaning attributed to brands by consumers, but also measuring those (Jennifer L. Aaker, 1997; e.g. R Batra, Lehmann, & Singh, 1993; Bettman, 1993; Biel, 1993; Hogg, Cox, & Keeling, 2000). Focusing on brands’ symbolic meaning originated in the criticism with regards to a lack of product symbolism. Traditional experiential researchers tent to conceptualise products too narrow-mindedly by solely taking the functional attributes of a product into account (e.g. Levy, 1959; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Solomon, 1983; McCracken, 1986; Belk, 1988). In this course, many researchers studying in the field of brand management presented concepts of brands that involve symbolic components (e.g. Park, Jaworski and Maclnnis, 1986; Keller, 1993; Park and Srinivasan, 1994; Ligas, 2000). However, only a few focused on

12

2  Theoretical Background

creating a valid measurement tool that captures the symbolic meanings of a brand. It has however also been stated “that brand personality is an integral part of brand image” (cf. Ferguson, Lau, & Phau, 2016, p. 344). Besides that, brand personality is also considered as a viable metaphor. This means that the underlying idea is based on consumers creating affinities towards brands congruent with their own personality (e.g. Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido, 2001; Louis and Lombart, 2010; Bairrada, Coelho and Lizanets, 2018). Commonly and also in the present context, the perceived brand personality is defined by every direct or indirect contact with a certain brand. It is about having a transfer between human/personality features of the (stereo-) typical brand consumer onto the brand, a so-called personification of the brand. Additional features involved in this transfer are the traits and values reflected by the management and staff of the respective manufacturer. Once this transfer has taken place, a brand may be considered as ‘personified’ and was given a soul (cf. Aaker, 1997, pp. 347). McCracken (1989, p. 310) indicates that with this transfer, the traits of the consumers connected to the brand are being transposed straight to the brand itself. An example from real life would be Steve Job (former CEO of Apple Inc.; *1955–†2011). He was considered as an unconventional and hip leader which is exactly what Apple’s products stand for—innovation, hipness and state-of-the-art. It needs to be added that brand personality is taking on a supplementary function allowing consumers to create a bond with particular brands—just the way a human has a bond with his peers. Consequently, both, brand personality and human personality are based on various dimensions. With the Big Five model of human personality being undoubtedly universal, when it comes to brand personality, trait attributions are culture-specific in parts. Aaker’s (1997) seminal approach and extensive research on brand personality came up with a reliable and valid framework of brand personality. Her scale has been replicated and/or extended by other researchers (e.g. Aaker, ­Benet-Martinez and Garolera, 2001; Kim, Han and Park, 2001; Olavarrieta, Friedmann and Manzur, 2010). Additionally, several other scholars developed rather different approaches (e.g. d’Astous and Levesque, 2003; Smit, Berge and Franzen, 2003; Sung and Tinkham, 2005) and yet others used the items of the Big Five (e.g. Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido, 2001; Bosnjak, Bochmann and Hufschmidt, 2007). Before Aaker had introduced her brand personality scale, a few ad hoc scales (e.g. checklists, symbolic analogy, photo-sorts) and scales which were deduced from the personality psychology area were the only existing approaches (cf. Kassarjian, 1971, pp. 409). However, applying them in the field of marketing involved problems with regards to validity (cf. Jennifer L. Aaker, 1997, p. 347). The subsequent table provides an overview on various frameworks on brand personality dimensions in a consumer behavioural and cultural context.

1 Brand

13

Table 1   Literature overview of brand personality in an intercultural context Researcher(s)

Year

Title

Aaker

1997

Dimensions of Brand USA Personality (Journal of Marketing Research)

• Sincerity • Excitement • Competence • Sophistication • Ruggedness

Aaker, BenetMartinez and Garolera

2001

Consumption symbols USA, Japan and as carriers of culture: Spain A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)

• Sincerity • Excitement • Competence (USA & Japan) • Sophistication • Ruggedness (USA) • Peacefulness (Japan) • Passion (Spain)

Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido

2001

Italy Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? (Journal of Economic Psychology)

• Extroversion • Agreeableness • Conscientiousness • Emotional Stability • Openness

Kim, Han and Park 2001

Korea The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification (Japanese Psychological Research)

• Sincerity • Excitement • Competence • Sophistication • Ruggedness

Davies et al.

The personification USA metaphor as a measurement approach for corporate reputation (Corporate Reputation Review)

• Agreeableness • Enterprise • Competence • Ruthlessness • Chic

2001

Culture(s)

Dimensions

(continued)

14

2  Theoretical Background

Table 1   (continued) Researcher(s)

Year

Title

Smit, Berge and Franzen

2003

Brands are just like Netherlands people! The development of SWOOC’s Brand Personality Scale (book: Branding and Advertising)

• Competence • Excitement • Gentle • Distinction • Ruggedness • Annoying • Distinguishing

d’Astous and Levesque

2003

A scale for measuring Canada store personality (Psychology & Marketing)

• Enthusiasm • Sophistication • Unpleasantness • Genuineness • Solidity

Sung and Tinkham

2005

USA and Korea Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and CultureSpecific Factors (Journal of Consumer Psychology)

• Likeableness • Trendiness • Competence • Sophistication • Traditionalism • Ruggedness • White Collar (USA) • Androgyny (USA) • Passive Likableness (Korea) • Ascendancy (Korea)

Bosnjak, Bochmann 2007 and Hufschmidt

Dimensions of Brand Germany Personality Attributions: A Person-Centric Approach in the German Cultural Context (Social Behavior and Personality)

• Drive • Conscientiousness • Emotion • Superficiality

Milas and Mlačić

Croatia Brand personality and human personality: Findings from ratings of familiar Croatian brands (Journal of Business Research)

• Conscientiousness • Extraversion • Agreeableness • Intellect • Emotional Stability

2007

Culture(s)

Dimensions

(continued)

1 Brand

15

Table 1   (continued) Researcher(s)

Year

Title

Culture(s)

Dimensions

Geuens, Weijters and De Wulf

2009

A new measure of brand personality (International Journal of Research in Marketing)

Belgium

• Conscientiousness/Responsibility • Extraversion/ Activity • Emotional Stability/Emotionality • Agreeableness/ Aggressiveness • Openness/ Simplicity

Olavarrieta, Fried- 2010 mann and Manzur

Brand Personality in Chile Chile: a combined emic-etic approach (Estudios de Administración)

• Sophistication • Competence • Ruggedness • Excitement • Traditional • Sincerity

Ha and Janda

2014

China Brand personality and its outcomes in the Chinese automobile industry (Asia Pacific Business Review)

• Responsibility • Activity • Aggressiveness • Simplicity • Emotionality

Ferrandi, Valette-Florence and Fine-Falcy

2015

France Aaker’s brand personality scale in a French context: A replication and preliminary test of validity (book: Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science Annual Conference)

• Sincerity • Dynamism • Robustness • Conviviality • Femininity

Ahmed and Jan

2015

An extension of Aaker’s brand personality model from Islamic perspective: a conceptual study (Journal of Islamic Marketing)

Islamic cultures

• Sincerity • Moderation • Competence • Simplicity • Trustworthiness • Moral Character (continued)

16

2  Theoretical Background

Table 1   (continued) Researcher(s)

Year

Title

Culture(s)

Ahmad and Thyagaraj

2017

India An empirical comparison of two brand personality scales: Evidence from India (Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services)

Dimensions • Excitement • Competence • Sophistication • Popularity • Trendiness • Integrity

Source: own visualisation

The previous table underlines the growing relevance of research around brand personality dimensions as of 1997, when Aaker introduced her approach. Additionally, it shows that literature was not able to define ‘the’ one framework to conceptualise brand personality. In point of fact, certain brand personality dimensions even only appear in a single framework. Examples for such dimensions are ruthlessness, enterprise and chic which are part of the framework by Davies et al. (2001), as well as drive and superficiality (Bosnjak et al., 2007), or dynamism and conviviality (Ferrandi et al., 2015). On the other side, some dimensions appear across multiple frameworks. With this in mind, the brand personality dimension sincerity for example, which was firstly introduced by Aaker (1997), can be found in various later evolved research activities such as the ones by Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera (2001), Kim, Han and Park (2001), Olavarrieta, Friedmann and Manzur (2010), Ahmed and Jan (2015), and Ferrandi, Valette-Florence and Fine-Falcy (2015). Likewise, sophistication (Jennifer L. Aaker, 1997; Jennifer Lynn Aaker et al., 2001; Ahmad & Thyagaraj, 2017; d’Astous & Levesque, 2003; C. K. Kim et al., 2001; Olavarrieta et al., 2010; Sung & Tinkham, 2005) and excitement (Jennifer L. Aaker, 1997; Jennifer Lynn Aaker et al., 2001; Ahmad & Thyagaraj, 2017; C. K. Kim et al., 2001; Olavarrieta et al., 2010; Smit et al., 2003) have also been found to be valid brand personality dimensions across multiple frameworks. In this context, it needs to again be mentioned that the frameworks by Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera (2001), Kim, Han and Park, (2001), Smit, Berge and Franzen (2003), Sung and Tinkham (2005), Olavarrieta, Friedmann and Manzur (2010), Ahmed and Jan (2015), Ferrandi, ­Valette-Florence and Fine-Falcy (2015), as well as Ahmad and Thyagaraj (2017) are adaptions or further developments of Aaker’s original five-dimensional approach. Other researchers (Bosnjak et al., 2007; e.g. Caprara et al., 2001; d’Astous & Levesque, 2003; Davies et al., 2001; Geuens et al., 2009; Ha &

1 Brand

17

Janda, 2014; Milas & Mlačić, 2007) came up with new sets of brand personality dimensions. Exemplarily, in their work “Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit?”, Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido (2001) identified five brand personality dimensions, namely extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness. As already mentioned previously, this approach finds its basis in the Big Five (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness). A few years later, Milas and Mlačić (2007) also came up with a five-dimensional approach based on their ‘findings from ratings of familiar Croatian brands’. Their brand personality dimensions are conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, intellect and emotional stability. In the further course of research around brand personality, Geuens, Weijters and De Wulf (2009) introduced ‘a new measure of brand personality’ in their article of the same name. This new measure consists of the following five dimensions: conscientiousness/ responsibility, extraversion/activity, emotional stability/emotionality, agreeableness/aggressiveness and openness/simplicity. These two approaches show overlapping dimensions to the earlier developed work of Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido (2001). Further, several items of these studies show similarities with for example Aaker’s (1997) approach. Generally, those research approaches which adapted Aaker’s (1997) brand personality framework investigated her five dimensions in a different cultural context. Thus, applying and extending the original conceptualisation of brand personality to the USA, Japan and Spain led to a new set of dimensions. Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera (2001) found sincerity, excitement and sophistication to be cross-culturally applicable, while competence only applies to the USA and Japan, ruggedness merely to the USA, peacefulness merely to Japan, and passion solely to Spain. Olavarrieta, Friedmann and Manzur (2010) extended Aaker’s frame and came up with a six-dimensional ‘combined emic-etic approach’ based on research conducted in Chile. They added the traditional dimension to the original approach. In addition to Table 1, the subsequent table provides a different perspective on existing brand personality dimensions. This overview shows the dimensions and their typical items (in brackets) which have been identified by Davies et al. (2018, p. 119) in 23 research studies published between 1997 and 2016. These studies are based on different contexts of respondent types (consumers, customers, students, (potential) employees, or commercial buyers and sellers), different branded entity types (consumer brands, corporate/company brands, cities and countries) and within different cultural contexts (USA, Spain, UK, Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Turkey, India, Belgium, China and Brazil, Chile). The overview covers studies which had the objective of obtaining a brand personality scale.

18

2  Theoretical Background

Some dimensions could not for sure be allocated and are therefore marked with a question mark. Further, some dimensions were fused as for example Aaker (1997) named a dimension which includes items like honest, cheerful and genuine, as sincerity, whereas Davies et al. (2004) as well as Slaughter et al. (2004) labelled dimensions as agreeableness and boy scout with alike meanings to define them. Therefore, the dimension sincerity is presented as a dimension which is common to the three studies (cf. Davies et al., 2018, p. 119). Summarised, when looking into the overview presented in Table 2, there are four dimensions, respectively sincerity (21 out of 23 possible appearances), competence (18 out of 23), excitement (21 out of 23) and sophistication (13 out of 23), which have commonly been identified across different contexts. Only eight studies have identified the dimension ruggedness. Further, some dimensions such as cosmopolitan or conformity solely appear in one study. In principle, brand personality is considered as a fundamental aspect of brand identity (e.g. Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003) and can be defined as the particular set of human characteristics which are directly connected to a specific brand (name) (cf. Aaker, 1997, p. 348). Generally, brand personality can contribute to brand equity (e.g. Biel, 1993; Keller, 1993; Su and Tong, 2015), can evoke emotions (e.g. Biel, 1993) while building trust and loyalty (e.g. Fournier, 1998; Magin et al., 2003). Based on investigations from Martineau (1958) and once defined as “the non-material dimensions that make a store special – its character” (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003, p. 144), brand personality has been paid a lot of attention to in the research field of consumer behaviour. But it is more than the simple “set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). Aaker’s seminal approach to measuring brand personality can be considered as the most relevant, prominent and applied one to operationalise brand personality. The development of Aaker’s scale of brand personality underwent the following stages: the first stage of trait generation included a total of 309 applicant traits which were extracted by removing redundancy occurring in three major trait lists from the fields of marketing and psychology—namely, the ‘Big Five’ in combination with its preceding works such as its original work (e.g. Tupes and Christal, 1958; Norman, 1963), the ‘NEO Model’ by McCrae and Costa (1989), as well as the ‘Big Five Prototypes’ (e.g. John, Donahue and Kentle, 1990), the ‘Adjective Check List’ (ACL) (e.g. Piedmont, McCrae and Costa, 1991) and the ‘Inter-Circumplex Model’ (e.g. McCrae and Costa, 1989) contributed 204 unique traits. Additionally, 133 unique traits were taken from personality scales used by practitioners (a market research supplier, an advertising agency and a client company) and academics (e.g. Wells et al., 1957; Levy, 1959; Malhotra, 1981; Plummer, 1985; Alt and Griggs, 1988; Batra, Lehmann and Singh, 1993). In order to make sure to have a complete list

Reference number of study

x

x x

x

x x x

x

x

x ?

x x x ?

x

x ? x x ? x ? ?

x x

x

x ?

x

x

x

?

?

x

x

x

x

x

? x

x

x x ?

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x ? x x ? x

x x x x ? x

x x x ? x x x x ? x x x x

x x x

x x x x x x x x x

x ? x x x x

x x x ? x x x x

x

x x x ?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Source: own visualisation following Davies et al. (2018)

Sincerity (honest, genuine, cheerful) Competence (reliable, dependable, efficient) Excitement (daring, imaginative, up-to-date) Sophistication (glamorous, charming, romantic) Ruggedness (tough, strong, rugged) Ruthlessness (controlling, aggressive) Thrift (poor, sloppy, low class) Peacefulness (gentle, mild, peaceful) Unpleasant (annoying, irritating, outmoded) Simplicity (ordinary, simple) Sensitivity (delicate, sensitive, romantic) Conformity (religious, spiritual, traditionalist) Prestige (reputable, successful) Cosmopolitan (international, cosmopolitan) Materialism (selfish, materialistic, pretentious) Conspicuous (special, extravagant, striking) Emotional Stability (calm, patient, stable) Traditional (traditional, classic, practical)

Dimensions (incl. typical items)

Table 2   Brand personality dimensions in previous research

1 Brand 19

Table 2   (continued) Remarks 1. ‘x’ means that the dimensions is existent in the study; ‘?’ indicates that it may be apparent; and a blank means that it was not part of the study 2. Studies: 1 = Aaker (1997); 2 = Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera (2001); 3 = Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera (2001); 4 = Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido (2001); 5 = Smit, Berge and Franzen (2003); 6 = Davies et al. (2004); 7 = Slaughter et al. (2004); 8 = d’Astous and Levesque (2003); 9 = Venable et al. (2005); 10 = Bosnjak, Bochmann and Hufschmidt (2007); 11 = d’Astous and Boujbel (2007); 12 = Milas and Mlačić (2007); 13 = Geuens, Weijters and De Wulf (2009); 14 = Chen and Rodgers (2006); 15 = Demirbag Kaplan et al. (2010); 16 = Olavarrieta, Friedmann and Manzur (2010); 17 = Herbst and Merz (2011); 18 = Das, Datta and Guin (2012); 19 = Muniz and Marchetti (2012); 20 = Willems et al. (2011); 21 = Rojas-Méndez, Murphy and Papadopoulos (2013) and Rojas-Méndez, Papadopoulos and Murphy (2013); 22 = Sung et al. (2015); 23 = Rauschnabel et al. (2016)

20 2  Theoretical Background

1 Brand

21

with the traits being well-known and comprehensible for people, Aaker applied a free-association task in which participants were required to associate personality traits with brands. The actual task was to note those personality traits that first stroke when reflecting upon two different brands out of three different product categories. Those categories had been selected based on the think-feel dimensions symbolic (cosmetics, jeans and fragrances), utilitarian (electronics, computers, and appliances), and the combination of both symbolic and utilitarian (beverages, automobiles and athletic shoes) (e.g. Ratchford, 1987). This framework (cf. Katz, 1960, p. 163) had been applied during this stage of the trait generation and was also used subsequently in order to generalise the scale. The outcome of this task were 295 unique traits which had then been added to the collection of personality traits. As a result, 309 unique ­non-superfluous traits had been identified in the first stage of trait generation. During the second stage, those 309 traits got reduced to a more feasible amount of 114 personality traits. For the subsequent stimuli selection, 37 brands were included in the study. The resulting brand personality scale of Aaker, as visualised in the following figure, consists of five dimensions: Sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness, which are represented by 42 “reliable, valid and generalizable” (Aaker, 1997, p. 353) items (Figure 1). It needs to be added that three out of the five dimensions of the Aaker model mirror the elements of the psychological Big Five model, respectively sincerity,

Brand Personality

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Sophistication

Ruggedness

(11 traits)

(11 traits)

(9 traits)

(6 traits)

(5 traits)

down-to-earth family-oriented small town honest sincere real wholesome original cheerful sentimental friendly

daring trendy exciting spirited cool young imaginative unique up-to-date independent contemporary

reliable hard working secure intelligent technical corporate successful leader confident

upper class glamorous good-looking charming feminine smooth

outdoorsy masculine western tough rugged

Figure 1   Aaker’s brand personality dimensions. Source own visualisation following Aaker (1997)

22

2  Theoretical Background

excitement and competence. However, Aaker’s dimensions were not predicted or proposed based on the Big Five personality theory (cf. Austin, Siguaw and Mattila, 2003, p. 78). Thus, sincerity depicts acceptance, honesty, warmth and caring qualities, while excitement conveys energy, youthfulness, sociability and activity. The dimension competence portrays dependability, responsibility and security; and upper class, as well as glamorous and sexy brands describe sophistication. Last but not least, ruggedness imparts masculinity and strength and thus, describes western (American) qualities (cf. Guthrie and Kim, 2009, p. 118). Every newly introduced measurement tool does not get along without criticism. Consequently and also already indicated, Aaker’s model of brand personality has also been re-examined (e.g. Austin, Siguaw and Mattila, 2003), revised and adapted (e.g. Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido, 2001; Geuens, Weijters and De Wulf, 2009), as well as extended (e.g. Sung and Tinkham, 2005; Sung et al., 2015) and questioned (e.g. Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003) over the years. A major point of criticism dealt out is the missing psychological theory, as the five personality dimensions of Aaker’s framework do not correspond with other human personality frameworks (e.g. Pervin and John, 1999; Sweeney and Brandon, 2006; Valette-Florence and De Barnier, 2013). Further, even though it might be possible to describe a brand personality with only a handful of factors, it has been found to be unlikely that the same factors which are used to describe a person’s personality are also suitable to describe a brand (cf. Caprara et al., 2001, p. 392). Besides that, a few scholars also questioned the generalisability as well we the validity of Aaker’s approach (e.g. Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido, 2001; Austin, Siguaw and Mattila, 2003; Geuens, Weijters and De Wulf, 2009). It has also been pointed up that brand personality dimensions are likely to change when they are applied to different types of groups/people (e.g. Rojas-Méndez, Murphy and Papadopoulos, 2013; Ferrandi, Valette-Florence and Fine-Falcy, 2015). Accordingly, research around understanding brand personality dimensions has also been conducted with regards to the role of culture (e.g. Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera, 2001; Milas and Mlačić, 2007). This criticism addressed that Aaker’s brand personality dimensions are likely to be too broad to be applied across different cultures (e.g. Caprara, Barbaranelli and Guido, 2001). On the other hand, follow-up studies took place in order to replicate Aaker’s brand personality framework across different cultures (e.g. Fetscherin and Toncar, 2010). In this context, the cross-cultural applicability, validity and reliability of Aaker’s brand personality dimensions have been confirmed in settings such as restaurants (e.g. Siguaw, Mattila and Austin, 1999), commercial brands (e.g. Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera, 2001; Supphellen and Grønhaug, 2003), corporate brands (e.g. Davies et al., 2001), non-profit organisations (e.g. Venable et al., 2005), automotive brands (e.g. Rojas-Méndez, Erenchun-Podlech and Silva-Olave, 2004) and tourism destinations (e.g. Ekinci and

1 Brand

23

Hosany, 2006). Additionally, the majority of refinements only took place by investigating brand personality scales in a minimised environment with fewer brands and less industries. Ha and Janda (2014) for example only investigated the automobile industry in China; Ferrandi, ­Valette-Florence and Fine-Falcy (2015) approach deals with twelve brands; and the four-dimensional scale by Bosnjak, Bochmann and Hufschmidt (2007) is based on three brand groups consisting of five brands each, even though Coca Cola was included in all brand groups. Aaker however started off with four brand groups of ten brands1 and a total of 37 brands (Levi’s jeans was represented in every brand group) and integrated ten industries in her final and confirmatory sample of brands with each industry being represented by two brands (cf. Aaker, 1997, p. 350, 353). This included industries such as hotel chains (Marriott hotels and Holiday Inn hotel), clothing brands (Liz Claiborne and Benetton) and the newspaper sector (The Wall Street Journal and USA Today). This again supports the high significance of Aaker’s original approach. The framework by Geuens, Weijters and De Wulf (2009) is one of the approaches which is also based on a wide spectrum of brands and product categories, respectively 193 different brands from 20 product categories. In the end and even though Aaker’s brand personality scale has received criticism and some studies call for culturally specific dimensions, the brand personality dimensions introduced by Aaker still remain the most reliable, stable and comprehensive approach to measure a brand’s personality. Additionally, due to its constant application the scale allows a wide comparison with regards to other findings. Further, for the present work, it is of great importance to apply brand personality dimensions which are versatile and have not specifically been developed for a certain industry or culture. Therefore, Aaker’s 42-item scale is used in this research.

1Group

1: Crest toothpaste, Campbell’s soup, Kmart stores, Porsche automobiles, Reebok athletic shoes, Michelin tires, Diet Coke cola, MTV station, IBM computers, Levi’s jeans. Group 2: Kodak film, Hershey’s candy bar, Pepsi Cola soft drinks, Oil of Olay lotion, AMEX credit cards, Sony television, Advil pain reliever, MCI telephone service, Mercedes automobiles, Levi’s jeans. Group 3: Lego toys, Hallmark cards, Lee jeans, Charlie perfume, ESPN station, AT&T phone service, Apple computers, Avon cosmetics, Lexus automobiles, Levi’s jeans. Group 4: Cheerios cereal, Matter toys, Saturn automobiles, Guess? jeans, Nike athletic shoes, CNN station, Revlon cosmetics, McDonald’s restaurants, Visa credit cards, Levi’s jeans (cf. Aaker, 1997, p. 350).

24

2  Theoretical Background

As previously outlined, brand personality has already been applied to various contexts and across different research areas. Against this backdrop, brand personality has been found to lead to a number of brand behavioural patterns. The following figure gives an overview on numerous outcomes of brand personality as an independent variable. The large amount of variables affected by brand personality as the independent variable underlines the relevance of this construct in the field of consumer behaviour. As visualised in Figure 2, previously conducted research also confirmed a relationship between brand personality and brand equity (e.g. P. ­Valette-Florence, Guizani, & Merunka, 2011), brand commitment (e.g. Louis & Lombart, 2010), brand loyalty, customer satisfaction (e.g. Y.-K. Lee, Back, & Kim, 2009), as well as perceived quality (e.g. Ramaseshan & Tsao, 2007), brand preference, brand attitude and buying intent (e.g. Mengxia, 2007), brand trust and brand affect (e.g. Sung & Kim, 2010), emotional brand attachment (Louis & Lombart, 2010; Malär et al., 2011; Thomson, 2006; e.g. Thomson, MacInnis, & Whan Park, 2005), brand prestige (e.g. Choi, Ok, & Hyun, 2017) and brand preference (e.g. Sirgy et al., 1997; Grohmann, 2009). Brand personality has also been assessed with regards to its impact on brand commitment (e.g. Louis & Lombart, 2010; Tong, Su, & Xu, 2018), brand satisfaction (e.g. Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Japutra & Molinillo, 2017), brand performance (e.g. Unurlu & Uca, 2017), impulsive buying behaviour (e.g. Badgaiyan, Dixit, & Verma, 2017), positive word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendation (e.g. Roy et al., 2016), brand attitude (Gordon, Zainuddin, & Magee, 2016) and brand equity (e.g. ­Valette-Florence, Guizani and Merunka, 2011). In 2010, an experimental study on brand personality perception within the automotive sector with regards to the effects on country of brand as well as country of manufacturing has been conducted (e.g. Fetscherin and Toncar, 2010). Additionally, brand personality has also been examined on its effects on perceived quality and brand trust within the Chinese automobile industry (e.g. Ha and Janda, 2014). On the other side, research has shown that brand personality in the role of a dependent variable gets influenced by the independent variables brand extensions (e.g. Diamantopoulos, Smith, & Grime, 2005), brand elements such as name, logo, way of communication, colours, advertising style (e.g. Maehle & Supphellen, 2011; Seimiene & Kamarauskaite, 2014) or label design (e.g. Boudreaux & Palmer, 2007) and visiting a brand’s website (e.g. Müller & Chandon, 2003). Additionally, brand personality is affected by the product category and the product attributes, as well as by company related aspects such as the company’s moral values, the company’s employees, the endorser and the company’s managing director. Further, the typical brand user and the own experience with the brand

1 Brand

25

Brand Equity (e.g. Biel, 1993; Keller, 1993; Su & Tong, 2015)

Brand Attitude (e.g. Gordon, Zainuddin and Magee, 2016)

Brand Trust (e.g. Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Lam, 2007)

Brand Loyalty (e.g. Bekk at al., 2017; Shetty, 2017)

Brand Comittment (e.g. Tong, Su & Xu, 2008; Louis & Lombart, 2010)

(Emotional) Brand Attachment (e.g. Malär et al., 2011)

Brand/ Customer Satisfaction (e.g. Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009)

Brand Personality

Perceived Quality (e.g. Ramaseshan & Tsao, 2007; Ha & Janda, 2014)

Brand Preference (e.g. Sirgy et al., 1997; Grohmann, 2009)

Positive WOM (e.g. Roy, Khandeparkar & Motiani, 2016)

Buying Intent/ Purchase Intention (e.g. Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001)

Brand Affect (e.g. Tong, Su & Xu, 2018)

Brand Dependability (e.g. Louis and Lombart, 2010)

Brand Trustworthiness (e.g. Roy, Khandeparkar & Motiani, 2016)

Brand Prestige (e.g. Choi, Ok & Hyun, 2007)

Brand Performance (e.g. Unurlu & Uca, 2017)

...

Figure 2   Brand personality as the independent variable in consumer behaviour research. Source: author’s own

26

2  Theoretical Background

have also found to be sources for forming brand personality (e.g. Maehle & Supphellen, 2011). Even human body lineaments and human facial physiognomy form brand personality perception (e.g. Guido & Peluso, 2015).

1.2 From Self-Concept to Brand-Self-Congruity When it comes to explaining and understanding consumer choice behaviour, the self-concept is found to be a useful and crucial construct. Building up on this, there is a general approach to marketing and consumer behaviour research around the so-called self-concept of consumers. According to Tucker (1957, p. 139), consumers define their personalities either through products they buy or use, or through the meanings these products have for them, or lastly through their attitudes with regards to the products. Consequently, with consumers often utilising brands in order to express their very own self-concept, they are likely to have a preference for brands transporting personalities which are congruent with their very own self-concepts (Escalas & Bettman, 2005; e.g. Landon Jr, 1974; Malhotra, 1988; M. Sirgy, 1982). In the research field of consumer behaviour, researchers focused on how a brand’s personality enables consumers to express their own self (Belk, 1988; e.g. Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969; Malhotra, 1988). The self-concept, which is also referred to as the self-image, is defined as “the totality of individual’s thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object” (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 7). There is however confusion and ambiguity around the precise concept of the self-concept in consumer behaviour literature. Earlier studies treated the self-concept as a construct of just one dimension which was the actual self-concept (Bellenger, Steinberg, & Stanton, 1976; e.g. Birdwell, 1968; Green, Maheshwari, & Rao, 1969; Grubb & Hupp, 1968; Grubb & Stern, 1971). This group of researchers labelled the self-concept as ‘actual self’, ‘basic self’, ‘extant self’, ‘real self’, or simply ‘self’ (cf. M. Sirgy, 1982, p. 288). Amongst the one-dimensional approaches, some researchers limited the self-concept to the perceived role of gender (e.g. Gentry & Doering, 1977; Gentry, Doering, & O’Brien, 1978; Golden, Allison, & Clee, 1979). Later studies came up with a dual-dimensional approach consisting of the actual self-concept and the ideal self-concept (Belch, 1978; Belch & Landon Jr, 1977; M. W. Delozier, 1971; W. Delozier & Tillman, 1972; e.g. Dolich, 1969; e.g. Malhotra, 1988). In this context, the ideal self-concept was labelled as ‘desired self’, ‘idealised image’ and ‘ideal self’ (cf. M. Sirgy, 1982, p. 288). Sirgy (e.g. 1979, 1982, 1985a, 1985b) went beyond a two-component concept and introduced a multidimensional construct of the self-concept which not only contains the actual self-concept and the

1 Brand

27

ideal self-concept. In fact, his construct consists of four major dimensions: the actual self-concept, the ideal self-concept, the social self-concept and the ideal social self-concept. The actual self-concept relates to how an individual really perceives him-/herself. This allows the consumer to underpin his/her own personal identity, his/her own view of him-/herself. The ideal self-concept on the other hand relates to how an individual would actually like to perceive ­him-/herself. Further, the social self-concept relates to how a person thinks others perceive him/her, while the ideal social self-concept refers to how an individual wishes to be perceived by society (cf. Sirgy, 1982, pp. 287). The social self-concept has sometimes been cited as the ‘presenting self’ or ‘looking-glass self’ and “defined as the image that one believes others hold” (M. Sirgy, 1982, p. 288). The ideal social self-concept on the other hand has sometimes been quoted as the ‘desired social self’ while denoting the picture or image that a person wants others to hold (e.g. Maheshwari, 1973; M. Sirgy, 1982). Other investigators, such as Hughes and Guerrero (1971) used the actual self-concept as well as the ideal social ­self-concept. Besides talking about the actual self-concept, French and Glaschner (1971) referred to the ideal self-concept as a dimension they called the ‘perceived reference group image of self’ which never got defined properly. Moreover, Dornoff and Tatham (1972) investigated the actual self-concept, the ideal self-concept and their so-called ‘image of best friend’. Further multidimensional approaches came from Sommers (1964), Sanchez, O’Brien and Summers (1975), and Munson and Spivey (1980) but never received greater attention. Extending the self-concept inevitably leads to the self-congruity (theory). The basic assumption of the self-congruity theory is that consumers select to buy or use goods and services corresponding to their own self-concept (e.g. Kassarjian, 1971; M. Sirgy, 1982). Defined as the match between a brand’s image and the person’s self-concept or more precisely, “the match between consumer’s ­self-concept (actual self, ideal self, etc.) and the user image (or ‘personality’) of a given product, brand, store etc.” (Kressmann et al., 2006, p. 955), brand-self congruity suggests that consumers generally prefer brands and with that products that are similar to how they see themselves or would like to be (e.g. Landon Jr, 1974; Sirgy, 1982; Malhotra, 1988). As a matter of fact, consumers prefer products and brands where they see a consistency between the user image and their ­ self-image. Recent research finds support that brand preferences which are related to the role-identity are expected to be much more complex than one would assume intuitively (cf. Ewing & Allen, 2017, p. 417). The evolution of this self-congruity theory goes back to Gardner and Levy (1955), before it was further developed by Levy (1959). It was defined that “modern goods are recognised as essentially psychological things which are symbolic of personal attributes and

28

2  Theoretical Background

goals and of social patterns and strivings” (Levy, 1959, p. 119). Additionally, with every product having a symbolic character, a customer will pick products which have a symbolic set of traits that corresponds to the way one sees him- or herself (cf. Levy, 1959, p. 119). Scholars also found out that the greater the congruence between a person’s characteristics and those describing a brand, the greater the affection and preference for that brand (e.g. Sirgy, 1982; Aaker, 1997; Grohmann, 2009; Wang, Yang and Liu, 2009). Thus, the idea behind the self-congruity theory claims that the higher the congruence, the greater the chance of purchase intention. Following Sirgy et al. (1997, p. 292), this degree of consistency between the self-concept of the consumer and the brand is considered as the ­self-image-/ product-image-congruity, the self-image-congruence, or in short self-congruity. Moreover, the self-congruity theory suggests that consumer behaviour is partly determined by a cognitive matching of brands’ or products’ value-expressive attributes and the consumer’s self-concept (cf. M Joseph Sirgy, Johar, Samli, & Claiborne, 1991, p. 364). As the self-concept has already been considered and treated m ­ultidimensionally, while reflecting four types of self-concept, the self-congruity concept has also been treated as a multidimensional construct. Thus, literature authored four types of self-congruity: the actual self-congruity, the ideal self-congruity, the social self-congruity and the ideal social self-congruity (cf. Sirgy, 1982, pp. 298). The actual self-congruity is based on the consumer’s self-verification motive with regards to the brand/product image. Moreover, it reflects the congruity between the brand/product image and the actual self-concept. The ideal ­self-congruity is based on the motive of self-enhancement (cf. Escalas and Bettman, 2003, pp. 339). This reflects the congruity between the brand/product image and the ideal self-concept. Consequently, social self-congruity reflects the congruence between the social self-concept and the brand/product image, while the ideal social self-congruity describes the match between the ideal social self-concept and the brand/product image (cf. M. Joseph Sirgy, 1985b, p. 195). Extensive research has been conducted around the applicability of the self-congruity theory. With consumers humanising “brands by perceiving them as like, part of, or in a relationship with themselves” (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017, p. 355), they form a sort of strong emotional brand connection (cf. Malär et al., 2011, p. 35). In this context, research on the symbolic usage of commercial brands has confirmed that consumers prefer brands that match their own personality (e.g. Bosnjak, Bochmann and Hufschmidt, 2007). Escalas and Bettman’s (2005) research results support the general theory that “consumers use brands to create or communicate their self-concept” (p. 387). Moreover, ­self-congruity is an important concept and can be seen as both a determinant as well as a

1 Brand

29

p­roduct of brand personality. Thus, brand-self congruity does not only influence purchase motivation (e.g. Sirgy, 1982) and therefore influences consumer behaviour directly and indirectly (e.g. Sirgy et al., 1991), it also “generates sustainable competitive advantage and brand equity” (Aguirre-Rodriguez, Bosnjak and Sirgy, 2012, p. 1179). Additionally, brand-self-congruity has a major impact on brand success indicators like customer loyalty (e.g. Kressmann et al., 2006), customer satisfaction (e.g. Nam, Ekinci and Whyatt, 2011), and consumer-brand identification (e.g. Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar and Sen, 2012). Further, the s­ elf-congruity theory has not only been applied to consumer behavioural patterns such as purchase motivation/intention (Das, 2015; Ericksen, 1997; e.g. M. Joseph Sirgy, 1985b; M Joseph Sirgy, 2015), purchase value (e.g. Tsai, 2005), brand loyalty (e.g. Kressmann et al., 2006; F. Liu, Li, Mizerski, & Soh, 2012; M. Joseph Sirgy et al., 2008), decision marking (e.g. Aguirre-Rodriguez et al., 2012), customer satisfaction (e.g. Ibrahim & Najjar, 2008), brand familiarity and perceived quality (e.g. Das, 2015), (emotional) brand/product attachment (e.g. Govers & Mugge, 2004; Malär et al., 2011) and plenty more, but also to the retail environment (e.g. M Joseph Sirgy, Grewal, & Mangleburg, 2000) in terms of store/mall loyalty (Haj-Salem, Chebat, Michon, & Oliveira, 2016; e.g. Morschett, S ­ chramm-Klein, Haelsig, & Jara, 2007) and discount retailing (e.g. Willems & Swinnen, 2011), as well as housing preferences (e.g. M Joseph Sirgy, Grzeskowiak, & Su, 2005), (sport) sponsorships (e.g. Close, Krishen, & Latour, 2009; Do, Ko, & Woodside, 2015; Mazodier & Merunka, 2012), volunteering (e.g. Randle & Dolnicar, 2011) and decision-making of gift-giving (e.g. S. Liu, Lu, Liang, & Wei, 2010). Extensive research around the role of self-congruity has been conducted in the field of tourism/travel research. This covers aspects such as travel behaviour (e.g. M. Joseph Sirgy & Su, 2000), destination choice (Ahn, Ekinci, & Li, 2013; e.g. Beerli, Meneses, & Gil, 2007), destination loyalty (e.g. C.-R. Liu, Lin, & Wang, 2012), visit intention (e.g. Matzler et al., 2016) and tourist destinations (e.g. Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). The amount of research and the wide scope in which the self-congruity theory has been investigated underline the high significance in consumer research. Consumers buy brands and products not only for the benefits of utilisation but in point of fact also for the self-expressive benefits they bring (e.g. C. W. Park et al., 1986; M. Joseph Sirgy et al., 2008). As a matter of fact, the motivation of expressing his/her own self is in many cases the driving force prompting consum­ ers to buy goods and services. Conclusively, research around self-image congruity has shown that self-congruence with a brand, product, store, etc. has a positive impact on a great amount of consumer behaviours (e.g. M. Sirgy, 1982; M. Joseph Sirgy et al., 2008).

30

2  Theoretical Background

1.3 Brand Desirability ‘To desire’ originates from the Latin ‘de sidere’ which means ‘from the stars’ (cf. Simpson, 2014, p. 2). Following its definition, ‘desirability’ stands for “the extent to which” one “would like to have or do something; the quality of being wanted a lot” (Oxford University Press, 2018). Further, ‘desire’ is ranked amongst the passionate emotions and is therewith the passionate emotion for a brand (cf. Ind and Iglesias, 2016, p. 26). Across the researched consumer-brand relationships, brand desirability appears to be amongst the most recent yet popular marketing constructs (Richard P Bagozzi, Batra, & Ahuvia, 2017; Rajeev Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012; Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010; e.g. Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Jean Noël Kapferer & Florence, 2016; Karjaluoto, Munnukka, & Kiuru, 2016; Turgut & Gultekin, 2015). Marketing and advertising models such as the basic yet well-known AIDA2 model (cf. Kotler, 2011, p. 15) or some of its extensions, such as the AIDCA,3 the AIDCAS4 model (cf. Poth, Pradel, & Poth, 2011, p. 14) or the AISDALSLove5 (cf. Wijaya, 2015, p. 73) have ‘desire’ as one of their hierarchical element. In the context of consumer behaviour, it has been proven that when it comes to building brand preference, brand personality is an important element (cf. Phau and Lau, 2000, p. 64) and with that, the motivating force behind the majority of contemporary consumption is desire. In a different context, Levy (1959) already pointed out that consumption has already become more playful. Accordingly, consumers tend to become emotional when it comes to consumption objects, while marketing communication activities continuously push this emotion. Even though largely deriving from rational cognition, brand desirability can be seen as “structurally analogous to romantic interpersonal love” (Sarkar, Krishna and Rao, 2014, p. 265). Following the inhibited desire concept introduced by Shimp and Madden (1988), the romantic love for a brand or product is also referred to as brand desire (cf. Sarkar, 2013, p. 28). This desire for consumption is likely to get inhibited by external constraints and therefore, might not have a direct impact on brand commitment or repurchase decision (cf. Sarkar et al., 2014, p. 266). Originating from Sternberg’s Triangular theory of love

2AIDA

model: attention → interest → desire → action. model: attention → interest → desire → confidence → action. 4AIDCAS model: attention → interest → desire → confidence → action → satisfaction. 5AISDALSLove model: attention → interest → search → desire → action → like/ dislike → share → love/ hate. 3AIDCA

1 Brand

31

(1986), Shimp and Madden (1988) conclude that two of the three components of love, respectively ‘intimacy’ (liking) and ‘passion’ (yearning) for a brand impersonate the desire for that brand. They neglected the component ‘decision’/‘commitment’ in their framework. Thus, the romantic interpersonal love between consumer and brand is characterised by passion and intimacy without the willingness of maintaining the relationship in the long-run. Nonetheless, brand managers need to also concentrate on commitment in order to increase the repurchase rate (cf. Sarkar et al., 2014, p. 267). Intimacy on the one hand largely derives from emotion, while passion on the other hand largely derives from motivation. Additionally, desire is a personified passion that involves a quest for sociality, danger, otherness, and inaccessibility. Therefore, the concept of (romantic) brand desirability is based on the underlying assumption that the relationship between consumer and brand is structurally identical to interpersonal attachment (e.g. Thomson, MacInnis and Whan Park, 2005; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Kamat and Parulekar, 2007; Albert, Merunka and Valette-Florence, 2008). On top of that, brand desire can be seen as the consumer’s sense of wanting and longing for a brand, which also reflects the hotter aspects and higher-arousal of brand love—also called brand passion (Chan, Leung, Tan, & David, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2014; e.g. Shimp & Madden, 1988). Thus, arousal is considered as the manifestation of passion (e.g. Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986; Sternberg, 1986; Hatfield and Walster, 1978; Baumeister and Bratslavsky, 1999). Following this, arousal stands for various types of psychological and physiological states of excitement (cf. Sternberg, 1986, p. 122). Passionate arousal in terms of brand consumption takes the shape of psychological and/or physiological excitement including acts of daydreaming and flights of fantasy (Anderson, 2016, p. 1; cf. Sarkar et al., 2014, p. 267). When it comes to the structure of brand desire and even though passion is considered as the most dominating component of desire, the component intimacy must not be ignored with passion and intimacy being extremely interactive (cf. Sarkar et al., 2014, p. 267). Thus, brand desirability is a deep and enduring relationship between the consumer and the brand (cf. Bairrada et al., 2018, para. 2.1.2). In the field of consumer research, researchers only paid a small amount of attention to fanciful and passionate consumer desire (Belk, Ger and Askegaard, 2003, p. 326). Increasing awareness has been placed on this field with the beginning of the 21st century when researches published works such as ‘The Fire or Desire: A Multisited Inquiry into Consumer Passion’ (Belk et al., 2003), ‘Brand desire and brand jealousy: Routes to persuasion’ (Sarkar et al., 2014), ‘Is luxury sufficient to create brand desirability? A cross-cultural analysis of the relationship between luxury and dreams’ (Jean Noël Kapferer & Florence, 2016), ‘Beyond

32

2  Theoretical Background

rarity: the paths of luxury desire. How luxury brands grow yet remain desirable’ (Jean-Noel Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2016) or ‘The impact or brand penetration and awareness on luxury brand desirability: A cross country analysis of the relevance of the rarity principle’ (Jean-Noël Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2018). Research also demonstrated that feelings of love with regards to brands are, from a qualitative perspective and with minor contextual differences, analogous to the concept of interpersonal love (e.g. Whang et al., 2004; Thomson, MacInnis and Whan Park, 2005; Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi, 2012; Roy, Khandeparkar and Motiani, 2016; Bagozzi, Batra and Ahuvia, 2017). Additionally, previously conducted studies found support that consumers are able to actually experience a type of love for a brand (e.g. Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Albert, Merunka and Valette-Florence, 2008; Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi, 2012; Albert and Merunka, 2013a; Hegner, Fenko and Teravest, 2017). In this context, research examined brand passion and defined it as a type of psychological construct that involved being excited, infatuated and obsessed with a brand (cf. Albert, Merunka, & ­Valette-Florence, 2013, p. 905). As a result, brand passion, if it takes the form of an idealised and obsessed presence in the mind of a consumer, leads to the desire of sustaining a long-term brand relationship (cf. Drennan et al., 2015, p. 48). It has also been suggested that love-like emotions are the foundation of consumers’ feelings with regards to brands and consumption objects (e.g. Thomson, MacInnis and Whan Park, 2005; Roy, Khandeparkar and Motiani, 2016). Literature suggests that emotions like love or desire are able to characterise the feelings of consumers with regards to consumption objects (S. S. Kleine, Kleine, & Allen, 1995; Richins, 1994a, 1994b; e.g. Schultz, Kleine, & Kernan, 1989). Previously conducted research conceived this feeling as love (e.g. Albert et al., 2008; Rajeev Batra et al., 2012; Hegner, Fenko, et al., 2017), desire (e.g. Belk et al., 2003; Jean-Noel Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2016; Sarkar et al., 2014), customer affection or referred to as brand liking (e.g. Yim, Tse, & Chan, 2008) or emotional attachment (e.g. Thomson et al., 2005). Following Carroll and Ahuvia (2006, p. 81), brand love includes “passion for the brand, attachment to the brand, positive evaluation of the brand, positive emotions in response to the brand, and declarations of love for the brand”. In comparison to brand preference, brand desire is a deeper, longer lasting and richer feeling. Brand desire is even considered as a real and highly complex emotion and not just a feeling (cf. Bairrada et al., 2018, p. 3). Thus, brand desire is not caused by usage satisfaction but rather occurs when the consumer is filled with romantic imagination of various things that are related to the brand. This imaging can even transcend the borders of reality. When imaging, the consumer also evokes arousals full of pleasure (cf. Campbell, 1987, p. 90). According to Shimp and Madden (1988,

1 Brand

33

p. 163), the logic behind the relationship between consumer and object is applicable to all layers, respectively the relationships between consumers and brands, products, advertisements and/or stores. Research has already shown that brand personality dimensions are related to brand desire (Bairrada et al., 2018; e.g. Roy et al., 2016). Additional consumer behaviours found to be affecting brand desire are brand awareness (e.g. Chan et al., 2015), brand penetration (e.g. Jean-Noël Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2018), conceptual fit and brand perceived quality (e.g. Stegemann, 2011) as well as brand cognition (e.g. Sarkar, 2013; Sarkar et al., 2014). Furthermore, literature finds evidence that the construct brand desire for its part has an impact on various brand behavioural patterns. Bairrada, Coelho and Lizanets (2018) found support that positive word-of-mouth (WOM), resistance to negative information, willingness to pay more as well as s­ elf-disclosure and active engagement are such behavioural patterns. Further, literature showed that brand desire affects brand jealousy, action or behavioural loyalty (e.g. Sarkar, 2013; Sarkar et al., 2014) as well as brand commitment (e.g. Pham, ­Valette-Florence, & Vigneron, 2018), brand image (e.g. Stegemann, 2011) and purchase intention (e.g. Cramphorn, 2006). In a nutshell, brand desirability is not only a highly complex consumer behavioural pattern, but also a powerful yet romantic motivational force outstripping consumer needs and wants and therefore, sometimes even encouraging consumers to go to great lengths for a brand (cf. Ind & Iglesias, 2016, p. 8).

1.4 Brief Summary Around the Thematic Block of Brand The previous outline around brand, brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability shows the relevance those constructs have in the field of consumer behaviour research and related fields. Further it identified existing links between the different constructs. The objective of this section was to provide the state of the art of the different constructs in order to create a solid footing for the upcoming chapters. Thus, those discussions are the starting point and fundament of the present research. In context with the present work, it was important to assess the various studies around brand personality. Extensive research with both overlapping and independent personality dimensions took place over the past decades. Finding an appropriate brand personality scale which is able to fulfil the complex research needs (different industries, various cultures) of the present research was crucial. It was of great importance to apply brand personality dimensions which are versatile and have not specifically been developed for a certain industry or culture. Therefore,

34

2  Theoretical Background

Aaker’s (1997) 42-item scale has been found to be the best option for this work, as it also allows a wide comparison with regards to other research ­findings. Besides that, the profound role of the self-congruity concept was presented and assessed on its various appearances in research. Extensive research has been conducted around product-self-congruity and brand-self-congruity. The general concept of this construct describes the match between the personality of a person and the personality of a product or brand. Following this, the assumption is that people tend to prefer brands which show similar traits to the ones they see in themselves, or traits they wish they had. Knowing this, brand-self-congruity is an intriguing construct to be included in the present research frame. The list of consumer behavioural patterns which have already been suggested, identified, assessed and connected is very long. However, the construct ‘brand desirability’ is fairly untouched and has therefore attracted the attention to be included in the present research. The phenomenon desire is omnipresent and goes through all age groups: children see something what they really want to have in the shop window when walking by or nowadays online; teenagers fancy this one mobile phone from that one specific brand in order to be cool; and adults invest a large sum in a watch from a special watch manufacturer. This desire to own something special from a specific brand is referred to as brand desirability. It is the emotional feeling consumers have for a product or service of a certain brand. This consumer behaviour does not presuppose that the consumer has the necessary funds to fulfil this desire. Therefore, brand desirability is highly interesting for brands offering high-end products and/or services, and when it comes to building and strengthening the brand (e.g. awareness, likability or attitude).

2 Culture Culture has its origin in the Latin word ‘cultura’ which itself descends from ‘colere’ (to cultivate). With distinct meanings of culture existing, culture has ever since been tough to define. Thus, it is considered as “a complex multidimensional phenomenon” (Reisinger & Turner, 2012, p. 4). Besides that, the various approaches to culture have led to numerous definitions. A list published by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) contained a total of 160 different definitions of the term ‘culture’. In this context, culture has been defined from various perspectives such as the historical, behavioural, symbolic, normative and structural one. As cultural differences already appear in a single nation, it is not possible to name a universal definition (cf. Vellnagel, 2010, p. 4). Whenever unequal ethnic cultures within one country ally, no homogenous outcome can be expected. Accordingly,

2 Culture

35

culture neglects boarders and does not stand for an entire nation. Culture also takes root at the point where characteristics and history of conjoint behavioural patterns are recognised. This gets underlines by cross-border similarities between Frisians and Danes or Bavarians and Austrians. A Frisian has more in common with a Dane than he actually has with a Bavarian, even though both originate from the same country (cf. Rothlauf, 2009, p. 23). In 1871, the English anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Taylor (1832–1917) defined culture as “the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by a man as a member of society” (Tylor, 1871, p. 1). Over time, the term culture has further been developed and new interpretations have been introduced. Generally, the definition used in everyday life is quite vague as well as cursory. Trying to describe culture in a more precise manner unavoidably leads to a more precise and deeper version, as the one introduced by Tylor. The influential Dutch organisational sociologist Geert Hofstede (1928– present) splits culture into two types: ‘Culture 1’ is characterised as an impression of human creation power appearing for example in music, fine art, literature and architecture. The ‘Culture 2’ type refers to “the collective programming of the mind” (G. H. Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001, p. 9; G Hofstede, 1993, p. 19). Thus, from earliest infancy on, children acquire this mental programming and (mainly) unconsciously demonstrate it in their ethical norms and values as well as attitude and behavioural patterns. Whenever confrontation with a different culture takes place, the own programming springs into action (cf. Vellnagel, 2010, p. 4). The most famous and applied metaphor for culture is the so-called ‘iceberg model’ which clarifies the precise and cursory levels. The following figure shows that the iceberg can be divided into two parts: the upper, visible part mirrors the surface culture such as the way of life, language, laws and customer, arts, literature, religion, music, clothes, food, manners, rituals etc. This part of the culture can be observed by everybody. However, this visible tip makes up only 10% of culture. Even though those artefacts and behavioural patterns are visible, there is still the need to analyse and study them to be able to understand them properly (Figure 3). The lower invisible part of the iceberg makes up 90% of culture. This includes elements such as norms, values, attitudes, friendships, time and space, ­decision-making, problem-solving, communication style, social status, sex, sin, cleanness, etc. Those elements are considered as basic assumptions in cultural theory. There is even a third level of culture which is mainly unconscious yet ­awareness-capable. This level is situated just around the surface of the ‘water’ and contains aspects like self-image, values and attitudes (latter ones also appear in the lower invisible part of the model) (cf. Podsiadlowski, 2004, p. 8).

36

2  Theoretical Background

VISIBLE

INVISIBLE

Figure 3   Iceberg model. Source author’s own

2.1 Culture as an Influencer in Brand Management “The choice of what human characteristics to imbue a brand is made by marketing managers” (Foscht et al., 2008; following Fournier, 1998). However, when bringing the intercultural aspect into this field, it quickly becomes clear that with people with different cultural backgrounds, things are seen and perceived differently, and it cannot be expected that people act alike. Hence, there is a chance that the created brand personality may only appeal in the marketing manager’s or the company’s home market or a similar culture but in fact that the perception of the brand differs across cultures. Consequently, when it comes to applying culture to marketing, this is likely to mean that a brand’s perception might be better amongst people whose culture is congruent with the brand’s cultural perception (cf. Foscht et al., 2008, p. 132). This leads to the assumption that the success of a company’s global marketing strategy may differ from cultures to culture based on their level of cultural congruency (cf. Aaker and Maheswaran, 1997, p. 316). With this, the perceived level of significance of brand personality also differs. Scholars suggest that consumers are not only cross-culturally different in their product preferences but also in their behaviour (cf. Usunier, 1996, p. 93). Over 121 instruments to quantitatively measure culture were identified by vas Taras (2008). Therefore, it is not surprising that relevant literature defines culture in many ways. The list of the 164 definitions to culture by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) has ever since grown (e.g. Soudijn, Hutschemaekers and Van de Vijver, 1990; Hofstede, 2001). However, it is beyond dispute that decisions and behaviours are influenced by the culture of human beings with culture consisting of various components, such as values and standards, but also language and religion. Those key parameters have a major impact on how human beings perceive and evaluate things.

2 Culture

37

Different approaches in order to define and categorise culture have been established throughout the last decades. Typical models of culture usually consist of dimensions capturing a range of cultural attitudes, values and practices. Accordingly, such an instrument measures culture by quantifying these attitudes, values and practices along the different dimensions (cf. Taras, Rowney and Steel, 2009, p. 360). The following Table 3 lists the most relevant approaches including their respective dimensions and further key data in chronological order. Subsequently, a more in-depth outline of the marketing-relevant approaches is given, before a critical appraisal including examples of previous research of those takes place. Table 3   Literature overview of culture Researcher(s)

Year

Title

Dimensions

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck

1961

Variations in Value Orientation (book)

• Beliefs about Human Nature • Relationship to Nature • Time Orientation • Relationship between People • Human Activity • Space Concept

Hofstede

1980a

Culture’s Consequences (book)

• Power Distance • Individualism vs. Collectivism • Uncertainty Avoidance • Masculinity vs. Femininity • Long-term Orientation vs. Short-term Orientation • Indulgence vs. Restraint (added in 2010 (cf. Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010, pp. 277))

Hall

1989

Beyond Culture (book)

• Proxemics • High Context vs. Low Context • Monochronic Time vs. Polychronic Time (continued)

38

2  Theoretical Background

Table 3   (continued) Researcher(s)

Year

Title

Dimensions

Schwartz

1992/1994 Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Test in 20 Countries (Advances in Experimental Social Psychology)

Trompenaars

1993

Riding the Waves of Culture: • Universalism vs. Particularism Understanding Cultural • Individualism vs. Diversity in Business Collectivism (book) • Neutral vs. Emotional • Specific vs. Diffuse • Achievement vs. Ascription • Sequential vs. Synchronic • Internal vs. External

House et al.

2004

• Performance Culture, Leadership, and Orientation Organizations. The GLOBE • Assertiveness Study of 62 Societies Orientation (book) • Future Orientation • Humane Orientation • Collectivism (Institutional) • Collectivism (In-group) • Gender Egalitarianism • Power Distance • Uncertainty Avoidance

• Embeddedness • Intellectual Autonomy • Affective Autonomy • Hierarchy • Egalitarian Commitment (or Egalitarianism) • Mastery • Harmony

Source: author’s own

As a course of matter, the above pointed up representatives of cultural dimensions are not the only ones who have investigated the subject with further approaches existing. However, listing all of them and describing them in detail would go beyond the scope of the present work. As already mentioned previously, Hofstede’s framework has been used as the basis for various refinements.

2 Culture

39

Thus, his cultural dimensions can be found within other approaches, respectively in the approaches by Trompenaars (1993) (individualism vs. collectivism) and House et al. (2004) (collectivism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance). Further, the concept of time can be found in nearly all approaches: time orientation (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961), long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation (Geert Hofstede, 1980a), monochronic time vs. polychronic time (Hall, 1989), sequential vs. synchronic (Trompenaars, 1993) and future orientation (R J House et al., 2004). Besides the reoccurring time dimension, dimensions around individualism vs. collectivism (e.g. Geert Hofstede, 1980a; R J House et al., 2004; Trompenaars, 1993) as well as power distance and uncertainty avoidance (e.g. Geert Hofstede, 1980a; R J House et al., 2004) are represented more often. The nine cultural dimensions of the GLOBE study (R J House et al., 2004), namely performance orientation, assertiveness orientation, future orientation, humane orientation, collectivism (institutional), collectivism (in-group), gender egalitarianism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance have their origin in various cultural dimensions from previous frameworks. Thus, uncertainty avoidance and power distance both originate from Hofstede’s (1980a) dimensions of the same name. The GLOBE dimensions gender egalitarianism and assertiveness orientation stem from Hofstede’s masculinity dimension. Besides that, the GLOBE study also adopted dimensions from other scientists. The future orientation dimension finds its origin in the time orientation dimensions by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), in long-term orientation by Hofstede and Hofstede (2001) and in the Confucian work dynamism by Hofstede and Bond (1988). Finally, GLOBE’s humane orientation originates from Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) beliefs about human nature (human nature as good vs. human nature as bad) (cf. Wolf, 2006, p. 64). At first sight, the seven-dimensional framework by Schwartz (1992) consisting of the dimensions embeddedness, intellectual autonomy, affective autonomy, hierarchy, egalitarianism, mastery and harmony seems to not show any similarities to the other frameworks. However, Schwartz’ dimension of autonomy vs. embeddedness show similarity to Hofstede’s individualism vs. collectivism dimension. Additionally, Schwartz’ egalitarianism vs. hierarchy and Hofstede’s power distance dimension overlap conceptually (cf. Boga & Efeoglu, 2016, p. 1121).

40

2  Theoretical Background

In order to give a more detailed insight into the individual frameworks, the following passage outlines the works by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), Hofstede (1980a), Hall (1989), Schwartz (1992), Trompenaars (1993) and House et al. (2004). Subsequently, in 2.2 (pp. 40), the critical appraisal of the cultural frameworks takes place. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Variations in Value Orientation (1961) One of the first approaches to conceptualise culture was introduced by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) in their book ‘Variations in Value Orientation’. This approach suggests that every human society has to answer a finite number of common problems, and that the value-based answers are finite and commonly known. Nonetheless, they propose that different cultures do not have the same preferences amongst them (cf. Hills, 2002, p. 1). Questions suggested in this approach are based around six categories, namely beliefs about human nature, relationship to nature, time orientation, relationship between people, human activity, and space concept. This approach got however heavily criticised by p­ ost-World War II modernisation theory as well as from Chicano, as their research is based on investigations of small communities in the Southwestern part of the United States (cf. Chandler, Tsai and Wharton, 1994, pp. 356). Additionally, their approach has been identified as rather general instead of being specific. This makes it possible to analyse general trends but not specific behaviours in particular situations. This shortcoming is based on the fact that the approach is concerned with values and not attitudes. Despite the criticism they received, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) themselves stated that their theory was incomplete, as they have not come up with measures for all orientations proposed. Nevertheless, individual dimensions of the approach by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) can be rediscovered in later approaches. Thus, Trompenaars’ individualism dimension corresponds to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s relationship orientation, and the private and public space concepts of Hall match their space orientation (cf. Boga & Efeoglu, 2016, p. 1113). Additionally, Hofstede’s individualism and power distance dimensions also repeat Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s relationship orientation. Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences (1980) Hofstede (1980) model started off as a four-dimensional approach including the dimensions power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity vs. femininity. Separate research in Hong Kong added l­ong-term orientation vs. short-term orientation to the framework. In 2010, Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov added indulgence vs. restraint as the sixth and last dimension.

2 Culture

41

Hofstede’s approach is the most famous and amongst the most applied ones. In various publications, the Dutch organisational sociologist and anthropologist Geert Hofstede, often described as the true expert of cultural dimensions and concurrently of cross-cultural communication, has concentrated on culturally influenced interactions between organisations and nations. The four dimensions which he originally found by combining “theoretical reasoning and massive statistical analysis” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 44) are based on a total of 116,000 questionnaires filled in by 88,000 IBM employees from 72 different countries and regions, and from all hierarchical levels (cf. Hofstede and Hofstede, 2001, p. 48). The questionnaire, which existed in 20 different languages, included 60 items focusing on the attitudes of employees towards leadership, management, job satisfaction and their relation between leisure time and work (cf. Lüsebrink, 2005, pp. 29). The first data collection which took place from 1967 to 1973, was limited to 40 countries and was based on the so-called Value Survey Module (VSM) 80. The second round of data collection followed in the early 90’s and was based on the VSM 94 by Hofstede and Bond (1984). Throughout the years, another ten countries and three multi-country regions had been added and the results had been adjusted accordingly (cf. Hofstede and Hofstede, 2004, pp. 42). Besides having investigated the fairly work related attitudes, Hofstede also devoted a study to global branding seeing the importance of taking cultural aspects in the target markets into consideration (Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). Currently, Hofstede’s approach to classify culture consists of six dimensions: Power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation and last but not least indulgence vs. restraint. Generally, the Hofstede model is the most-used and most-quoted approach of all when it comes to cultural classification. Although various recent studies on culture and data collected from outside the European continent have generally affirmed Hofstede’s findings (e.g. Hoppe, 1993; Trompenaars, 1993), Hofstede’s studies have often been criticised because he generalises his IBM based findings to whole nations. Additionally, Hofstede assumes that there is only one global IBM culture. Another point of criticism is the fact that the study was done back in the 1970’s and therefore is no longer applicable (e.g. Treven, Mulej and Lynn, 2008). According to Baskerville (2003) who in her article ‘Hofstede never studied culture’ (2003) criticises Hofstede’s studies, argues that throughout his studies Hofstede equates nation with culture, but points up that within one nation different cultures may exist. Even though Hofstede’s latest book ‘Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind’ which was published in 2010 is still based on the original scores, there are now 76 countries listed, with their scores on the dimensions being partly based on both replications and extensions on

42

2  Theoretical Background

v­ arious international societies and by different scholars. Additionally, in his 2003 published work ‘What is culture? A reply to Baskerville’, Geert Hofstede stroke back to Baskerville’s criticism and argued that her objections are largely irrelevant with regards to cross-cultural research. Hall Goes Beyond Culture (1989) Nine years after Hofstede published his cultural framework, the American anthropologist Edward T. Hall (*1914–†2009), the “Godfather of intercultural studies” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 40) and the founder of intercultural communication came up with another useful framework for cross-cultural analysis (cf. Brooks, 2006, p. 275). In order to explain cultural differences in communication styles, Hall distinguished “cultures to the degree of context in their communication systems” (de Mooij, 2010, p. 71) and made a distinction between four bases: context (high/ low), space (personal/physical), time (monochromic/polychromic) and information flow (covert/open message) (cf. Hall and Hall, 1990, pp. 9). Hall sees culture as communication and the “speed of messages, context, space, time, information flow, action chains and interfacing are all involved in the creation of both national and corporate character” (Thomas, 2003, p. 162). In addition to interfacing, action chains are involved in creating both corporate and national character. A major criticism of Hall’s cultural dimensions is that his approach is based on theoretical assumptions and therefore has not been proven as valid and reliable in marketing research (Woodman, 2003, p. 83). Schwartz’s Universals in the Content and Structure of Values (1992, 1994) Schwartz (1992, 1994) introduced a different approach to culture. His research is built on a broad theoretical basis and consists of an extensive set of cultural dimensions describing human variety (cf. Terlutter, Diehl, & Mueller, 2006, p. 425). Thus, in Schwartz approach, three main problems occur and societies are universally challenged to resolve these problems. His approach delivers corresponding cultural dimensions which differentiate societies from each other with regards to resolving these problems. The first of the three cultural dimensions is autonomy vs. embeddedness, the second one covers hierarchy vs. egalitarianism and the third mastery vs. harmony. As already mentioned before, similarities with some of Hofstede’s dimensions exist. Nonetheless, the cultural dimensions by Schwartz and the ones by Hofstede are related yet distinct (cf. Boga & Efeoglu, 2016, p. 1121). The cultural approach by Schwartz has not been as widely applied as for example the work by Hofstede. Reasons for that can be found in different aspects. The very fact that there is no single comprehensive publication that summarises Schwartz’s cultural dimensions is not conducive. In fact, Schwartz’s

2 Culture

43

findings are highly dispersed across various journals with each publication only focusing on a single segment of the entire approach to culture. Additionally, the approach by Hofstede had only recently been published and received a lot of attention and acceptance (cf. Terlutter et al., 2006, p. 428). Consequently, minor attention was paid to Schwartz’s approach and thus, the applicability especially in the field of marketing lacks. Trompenaars Rides the Waves of Culture (1993) The cultural model of Trompenaars is geared to the one of Hofstede (cf. Taras, Rowney and Steel, 2009, p. 358). Fons Trompensaars (born in 1952) himself was a Dutch author studying cross-cultural communication. Together with the Brit Charles Hampden-Turner, Trompenaars tried to develop a different model in 1993. Firstly, Trompenaars treats culture as a means of problem solving of human groups and defines culture as “the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 2011, p. 8). Trompenaars’ model of national culture differences is based on a large-scale survey covering 8,841 employees and managers from 43 countries and consists of seven dimensions: Universalism vs. particularism, individualism vs. communitarianism, neutral vs. emotional, specific vs. diffuse, achievement vs. ascription, sequential time vs. synchronic time, and internal direction vs. external direction. These cultural dimensions cover the ways humans deal with each other, time and the environment. The framework is especially useful with regards to building better working relationships and particularly with regards to doing business with people from different cultures. The dimensions are considered as a general guideline for those dealing with people from around the world. Even though Trompenaars’ model is amongst the most recent ones in comparison to the approaches of Hall and Hofstede, the approach is massively built on the cultural dimensions introduced by Hofstede. Therefore, Trompenaars approach has to deal with similar points of criticism as Hofstede. Thus, the representativeness as well as the number of dimensions is questioned. Another point of critique refers to the genesis of the individual dimensions. Trompenaars leaves us in the dark about the exact proceeding of the evaluation of the seven cultural dimensions. As he takes Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) approach into consideration, his dimensions are a result of pure analysis of literature and therefore, do not represent conceptual categories (cf. Schugk, 2004, p. 173). The GLOBE Study on Culture, Leadership and Organisations (2004) Following the culture definition of the anthropologist Redfield (1948), the GLOBE study defines “culture as shared understandings made manifest in act

44

2  Theoretical Background

and artifact” (p. vii). With that, the GLOBE research project examines culture as values and practices. In their concept, values are artefacts as they are made by humans and in this specific example, values are considered as judgements about how things should be done. Practices on the other side are acts describing the way things are done in a specific culture (cf. Robert J. House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004, p. xv). The GLOBE project measured those values and practices on three levels: industry (e.g. telecommunications, financial services and food processing), organisation (serval across the industries) and society (62 cultures). Summarised, the GLOBE study measured culture on different levels with values and practices. The GLOBE study is based on methodologies developed in the second half of the 20th century. Additionally, the GLOBE researchers checked their outcome against other frameworks such as the ones by Hofstede and Schwartz. Thus, the GLOBE measure for the power distance practices correlated with Hofstede’s power distance dimensions; the uncertainty avoidance values however did not correlate.

2.2 Critical Appraisal of the Cultural Approaches and Model Implications As already stated and presented in parts, throughout the past decades, a number of cultural models have been introduced. Out of all models, the Hofstede model is the one that has been applied the most, especially when it comes to global marketing and business management. Reasons why Hofstede’s framework has been favoured in cross-cultural research include the “limited availability of alternatives, convenience, popularity, and simply habit” (Taras, Rowney and Steel, 2009, p. 360). Even though questions regarding the validity and reliability of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have been implied by various researchers (e.g. Spector, Cooper and Sparks, 2001; Bearden, Money and Nevins, 2006), there is no other scale that is as comprehensive and applicable as Hofstede’s approach. Several scholars discussed the choice of dimensions most appropriate for conceptualising and operationalising culture (e.g. Inkeles and Levinson, 1969; Hofstede and Bond, 1984; Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Hofstede, 1991; Schwartz, 1994; Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars, 1996; Keillor and Tomas M. Hult, 1999; Steenkamp, 2001). Even though Hofstede’s culture framework has been questioned with regards to validity and reliability as well as its applicability to an individual level, it is the most frequently used approach in psychology, sociology, marketing and management studies (Soares, Farhangmehr, & Shoham, 2007; e.g. Søndergaard, 1994; Steenkamp, 2001; Torelli, Özsomer, Carvalho, Keh, & Maehle,

2 Culture

45

2012). Other cultural frameworks such as the ones by Hall (1989), Schwartz (1992), Trompenaars (1993) or House et al. (2004) did not reach Hofstede’s level of comprehensibility. Additionally, recent research also gives strong support for Hofstede’s cultural dimensions with regards to measuring central tendencies of different nations (cf. Reisinger & Crotts, 2010, p. 153). Research by Reisinger and Crotts (2010, cf. p. 160) finds support in the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s measures of culture as a measurement tool for market segmentation. In their work they collected data of participants from eight countries with the original Value Survey Module (VSM) 80 (Geert Hofstede, 1980a) and VSM 94 (Geert Hofstede & Bond, 1984) instruments. The results of their data produced notably similar mean values compared to Hofstede’s five dimensions. Therefore, their study finds support that the use of Hofstede’s culture framework in order to measure central tendencies in behaviours is credible (cf. Reisinger & Crotts, 2010, p. 160). Moreover, in order to ensure comparability, it is considered necessary to fall back on Hofstede’s indices (cf. Foscht et al., 2008, p. 132). More arguments in support of the framework introduced by Hofstede are amongst the relevance, the rigour and the relative accuracy. Thus, Hofstede’s framework is based on a rigorous design with a systematic data collection and also a coherent theory (cf. Jones, 2007, p. 6). Further, Søndergaard (1994) compared the replications of Hofstede’s research and found that the majority of those replications were able to confirm the predications made by Hofstede (cf. pp. 450). Besides that, a comparison between Hofstede’s definitions of dimensions and items with other frameworks shows that there are very high correlations amongst the different approaches. This supports close empirical and conceptual correspondence. Nearly all (97.5%) measures from other frameworks contain at least some conceptually similar dimensions with regards to Hofstede’s dimensions. Models not showing links to Hofstede’s dimensions are generally ­non-management literature. However, even though an approach such as the World Value Survey by Inglehart (2004) appears to be completely different from Hofstede’s model, empirical relationships have been found to be quite strong (Taras, Rowney and Steel, 2009, p. 360). Nevertheless, and besides all the support for Hofstede, the question whether his framework can still be applied in a global context under today’s circumstances of disruptive developments must not be neglected. Hofstede’s framework has undoubtedly been confirmed as valid and reliable when it comes to describing and explaining the complexity of culture, but what about recently emerged movements such as future orientation, diversity and/or environmental orientation? More recent frameworks such as the GLOBE study by House et al., (2004) need to also be considered as they are more contemporary. A closer look into

46

2  Theoretical Background

the GLOBE study and its cultural dimensions shows that this framework did not only adopt Hofstede’s dimensions paradigm, but it also started off with Hofstede’s five dimensions. Due to conceptual reasons, the GLOBE study expanded their dimensions to a total of nine (cf. Geert Hofstede, 2006, p. 883). Thus, the GLOBE study kept the two dimensions power distance and uncertainty while not neccesarily giving them the same meaning. Further, they split collectivism into in-group and institutional collectivism, and the masculinity dimension into assertiveness and gender egalitarianism. The GLOBE study also renamed Hofstede’s long-term orientation and replaced it with future orientation, and added two new dimensions, rexpectively humane orientation and performance orientation. Considering the high correspondence of the two frameworks, no real advantage is apparent. Further and even though the respondent population was truly international, a major criticism of the GLOBE study has been found in the research design and analysis as they reflected US hegemony. A look into the GLOBE study’s list of 25 editors and authors reveals that an overwhelming majority holds degrees in management or psychology from US universities. Hofstede on the contrary, even though gathering his data within the IBM network, relied on locally recruited researchers carrying local degrees who substantially contributed to the questionnaire design and subsequent interpretation of the survey results (cf. Geert Hofstede, 2006, p. 884). Backed by this comprehensive explanation, Hofstede’s indices will be used as the basis for the present work. Before pointing up potential influences of culture and formulating hypotheses at a later stage, the following aspects need to be considered. Firstly, there are manifestations within each cultural dimension that are purely work-related. However, others “can be applied to consumer behaviour and advertising” (de Mooij and Hofstede, 2010, p. 102). Thus, back in 1988, Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey and Chua investigated the influence the different cultural dimensions have on both, verbal and non-verbal communication styles, as they are reflected in the different advertising styles. Three cultural dimensions explain the variances of communication best: Power distance, individualism/collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. For a more in-depth understanding of Hofstede’s framework to culture, the following paragraph gives additional insights into the framework as well as the individual dimensions.

2 Culture

47

2.3 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Having used primary research data from IBM and its subsidiaries in over 60 countries, Hofstede and his team at first identified four fairly independent dimension, respectively power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. Originally, the relative positioning of 40 countries was expressed for the just mentioned four dimensions. By replicating the model, Hofstede and other researched extended the amount of countries continuously and added the long-term orientation and indulgence dimension. Thus, the Hofstede classification is today available for 76 countries. Based on extensive research, Hofstede’s model allows to differentiate countries from one another based on the scores of the six cultural dimensions. The scale of each dimension ranges from 0 to 100. A score of below 50 indicates a low value, while a score above 50 is considered as high in the respective dimension. As indicated previously, subsequently a more detailed description of the individual dimensions follows. Power Distance: More equal than others. Power Distance (PD) “indicates the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organisations is distributed unequally” (Geert Hofstede, 1980a, p. 45). Some cultures accept larger differences in authority and power between members of dissimilar occupational levels and social classes (cf. Treven et al., 2008, p. 29). In Scandinavia or Austria, strong power differences are not accepted, whereas in countries such as Malaysia and Guatemala hierarchical structures, both in society and at work, receive a significantly higher acceptance. According to the thinking of power distance cultures, everybody should have the same rights, inequality should be kept to a minimum, everybody should be interdependent, powerful individuals should try to be less powerful and the system is to be blamed. Cultures scoring high on power distance are characterised by the fact that power-holders are privileged, most people should be dependant and only a few should be independent. Powerful individuals should try to appear as powerful as possible and the underdog is to be blamed (Hofstede: 1980). On the whole, it means that power distance is “the way in which interpersonal relationships develop in hierarchical society” (Reisinger & Turner, 2012, p. 24). Uncertainty Avoidance: What is different is dangerous. Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) refers to “the extent to which uncertainty and ambiguity is tolerated in society” (cf. Aycan & Fikret-Pasa, 2003, p. 130). In countries

48

2  Theoretical Background

such as Greece and Uruguay uncertainty is reduced through formal regulations, a lower level of tolerance if it comes to dissents and a privileged role for experts (cf. Geert Hofstede, 1983, p. 83). Cultures scoring high on uncertainty avoidance prefer a secure life, stable jobs and avoid conflicts. This is because they are “especially averse to uncertainty, security is sought through an extensive set of rules and thorough training” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 24). Cultures scoring low on uncertainty avoidance are amongst others Singapore and Denmark. Members of those cultures are meant to be proactive risk takers, which makes them take responsibility. In addition, they do not plan and structure their day in advance—they just take things as they come (cf. Blom and Meier, 2004, p. 50). In a nutshell, uncertainty avoidance reflects “the degree to which people feel threatened by ambiguous situations” (Reisinger & Turner, 2012, p. 24). Individualism vs. Collectivism: I, we and they. In countries such as the USA, Germany and Belgium it is the individual who takes the centre stage. It is up to the people themselves to define their belonging and develop their own individual personality. On the other hand, there are countries such as Japan, Turkey, Guatemala and Argentina in which the individual person submits to the group (cf. Blom & Meier, 2004, p. 50). Summarised, the individualism dimension represents “the degree to which individual goals and needs take primacy over group goals and needs” (Reisinger & Turner, 2012, p. 24). An individualist can be associated with freedom, personal time and challenge, whereas collectivistic characteristics are physical conditions, use of skills and training (cf. Shaules, 2007, p. 50). Masculinity vs. Femininity: He, she and (s)he. This dimension, actually called ‘masculinity’, although it also encompasses ‘Femininity’ expresses “the degree to which people value work and achievement versus quality of life and harmonious human relations” (Reisinger & Turner, 2012, p. 24). It is linked to the traditional and stereotypical gender roles. In fact, it influences issues such as the acceptance and distribution of gender roles within social spheres of designated cultures. Cultures characterised by masculinity expect men to be ‘real’ men who are ambitious, admire winning, are success-oriented, stand for strength and size, are dedicated and want to be No. 1 (cf. Apfelthaler, 2002, p. 189). The most masculine culture is Japan, followed by Hungary and Venezuela (cf. G Hofstede, 2003, p. 285). Those countries value symbols like earnings, intrepidity, recognition, advancement, success and challenge. Due to the fact that femininity is associated with roles such as housewives, mothers and nurses, feminine countries pay tribute to employment s­ecurity,

2 Culture

49

co-operations, relationships and desirable living areas (cf. Shaules, 2007, p. 50). Strongly feminine cultures are Sweden and Norway (cf. G Hofstede, 2003, p. 285). Looking through the eyes of an entrepreneur, masculinity is a sign for employee motivation. The American psychological theorist David C. McClelland (1988) discovered that cultures scoring high on masculinity live motivation by success—so-called ‘achievement motivation’. Short-Term vs. Long-Term Orientation: Yesterday, now or later? A fifth dimension (based on research in 23 countries), which had not been part of the original four dimensions, was revealed by Hofstede in the 1980s. Known also as the ‘Confucian Work Dimension’, this dimension describes “the extent to which a culture programmes its members to accept delayed gratification of their material, social, and emotional needs” (G. H. Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001, p. xx), so to speak the degree to which a culture either adopts a short-term or a ­long-term outlook on work and life. Even though the dimension is based on the theory of Confucius and therefore on findings of a survey conducted amongst Chinese students, it is nevertheless also valid for cultures not living and following Confucianism (cf. Shaules, 2007, p. 52). However, when it comes to expert articles and business studies, this later-added dimension of national culture often gets disregarded. The same applies for the cultural dimension indulgence vs. restraint. A culture with a high level of indulgence stands for a society accepting fairly free gratification of natural and basic human drives which are related to having fun and enjoying life. Whereas on the other hand, a high level of restraint means that a society tends to suppress gratification of needs and therefore, regulates itself by strict social norms (cf. Hofstede Insights, 2018).

2.4 Brief Summary Around the Thematic Block of Culture When it comes to establishing a brand internationally, companies need to also consider the cultures of the markets they want to operate in. Therefore, the objective of the previous paragraph was a presentation of the construct culture, its approaches and areas of application, especially in the field of brand management. Research around culture already kicked off in the 1950’s. Back then, the first definitions were collected by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) and in the following decades frameworks of cultural dimensions have been introduced. Within these frameworks, the dimensions are used as instruments to measure c­ulture

50

2  Theoretical Background

by ­quantifying attitudes, values and practices. Intensive scientific discussions regarding the framework that is the most appropriate one to conceptualise and operationalise culture have taken place over the years. The most frequently applied approach to culture in the field of management and behavioural studies has been introduced by Hofstede in 1980. His complete framework includes six dimensions: power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, long-term orientation and indulgence. The present research makes use of four of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, as it is not only the most widely used approach in the relevant field and therefore allows better comparisons with other research findings, but the approach is the most comprehensive and applicable one.

3 Interim Conclusion and Critical Evaluation Marketing research is already a very complex and extensive research area, but when the factor culture is added, it becomes even more complex and relevant. Culture itself is influenced and formed by so many things and the influence of culture is omnipresent. In a global world, the role of brands has been pushed to another level. Thus, the question comes up whether a universal brand strategy leads to success or do culturally-customised approaches work better? There are scholars (e.g. Boddewyn, Soehl, & Picard, 1986; Douglas & Wind, 1987; Onkvisit & Shaw, 1990; Whitelock & Pimblett, 1997) that have indeed expressed scepticism with regards to the value of a standardised brand strategy as this also means that important culturally-based differences are often neglected. Additionally, they argue that factors such as globalisation, different consumer needs, purchasing power, laws and regulations, as well as technological development and commercial infrastructure should be considered in a company’s marketing and brand strategy (cf. Theodosiou & Leonidou, 2003, p. 142). Thus, cultural variations are likely to influence the way consumers organise a specific brand image in their minds. There are actually two ways which are interrelated: the contents of communicative messages that are delivered by the respective markets; versus, the sort of associations consumers see when they perceive a certain brand (cf. Hsieh and Lindridge, 2005, p. 14). Therefore, the aspect brand personality and therewith, what is perceived by consumers, is not only valuable for marketers but has also received a lot of attention in the field of marketing research and consumer behaviour. A study by Hsieh and Lindridge on the “factorial structure of automobile brand image” (2005, p. 14) in a cross-national context, showed empirical evidence that multiple brand image dimensions are applicable to a global level. Another outcome of this research study was that a country’s culture and with it,

3  Interim Conclusion and Critical Evaluation

51

the respective level of economic development, is reflected by the factor ‘structure of brand image’. The study’s findings underline the great importance a national culture has with regards to a brand’s image. All this is important when it comes to successfully establishing effective strategies in different markets. Hence, it is highly important to understand both, the similarities and differences of a brand image across the globe in order to be able to set up successful culture-specific brand strategies. Hence, it is advisable that the way to go, would be a global image of a brand that provides a universal attractiveness while at the same time emphasising on market-specific features. With brand personalities causing various types of consumer behaviours, research in this field has neglected brand desirability. Thus, the present work picks up on this and investigates the effects brand personality has on brand desirability. Additionally, as there may not only be direct effects and with brand behaviour often being linked to brand-self-congruity, this phenomenon is of great interest and calls for investigation.

3

Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship Between Brand Personality and Brand Desirability

1 Development of a Reference Framework for the Model Construction The previous chapter already examined the link between brand personality and brand desirability under the roof of culture. This chapter aims to theoretically found those relationships. Therefore, the outgoing effects of brand personality on brand desirability are studied with regards to their diverse and different influences as well as their interdependencies. To start with, a theoretical reference framework is developed which supports the verbalised relations and serves as a basis for hypothesising. As outlined in the theoretically and empirically substantiated research focus, an additional construct (brand-self-congruity) interposes the two constructs brand personality and brand desirability. Thus, brand personality takes the role of the independent variable/exogenous variable which exerts influence on the consumer behaviour construct, respectively brand desirability. Based on previous research findings, it suggests itself to assume this influence. Different values are offered by brands which basically includes brand benefits on a functional, experiential and symbolic basis (cf. Keller, 1993, p. 4). Throughout the years, research projects focused on personality-related concepts when addressing those symbolic benefits, including the one of brand personality. Even though various models already individually or in a different scope examined the theme complex, an explicit model regarding the targeted complex of the present work does not exist. Numerous research activities have already addressed the subject brand personality and its effects on consumer behaviour. Back in 1995, Veryzer Jr explained that brands/ products are not only bought because of their quality or functions but because © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 C. C. Vellnagel, Cross-Cultural Brand Personality and Brand Desirability, Markenkommunikation und Beziehungsmarketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31178-0_3

53

54

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

of the symbolic meaning they transfer. With individuals commonly holding attitudes and stating preferences that are an expression and reflection of their own self, researchers state that this includes preferences of various fields: from romantic partners, to social situations and interaction partners but also preferences with regards to consumer symbols like products and brands (cf. Aaker and Schmitt, 2001, p. 1). Accordingly, extensive research around the match between a brand’s personality and a person’s personality has been conducted. Within every cultural construct, certain values and needs can be identified which show relevance for brand perception. Cultural differences in values and needs, as occurring in the relevant nations of the present work, are likely to demonstrate culture-specific differences with regards to brand personality (cf. Sung and Tinkham, 2005, p. 334). As previously proven, certain dimensions of brand personality might have a similar meaning across different cultures while there might indeed be c­ ulture-specific dimensions. Additionally, research from back in the 1990’s in the field of cultural psychology already suggested that there are differences across cultures in terms of the symbolic use of brands (cf. Aaker, 1997, p. 347). Subsequently, the dependent constructs which are part of the theoretical framework are presented and their choice is justified. The chapter closes with a summary of the hypotheses framework and the model design.

2 Presumed Relationships Between Brand Personality and the Endogenous Constructs 2.1 Brand Personality and Brand Desirability Various research studies found out that a brand’s personality has a positive effect on behavioural and attitudinal outcomes (e.g. Malhotra, 1988; Usakli and Baloglu, 2011; Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). Literature argues that an increased positive impact occurs when a brand’s personality is unique and therefore supports differentiation. In the past, not only consumer behaviour but also innovation, product choice, risk taking, fear, social influence, media choice, opinion leadership and plenty more have been linked to brand personality. As already outlined in Section 1.1 in Chapter 2 (p. 10), in the field of consumer behaviour, great interest was paid to outcomes like purchase intention, brand trust, brand affect, brand loyalty etc. (Bekk, Spörrle, Landes, & Moser, 2017; Brakus et al., 2009; e.g. Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Choi et al., 2017; Japutra & Molinillo, 2017; D. Lam, 2007; Louis & Lombart, 2010; Molinillo et al., 2017; Shetty, 2017; Toldos-Romero & Orozco-Gómez, 2015; Tong et al., 2018; Unurlu & Uca, 2017;

2  Presumed Relationships Between Brand Personality …

55

Wang & Yang, 2008). Evaluating previously conducted research around brand personality and its effects show that brand desirably has not yet been linked with brand personality. According to Kapferer and Florence (2016, p. 112), a desire is not only active but it strongly asks to be fulfilled. Additionally, brand desirability is an influence parameter to measure the emotional level of a brand (cf. Nufer and Förster, 2010, p. 3). Alike the concept of brand desire (or brand love), brand personality “emerges from the human tendency to ascribe h­ uman-like characteristics to inanimate objects” (cf. Roy, Khandeparkar and Motiani, 2016, p. 99). Therefore, and with consumers linking brands with human-like characteristics, emotions, intentions and motivations, consumers are likely to perceive brands as entities which are human-like and also possess personality traits seen in humans (e.g. Epley, Waytz and Cacioppo, 2007; Hart, Jones and Royne, 2013; Puzakova, Kwak and Rocereto, 2013; Roy, Khandeparkar and Motiani, 2016). This leads to the intuitive assumption that consumers build relationships with brands which are somehow similar to relationships they have with human beings. However, the theoretical justification for this relationship still lacks (cf. Roy et al., 2016, p. 99). Nonetheless, numerous arguments speak for a connection between the two constructs. Brand personality is not only a result of associations with a brand created through direct and indirect contacts, but brand personality has also got an impact on self-expressive and emotional benefits and therefore, serves as the basis for brand relationship (cf. Aaker, 1997, p. 348; Chang and Chieng, 2006, p. 936). Research by Bairrada, Coelho and Lizanets (2018) found significant evidence that brand personality has positive effects on brand love, resistance to negative information as well as self-disclosure. Besides that and as already indicated previously, various studies have proven that brand personality dimensions have a direct influence on consumer behaviours such as brand loyalty, trustworthiness, dependability etc. (cf. Roy, Khandeparkar and Motiani, 2016, p. 100). Despite this, brand desirability could be considered as being upstream of purchase intention, if the monetary means are available. This is supported by the fact that both brand personality and brand desirability have an impact on various desired behavioural post-purchase patterns (cf. Vlachos and Vrechopoulos, 2012, pp. 218). Additionally, research analysed the influence of brand love onto brand loyalty and purchase intention (e.g. (Fetscherin, 2014). With all of Aaker’s (1997) brand personality dimensions being positive in nature, brands projecting these traits are expected to be more desirable (cf. Roy et al., 2016, p. 101). That brand personality dimensions, respectively sincerity and excitement, have a significant positive effect on brand love has been confirmed by the study of Roy, Khandeparkar and Motiani (2016).

56

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

Research conducted by Freling and Forbes (2005) finds support that brand personality also has a positive influence on product evaluations. Additionally, their findings indicate that subjects which are exposed to a brand’s personality are more likely to have a significantly higher number of and greater proportion of brand associations as well as unique brand associations (cf. p. 404). With that they empirically demonstrated the brand personality effect in the direction of ­consumer-based outcomes. Further findings which arouse from the research by Freling and Forbes (2005) confirmed that strong and favourable brand personalities are related to more favourable brand associations and product evaluations. Their findings are entirely consistent with expectations and intuitions of both research scholars and practitioners with regards to the effects and nature of brand personality (cf. p. 410). A link between brand personality dimensions and various consumer behavioural has been investigated by Louis and Lombart (2010). They postulated causal links between brand personality and consumer trust in a brand, brand personality and consumer attachment to a brand, as well as brand personality and consumer commitment to a brand. Following Gurviez and Korchia (2002), they argued that a brand is likely to be credible if it is able to meet the performance which is expected by the consumer. A brand will be integer if it does not break any promises and will consequently be considered as honest. Besides that, previously conducted research (Gouteron, 2008; e.g. Hess, Bauer, Kuester, & Huber, 2007) already revealed positive significant impact of brand personality traits on brand trust (cf. Louis & Lombart, 2010, p. 117). They were able to identify the existence of a significant relationship between brand personality dimensions and trust in the brand (cf. Louis & Lombart, 2010, p. 121). Further, they based their hypothesis that brand personality dimensions have an impact on consumer attachment on the statement that attachment to a brand corresponds to an emotional link between consumer and brand. Following Lacoeuilhe (2000) attachment to a brand is defined as a psychological construct revealing an inalterable affective and lasting relationship to a brand and expressing a relationship of psychological closeness (cf. Louis & Lombart, 2010, p. 118). Additionally, they based their assumption on research conducted by Sung and Tinkham (2005) and Gouteron (2006, 2008). They were able to also confirm a significant link between brand personality and consumer brand attachment. The third link they drew was between brand personality and consumer brand commitment. Backed by the fact that relational commitment exists when one side believes that the present relationship with another side “is important enough to deserve as much effort as possible to maintain it” (Louis & Lombart, 2010, p. 118) and also backed by research around affective commitment (e.g. Fournier, 1998; Fullerton, 2003, 2005; Gruen,

2  Presumed Relationships Between Brand Personality …

57

Summers, & Acito, 2000) and continuance commitment (e.g. Fullerton, 2003, 2005), Louis and Lombart (2010) were able to also confirm their last hypothesis around the impact of brand personality dimensions. Several studies (Bairrada et al., 2018; e.g. C. K. Kim et al., 2001; P. ­Valette-Florence et al., 2011) investigated brand personality as a whole and not on its individual dimensions. For the presumed direct effect between brand personality and brand desirability a separation of the individual is of great interest. Therefore, a breakdown of the individual brand personality dimensions follows. Research conducted by Sung and Kim (2010) investigated the effects of the individual brand personality dimensions on brand affect and brand trust. Their findings show that the brand personality dimensions sincerity and ruggedness influence brand trust more than brand affect, whereas the dimensions excitement and sophistication are more linked to brand affect rather than to brand trust. The last dimension, competence, does not show a tendency but actually shows similar effects on both constructs. Their research outcomes are consistent with assertions by consumer and marketing researchers as brand personality dimensions have been associated with increasing brand trust and evoking brand affect (cf. Sung & Kim, 2010, p. 639). Swaminathan, Stilley and Ahluwalia (2009) also support that brand personality dimensions drive the effect on brand-related outcomes (cf. p. 994). Besides that, responsible and active brand personality dimensions have successfully been tested on their impact on brand awareness, brand trust and brand loyalty (cf. Molinillo et al., 2017, p. 173). Therewith, they revealed that both, active and responsible brands have significant influence on the three consumer behaviours. Further, an active brand personality is likely to have a negative impact on brand trust and brand loyalty. In order to strengthen the theoretical foundation with regards to the relationship between brand personality dimensions and brand desirability, Roy, Khandeparkar and Motiani (2016) found that sincerity and excitement show significant positive direct effects on store brand loyalty and brand love (cf. Roy et al., 2016, p. 108). They backed their expectations on the fact that sincere brands develop relationship advantages as they share different traits which are similar to sincerity. In such a manner, this trait has been proven to have a positive impact on relationship strength. The sincerity dimension also suggests a link with conservatism needs such as emphasis on family, and/or being polite and stable (cf. Jennifer Lynn Aaker et al., 2001, p. 494). Additionally, sincerity is fairly similar to concepts such as dependability and trust-worthiness which themselves strengthen relationships (cf. Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992, p. 315; Roy et al., 2016, p. 101). Personality-based research around retail brands has contributed that if a brand is perceived as sincere, a direct positive effect on store brand loyalty results (cf. Roy et al., 2016, p. 101). They also

58

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

confirmed that the brand personality dimension excitement has a significant positive direct impact on store brand loyalty and brand love. Excitement with traits like unique, young and exciting may capture brand perceptions associated to affective autonomy needs (cf. Jennifer Lynn Aaker et al., 2001, p. 494). Within their limitations and future research section they indicate that they only tested two brand personality dimensions (sincerity and excitement) (cf. Roy et al., 2016, p. 110). Therefore, this research attempts to overcome this limitation by testing all brand personality dimensions on their impact on brand desirability. With regards to the remaining three brand personality dimensions, research by Su and Tong (2015) provided findings that competence is considered as one possible dimension linked to brand equity in the sportswear industry. They explain their findings that the competence dimension consists of traits like determined, successful and confident, and therewith clearly matches the positioning and good reputation of the top sportswear brands (e.g. Adidas or Nike). Besides that, competence seems to also be related to mastery needs (cf. Jennifer Lynn Aaker et al., 2001, p. 494). Additionally, Su and Tong (2015, cf. p. 130) also find proof of sincerity leading to brand equity. Besides that, the brand personality dimension sophistication has also been linked with brand behavioural patterns such as brand loyalty. Lin (2010) investigated the “The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty” (p. 4) amongst video games and toys buyers. Key findings include the significant positive impacts of competence and sophistication on active action and affective brand loyalty (cf. Lin, 2010, p. 10). Thus, sophistication (e.g. glamorous, upper class, smooth) appears to be related to hierarchy needs including having wealth and valuing status and prestige (cf. Aaker, B ­ enet-Martinez and Garolera, 2001, pp. 494). Apart from that, research by Zentes, Morschett and Schramm-Klein (2008) on retail brand personality and store loyalty found that all five brand personality introduced by Aaker have a significant direct influence on attitudinal store loyalty. Moreover, they examined that all dimensions, but ruggedness have a positive direct effect. Interestingly the brand personality dimensions ruggedness has been found to lead to negative attitudinal and behavioural store loyalty (cf. Zentes et al., 2008, p. 179). Ruggedness with traits like tough, masculine and Western shows links to mastery needs and low egalitarian commitment which underlines detachment from others (cf. Jennifer Lynn Aaker et al., 2001, p. 495). Typical brands which reflect ruggedness are the US-American motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson, the cigarette brand Marlboro and the energy drink Red Bull (e.g. Jennifer Lynn Aaker et al., 2001; Foscht et al., 2008). The just mentioned examples of rugged brands are indeed special brands which not every consumer is in need of or even considers for consumption. Therewith, this negative link

2  Presumed Relationships Between Brand Personality …

59

could be explained. Amongst the six retail brand stores investigated, Zentes, Morschett and Schramm-Klein (2008) found different brand personality dimensions leading to store loyalty. As an example, IKEA is valued for sincerity and excitement, whereas amazon’s store loyalty is based on competence and in return the store loyalty of the German perfume store Douglas arises from sophistication (cf. pp. 178). Therefore, it can already be stated that for every brand different brand personality dimensions are responsible for consumer behaviours. Summarised, “consumers use brand personality dimensions as relevant determinants of the brand’s added value” (P. Valette-Florence et al., 2011, p. 25). Furthermore, personalities ensure a constant brand image over time (cf. D. A. Aaker, 1996, p. 113) and let consumers express their very own personality (cf. Jennifer L. Aaker, 1997, p. 347). In fact, effects on brand behaviour caused by brand personality dimensions have been pointed up multiple times. Thus, backed by those studies and with brand personality dimensions affecting various consumer behaviours and thus acting as a driver (cf. Radler, 2017, p. 375), the present work suggests that brand personality does not only in general have an impact on brand desirability, but that the higher the level of an individual brand personality dimension, the stronger the effect on brand desirability. Correspondingly, a higher level of sincerity/excitement/competence/sophistication/ruggedness is expected to lead to a stronger direct effect on brand desirability.

2.2 Brand Personality and Brand-Self-Congruity The self-congruity theory was proposed back in the 1950s and has ever since been discussed and studied with regards to its applicability within the marketing context (cf. Klipfel, Barclay, & Bockorny, 2014, p. 130). The origin of s­elf-congruity can be found in the field of psychology and has its theoretical foundation in the social identification construct. This concept proposes that a consumer’s behaviour is determined by a consumer’s self-comparison of their self-perception and the brand’s personality. Thus, consumers use products as a mean to define themselves with regards to others and they buy brands with a particular personality as a way of expressing their self-concept (cf. Malär et al., 2011, p. 36). The brand personality concept ascribes human characteristics and/or traits to a brand based on the brand perception consumers have of the brand (e.g. Jennifer L. Aaker, 1997; Geuens et al., 2009; Grohmann, 2009). Therefore, it has specifically been suggested that the personality of a brand can be an instrument that helps consumers express their self-concept and also offer a type of comfort to those consumers who found a brand matching their self-concept (cf. Malär et al.,

60

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

2011, p. 36). This is based on the assumption that consumers prefer a brand that has a brand personality similar to their own personality (cf. Heding, Knudtzen and Bjerre, 2015, p. 125). According to the definition, the self-concept is the affective and cognitive understanding of both, who we are and what we are, and can take two shapes: the actual self on the one side, and the ideal self on the other. The general assumption that brand personality is connected to ­brand-self-congruity comes from Fournier’s study (1998). She indicates that an individual forms a relationship with a brand if the brand is considered to have traits which are human-like. On top of that, consumers need to be able to identify with these traits. This then supports the self-congruity concept: if a brand’s personality is congruent with the own personality, there is a likelihood that the consumer might be fascinated by the brand (e.g. Aaker, 1997; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Rauschnabel et al., 2015). Especially in relevant consumer behaviour literature, researchers have focused on how a brand’s personality enables consumers to find and express their own self (e.g. Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969; Belk, 1988; Malhotra, 1988). Self-congruity has even been defined as ‘a determinant of brand personality’ while at the same time also being a product of brand personality (cf. Klipfel, Barclay and Bockorny, 2014, p. 130). Consumers use brands as symbols to express themselves as they are capable of matching human personality traits with brands (cf. Rojas-Méndez, Papadopoulos and Alwan, 2015, p. 4). Thus, focusing on and integrating previous research and assumptions, hypothesising that brand-self-congruity is influenced by brand personality is a logical consequence. Research conducted by Lee et al. (2017) supports the assumption that brand personality has a significant positive effect on air travellers’ ­ self-congruence. Further, brand personality congruence has been investigated on its positive effect on brand identification by Kuenzel and Halliday (2010). This was based on the assumption that the ideal self-congruity is found to be the most appropriate congruity with regards to brand preference decisions. The assumption was based on the theory that the ideal-self-congruity is related to fit between how a consumer would like to see himself/herself in regard to brand personality. Moreover, the ideal-self influences behaviour through the need of self-esteem. A consumer has an ideal image of himself/herself and by purchasing certain brands, he/she is able to not only realise this ideal image but also boost his/her self-esteem. Therefore, research has hypothesised and confirmed that purchasing a brand which has a personality that is consistent with the consumer’s ideal self helps him/her to feel good about himself/herself. In their research, they found significant support for the assumption that brand personality congruence has a positive impact on brand identification. Further, they were able to prove that brand identification itself has a positive impact on brand loyalty. Therefore, they

2  Presumed Mediating Effect of ­­Brand-Self-Congruity

61

concluded that a higher level of identification with a brand makes customers more loyal to the brand (cf. Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010, p. 170). Based on previously conducted research and the hypotheses of the present research, brand-self-congruity is not only brand personality dependent or leads directly to a consumer behaviour, it is hypothesised to also have a mediating role. Subsequently, the presumed role of brand-self-congruity as a mediator between brand personality dimensions and brand desirability is outlined. A break-down into the individual brand personality dimensions does not take place for this hypothesised effect mechanism, as it is of rather explorative character and provides guidance for the effect direction.

3 Presumed Mediating Effect of ­­Brand-SelfCongruity According to previously conducted research and what has just been outlined, the purchase decision is theorised to often be affected by a person’s s­ elf-concept (e.g. Kassarjian, 1971; Sirgy, 1982; Aaker, 1999; Litvin and Kar, 2004; ­Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar and Sen, 2012) while the actual self-congruence has been found to have great impact with regards to emotional brand attachment (e.g. Landon Jr, 1974; Malhotra, 1988; Malär et al., 2011), consumer-brand identification (e.g. Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar and Sen, 2012), customer loyalty (e.g. Kressmann et al., 2006) and customer satisfaction (e.g. Nam, Ekinci and Whyatt, 2011). Over 100 scholarly research articles have already addressed the theoretical and managerial importance of the effect self-congruity has on a consumer’s decision. Additionally, and already outlined in Section 2.1, it has been found that brand personality shows direct effects on behavioural outcomes. In this context, possessions are a mean to satisfy psychological needs. This includes actively forming one’s self-concept, strengthening and expressing one’s self-­ identity and granting someone to differentiate oneself and therewith affirm one’s individuality (cf. Escalas & Bettman, 2005, p. 378). These possessions may also function as a social purpose by mirroring social ties with regards to one’s family, cultural group, community including brand communities (cf. A. M. Muniz & O’guinn, 2001, p. 426). Consumer research has extended certain findings around the possession to brands (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; e.g. Fournier, 1998). Thus, research proposes that consumers build their self-identity and impersonate themselves to other members of the society by their choice of brands drawing upon the congruity between self-image and brand-user associations (cf. Escalas & Bettman, 2005, p. 378).

62

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

On the whole, extensive research has already been conducted around the self-congruity concept (J. Aaker & Schmitt, 2001; Jennifer L. Aaker, 1999; Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005; M. Joseph Sirgy, 1985b; M. Joseph Sirgy et al., 2008; e.g. M Joseph Sirgy, 1979). However, the mediating role of ­brand-self-congruity within the theoretical construct of brand personality perception and outcomes on the behavioural side are not entirely clear (cf. Matzler et al., 2016, p. 508). Thus, the indirect effect of brand personality on a certain brand behaviour has so far been addressed in the tourism context looking into travel behaviour (e.g. Sirgy and Su, 2000), especially the visit intention, intention to return and intention to recommend the destination (e.g. Usakli and Baloglu, 2011; Matzler et al., 2016). Besides that, direct effects occurring between brand-self-congruity, and behavioural and attitudinal brand success outcomes have also been studied ­(Aguirre-Rodriguez et al., 2012; Grohmann, 2009; e.g. Kressmann et al., 2006; Moisescu, 2009; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Wolter, Brach, Cronin, & Bonn, 2016). In this context, Tuškej, Golob and Podnar (2013) supported that “a consumer’s identification with a brand has a positive influence on brand commitment” (p. 55). Research in the field of business ethics has found that brand identification partially mediates the relationships between corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction as well as the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction (cf. He & Li, 2011, pp. 677, 682). Furthermore, research by Helgeson and Supphellen (2004) has found that brand personality and brand-self-congruity are not only distinct constructs possessing discriminant validity but that they also show independent effects on brand attitudes. Research conducted by Chebat, Sirgy and St-James (2006) investigated the mediating role of self-congruity between mall and store image. Their findings show strong support that self-congruity is not only a quasi-mediator but actually fully mediates the mall and store image relationship (cf. p. 1292). The mediating role of self-congruence has also been confirmed by other researchers. Rauschnabel and Ahuvia (2014) investigated the mediating effect of perceived self-congruence on the relationship between anthropomorphism and five brand love dimensions (emotional attachment, long-term relationship, anticipated separation distress, willingness to invest resources and self-brand integration) (cf. p. 386). Huang, Zhang and Hu (2017) looked into the relationship between destination brand personality and destination brand attachment within the Chinese independent travel sector. At this, they hypothesised that self-congruence, actual self-congruence and ideal self-congruence have mediating effects on the relationship between destination brand personality and destination brand attachment (cf. p. 4). Their findings indicate that the emotional attachment to a travel destination is largely based on the perceived consistency between the traits of the

4  Presumed Relationships Between the Endogenous Constructs …

63

destination’s personality and the traveller’s actual self-concept (cf. Huang et al., 2017, p. 8). Summarised, the self-congruence concept has found to play an important role within consumer research and has been detected to affect the link between several constructs. Building on the knowledge of previously conducted research and ­considering the crux of the self-congruity concept that consumers favour brands associated with personality traits that are congruent with their own traits (cf. ­Jennifer L. Aaker, 1999, p. 46), the present work seeks to provide a better and clearer understanding of the role of brand-self-congruity within consumer behaviour and therefore suggests that brand-self-congruity mediates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability and therewith plays the role of a mediator.

4 Presumed Relationships Between the Endogenous Constructs: B ­ rand-SelfCongruity and Brand Desirability As already outlined, great attention has been given to brand-self-congruity within the complex field of consumer behaviour. A positive fit between the consumer’s self-image and the personality of a brand are not only essential for creating emotional brand attachment (e.g. Malär et al., 2011; Kim and Joung, 2016), but also influences purchase motivation (e.g. Sirgy, 1982), and enhances affective as well as attitudinal and behavioural responses of consumers to the brand (e.g. Aaker, 1999; Grohmann, 2009), and thus, directly and indirectly influences consumer behaviour (e.g. Sirgy et al., 1991). A positive brand-self-congruity is able to generate sustainable and competitive advantages as well as brand equity (e.g. Aguirre-Rodriguez, Bosnjak and Sirgy, 2012). In return, a negative (symbolic) congruity, a so-called incongruity with a brand, has been found to lead to brand hate (e.g. Hegner, Fetscherin, & van Delzen, 2017). Other variables that have proven to be affected by positive brand-self-congruity are consumer-brand identification (e.g. Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar and Sen, 2012), customer/brand loyalty (He, Li, & Harris, 2012; Hemsley-Brown & Alnawas, 2016; Kang, Tang, & Lee, 2015; e.g. Kressmann et al., 2006; F. Liu et al., 2012; Lu & Xu, 2015; Pedeliento, Andreini, Bergamaschi, & Salo, 2016; Popp & Woratschek, 2017), perceived quality (e.g. Das, 2014), social psychological change barriers (e.g. Magin et al., 2003), brand attitude (e.g. Liu et al., 2012; Adis et al., 2015; Su and Reynolds, 2017; Malär et al., 2018), (emotional) brand attachment (Grazzini et al., 2018; Japutra, Ekinci, & Simkin, 2017; Japutra, Ekinci, Simkin, & Nguyen,

64

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

2018; Jihyun Kim & Joung, 2016; Matzler, Pichler, Füller, & Mooradian, 2011; Pedeliento et al., 2016), brand engagement (e.g. Whang et al., 2004; Espinoza, 2009; France, Merrilees and Miller, 2016; Lee et al., 2018), brand commitment (e.g. Albert & Merunka, 2013; Shirkhodaie & Rastgoo-deylami, 2016), brand love (e.g. Alnawas and Altarifi, 2015; Wallace, Buil and de Chernatony, 2017), customer brand co-creation (e.g. France, Merrilees, & Miller, 2015), brand involvement (France et al., 2016), brand image (e.g. Shirkhodaie & ­Rastgoo-deylami, 2016), purchase intention (e.g. Das, 2014; Adis et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2018) and repurchase intention (e.g. Kim and Joung, 2016), online brand experiences (e.g. S. Lee & Jeong, 2014), perceived level of investment (e.g. Jihyun Kim & Joung, 2016) and customer satisfaction (e.g. Nam, Ekinci and Whyatt, 2011). The self-congruity of a customer with regards to a sponsored event (image) has also been found to create a positive affect or attitude towards the respective event (e.g. Mazodier & Merunka, 2012; Shin, Lee, & Perdue, 2018). Further research around global brand congruence (image-based, functional-based and user-based) has also been conducted in relation to events (e.g. Drengner, Jahn and Zanger, 2011). Yoon and Kim (2016) found support that self-congruity with regards to consumer responses has a positive impact on source credibility in terms of attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise. Moreover, self-congruence also shows positive effects on travellers’ positive emotions as well as their air travel satisfaction (e.g. Sanghyeop Lee et al., 2017) and customer’s trust in a hotel (e.g. S. Lee & Jeong, 2014). The role of brand-self-congruity, especially the one of the actual self, seems to grow in importance within the field of brand management and brand strategy as consumers started to focus on reality and authenticity within marketing messages (cf. Gilmore & Pine, 2007, p. 94). In their study “Consumers’ relationships with brands and brand communities – The multifaceted roles of identification and satisfaction”, Popp and Woratschek (2017) identified that ­consumer-brand-identification leads to customer satisfaction, brand loyalty as well as positive WOM. As the key point of the self-congruity concept is that consumers generally prefer, value, favour, like, love, ask for, dream of, etc. brands showing personality traits that are congruent with their own traits or the traits they would like to have (cf. Aaker, 1999, pp. 45), the present research hypothesises that ­brand-self-congruity has an impact on brand desirability.

5  Presumed Role of Culture as a Moderator

65

5 Presumed Role of Culture as a Moderator The most cited book when it comes to country-level research is ‘Culture’s Consequences: International differences in work-related values’ by Geert Hofstede ([1980] 2001). With over 40,000 citations “it is amongst the 25 most cited books in social sciences” (Beugelsdijk, Kostova, & Roth, 2017, p. 30). Examining the application and impact of this work in the fields of management and international business is an intimidating task. Besides the work of Hofstede, multiple other cultural frameworks in relation to international business have been introduced (e.g. Hall, 1989; Schwartz, 1992; Trompenaars, 1993; House et al., 2004). This reflects the enormous theoretical and empirical relevance of culture as an influencer and integral part in international business. Culture is a major influencer with regards to (international) companies’ marketing activities around strategy, processes and structure. Doing business takes place in a dynamic environment where the situational context is likely to establish boundaries which lead to a determination of variation with regards to relationships between a company’s brand strategy and the market-based outcome. Culture is considered as such a boundary (cf. Talay, Townsend, & Yeniyurt, 2015, p. 58). Therefore, it can be assumed that certain brands perform better across different markets due to the influence of the respective national culture. Different cultures seem to perceive brands differently and therefore also show different consumer behaviours. In that sense, it is no surprise that researchers have found out that culture transfers multifarious moderating effects on the relationship between product signals and their performance (cf. Akdeniz & Talay, 2013, p. 620). Market-specific research in China has underlined that different psychological and functional values influence global brands in the retail sector (cf. Swoboda, Pennemann, & Taube, 2012, p. 73). Extensive research with regards to the moderating role of culture has been conducted in the tourism sector (e.g. Litvin and Kar, 2004; Correia, Kozak and Ferradeira, 2011; Forgas-Coll et al., 2012; Frías et al., 2012; Sabiote, Frías and Castañeda, 2012; Pantouvakis, 2013; Matzler et al., 2016). Additionally, the moderating role of culture has also been investigated in the context of purchase intention in online shopping (e.g. Ganguly et al., 2010). The moderating factor of individualism was also tested in the context of the concept of self-image congruity (e.g. Litvin & Kar, 2004). With regards to global brands, it has been shown that global brands are perceived as an entry to global citizenship in Eastern European cultures (e.g. Strizhakova, Coulter, & Price, 2008). The understanding of the development process of the customer-brand relationship has been investigated with regards to differences within the Chinese and Indian markets. For this comparison, culture

66

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

has been integrated as a moderator (e.g. Hur, Kang, & Kim, 2015). Additionally, ethnic cultures within one country find support for moderating the brand perception of global brands (e.g. Dimofte, Johansson, & Bagozzi, 2010). Research from various disciplines has pointed out that culture is a measure of beliefs and values and has widely been ranked as a forerunner of internationally operating and recognised brands within a country based on the outset of consumer cultures (e.g. Alden, Steenkamp, & Batra, 2006). If doubts arise amongst consumers, and as already outlined previously during the brand-self-congruity section, consumers are likely to choose brands which show synergies corresponding with their own beliefs and values, which also show a correlation with their national and cultural heritage. With culture consisting of multiple dimensions, each dimension has a different influence on consumer behaviour. Cross-cultural research has received intensive attention in various fields such as psychology (Howard, 1991; Hui & Triandis, 1985; Triandis & Brislin, 1984; e.g. Triandis, Malpass, & Davidson, 1971), IT management (e.g. Weisinger & Trauth, 2003), tourism (J.-H. Kim & Ritchie, 2014; M. Li, 2014; e.g. Reisinger & Turner, 1997, 2012), advertising (Cutler & Javalgi, 1992; Mikhailitchenko, Javalgi, Mikhailitchenko, & Laroche, 2009; e.g. Whitelock & Chung, 1989), leadership (Frost & Walker, 2007; e.g. Gerstner & Day, 1994; Grisham & Walker, 2008; Robert J House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997), innovation (da Silva & Moreira, 2017; e.g. Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002; Kwon, Kim, & Koh, 2016; Rinne, Steel, & Fairweather, 2012; Tian, Deng, Zhang, & Salmador, 2018) as well as consumer behaviour (Marieke De Mooij, 2000; e.g. McCracken, 1990). Previously conducted studies in the field of consumer behaviour have found that the individual cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980a) show different implications. Thus, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation, which are relevant for the present study, have been found to act as subsequently presented. Their definitions have already been stated in Section 2.3 in Chapter 2 (cf. p. 42). Nevertheless, the subsequent table encapsulates the relevant cultural dimensions and their characteristics as already outlined. The cultural dimension masculinity would in general also be of great interest. However, the scores for this dimension of the relevant cultures do not vary enough in order to be able to examine moderating effect (GER: 66; USA: 62; CHN: 66) (cf. Hofstede Insights, 2018; Table 1). Firstly and most importantly upfront, power distance has been confirmed to have an influence on brand personality evaluations (cf. Wang et al., 2018, p. 93). In highly power distance cultures, every individual has his/her legitimate place in the social hierarchy. The concept of legitimate place is important in order to understand the role global brands play in those cultures. The social status of a

5  Presumed Role of Culture as a Moderator

67

Table 1   Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in a nutshell Dimension

Low

High

Power Distance

• Professional ranking and position are not that important

• Professional ranking and position have an influence on private life • Everyone has his/her legitimate place in social hierarchy • Social status to be clear

Individualism

• Responsibility is given to the • Priority is given to the rights of each individual group • The individual is fairly • High level of group independent and autonomous awareness with regards to group peer • Decisions are made within pressure the group • Universalistic while expect• Social networks are narrow ing that their values are • People are conscious about uniform the ‘we’ • The individual’s identity is based on their respective social system. • No losing of face.

Uncertainty Avoidance

• Society is more tolerant regarding the non-conformance of other opinions • Stability is preferred • Open to change and innovation

Long-term orientation

• Stability and personal stead- • Ordering relationships by status iness • Sense of shame, thrift and • Respect for tradition • Focus on pursuit of happiness perseverance • Focus on peace of mind • Investment into the future

• Need for formality and rules in order to structure life • Belief in experts • Less open to innovation and change

Source author’s own following Hofstede (1980a), Foscht et al. (2008) and de Mooij and Hofstede (2010)

member of a high power distance culture must be clear in order for others to show their respect. Global brands are a mean to serve this purpose and thus, luxury goods such as certain alcohol beverages, fashion items or other status symbols like watches or cars appeal to these status needs (cf. Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 89). However, in high power distance cultures, it is the opinion leaders who strongly influence a consumer’s purchase decision. Thus, it can be

68

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

expected that less powerful members of a high power distance culture tend to emulate purchase decisions of members with greater authority. Therefore, consumers are likely to be more sensitive with regards to brands which are bought by influential people than to a brand’s relevance/match to their own self-image. On the contrary, consumers of low-power-distance cultures do not pay attention to purchase decisions of powerful members, which also means that the influence of the brand-self matching is greater (cf. Dwyer, Mesak and Hsu, 2005, pp. 10; Eisingerich and Rubera, 2010, p. 68). Wang et al. confirmed that a high level of power distance “activates a greater level of brand social categorisation tendency” (2018, p. 94). Therefore, cultures scoring high in power distance are at first to be expected to desire and invest in global brands. In his 1995 published work on “The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image strategies”, Martin Roth investigated the moderating role of the cultural dimensions power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism on the relationship between brand image strategy (functional, sensory and social) on product performance. While not finding support for any significant moderation by uncertainty avoidance, he identified power distance as a relatively strong moderator in connection with sensory and social brand image performance. Thus, with a high level of power distance, the increased use of sensory and social brand image strategies boosts performance (cf. Roth, 1995, pp. 170). He based his assumptions on the nature of power distance. Thus, cultures with a high level of power distance tend to underscore the importance of wealth and prestige with regards to shaping boundaries between economic and social classes like rich and poor, or superiors and subordinates. Additionally, members of high power distance cultures seek to keep or even increase their power as a satisfaction source. With social consciousness being high, members are motivated by conforming to others in their class or by conforming to classes they aspire. Thus, relating those aspects of power distance to consumer needs and consumer behaviour, Roth figured that power distance should have an influence on social brand images effects as members of high power distance societies are highly driven by social status as well as affiliation norms. Therefore, he proposed and confirmed that “The effect of social brand images on market share will be greater […] when cultural power distance is high” (Roth, 1995, p. 165). Additionally, he also found support that a high level of power distance also positively moderates the relationship between sensory brand image and product performance. On the other hand however, power distance is also about the relationship between subordinates and bosses (cf. Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 102). Contrarily, members who are not part of the lower social hierarchy tend to copy their consumer behaviour of members who are part of the upper social hierarchy. Therefore, the relevant match between

5  Presumed Role of Culture as a Moderator

69

brand and the consumer’s self should not play an important role with regards to their consumer behaviour, and respectively their brand desirability. Hence, the moderating role of power distance on the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated by brand-self-congruity is expected to be negative. The second cultural dimension relevant for the present research is individualism, which is also the most employed dimension in the field of cross-cultural consumer behaviour research (e.g. Triandis, 1989; Kim et al., 1994; Zhang and Gelb, 1996; Yeniyurt and Townsend, 2003). Members of highly individualistic cultures consider themselves as independent and autonomous (cf. Triandis, 2001, p. 909). Additionally, the self-actualisation plays an important role and thus, members of high individualism societies are ‘I’-conscious. When it comes to the role of individualism in the sales context, parties in individualistic societies come to the point fast. In highly individualistic cultures it is about persuasion, whereas in collectivistic cultures brands need to create trust (cf. Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 89). Further, members of collectivistic societies start with building a trustful relationship before making decisions. The purpose of branding and advertising in highly individualistic cultures is to persuade consumers, while in collectivistic societies branding is meant to build trust and relationships between the seller and the consumer (cf. Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 97). Additionally, in highly collectivistic cultures, such as China, possessing luxury brands is an indicator for their position within society and the respective reference group they belong to (cf. Bian & Forsythe, 2012, p. 1446). Thus, Chinese consumers, in comparison to US American consumers, are more likely to make a link between brands and prestige (cf. J. J. Li & Su, 2007, p. 242). Within individualistic cultures such as the USA (IDV score: 91), the individual sees himself/ herself as independent and autonomous. It is the internal and personal attributes, beliefs, characteristics and abilities of an individual which make the individual special, unique and therewith, also different from others. This means that those individuals who know and understand their very own actual self, have the ability to act autonomously and independently with regards to others. In individualistic cultures, consistency is considered as more important while inconsistency is regarded as a threat to the own self. Consistency within individualistic cultures does also come with positive attributes such as integrity, dependability and maturity (Cross, Gore, & Morris, 2003, p. 934; cf. Triandis, 2001, p. 910). Members of an individualistic culture are characterised by their striving for self-realisation and their individual freedom. With regards to brands, this means that they prefer brands which are self-expressive (cf. Foscht et al., 2008, p. 132) and reflect their own self-image (cf. Solomon, Russell-Bennett and Previte, 2012, pp. 141).

70

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

According to Hofstede, the underlying assumption is that consumers from highly individualistic cultures want to differ from others and therefore use brands as a means to signal and self-express their identity (e.g. Kleine, Kleine III and Allen, 1995; Fournier, 1998; Escalas and Bettman, 2005; Eisingerich and Rubera, 2010). Consequently, if a brand has a deep and strong connection with the self-image of a consumer, the brand is used to express the consumer’s identity to other consumers. Contrarily, in highly collectivistic societies consumers tend to value the self-image of the community instead of the self-image of an individual. This supports the assumption that it is less relevant in collectivistic cultures to establish a deep connection with a brand (cf. Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010, p. 68). Besides that, prior research suggests that consumers who show higher individualistic tendencies tend to be more satisfied with a brand/product they consider congruent to themselves. This assumption is based on the assertion that individualistic cultures are expected to be more hedonistic (cf. Litvin & Kar, 2004, p. 27). This hedonic consumption desire is based on an extended emotional interaction with brands/ products. Referring to the previously mentioned research by M. Roth (1995), it was expected that individualism has a positive moderation impact on the relationship between functional and sensory brand image and the construct product performance. Again, Roth was able to confirm this. Moreover, his research found evidence for a negative moderating effect of individualism on the social brand image—product performance relationship. In his predictions, he argued that collectivistic cultures will find brand images showing social aspects such as group membership and/or affiliation more attractive than members of highly individualistic societies. Thus, high individualism cultures are more suited to jump at sensory images emphasising novelty, variety and individual gratification. This is based on the traits attributed to cultures scoring high in individualism as they do not follow social norms but they rather make decisions and show behaviours not linked to others (cf. Roth, 1995, p. 171). Other research on the moderating role of the cultural dimension individualism has been conducted by Matzler et al. (2016). They investigated the moderating effect of individualism and uncertainty avoidance on the relationship between self-congruity and visit intention. They argue, based on explanations by Cross, Gore and Morris (2003, p. 934), that “individuals who know their actual self can behave autonomously and independently of others” (Matzler et al., 2016, p. 509). Thus, showing consistency in e.g. one’s self-concept, attitudes or behaviour is awarded to individualistic societies. Unexpectedly, their research results rejected the hypothesis that individualism plays a positive moderation role in their research model. They ground their outcome as follows: firstly, the context used (travel destination) is rarely an individualistic experience but in fact covers a time frame which is spent with others. Secondly,

5  Presumed Role of Culture as a Moderator

71

they propose that the brand-self-congruity—visit intention relationship might even be stronger for members of collectivistic societies. Additionally, they point up limitations as they did not take the heterogeneous nature of the travel market into account (cf. Matzler et al., 2016, p. 516). Following the just outlined learnings, Roth’s (1995) research results and also under consideration that the context of the present work is not in the tourism context, but rather covers high-end consumer brands such as the brands MINI (automotive), ROLEX and APPLE in the pre-test, and another automotive brand (BMW M) in the main study, which are all mainly for the individual use, the present research expects that a high level of individualism has a positive influence on the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated by brand-self-congruity. The third culture dimension of great interest for the present research is uncertainty avoidance which is expected to be highly relevant when it comes to brand personality effects (cf. Matzler et al., 2016, p. 509). Describing the extent to which members of a society feel endangered by uncertainty, ambiguity and unstructured situations (cf. Geert Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419), consumers of a highly uncertainty avoidant culture are expected to prefer brands which provide a trustworthy image and product quality. Thus, they are rather risk-averse and tend to rely on past purchases or user experiences when dealing with a higher level of perceived risk (cf. Hur et al., 2015, p. 491). In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, people require rules and formality in order to structure their lives. Generally, people whose culture scores high in uncertainty avoidance are likely to be less open for innovation and change. On the contrary, low uncertainty avoidance societies such as China (UA score: 30) accept change and adopt innovations a lot easier (Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 90; cf. Yaveroglu & Donthu, 2002, p. 54). With regards to consumer behaviour, high uncertainty avoidance cultures prefer stability while valuing relationships with already established brands. As members of highly uncertainty avoiding cultures try to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity, a discrepancy between the brand personality perceived and the own personality might lead to greater negative consequences with regards to consumer behaviour. On the other side, cultures low on uncertainty avoidance might tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty. Uncertainty avoidance was also amongst the two cultural dimensions assessed on its moderating role in the research by Matzler et al. (2016). Just like with the cultural dimension individualism, they hypothesised that a high level of “uncertainty avoidance positively moderates the relationship between brand-self-congruity and visit intention” (Matzler et al., 2016, p. 509). As consumers from uncertainty-avoiding societies value stability, they also prefer relationships with already established brands as this involves a lower risk. This also includes lower information costs for known

72

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

brands in comparison to unknown and new brands. Thus, highly uncertainty avoidant consumers avoid uncertainty and ambiguity. They drew the conclusion that a mismatch between the brand personality perceived by the consumer and the consumer’s own personality causes more negative consequences in highly uncertainty avoidant cultures than in low uncertainty avoidant cultures. Contrarily, those low uncertainty avoidance societies are more likely to tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity. Therefore, brand-self-congruity is of greater importance in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. Following this thinking, it was expected that highly uncertainty-avoidant travellers show a preference for travel destinations that match their own personality and are familiar. Surprisingly, just like with the individualism dimension, their hypothesis was refuted. A high level of uncertainty avoidance was discovered to have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between brand-self-congruity and visit intention. Their explanations for the outcome of this result are again based on the context. Thus, tourism experiences have a very specific character in comparison to products or other kind of services (cf. Matzler et al., 2016, p. 516). In fact, tourism experiences are highly contrary to daily experiences as they offer an escape from the daily routine, drudgery, anomies, constraints and profane responsibilities. They rose the explanation that tourist consider travelling as a way of experiencing something new and different in comparison to daily life (cf. Quan & Wang, 2004, p. 297). Therefore, they revised that the link between brand-self-congruity and a traveller’s visit intention could be stronger for members of cultures with a low uncertainty avoidance level. As per definition by Hofstede and Hofstede (2001), uncertainty avoidance indicates the extent of comfort felt by members in unstructured or unfamiliar situations and the degree to which the uncontrollable is tried to be controlled (cf. G. H. Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001, p. xx). Based on this, Reimann, Lünemann and Chase (2008) confirmed that a high level of uncertainty avoidance positively influences the relationship between perceived service quality and customer satisfaction (cf. p. 67). Thus, members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures “do not accept a wider tolerance with respect to delivered service” (Reimann et al., 2008, p. 70). Besides that, high uncertainty avoidance cultures have been found to pay greater importance to brand-self-congruity (S. K. Lam, Ahearne, & Schillewaert, 2012, p. 310; Matzler et al., 2016, p. 509; cf. Yaveroglu & Donthu, 2002, p. 54). Building on this, the present research proposes that a high level of uncertainty avoidance has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated by brand-self-congruity. Hofstede’s cultural approach to long-term orientation is the last cultural dimension relevant for the present work. This dimension “refers to the extent to which a society exhibits a pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather

5  Presumed Role of Culture as a Moderator

73

than a conventional historic or short-term point of view” (Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 90). Cultures scoring high in long-term orientation value perseverance, they order relationships by status and they have a sense of shame. With regards to consumer behaviour, long-term orientation stands for investing in the future (cf. Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 90). Members of short-term oriented societies on the other hand seek for personal stability and steadiness while respecting tradition. Their aim is the pursuit of happiness in contrast to the ­long-term oriented pursuit of peace of mind (cf. Marieke de Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 90). Long-term oriented cultures are likely to prefer well-known brands as they tend to be interested in forming rather long-term relationship with such brands (cf. Marieke De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002, p. 65). This dimension is the least studied dimension of Hofstede’s framework. Reasons for this may be that it was introduced ten years later than the previous dimensions. Further, it is considered as the most misunderstood and controversial dimension (cf. Newman & Nollen, 1996, p. 759). Nevertheless, it is an interesting concept to be integrated in the present context. The characteristics of the long-term orientation dimension may discourage consumers from buying new, fairly untested and/or unfamiliar products or brands. Instead, members of long-term oriented societies place more emphasis on long-lasting relationships which have been created over a long period of time and therewith established a trustful relationship (cf. Hur et al., 2015, p. 492). The factor trust has been found to not only be a key aspect in longterm relationships on partner level but also with regards to consumer goods. If a consumer trusts a brand, he/she builds a relationship with that brand and accordingly, tends to stay longer in that relationship which then leads to brand loyalty. Thus, cultures which are high in long-term orientation are likely to build stronger brand relationships. Based on these explanations, Hur, Kang and Kim (2015) assessed the moderating role of long-term orientation on the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. At this, they hypothesised and also confirmed that “the positive influence of brand trust on brand loyalty will be greater” (p. 492) for cultures with a high long-term orientation score. Further, the thoughts by Petersen, Kushwaha and Kumar (2015) anticipate that societies with a high longterm orientation are likely to be more responsive to marketing measures emphasising on products which relate to long-term relationships (p. 5). Based on these findings as well as the nature of the cultural dimension, it can be assumed that members of highly long-term oriented cultures are making consumer behavioural decisions which reflect their own personality and with which they already built a trustful relationship. They are less keen on investing in the unknown. Therefore, the present research assumes that the relationship between brand personality and

74

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

brand desirability mediated by brand-self-congruity is positively moderated by the cultural dimensions long-term orientation. Even though culture has continuously and repeatedly been considered as an important aspect, there is still a lack of research regarding its moderating role on the relationship between brand personality and consumer behaviours, and specifically brand desirability. The research model of Matzler et al., (2016) analysed the mediated relationship between brand personality and visit intention across five cultures (Czech Republic, Italy, Poland, the UK and Russia) by testing two of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (individualism and uncertainty avoidance) on their moderating effect on the relationship between the mediator (brand-self-congruity) and dependent variable (visit intention). Within their limitations, they mention that further research across different industries would be required. Additionally, they did not test the moderating role of culture with regards to the indirect effects occurring between brand personality dimensions and visit intention. So far, the aforementioned research studies never tested culture on its moderating role on a complete model. Additionally, only certain cultural dimensions have been integrated in previous research. Therefore, this research fills a gap in the literature as four cultural dimensions are tested on their moderating role across direct and indirect effects. Thus, previously conducted research results in the fields of c­ross-cultural brand personality and consumer behaviour lead to the suggestion that the presumed effect of brand personality on brand desirability mediated by brand-self-congruity is moderated by the individual culture dimensions. The present research target is to contribute to the cross-cultural branding literature by broadening the understanding of how culture influences a certain consumer behaviour. Additionally, these results can be transported to the field of applied brand strategy with managerial advices.

6 Summary of the Hypotheses Framework and Explanatory Model In consideration of the just described relationship between brand personality and brand desirability which is presumed to be mediated by brand-self-congruity, the following figure showing the base model, plots those effects. Accordingly, the five individual brand personality dimensions have an impact on brand desirability. Moreover, the construct brand-self-congruity, which is the matching between a brand’s personality and a person’s own personality, is assumed to be related with the other constructs (Figure 1).

Brand Personality

6  Summary of the Hypotheses Framework and Explanatory Model

Sincerity

75

Brand-SelfCongruity

Excitement Competence

Brand Desirability

Sophistication Ruggedness

Figure 1   Research model on the influence of brand personality on brand desirability mediated by brand-self-congruity. Source own visualisation

Therefore, based on the object of investigation it can be assumed that the perception of a brand personality influences the desire for a brand, while brand-self-congruity serves a mediator amongst the constructs brand personality and brand desirability. Thus, a high match of brand personality and brand values leads to an increase in brand desirability. Summarised, Hypothesis 1 including its sub-hypotheses (H1a–H1e) which are broken down to the individual brand personality dimensions and Hypothesis 2 are posed as follows: H1  B  rand personality has an impact on brand desirability. H1a  T  he higher the level of sincerity, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H1b  The higher the level of excitement, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H1c  The higher the level of competence, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H1d  The higher the level of sophistication, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H1e  The higher the level of ruggedness, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H2  Brand-self-congruity positively mediates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability Based on current findings in the fields of branding and consumer behaviour, a mediated model of the brand personality—brand desirability relationship was put down. This strengthens a deeper understanding of the causal links between a brand’s personality dimensions and the desire for that brand. The state of knowl-

76

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

Brand Personality

Culture

edge supports that a brand’s personality perception causes consumer behaviours. With the main focus in research being on purchase intention, the presented base model focuses on brand desirability. Additionally, this is supported by considering brand-self-congruity as a mediator. Following the constitutive attributes and the mode of action of culture, behaviour is steered by a person’s cultural background. Thus, it can be assumed that brand personalities are perceived differently across cultures. Additionally, with values and perspectives varying from culture to culture, consumer behaviour may also vary. Concluding, the individual culture dimensions are expected to influence the entire effect mechanisms of the base model. As shown in the subsequent figure, the base model has been extended with the construct culture (Figure 2).

Sincerity

Power Distance Individualism Uncertainty Avoidance Long-term Orientation

Brand-SelfCongruity

Excitement Competence

Brand Desirability

Sophistication Ruggedness

Figure 2   Research model on the influence of culture on the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. Source own visualisation

Based on the effects of culture, it is evident that culture takes the role of a moderator. The presumed relationships occurring between the constructs brand personality dimensions and brand-self-congruity, brand personality and brand desirability, and brand-self-congruity and brand desirability are influenced by culture. A hypothesis break-down into the individual brand personality and culture dimension does not take place for these effect mechanisms, as they have a rather explorative character. The effects of greater interest are separately formulated for every brand personality dimension (H1a–H1e) and every culture dimensions

6  Summary of the Hypotheses Framework and Explanatory Model

77

(H6a–H6d). Therefore, Hypothesis 3, Hypothesis 4 and Hypothesis 5 are phrased as follows: H3  C  ulture moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand-self-congruity. H4  Culture moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability. H5  Culture moderates the relationship between brand-self-congruity and brand desirability Depending on the individual cultural dimension, the influence of culture on the mediated relationship between brand personality dimensions and brand desirability may be positive or negative. As already outlined in Section 5 (p. 57), a higher score of power distance is expected to lead to a reduction in the indirect effect between brand personality and brand desirability. On the other hand, high levels of the other cultural dimensions are expected to cause an increase in this mediated relationship. Following the previously conducted theoretical and empirical analysis, Hypothesis 6 and its sub-hypotheses (Hypothesis 6a–6d) are as follows: H6  C  ulture moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. H6a  The higher the level of power distance, the weaker the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. H6b  The higher the level of individualism, the stronger the effect between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. H6c  The higher the level of uncertainty avoidance the stronger the effect between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. H6d  The higher the level of long-term orientation, the stronger the effect between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity The extended effect model provides a deeper understanding on the effects of culture on the brand personality—brand-self-congruity—brand desirability relationship. Thus, underlining the importance of considering culture when it comes to consumer behaviour. In the present context, the underlying assumption is that the cultural dimensions weaken (power distance) or strengthen (individualism,

78

3  Acquisition of the Role of Culture on the Relationship …

uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation) the positive indirect effects of the individual brand personality dimensions on brand desirability. Consequently, the presented effect model explains differences between consumers with regards to the effects of culture on the relationship between brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability, as the intensity of the relationship depends on the culture score.

4

Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

1 Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method and Evaluation Criteria 1.1 Reliability and Validity as Quality Criteria for the Measurement Within the scope of empirical studies, the examination of the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments plays a significant role. Measurement instruments are a set of indicators that are used in order to measure the same construct. The importance of reliability and validity is based on the consideration of hypothetical constructs1 that cannot directly be observed on an empirical level and that in general are operationalised by a number of indicators. By checking both quality criteria, the reliability and validity of the measurement of the study variables are ensured. Additionally, the quality and the significance of the data obtained

1Hypothetical

constructs are phenomena and processes that are considered as existent while not being directly or fully measurable. Therefore, hypothetical constructs need to be operationalised through suitable indicators (generally various) in order to be measurable on an empirical level (cf. Backhaus, Erichson, Plinke, & Weiber, 2015, p. 589). In further performance, the term ‘hypothetical construct’ will be used as a synonym for the terms ‘study variable’, ‘construct’ and ‘(latent) variable’.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this chapter (https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-31178-0_4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 C. C. Vellnagel, Cross-Cultural Brand Personality and Brand Desirability, Markenkommunikation und Beziehungsmarketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31178-0_4

79

80

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

are verified (cf. Homburg and Giering, 1996, p. 6; Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 103; Sedlmeier and Renkewitz, 2013, p. 674). To assess reliability and validity, quality criteria of the first and second generation are used. Quality criteria of the first generation exclusively refer to reliability verification and are based on a correlation-based approach of the measurement instruments’ indicators. Those criteria are used to identify indicators that, from the empirical point of view, are less suitable to measure the study variable and therefore, should be removed from the scale (cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 115). Thus, a validation of the measurement instrument is possible in order to ensure that for the analysis only reliable indicators are used (cf. Backhaus, Erichson, & Weiber, 2015, p. 138). The quality criteria of the second generation on the other hand, provide reliability and validity. In comparison to the quality criteria of the first generation, not only correlative relationships between the indicators and measurement instruments are examined, but measurement errors’ variances are explicitly considered. Thereby, quality criteria of the traditional test theory are assessed which allows a reliability review of the construct measurement and a validity review by means of statistical tests (cf. Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 116; Backhaus, Erichson and Weiber, 2015, p. 138). When practically applying the reliability and validity assessment, a combined application of the first and second generation quality criteria is the standard procedure (cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 115). Reliability and validity and their assessment criteria will be presented briefly. Reliability and Their Quality Criteria Reliability refers to the plausibility of the measurements of hypothetical constructs and is a quality criterion for the formal accuracy of feature records. It states the degree to which the measurement method is free of random errors (cf. Peter and Churchill Jr, 1986, p. 4). Consequently, reliability manifests that the same measurement result is gained during repetitions of measurements of the same variable and under the same circumstances. Thus, the influence of random errors onto the measurement results should be as low as possible (cf. Peter, 1981, p. 136). Summarised, internal consistency requests that indicators used to measure the same construct show a high correlation. The measurement equivalence is examined, which means that the indicators of a construct are considered as a cluster of equivalent tests that should provide similar measurement results (cf. Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 110; Backhaus, Erichson and Weiber, 2015, p. 218). The evaluation of the internal consistency reliability follows the quality criteria of the first and second generation. Prior to assessing those, the unidimensionality of the measurement instruments needs to be examined. In order to do so, the explorative factor analysis is used. This analysis investigates whether the operationalisation based on theoretical allocation of the indicators to the constructs can be confirmed empirically. In

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

81

such manner, indicators that do not load sufficiently onto the respective construct can be specified and eliminated (cf. Homburg and Giering, 1996, pp. 12). The reliability quality criteria of the first generation allow an optimisation of the measurement instruments and cover the traditional measures such as the conservative Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and item-to-total correlation (cf. Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2010, pp. 111). Cronbach’s Alpha provides internal consistency and is a classical reliability index. Named after Lee Cronbach, Cronbach’s α defines the extent to which the questions are interrelated. As it were, it measures the average correlation coefficients over all possible combinations (cf. Churchill Jr, 1979, p. 69). The more Cronbach’s α nears the value 1, the higher the valuation of internal consistency of the measurement. The threshold value for Cronbach’s α should be greater equal 0.7 (cf. Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, pp. 245, 252). In consideration of this threshold, it can be predicted whether the reliability of the measurement is worthy of improvement. Another quality criterion of reliability assessment is the item-to-total correlation which is used to identify those indicators responsible for improvement. The item-to-total correlation indicates which indicator of a measurement instrument only plays a relatively minor role in terms of explanation. Therefore, the correlation of an indicator is examined with the sum of all indicators of the same construct. A comparatively high value of the item-to-total correlation indicates that the examined indicator provides a positive contribution to the measurement instrument’s internal consistency (cf. Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, p. 305). Indicators with an item-to-total correlation coefficient of less than 0.3 should be eliminated and not taken into account in further analyses (cf. Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989, p. 475). Quality criteria of the second generation refer to the assessment of the indicator and composite reliability as well as the determination of the average variance extracted. The indicator reliability is equivalent to the squared factor loading of an indicator and states the proportion of the variance of an indicator explained through the underlying construct (cf. R P Bagozzi, 1986, p. 402). At this, at least 50% of the variance should be traced to the construct. The share of the variance of an indicator explained by the measurement error should be smaller than the share of the variance of the indicator explained by the construct (cf. Krafft, G; Götz, O; Liehr-Gobbers, 2005, p. 73). The foundation for this approach is the standardised factor loading which should acquire a minimum value of 0.7 in order for the construct to do its bit for a sufficiently high level of explanation for the characteristics of its indicators (cf. Carmines & Zeller, 1979, p. 27; Jahn, 2007, p. 21). Besides that, the factor loading should be statistically significant different from zero (cf. Christian Homburg & Giering, 1996, p. 16). While the indicator reliability refers to the indicator level, both the composite reliability and the ­average variance extracted (AVE) refer to the assessment of reliability on the

82

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

construct level. Both quality criteria consider the indicators used to measure the same construct as a whole (cf. Krafft, G; Götz, O; Liehr-Gobbers, 2005, p. 74). The composite reliability examines the strength of the relationship amongst the indicators of the same construct. Thereby, the value should be greater or equal 0.7 (cf. Richard P Bagozzi & Yi, 1988, p. 80). The average variance extracted correlates with the mean of the squared factor loadings per construct and indicates the degree to which the construct’s variance in average is explained by the indicators allocated to it. AVE should take on a value greater or equal 0.5 (cf. Fornell & Larcker, 1981a, p. 46). Accordingly, both quality criteria assess how well a construct can be measured with the indicators assigned (cf. Christian Homburg & Giering, 1996, p. 11). The subsequent table shows the first and second generation quality criteria used to assess reliability including their respective thresholds which are approved in practical application (cf. Gerbing & Anderson, 1988, p. 190). Table 1   Quality criteria to assess reliability including their thresholds Quality Criterion Threshold Source Precondition: unidimensionality of the measurement instrument Quality criteria of the first generation to assess reliability Cronbach’s alpha

≥0.7

cf. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994)

Item-to-total correlation

≥0.3

cf. Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel (1989)

Quality criteria of the second generation to assess reliability Indicator reliability

Factor loading ≥ 0.7 Significance of the factor loading

cf. Carmines and Zeller (1979) cf. Homburg and Giering (1996)

Composite reliability

≥0.7

cf. Bagozzi and Yi (1988)

Average variance extracted

≥0.5

cf. Fornell and Larcker (1981)

Source author’s own

Validity and Their Quality Criteria Validity refers to the conceptual correctness of the measurement instrument and serves to assess the tangible accuracy of the feature recording. Therefore, validity is given “…when the differences in observed scores reflect true differences on the characteristics one is attempting to measure and nothing else…” (Churchill Jr, 1979, p. 65). By assessing validity, it shall be ensured that what is measured

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

83

is also what should actually be measured (cf. Heeler & Ray, 1972, p. 361; Töpfer, 2012, p. 234). Consequently, the influence of systematic measurement errors on the measurement results can be excluded for a valid measurement. Moreover, validity implies a low characteristic of the measurement error and thereby, a reliable measurement. Accordingly, reliability serves as a needful yet not sufficient condition for validity (cf. Carmines and Zeller, 1979, p. 13; Churchill Jr, 1979, p. 65). Validity can therefore be defined as a collective quality criterion which evaluates the influence of measurement errors such as random and systematic errors. There are various types of validity in order to assess the validity of a measurement. Within research practice, the assessment of the following four types proved itself: content validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and nomological validity (cf. Christian Homburg & Giering, 1996, p. 7). Both, content validity and nomological validity need to be taken into account when choosing the indicators, deriving the hypotheses system and interpreting the research results (cf. Jahn, 2007, p. 20). In order to assess convergent validity and discriminant validity, quality criteria of the second generation are suitable. Those are determined on the basis of statistical tests in consideration of measuring error variances (cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 138). The term construct validity is often used in order to aggregate convergent, discriminant and nomological validity (cf. Peter, 1981, p. 135). Content validity describes the degree to which the variables of a measurement model belong to the content-semantic area of a construct and the constructed items represent the entire content and all facets of the construct. Consequently, content validity should already be considered during the concept and operationalisation phase, and can be determined through a pre-test or expert judgement (cf. Churchill Jr, 1979, p. 69; Jahn, 2007, p. 20). The next validity to be introduced is the construct validity which examines the relationship between a construct and its indicators. The construct validity ensures that the measurement of a hypothetical construct is not skewed by the measurement of a different construct or by systematic errors (cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 131). “Convergent validity is the degree to which two or more attempts to measure the same concept are in agreement” (cf. Richard P Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982, p. 468). Thus, it reflects the extent to which an indicator shows a positive correlation with other indicators of the same construct. Convergent validity refers to the similarity of indicators of a measurement instrument to one another and requests that indicators applied to measure the same construct show high correlations and therefore, demonstrate a sufficiently strong relationship amongst each other. Various quality criteria exist in order to assess convergent validity (cf. Christian Homburg & Giering, 1996, p. 7). Those quality criteria underline the strong link between reliability and validity, and conform to the second-generation quality criteria of

84

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

reliability assessment. Accordingly, the quality criteria used are factor loadings, construct reliability and the average variance extracted. With regards to these quality criteria, the same thresholds as outlined in the course of the reliability assessment apply. Besides checking on the convergent validity, a complete validation process includes the assessment of discriminant validity which is the extent to which measures of a construct truly differ from another construct (cf. Richard P Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982, p. 469). With regards to measurement instruments, this means that the relationship amongst the indicators used to measure the same construct should be stronger than the relationship amongst the indicators allocated to different constructs (cf. Richard P Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991, p. 425). Thus, discriminant validity refers to the selectivity or discriminatory power of the measurement and defines the degree to which a construct actually differs from other constructs of the analysis. Thus, it determines whether respondents theoretically perceive various constructs as different (cf. Christian Homburg & Giering, 1996, p. 7). The dominant approach to assess discriminant validity is the Fornell-Larcker criterion (cf. Fornell & Larcker, 1981a, p. 46) which “compares the square root of the AVE values with the latent variable correlations” (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2016, p. 115). Recent research by Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt (2015) critically assessed the performance of cross-loadings and the Fornell-Larcker criterion in order to reliably examine discriminant validity. They found that both approaches show a lack of discriminant validity. Hence, an alternative assessment approach was introduced: the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of correlations, which is based on the multitrait-multimethod matrix. This approach uses the ratio of between-trait correlations to within-trait correlations. Considering previous research and the study results of Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt (2015, p. 121), a threshold above 0.85 (cf. Clark & Watson, 1995, p. 316; Kline, 2015, p. 261) or 0.90 (cf. Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001, p. 202) is suggested if constructs are included in the path model that show conceptual similarity. With this, when following the strictest assessment standards, an HTMT value above 0.85 speaks for a lack of discriminant validity. To conclude the assessment of construct validity, the nomological validity needs to be examined. This criterion “represents the degree to which predictions based on a concept are confirmed within the context of a larger theory” (Richard P Bagozzi, 1979, p. 14). Theoretical explanatory approaches and statistical sizes (e.g. regression coefficients of the assaying relationships) are suitable for this type of validity. Nomological validity is given if the theoretically presumed relationships are replicated by the data collected (cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 138). The following table features the quality criteria used to assess validity.

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

85

Table 2   Quality criteria to assess validity including their thresholds

Source: author’s own

1.2 Structural Equation Modelling with the ­­PLSApproach For over a century, statistical analyses have been a fundamental research tool within the field of social sciences. Initially, univariate and bivariate methods were used to comprehend data and their relationships. However, and in order to understand more complex relationships which had occurred through new research directions, it has become more important to make use of more demanding multivariate methods in order to analyse data (Hair et al., 2016, p. 2; cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 18). Structural equation modelling (SEM) is such a multivariate method of the dependency analysis which found growing popularity in the fields of economic and social sciences where it has established itself as the standard procedure in order to assess linear-causal relations between hypothetical constructs (Henseler et al., 2014, p. 182; cf. Herrmann, Huber, & Kressmann, 2006, p. 35; Hwang, Malhotra, Kim, Tomiuk, & Hong, 2010, p. 699). Thus, within a multivariate analysis, statistical methods that analyse multiple variable simultaneously are applied. In doing so, various independent (exogenous) variables and/

86

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

or various dependent (endogenous) variables are analysed simultaneously on the one hand, while on the other hand the assumed effect relationship between those variables is analysed. Latter are equivalent to the research hypotheses (cf. Bagozzi and Yi, 2012, p. 8; Hair et al., 2016, pp. 2). It is fundamental for the ­SEM-analysis to have a system of hypotheses that is backed up by theoretical and/or logical considerations. This system is then transferred into a formal structure before it can get tested empirically. At this point, the assumed interdependencies are assessed with regards to how well the obtained data was reproduced (cf. Töpfer, 2012, p. 281). A structural equation model consists of two elements. Firstly, the so-called structural model (also referred to as the inner model) representing the constructs and also showing the relationship paths between the different constructs. Thus, the structural model forms the linear relationships between the hypothetical constructs in form of a path diagram. Here, the dependent variables get explained by the independent variables. And secondly, there is the measurement model (also called the outer model) of the constructs displaying the relationships between the constructs and their variables (cf. Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 31; Hair et al., 2016, pp. 11). Generally speaking, for every independent and dependent variable a structural model gets specified by a measurement model (cf. Backhaus, Erichson, & Weiber, 2015, p. 518). The measurement models are a result of operationalised constructs and include the indicators used to measure those. Therefore, the presumed relationship between the indicators and the respective construct is mapped (Herrmann et al., 2006, p. 36). This also means that structural equation modelling has a confirmative character as the correlations between indicators and hypothetical constructs are measured by the measurement models. Additionally, measurement errors are considered in simultaneous estimations (Richard P Bagozzi & Yi, 2012, p. 12). In accordance with that, structural equation modelling combines linear regression analysis with confirmatory factor analysis. In doing so, the linear regression analysis serves to assess the causal relationships between the model variables. The confirmatory factor analysis in return determines the goodness of the structural model and the measurement models. The pre-test of the present study is based on a mediation model covering the relationship between the constructs brand personality and brand desirability. The hypothetical construct brand-self-congruity acts as a variable intervening between the two just mentioned constructs and therefore shows a mediating influence directed from brand personality (dimensions) on brand desirability. The complexity of this interdependency justifies the necessity for the use of structural equation modelling. This analysis method allows for a simultaneous assessment of the theoretically derived causal hypotheses. Therefore, the complexity of

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

87

the examined model can be shown. With regards to the main test of the present study, this is analysed with a moderated mediation model. Presumably, the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability is not only mediated by brand-self-congruity, but the moderator variable culture interferes. This means that the relationship between the constructs is not constant but in fact depends on the moderator variable’s values (Hair et al., 2016, pp. 227). Even though the analysis approach of structural equation modelling is primarily used in order to assess direct effects, this method also considers intervening variables and therewith takes indirect effects between independent and dependent variables into account (cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 18).

1.3 Appraisal of the Structural Equation Modelling with the PLS-Approach Within the course of structural equation modelling, the assessment of causal models and therewith the model and parameter estimation can be tackled with the covariance-based and variance-based approach. Even though differences with regards to estimation procedures, distributional assumptions of the initial data or the objective do occur amongst them, they should not be rated as a substitute against each other. They should rather be seen as complementary approaches. Depending on the case of application and objective of the respective analysis, one of the two approaches should be chosen (cf. Huber et al., 2008, p. 12; Hair et al., 2016, pp. 4). The advantages of the variance-based approach, also known as the PLS-approach (Partial-Least-Squares approach) are that empirically collected ­ data take on an important role. The raw data should be replicated as precisely as possible and their variances of the dependent variables should be explained at the best possible rate (Fassott, 2005, p. 29; Lohmöller, 2013, p. 217; cf. Wold, 1980, p. 70). Consequently, the PLS-approach is better with regards to estimation purposes and in order to explain changes of the dependent variables. As opposed to the covariance-based approach, the PLS-approach does not strive for the best solution but for consistent results. At this, it is assessed whether a causal model is to a greater or lesser extent predictive. The PLS-approach follows the aim to replicate the initially gathered empirical data matrix as closely as possible in order to minimise measurement errors (cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 63). This means that within the PLS-approach the variances of the depended (endogenous) variables which are explained by the independent (exogenous) variables is maximised (cf. Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004, p. 290). Another advantage of the PLS-approach

88

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

is reflected in the conservative evaluation of the individual relationships between the hypothetical constructs examined. In comparison to the covariance-based approach, the effect correlations between the constructs are estimated lowly. This implies that in the course of a faulty operationalisation of the variables, the relationships between the constructs will not be overestimated. On top of that, the use of the variance-analytical approach is backed up by research-economic aspects. The requirements of the PLS-approach regarding the initial data are less restrictive as the data is not subject to a special distribution such as the normal distribution. This is due to the fact that the PLS-approach is based on the principle of regression and therefore, smaller samples already provide usable results. Besides that, the data can have nominal, ordinal or interval scales (cf. Wold, 1980, p. 70; Chin, 1998, p. 311; Haenlein and Kaplan, 2004, p. 291; Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2010, pp. 63). The PLS-approach is especially suitable for complex measurement models that contain a large number of indicators. The higher the number of indicators, the more stable are the results of the PLS-approach, even though from a theoretical and research-economic point of view the number should not be too large (cf. Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004, p. 293). Yet, in comparison to the covariance-based approach, the PLS-approach does not require a minimum of three indicators per construct (cf. Fassott, 2005, p. 25). On the basis of the above-mentioned advantages of the variance-based approach, the present study makes use of the PLS-approach for structural equation modelling. The suitability of the variance-based PLS-approach are backed up by the complexity of the examined effect model and its large number of indicators used for the measurement of the research variables. On top of that, the samples—particularly in the pre-test—are fairly small. In accordance with all of that, the PLS-approach and its quality criteria are outlined subsequently. As for ­covariance-based approaches, refer to relevant literature such as Herrmann, Huber and Kressmann (2006) or Weiber and Mühlhaus (2010). As already mentioned previously, the PLS-approach is based on a regression-analytical approach and attempts to minimise measurement errors. ­ More precisely, when estimating the model parameters, the PLS-approach tries to minimise the error variances of the study variables and therewith obtains an approximation of the initial data as accurate as possible (cf. Wold, 1980, p. 70). Within the PLS-approach, the model parameters are calculated by a gradual and iterative estimation algorithm based on the least squares method. The first step involves the determination of so-called construct values through empirically measured data for every study variable. For this purpose, separate explorative factor analyses for the measurement models of the independent and dependent variables are carried out. The determined construct values comply with the esti-

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

89

mated observed values of the examined hypothetical constructs and are the result of a measured linear combination of the indicators assigned to the same construct. Based on those construct values, the second step follows: the regression-analytical and therewith path-analytical estimation of the model parameters. The results of this regression analysis, the so-called regression coefficients indicate the effect size of the structural model and serve for the assessment of the postulated interdependencies (cf. Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2010, pp. 58; Töpfer, 2012, pp. 302; Backhaus, Erichson and Weiber, 2015, pp. 58). In order to understand and interpret the results of structural equation modelling with the PLS-approach, the subsequent section covers the most essential criteria used to evaluate the quality of the parameter assessment.

1.4 Quality Criteria of Structural Equation Modelling with the PLS-Approach In order to determine the goodness of structural equation models, individual criteria need to be considered when assessing the measurement model and the structural model. Hence, the quality criteria of the PLS-approach will be characterised separately for measurement and structural models. Quality Criteria to Assess Measurement Models In the course of structural equation modelling, the quality of parameter assessment and therefore also the quality of the entire model are influenced by the quality of the measurement of the hypothetical constructs. The evaluation of a measurement model’s reliability and validity is attached with great importance. To assess reliability and validity, the quality criteria of the first and second generation come into play. The relevant quality criteria were already outlined in-depth in Section 1.1 of this chapter and summarised in Tables 1 and 2. The assessment of those quality criteria takes place through the confirmative factor analysis which is an integrative part of structural equation modelling (cf. Töpfer, 2012, pp. 291; Backhaus, Erichson and Weiber, 2015, p. 139, pp. 525). Quality Criteria to Assess Structural Models After the reliability and validity confirmation, the next step is to assess the structural model. For variance-analytical approaches of structural equation modelling no general criteria to assess the structural model and therewith the quality assessment of the entire model can be defined. For one thing, this gets justified by the gradual estimation of model parameters by iteratively observing ­individual

90

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

regression equations in blocks. Apart from that, it is backed up by missing distributional assumptions of the initial data. Hence, no inferential statistics test can be applied to measure fit indices (cf. Herrmann, Huber and Kressmann, 2006, pp. 42; Hair et al., 2016, pp. 190). Nevertheless, different non-parametric quality criteria which allow a comprehensive assessment of model estimation do exist. It needs to be mentioned that in order to assess the quality of a structural equation model, no generally binding quality criteria exist. In fact, various criteria need to always be considered when assessing an SEM (cf. Hair et al., 2016, pp. 192). The assessment of the model’s quality within the PLS-approach includes the following: the effective strength of the relations within the structural model, as well as the predictive power and predictive relevance of the structural model. The relevant quality criteria for those are comparable with the ones of the linear regression analysis (cf. Krafft, G; Götz, O; Liehr-Gobbers, 2005, p. 85). Standardised path coefficients are used to determine the effective strength between the hypothesised constructs of the structural model. These comply with the standardised coefficients of the regression analysis and indicate the strength of the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Significant relationships are represented if the path coefficients are greater than 0.2, or preferably greater than 0.3 (cf. Chin, 1998a, p. 11; Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 255). Whether a path “coefficient is significant ultimately depends on its standard error” (Hair et al., 2016, p. 195). Besides that, the study variables need to deliver an important contribution in order to form the model structure. Therefore, significant path coefficients with a t-value of greater or equal 1.96 are required. The t-value is a mean to test significance. Commonly, two-tailed tests are used with critical values of 1.65 for a significance level of 10%, 1.96 for a significance level of 5% and 2.57 for a significance level of 1%. In research fields such as marketing researchers usually suggest a significance level of 5%. Accordingly, with a t-value of greater or equal 1.96, the null hypothesis with a significance level of 5% can be discarded (cf. Efron, 1979, pp. 1; Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 256; Hair et al., 2016, pp. 195). The structural model’s predictive power is assessed by the coefficient of determination R2 and the effect size f2. The coefficient of determination R2 is to be calculated out of the regressions of the structural model and for every depended variable. R2 describes the amount of variance of the depended/endogenous variable that is explained by the independent/exogenous variables. With R2 being the squared correlation of the actual and the predicted values and therewith including all the data used for the model estimation in order to judge the predictive power of the structural model, R2 measures in-sample predictive power (Hair et al., 2016, p. 198; cf. Sarstedt, Ringle, Henseler, & Hair, 2014, p. 156). The coefficient

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

91

of determination R2 corresponds to a normalised value ranging from 0 to 1. A higher value indicates a higher level of predictive accuracy. In scholarly research focussing on marketing, coefficients of determination of 0.19 are considered as weak, a value of 0.33 is considered as moderate and an R2 value of 0.67 is seen as substantial (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009, p. 303; cf. Krafft, G; Götz, O; Liehr-Gobbers, 2005, p. 83). Another measure to assess the predictive power of a structural model is the effect size f2. This quality criterion makes a statement about the influence of an independent variable onto the dependent variable. It indicates how strongly the coefficient of determination R2 of the dependent variable would change if the examined independent variable does not get captured when estimating this dependent variable (cf. Chin, 1998b, p. 317). The effect size f2 can be calculated from the difference of the coefficients of determination of the dependent variable included (yielding R2 included) and excluded (yielding R2 excluded) of the same independent variable. A high value of the effect size indicates the relevance of the independent variable with regards to the dependent variable. Therefore, an f2 value of 0.02 is considered as small, a value of 0.15 as medium and a value of 0.35 as large. If the effect size is smaller than 0.02, this indicates that there is no effect (cf. Chin, 1998b, p. 317; Hair et al., 2016, p. 201). Another criterion that needs to be assessed as part of the variance-based analysis of the structural equation modelling is the predictive relevance of the structural model. The quality criterion used to examine the predictive accuracy is the Stone-Geisser criterion Q2 (e.g. Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). This measure indicates how well the initial data can be reconstructed with the theoretically derived model and therefore, how well the independent variables predict the value of their dependent variable. In order to obtain the predictive relevance Q2, the resampling approach of the blindfolding procedure2 is used. The structural model shows predictive power if the value of the Stone-Geisser criterion Q2 is larger than zero. A Q2 value of less or equal zero argues against the predictive relevance of the model structure (cf. Fornell and Cha, 1994, p. 72; Hair et al., 2016, pp. 178). The following table shows an overview of the measurements of the variance-based approach of structural equation modelling, as well as their ­ quality criteria used to assess the structural model. The validation process of a

2When

blindfolding, a part of the initial data matrix is systematically considered as missing. The model parameters need to be calculated on the basis of this data matrix. In the second step, these model parameters are used to predict the initial data that were coded as missing. The result of the blindfolding procedure are the cross-validated commonalities and redundancies which are necessary to determine the Stone-Geisser criterion (cf. Krafft, G; Götz, O; Liehr-Gobbers, 2005, p. 84).

92

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

PLS-model concludes with the assessment of the structural model, respectively the goodness of the whole model (cf. Krafft, G; Götz, O; Liehr-Gobbers, 2005, p. 85). Table 3   Quality criteria of the PLS-approach to measure the structural model Quality Figure

Quality Criterion

Threshold

Source

Hypothesised relationships among the constructs

Characteristic of the standardised path coefficients

>0.2 or 0

cf. Chin (1998b), Hair et al. (2016) cf. Fornell and Cha (1994)

Source author’s own

1.5 Mediation Analysis with the Bootstrap Approach A mediating effect occurs when a third variable, a so-called mediator variable, governs the relationship between two other constructs. With regards to the objective of the pre-test and the examined model of the present study, the influence of brand personality perception on brand desirability through brand-self-congruity needs to be analysed. In order to consider variables that convey the influence of an independent variable on a dependent variable, the use of the mediator analysis is necessary. Therefore, this evaluation procedure provides a deeper understanding of complex interdependencies and reveals the underlying mechanism of a causal structure (cf. Preacher and Hayes, 2008, pp. 879; Hair et al., 2016, p. 228). Mediation analyses are based on a regression-analytical approach and assigned to the multivariate methods of dependency analysis. In the present study, it is assumed that brand-self-congruity mediates the influence of brand personality (dimensions) on brand desirability. The mediator stands in a causal relationship between the exogenous and the endogenous variable. In the PLS path model,

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

93

a change of the exogenous variable leads to a change of the mediator and as a consequence, leads to a change of the endogenous variable (cf. Hair et al., 2016, pp. 228). The following figure shows an example of a general mediation model, where the role of a mediator variable in the causal relationship structure between an exogenous and an endogenous variable is illustrated (Figure 1).

Figure 1   General Mediation model. Source author’s own following Baron and Kenny (1986, p. 1176); Hair et al. (2017, p. 229); Preacher & Hayes (2008, p. 880)

The limelight of the mediation analysis is the determination of an exogenous variable’s indirect effects on an endogenous variable (cf. Hair et al., 2016, p. 228). Exemplified in the previous figure, this indirect effect is calculated by multiplying the path coefficients of the relationships between the exogenous variable and the mediator (refer to ‘p1’ in the previous figure), as well as between the mediator and the endogenous variable (refer to ‘p2’). This means that the indirect effect complies with the influence of the exogenous variable onto the variable to be explained through the mediator. Therefore, the indirect effect is the product of the path coefficients ‘p1 × p2’. Hereby, an intervening variable is to be identifies as a mediator as this variable mediates the influence of an exogenous variable onto an endogenous variable (cf. Baron and Kenny, 1986, p. 1176; Preacher and Hayes, 2008, p. 880; Hair et al., 2016, pp. 228). Besides determining the indirect effect in the course of the mediator analysis, the direct influence of the exogenous variable onto the variable to be explained is also calculated (refer to ‘p3’ in the previous figure). The sum of direct and indirect effect states the total effect of the exogenous variable onto the endogenous variable. Their significance needs to be considered when interpreting these effects. If both effects (the direct and the indirect effect) are significant, there is a partial mediation. If only the indirect effect is significant, there is full mediation which is also referred to as perfect mediation (cf. Baron and Kenny, 1986, p. 1176; Hair et al., 2016, pp. 232).

94

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Bootstrap-Based Mediation Analysis In the past, it was the so-called Sobel test3 from 1982 that was used in order to examine whether mediating effects were significant or not. However, researcher such as Sattler and Jungbauer (2010), and Klarner et al. (2013) dismissed the Sobel test to perform mediation analysis, especially when using the PLS approach. Hence, instead of making use of the Sobel test, the bootstrap-based approach in order to examine complex causal relationship structures involving indirect effects is considered as suitable for the mediation analysis. The bootstrap approach is a method of inferential statistics and according to the principle of resampling, repeatedly draws samples of a present sample. Apart from estimating the direct and indirect effects as well as interaction effects, on the basis of this approach, conclusions with regards to the population are reached (cf. Efron, 1979, pp. 1; Backhaus, Erichson and Weiber, 2015, p. 211). At this, the bootstrap approach does not presume distributional assumptions of the initial data, which is why the theoretical distribution function is replaced by the empirically determined distribution function. Therefore, bootstrapping is an alternative to calculate the sampling distribution and beyond that allows the use of inference-statistical methods. A parametric significance test is however not possible due to the lack of the theoretical distribution function. The null hypothesis and therefore the significance are examined through the t-test (cf. Henseler, Ringle and Sinkovics, 2009, pp. 305; Hair et al., 2016, p. 149). As previously mentioned an stated in Table 3, a t-value of greater than or equal 1.96 implies that the null hypothesis can be rejected with a probability of 5% (cf. Efron, 1979, pp. 1; Hair et al., 2016, p. 153). In order to interpret the indirect effects and interaction effects, it is of great importance that the effects differ from zero. Therefore, the indirect effects, respectively the interactions effects are assessed with the confidence intervals instead of the p-values. Consequently, the significance test for these effects is of minor importance. This procedure is grounded in the fact that the indirect effect represents the multiplicative link of the path coefficients ‘exogenous variable—mediator’ and ‘mediator—endogenous

3The

Sobel test draws a comparison of the direct relationship between the exogenous and the endogenous variable with the indirect relationship between the exogenous variable and the endogenous variable which includes the mediator. For various reasons, the Sobel test has found no longer suitable to evaluate mediation analysis in PLS-SEM. One example is the normal distribution that is assumed in the Sobel test, this however is not the case in the nonparametric method of partial least squares structural equation modelling. Additionally, the Sobel test lacks statistical power (especially when the sample size is small) and as input for the test size, it requires unstandardized path coefficients (cf. Hair et al.: 2016, p. 235; Klarner et al.: 2013, p. 268).

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

95

variable’ (cf. Preacher & Hayes, 2008, p. 884). If the confidence interval includes the value zero and therefore represents a nonsignificant effect, it means that the respective effect is non-existent. Instead, this only implies that the power of the indirect effects, respectively the interactions effects, can be zero or that the direction of the effect cannot be determined for certain (cf. Hair et al., 2016, p. 155). The software ‘SmartPLS’ 3.0 by Ringle, Becker and Wende is used in order to conduct the bootstrap-based mediation analysis.4 This analytical approach determines the indirect, direct and interaction effects as well as the respective inductive statistics such as p­ -values or 95% confidence intervals. The advantages of the bootstrap-based approach to assess the indirect effects and/or interaction effects (instead of more traditional approaches of the inference statistics) are reflected in the fact that it makes no assumptions with regards to the shape of the distribution of the variables or the statistical sample distribution. This leads to more trustworthy t-values and p­ -values. On top of assessing location parameters and dispersion parameters, bootstrapping can also estimate more complex sample statistics such as confidence intervals. Advantages of using the bootstrap-based software ‘SmartPLS’ are therefore especially evident in comparison to the traditional approaches of the mediation analysis by Baron and Kenny (1986) or Sobel (1982). As already mentioned previously, the bootstrap-based approach is also applicable to small sample sizes. Besides identifying mediators, moderators can be assessed simultaneously. In addition, when bootstrapping the indirect effects, higher levels of statistical power can be obtained (cf. Hair et al., 2016, p. 235; Hayes, 2017, pp. 566).

1.6 Moderated Mediation Analysis with the Bootstrap Approach To examine the effect model of the main study with regards to the influence of the moderator culture onto the mediated relationship between brand personality and brand desirability, moderated mediation is used. Additionally, in order to examine the influence of culture onto the relationship between brand personality dimensions and brand desirability, standard moderation analysis is applied. The moder-

4Prof

Dr Christian Ringle is one of three authors of a Java-based software application for variance-based SEM that uses the PLS approach. He is a professor in the field of management at Hamburg University of Technology. On the website ‘http://www.smartpls.com’ (accessed: 29th January, 2018), a 30-day trial of the professional version of SmartPLS is available free of charge.

96

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

ated mediation analysis allows the assessment of complex causal relationships that contain moderators and mediators simultaneously. Throughout research, similar definitions of moderated mediation were provided. Edwards and Lambert (2007, pp. 6) stated that “…moderated mediation refers to a mediated effect that varies across levels of a moderator variable”. At the same time, Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007, p. 193) defined that “moderated mediation occurs when the strength of an indirect effect depends on the level of some variable, or in other words, when mediation relations are contingent on the level of a moderator”. Consequently, this method analyses the influence of a moderator variable with regards to the direction and strength of an independent variable’s indirect effects towards a dependent variable. As it were, moderated mediation takes place when a moderator interacts with a mediator in such a way that the value of the indirect effect changes depending on the value of the moderator variable (cf. Hair et al., 2016, p. 259). This reveals the influence of a moderator onto a mediating effect. For a better understanding, the following figure shows a simplified mediator model with one moderator (Figure 2).

Figure 2   Conceptual model of a moderated mediation. Source author’s own following Baron and Kenny (1986, p. 1176), and Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007, pp. 193)

With regards to the figure above and the effect model analysed in the main study, brand personality is the independent/exogenous variable which—via the mediator var­iable brand-self congruity—has an effect on the dependent/endogenous variable brand desirability. Culture is set as the moderator variable whereby its moderating effects on the indirect effects of brand personality are determined. Evidence that a mediation is moderated is confirmed when a significant moderation effect occurs between the independent variable and the mediator variable (cf. Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005, p. 856; Preacher et al., 2007, p. 196), which is equivalent to a significant interaction. Hayes (2015, cf. pp. 2) has however recently criticised that even a moderation effect that is nonsignificant does not necessarily mean that an indi-

1  Systematic Visualisation of the Analysis Method …

97

rect effect between the independent and dependent variables is not moderated by the moderator variable. In the same context, Hayes proposed the so-called ‘index of moderated mediation’ in which the path coefficients relate to the relationships amongst the constructs, while the moderator relates to the scores of the latent variable of the moderator variable. By implication, if the index of moderated mediation shows a value significantly different from zero, it can be concluded that the indirect effect between the independent variable and the dependent variable through the mediator variable depends on the moderator variable. To examine this, the bootstrap-based approach can be applied. Bootstrap-Based Approach of Moderated Mediation The bootstrap-based approach of moderated mediation is suitable to examine complex causal relationship structures which contain indirect effects and/or interaction effects (cf. Preacher & Hayes, 2008, p. 883). As already clarified before, the bootstrap-based approach is a method of inferential statistics that follows the principle of resampling where repeatedly random samples are taken out of the present sample. This approach does not only provide estimations of direct, indirect and interaction effects but also draws conclusions for the population. Bootstrapping does not postulate any distributional assumptions with regards to the output data. Therefore, the theoretical distribution function of a variable is replaced by the empirically calculated distribution function. Consequently, bootstrapping is an alternative to calculate distribution functions and also facilitate the use of methods by means of inferential statistics (cf. Efron, 1979, pp. 1). Due to the missing theoretical distribution function, a parametric significance test is not possible. The null hypothesis and therefore also the significance are examined by the t-test. A t-test of 1.96 or greater implies that the null hypothesis can be discarded with a significance level of 5% (cf. Hair et al., 2016, p. 153). In order to interpret indirect and interaction effects, it is of great importance that these effects differ from the value zero. Thus, the assessment of indirect and interaction effects follows the respective confidence intervals instead of the p-values. Testing the significance of these effects is of subordinate importance (cf. Hayes, 2017, pp. 201, 350). The software application ‘PROCESS’5 for SPSS by Andreas F. Hayes is used in order to conduct the bootstrap-based moderated mediation analysis. This analytical method does not only provide direct, indirect and interaction effects, but

5‘PROCESS’

is a software application which was written by Andrew F. Hayes, professor of psychology at the Ohio State University, in order to conduct conditional process analyses and therefore examine (combined) mediator and moderator models. Professor Hayes provides a PROCESS macro for SPSS that can be downloaded free of charge at ‘http:// processmacro.org/download.html’ (downloaded on 9th March, 2018).

98

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

also the respective inductive statistics such as the p-values for the direct effects, or the 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effects. PROCESS allows the assessment of mediators and moderators at the same time and thus conducts a conditional process analysis. The software application ‘PROCESS’ has further advantages compared with other statistical software such as ‘SPSS’ or ‘SAS’ which do not explicitly calculate the mediation and moderation of an independent variable towards a dependent variable. Additionally, the corresponding confidence intervals do not get computed (cf. Hayes, 2017, p. 150). Further, when calculating interaction effects, it is not necessary to mean-centre the independent nor the moderating variable (cf. Hayes, 2017, p. 372). Advantages of the conditional process analysis by means of ‘PROCESS’ do also appear with respect to structural equation modelling. Even though moderated and/or mediated interdependencies often occur in structural equation models, these effects cannot explicitly be determined with the common software solutions. Therefore, ‘PROCESS’ is applied to examine and assess any significant moderated mediations effects.

2 Pre-Test 2.1 Objective of the Survey The objective of the pre-test is to investigate the theoretically derived mediator model/base model of the relationship between brand personality, ­brand-self-congruity and brand desirability. It is assumed that brand personality dimensions directly and/or indirectly influence brand desirability. Brand-self-congruity is expected to mediate the effect mechanism between brand personality dimensions and brand desirability. Therefore, the pre-test analyses an effect mechanism explaining how brand personality dimensions create brand desirability. For this purpose, Hypothesis 1 including its five sub-hypotheses (H1a–H1e) which investigate the direct effect of the individual brand personality dimensions on brand desirability and Hypothesis 2 which looks into the mediating role of brand-self-congruity are to be tested: H1:  Brand personality has an impact on brand desirability. H1a:  The higher the level of sincerity, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H1b:  The higher the level of excitement, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability.

2 Pre-Test

99

H1c:  The higher the level of competence, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H1d:  The higher the level of sophistication, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H1e:  The higher the level of ruggedness, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability. H2:  Brand-self-congruity positively mediates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability. In order to analyse the cause-effect relationships, the reliability and validity of the measures need to be examined. Additionally, various multivariate methods of data analysis are applied. The assessment of the compiled mediator model follows the structural equation modelling analysis, as well as the bootstrap-based approach of the mediator analysis. The quality criteria of the measurement as well as the mentioned analysis procedures are presented in the subsequent section and their respective suitability with regards to the analysis’ aim is discussed.

2.2 Operationalisation of the Constructs When examining causal models that contain hypothetical constructs as study variables, the operationalisation of those variables plays an important role. By operationalising and therewith assigning indicators, hypothetical constructs are made measurable on an empirical level. Indicators are directly perceptible phenomena in real life that represent contextual and empirical representations of the study variables (Sedlmeier & Renkewitz, 2013, p. 674; cf. Töpfer, 2012, p. 220). For the present study, more precisely the pre-test, the hypothesised constructs brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability need to be operationalised. In order to operationalise the different constructs, already existing scales are used as their psychometric goodness has been proven multiple times. By doing so, the best possible reliability and replicability of the data is guaranteed. As the pre-test was conducted in German, some of the scales had to be translated from English to German with a clear focus on an analogous translation. A detailed and comprehensive examination of those scales shows that the used variables represent manifestations of the respective study variables. This supports a carefully considered operationalisation (cf. Fassott, 2006, p. 71). A five-point scale based on Likert’s approach was used to measure all indicators.

100

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

For brand personality, the extent to which the traits describe the brand was queried. The value 1 stands for ‘not at all descriptive’ and the value 5 for ‘extremely descriptive’. The study variables brand-self-congruity and brand desirability were both measured with a five-point Likert-type scale, whereas the value 1 stands for ‘strongly disagree’ and the value 5 stands for ‘strongly agree’. With that the level of agreement or disagreement to certain statements was measured. The following section covers an outline of the used scales and Table 4 contains an overview of the operationalised constructs and variables of the pre-test.

2.2.1 Operationalisation of the Exogenous Construct Brand Personality In the course of this examination, brand personality is measured as an independent variable. With that, its mediating influence on brand desirability is defined. In order to operationalise brand personality, Jennifer Aaker’s (1997) prominent scale is applied as it is the most applied scale when it comes to measuring a brand’s personality. Generally, Aaker divided brand personality into five dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. These dimensions are then linked with a total of 42 traits which will be used as items/indicators to measure their respective dimension. Sincerity and excitement, for example, are both formed by eleven traits, competence is formed by nine traits, sophistication by six and ruggedness by five. The individual traits/indicators of the five dimensions measuring brand personality are featured in the following figure (Figure 3).

Brand Personality

Sincerity (11 traits) down-to-earth family-oriented small town honest sincere real wholesome original cheerful sentimental friendly

Excitement (11 traits)

daring trendy exciting spirited cool young imaginative unique up-to-date independent contemporary

Competence (9 traits)

reliable hard working secure intelligent technical corporate successful leader confident

Sophistication (6 traits)

upper class glamorous good-looking charming feminine smooth

Ruggedness (5 traits)

outdoorsy masculine western tough rugged

Figure 3   Brand personality dimensions according to Jennifer Aaker (1997). Source author’s own visualisation following Aaker (1997)

2 Pre-Test

101

In order to examine brand personality in the pre-test, participants were asked ‘To what extent do the following personality traits describe the brand Rolex/ Mini/Apple’. They were then given the 42 items in its original order starting with ‘down-to-earth’ and ending with ‘rugged’. The translations of the scale can be found in Appendix  1. Three out of the five brand personality dimensions—sincerity, excitement and competence—also occur in the “Big Five” which represents a human personality model. However, they do not contain the same traits and are not equivalent. The psychometric goodness of Aaker’s scale has already been examined multiple times and its reliability and validity is confirmed (e.g. C. K. Kim et al., 2001). Aaker’s framework was successfully applied and slightly adapted or extended in various fields such as culture (e.g. Jennifer Lynn Aaker et al., 2001; Ferrandi et al., 2015; Rojas-Méndez et al., 2004), non-profit organisations (e.g. Venable et al., 2005), tourism destinations (e.g. Ekinci & Hosany, 2006), city brands (e.g. Demirbag Kaplan et al., 2010), lodging brands such as AirBnB (e.g. Seunghwan Lee & Kim, 2018), higher education (e.g. Rutter, Lettice and Nadeau, 2017), news media (e.g. Jooyoung Kim, Baek, & Martin, 2010) or sports(wear) brands (e.g. Braunstein and Ross, 2010; Tong and Su, 2014; Mitsis and Leckie, 2016). Additionally, Aaker’s (1997) brand personality dimensions have also successfully been applied across marketing research (e.g. Brakus et al., 2009). Even though some researchers such as Rojas-Méndez, Erenchun-Podlech and Silva-Olave (2004) who applied Aaker’s framework for an automotive brand or Davies and Chun (2003) demonstrated that Aaker’s scale is only partly applicable, it is nevertheless the most applied work when it comes to examining and measuring brand personalities. Thus, the brand personality “can be seen as a milestone in the investigation of brand personality” (Voeth & Herbst, 2008, p. 78) and is therefore used in the present study.

2.2.2 Operationalisation of the Endogenous Constructs 2.2.2.1 Operationalisation of Brand-Self-Congruity Within the causal model tested, brand-self-congruity is considered as a mediator while assuming that it influences the action mechanism of brand personality towards brand desirability. Brand-self-congruity refers to the match between the brand’s image and the self-concept of oneself. Sirgy’s (1985) study considers the self-image/product image congruity as a multidimensional concept with four types of self-perspective. This includes self-congruity, ideal congruity, social congruity and ideal social congruity. Measures used in his study are e.g. “How do you see yourself? To what extent do you think of yourself as having the personal characteristics listed below” (p. 200). Sirgy et al. (1997) moved from

102

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

the traditional method to a back then ‘new method’ measuring self-image congruence with questions such as “Wearing [brand name] is consistent with how I see myself” or “[brand name] is consistent with how I see myself” (p. 235). The research of Sirgy and Su (2000) deals with “Destination image, self-congruity and travel behaviour”. The method they use in order to measure self-congruity includes statements such as “This [destination name] is consistent with how I see myself”, “This [destination name] is consistent with how I like to see myself”, “This [destination name] is consistent with how I believe others see me” and “This [destination name] is consistent with how I would like others to see me” (p. 350). Kressmann et al. (2006) measured the actual (“To what extent the following personality attributes apply to you?”, p. 959) and the ideal self-congruity (“Imagine how you would like to be. To what extent the following personality attributes apply to how you like to be”, p. 959). Malär et al. (2011) conducted research on “The Relative Importance of the Actual and the Ideal Self” (p. 35) with regards to “Emotional Brand Attachment and Brand Personality” (p. 35). The measure used in order to assess actual self-congruity was “this brand’s personality is like who I really am” (p. 36) and to assess ideal self-congruity they used “this brand’s personality is like who I would like to be” (p. 36). Usakli and Baloglu (2011) examined the self-congruity between their self-concept and the personality characteristics of Las Vegas as a destination. Statements used in order to measure actual self-congruity were for example “Las Vegas is consistent with how I see myself” or “The personality of Las Vegas is congruent with how I see myself” (p. 119). To measure the ideal self-congruity, statements were as follows: “I would like to be perceived as similar to the personality of Las Vegas” or “The personality of Las Vegas is congruent with how I would like to see myself” (p. 120). Kang et al. (2012) investigated the self-congruity concept with regards to customer behaviour in the context of Korean name-brand coffee shops. They particularly examined the positive influence of self-congruity on brand attitude. In order to measure the brand-self-congruity construct, they included four ­self-image statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale in their questionnaire. These statements covered the four types of self-congruity. Exemplarily, the actual self was assessed by the following question: “Drinking coffee at this coffee shop is consistent with how I see” (Kang et al., 2012, p. 813). Among further studies that covered self-congruity are the works by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), Escalas and Bettman (2003) and Matzler et al. (2016). As most studies cover the four types of self-congruity (actual, ideal, social and ideal social self-congruity) and with that neglect the traditional approach, the present study also makes use of the new method and the four types of self-congruity. Therefore, participants were asked to ‘Now think about how you see yourself.

2 Pre-Test

103

What type of person are you? How would you describe your own personality? State your level of agreement or disagreement to the following statements’. After this brief introduction to the brand-self-congruity construct, the statements used to measure brand-self congruity followed: ‘The personality of the brand is congruent with how I see myself’, ‘The personality of the brand is congruent with how I like to see myself’, ‘The personality of the brand is congruent with how I believe others see me’, ‘The personality of the brand is congruent with how I would like others to see me’. Besides that, the statement ‘The personality of the brand suits my own personality’ is prepend which leads to five items measuring brand-self-congruity.

2.2.2.2 Operationalisation of Brand Desirability In the present causal model, brand desirability is considered as the dependent/ endogenous variable which is explained by the other model variables. In the past, similar yet much more general consumer behaviours such as brand acceptance or brand preference were investigated. Brand desirability however expresses the emotional attractiveness in a more specific and distinctive way (cf. Möll, 2007, p. 44). The operationalisation of this largely unresearched consumer behaviour is based on previous research projects such as the ones from Sirgy et al. (1997), Möll (2007), Kapferer and Florence (2016) or Karjaluoto, Munnukka and Kiuru (2016). With statements like “[brand name] is my preferred brand over [brand name]” or “I like [brand name] better than [brand name]” (M. J. Sirgy et al., 1997, p. 235) the construct brand preference is measured. Möll (2007) measures brand desirability with one item asking for the extent to which one likes to own something of a certain brand (p. 144). With brand desirability being a passionate emotion for a brand and putting desire and dream on one level, Kapferer and Valette-Florence (2016) make use of a luxury scale using items such as “This is a brand to dream” (p. 122) and Zarantonello and Pauwels-Delassus (2015) use statements like “I dream about this brand since long” and “This brand is a childhood dream” (p. 164). Karjaluoto, Munnukka and Kiuru (2016) measure their construct brand love with statements such as “This brand is totally awesome”, “This brand makes me very happy” or “I love this brand” (p. 532). Additionally, Grohmann (2009) measured brand preference through “Indicate your degree of liking or preference for [brand name] relative to other brands in the same product category”, and brand affect by, inter alia, “This brand makes me happy” (p. 113). In order to capture brand desirability, an adapted four-item set of the ­above-mentioned measures is used in the present study: ‘I would like to own a product of the brand’, ‘This brand is very important to me personally’, ‘This brand makes me dream’ and ‘I prefer this brand to other brands within its sector’.

104

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

2.2.3 Overview of the Measures Table 4   Overview operationalisation (pre-test)

(continued)

2 Pre-Test Table 4   (continued)

105

106

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

2.3 Procedure of Data Collection and Data Entry The pre-test was conducted in May 2017 in form of a fully standardised and classic online survey. The overall field phase of the survey lasted two weeks (2nd May–16th May, 2017). As the pre-test was only available in German, it was addressed to German speaking people. Besides that, no other requirements were set. Addressing potential participants took place via posts on social media channels such as ‘Facebook’, ‘Xing’ and ‘LinkedIn’. Additionally, direct messaging throughout those social media channels was applied. Furthermore, private contacts as well as colleagues and extended business contacts were reached out asking for their participation and that the survey may be forward to colleagues, friends and family. Both, the mailings sent out as well as the posts in social media included a cover note with a brief intro on the topic and the hyperlink leading directly to the survey. The software used in order to programme the online survey was ‘Unipark’ by ‘questback’, an academic programme for scientific surveys. When clicking on the hyperlink provided in the mailing or post, the online survey opened up. Before the participants were able to start with the survey, they were welcomed and thanked for their willingness to take part in the survey. The complete questionnaire used in the pre-test can be found in Appendix 2: Questionnaire Pre-Test in German). The landing page of the survey included information on the involvement of the chair for Marketing and Retailing at the Chemnitz University of Technology and the cooperation with the BMW Group. Furthermore, they were informed that the survey covered the relationship between brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability in an intercultural context. With regards to the so-called common method bias and in order to reduce manipulation of the participants, no further details concerning the survey subjects were stated. It was also mentioned that participating in the survey would take approximately ten minutes. Additionally, it was pointed out that the data would be collected anonymously and only used for research purposes. No material or financial incentive was offered as this

2 Pre-Test

107

increases the risk of receiving dishonest or distorted responses of participants only seeking for the reward. In the first part of the questionnaire, participants were confronted with names of three brands and their respective logos: Rolex, Apple and Mini. The participants were asked to choose the brand they know best. Depending on their brand choice, the rest of the questionnaire was directed towards this brand and the brand name was automatically integrated in the following questions. Subsequently, the query for the model variables brand personality, brand self-congruity and brand desirability followed. The order of querying the model variables was based on the causal relationship structure. To create familiarity with regards to the measurement instrument and to make it easier for the participants, a consistent 5-point Likert-type scale was used to measure all model variables. Besides that, each of the different topics was introduced with a short contextual transition paragraph in order to smoothly guide the participants through the questionnaire as well as to link the different topics with each other. In the last section of the questionnaire, the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, highest level of education and the type of municipal they live in were collected. The respective questions and captured indicators are outlined in Table 4. Finally, the participants were thanked for taking part in the survey. In total, 170 people took part in the survey. Seven people selected Rolex as the brand they know best, 53 chose Mini and 100 were most familiar with Apple. After sorting the data sets with regards to erroneous entries such as stating ‘1234’ as the year of birth, one (1.019%) Mini case had to be removed. For the data analysis, the data set of participants who chose the brand Rolex was not pursued any further as the set was simply too small to provide reliable results. After the selection, a total of 52 Mini cases and 100 Apple cases was used for the subsequent analyses. With regards to the Mini sample, a sample size of just above 50 might appear low at first. A common approach used to assess the minimum sample size is the minimum R-squared method which builds on the power tables for least squares regression by Cohen (e.g. 1988, 1992). This

108

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

method is based on a table listing the minimum required sample size following three elements. Firstly, the maximum amount of arrows directing at a latent variable needs to be assessed. The second element is the significance level which is used. Table 5 shows the values for the significance level of 1%, 5% and 10%. Thirdly, the minimum R2 appearing in the model needs to be investigated (cf. Kock and Hadaya, 2018, pp. 232). The values are valid for the commonly used statistical power level of 80%. Thus, following the minimum R-squared method, the minimum sample size required for the present research model is assessed as follows: Five brand personality dimensions (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness) and the mediator variable brand-self-congruity point at brand desirability. Thus, six variables are directing to brand desirability. For this, to achieve a statistical power of 80% in order to detect R2 values of at least 0.25 (with a significance level of 5%), 48 observations are needed. Thus, the present sample size of 52 cases for the brand Mini and 100 for the brand Apple are sufficient.

Table 5   Sample size recommendation in PLS-SEM following the minimum R-squared method Max. number of paths on endogenous construct

0.10

0.25

0.5

0.75

2

130

47

19

10

90

33

14

8

72

3

145

53

22

12

103

37

16

9

83

4

158

58

24

14

113

41

18

11

92

34

15

9

5

169

62

26

15

122

45

20

12

99

37

17

10

6

179

66

28

16

130

48

21

13

106

40

18

12

7

188

69

30

18

137

51

23

14

112

42

20

13

8

196

73

32

19

144

54

24

15

118

45

21

14

Significance level 1%

Significance level 5%

Significance level 10%

Minimum R² in the model 0.10

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.10

0.25

0.5

0.75

26

11

7

30

13

8

Source author’s own following Cohen (1992, p. 158) and Hair et al. (2016, p. 26)

2 Pre-Test

109

As already mentioned, the present sample of the pre-test is a convenience sample which is considered as acceptable in the present case as during the recruiting process of the participants no characteristics such as gender, age, highest level of education or municipal origin were preferred or neglected. As the primary goal of the pre-test is to identify effects between the model variables, the present sample is considered as suitable for examining the hypotheses. All questions were mandatory questions which results in all 52 Mini and 100 Apple data sets being without any missing values. Amongst the participants of the pre-test, 48% of the Mini respondents and 47% of the Apple respondents are female. Accordingly, there are 52% male Mini respondents and 53% male Apple respondents. The average age of the Mini group is 38 years with a standard derivation of 11 years. Looking at the Apple participant group, the average age is 35 years with a standard derivation (SD) of 10 years. Concerning the ownership of products of the respective brand chosen, 27% of the Mini group stated that they own something of the Mini brand (not necessarily an automobile) and 82% of the Apple participants are owners of an Apple product. Conclusively to this section, the following table summarises the demographic data of the pre-test samples (Table 6). Table 6  Demographic data of the pre-test samples (Mini & Apple)

Characteristic

Mini

Apple

η = 52

η = 100

Male Female

51.9% 48,1%

53.0% 47.0%

Average Age

38

35

Brand ownership

26.9%

82.0%

Gender

2.4 Survey Results and Hypotheses Testing 2.4.1 Verification of the Quality Criteria and Critical Assessment of the Measurement Model The characteristics of the applied scales and thereby the goodness of measuring the study variables needs to be examined prior to the actual data analysis and hypotheses testing. When doing so, the quality and validity of the data obtained and therefore the conclusions made based on those data can be ensured. As already outlined, the assessment of the measurements’ reliability and validity plays an important role as these goodness criteria determine the reliableness of the data.

110

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

In the first step of the validation of the used measurement instruments, the reliability needs to be assessed in order to identify those indicators of a certain scale that are less suitable to measure the respective construct from an empirical perspective (cf. Homburg and Giering, 1996, pp. 12). If indicators cannot be classified as reliable, they need to be eliminated from the relevant scale and thus be excluded from future analyses. Examining and adapting the indicator sets continues until suitable measurement instruments are available. The goal is that all measurement instruments only contain reliable indicators (cf. Churchill Jr, 1979, p. 68; Christian Homburg, 2017, p. 370; Christian Homburg & Giering, 1996, p. 12). When revising the measurement instruments, not only the empirical point of view needs to be taken into account, but also the theoretical one needs to be considered. This means that eliminating indicators needs to also be justifiable on a contextual level (cf. Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2010, p. 113). The quality criteria of the first (Cronbach’s Alpha and item-to-total correlation) and second generation (indicator reliability) serve as indicators when it comes to identifying the less suitable indicators and subsequently adjusting and optimising the measurement instruments (cf. Homburg and Krohmer, 2009, pp. 245). This is done by examining the values of the factor loading. When looking into the data sets of the pre-test, Cronbach’s Alpha is, except for the Mini brand personality dimension sophistication (α = 0.54) and ruggedness (α = 0.46) and the Apple brand personality dimension ruggedness (α = 0.67), amongst all constructs above the critical threshold value of 0.7, which ensures good and reliable results. The main aim of the pre-test is to examine whether the measurement instruments of the constructs ‘brand personality’, ‘brand-self-congruity’ and ‘brand desirability’ are valid and reliable. However, deficits can be identified in terms of ­item-to-total correlations and factor loadings in the brand personality scale. Aaker’s (1997) scale to measure brand personality was only integrated in the pre-test in order to validate the complete model, as the brand personality perception is the starting point in the present model. The scale itself being the standard instrument to measure brand personality has been tested over two decades and proven its raison d’être with the psychometric quality of the scale being manifested. Additionally, the results of the construct brand personality depend on the brand looked at. The results of the pre-test underline this, as different items work or fail for the brands Mini and Apple. Hence, no elimination of brand personality indicators takes place after the pre-test and the entire scale is used for the main test. The measurement instruments for brand-self-congruity and brand desirability do not show deficits in the item-to-total correlations as all Mini and Apple values are above the critical threshold of 0.3. With regards to factor loadings of Mini’s and Apple’s brand-self-congruity, all values are above the critical threshold of 0.7.

2 Pre-Test

111

Continuing the assessment of the factor loadings, the construct brand desirability also shows reliable results. Only one indicator within the Mini data set has a factor loading of 0.66 and should therefore be considered for elimination. However, deleting this indicator does not lead to an increase in composite reliability and therefore can be kept for the main test (cf. Hulland, 1999, pp. 198). Therefore, no direct elimination needs to be considered. Therefore, all brand-desirability indicators can also be retained. Subsequently, Tables 7 and 8 provide the results of the reliability and validity assessment of the measurement instruments for the brand Mini and Apple.

Table 7    Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (Mini)

(continued)

112 Table 7   (continued)

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

2 Pre-Test

113

Table 8   Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (Apple)

114

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 8   (continued)

The second step of the validation process is verifying the validity of the measurement instruments. This includes, besides assessing the content validity, an evaluation of the construct validity. The examination of content validity marks the degree to which the indicators of a measurement model are representative for the content-semantical areas of the construct to be measured. Therefore, all different meanings of the constructs facets are represented (cf. Bohrnstedt, 1970, p. 92). The basis for content validity are operationalised model variables that are theory-driven and based on logical considerations. The operationalisation of the present pre-test followed solely pre-existing and in research practice recognised scales. In the reliability verification process, certain items failed, however they were not excluded from the scales due to contextual and logical reflections. Summarised, this approach ensures that all relevant content-semantical areas and therewith, essential meanings of the test variables are captured with the measurement instruments.

2 Pre-Test

115

The unidimensionality of the construct is not given for the brand personality dimensions. In such manner, indicators that do not load sufficiently onto the respective construct need to be specified and eliminated. However, no direct elimination takes place during the pre-test, as for the main test a different brand is examined and thus, different items may fail. Going into the main study with a reduced item list for the brand personality dimensions would be an erroneous starting point. In the course of construct validity, the measurement instruments need to be checked for nomological validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The nomological validity indicates the degree to which the construct investigated can be put into context in a superordinate theoretical frame. This implies that theoretically presumed relationships between the construct investigated and other constructs can be proved imperially (cf. Homburg and Giering, 1996, pp. 7). Therefore, the nomological validity needs to be taken into account when it comes to conceptualising the model variables and formulating the hypotheses. Owing to the theory-based conceptualisation of the model variables and the different explanatory approaches that served for the derivation of the assumed ­cause-effect-relationship, the present study is nomologically valid. The extent to which a measure correlates in a positive way with other measures of the same construct is defined as the convergent validity. Different statistical means are used for the assessment of convergent validity. On indicator level, the requirement is that all factor loadings are greater than 0.7. In order to evaluate convergent validity on construct level, construct reliability should be greater than 0.7 and the average variance extracted should be 0.5 or higher. Those values are shown in Tables 7 and 8. Certain eliminations, especially with regards to brand personality, in order to improve values such as construct reliability and AVE were not conducted, as those results are brand-dependent and are therefore kept for the main study. The AVE scores of Mini’s and Apple’s brand-self-congruity value and brand desirability are all above the threshold and therefore, show valid convergent measurements. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981, p. 45), if the AVE value is below 0.5 but the value for composite reliability is above 0.6, the convergent validity of a construct is still valid. Hence, it is legitimate to speak of confirmed convergent validity. Thirdly and lastly, the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) is used to assess discriminant validity. The HTMT proofs whether the constructs are the same or different latent factors. The threshold for this criterion is 0.9. If the values are less than 0.9, this indicates that they are different factors. The lower they are, the more different they are. The following tables show that all Mini and Apple factors have discriminant validity, as all HTMT values are below 0.9 (Tables 9 and 10).

116

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 9   HTMT values of the brand Mini

Table 10   HTMT values of the brand Apple

Summarised, by assessing reliability and validity, the psychometric goodness of the measures is shown. Besides the fact that the brand personality scale is brand-dependent and therefore shows some insufficient results in the first hand, the constructs of brand-self-congruity and brand desirability show valid results on both content and construct side and are used for further analysis.

2.4.2 Testing of Hypotheses After having confirmed that the present measurement instruments are reliable and valid, the following section deals with the assessment of the results of the

2 Pre-Test

117

structural model. In this process, the respective hypotheses are also examined. To this, by conducting the structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis and the ­bootstrap-based mediator analysis, the conceived model is tested in order to define the assumed indirect influence of brand personality onto brand desirability. Prior to actually testing the model, a descriptive consideration of the data obtained takes place. The following tables show the means of all model variables as well as their correlation amongst each other. As shown in the tables, in the mean the participants consider the brand Mini as distinctly exciting yet competent, however not so rugged. With regards to Apple, the participants demonstrate a strong excitement and competence, followed by sophistication for the brand. Both brand-self-congruity and brand desirability is seen slightly weaker. The descriptive review of the data demonstrates that all response categories of the applied 5-point Likert-type scale were used. It goes for all queried indicators, that values between 1 (low) and 5 (high) occur. Hence, the differently high scores of the means of the queried constructs are based on reflected and differentiated answers. On top of that, the standard derivation (SD) values of the means of all model variables are low. This means that the data is spread around the calculated mean to a small extent. Thereby, the means are decently representative while showing a suitable expected value (Tables 11 and 12).

Table 11   Means, standard derivations and inter-item correlations (Mini)

118

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 12   Means, standard derivations and inter-item correlations (Apple)

The correlation matrix indicates that there are significant linear causal relations between the model variables. Amongst the constructs of Mini’s brand personality, the highest correlations occur between excitement and sincerity (r = 0.60), and brand desirability and brand-self-congruity (r = 0.58). A nearly non-existing correlation can be observed between the test variable ruggedness and sincerity (r = 0.01), and ruggedness and excitement (r = 0.01). Between all other constructs, partially positive linear effects show values between r = 0.19 and 0.60. A positive correlation indicates that an increase in the one variable leads to an increase in the other variable—or the other way around—a decrease in the one variable leads to a decrease in the other variable. As it were, a positive path coefficient means that a change of the described variable leads to a commutated change of the variable to be explained. With regards to the correlations amongst the Apple constructs, a similar scenario can be observed. All correlations are positive and show significant incomplete linear effects amongst each other. Those effects range from r = 0.26 to r = 0.64. The correlations between brand desirability and brand-self-congruity are the highest for both data sets. The present correlations between the different variables provide first indications for the relations within the research model. In order to examine the causal model and by this, to assess the influence of brand personality onto brand desirability through the mediator b­ rand-self-congruity, the first step of the data analysis is to run a variance-based structural equation modelling with

2 Pre-Test

119

the software SmartPLS 3.0. The suitability of this evaluation method was already outlined and discussed in detail in Section 1.1. As the goodness of the measurement model was already proven through a confirmatory factor analysis, the model testing in the narrow sense can be conducted at this stage. Assessing the structural model on the basis of the Mini data, the R2 values are substantial showing a high level of predictive power. 53% of the variance of brand-self-congruity and 54% of brand desirability can be explained by the relationship structure. On top of that, the values of the effect size f2 are as follows: the brand personality dimensions of sincerity (f2 = 0.03), excitement (f2 =  0.03), sophistication (f2 =  0.23) and ruggedness (f2 =  0.15) show small to medium effects on brand-self-congruity. Small effects are indicated between sincerity (f2 =  0.02), excitement (f2 =  0.03), competence (f2 = 0.02), sophis2 2 tication (f  = 0.02), ruggedness (f  = 0.03) and the endogenous latent variable brand desirability. Brand desirability shows a medium near effect on brand desirability (f2 = 0.10). There is no effect indicated between competence and ­brand-self-congruity (f2 = 0.0004). Subsequently, Mini’s Stone-Geisser criterion needs to be examined carefully. The predictive relevance Q2 of the endogenous variables brand-self-congruity (Q2 =  0.29) and brand desirability (Q2  = 0.25) are above the critical threshold of 0.00 and can therefore predict an emphasis. Besides that, the effective strength of the different relations within the model can be confirmed amongst certain parts. This is shown by significant path coefficients (≥0.20 or ≤−0.20) and their t-values (≥1.96). The present Mini values show path coefficients with values between 0.02 and 0.42. The brand personality dimensions of sophistication (path coefficient = 0.42) and ruggedness (path coefficient = 0.29) have a significant positive influence on brand-self-congruity. Significant positive effect is also shown between excitement (path coefficient = 0.21) and brand desirability and sophistication (path coefficient = 0.26) and brand desirability. Additionally, brand-self-congruity (path coefficient = 0.32) significantly influences brand desirability in a positive way. With regards to the t-values, sophistication (t = 3.17) and ruggedness (t = 2.20) show significance towards their relationship to brand-self-congruity, while brand-self-congruity itself is significant towards brand desirability with a t-value of 2.06. The intensity of the effect relationship between observed model variables is expressed by the path coefficient (b values). A positive path coefficient signifies that a change of the descriptive variable leads to a commutated change of the variable to be explained. A rise of brand-self-congruity of one unit leads to a rise of brand desirability of 0.32. The just outlined results are displayed in the subsequent figure (Figure 4).

120

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Figure 4   SEM results of the mediated brand personality—brand desirability—relationship (Mini). (Remarks: R2 = Coefficient of determination R2; Quality criterion for the model’s predictive power. Standardised path coefficients indicated. T-values in brackets and italic. η = 52)

In the following section, Apple’s data is analysed with regards to the structural model: The R2 values of the Apple data can be considered as moderate (brand-self-congruity  =  0.38) with a tendency to substantial (brand desirability =  0.51). The coefficient of determination R2 emphasises that the mediator variable and the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variable. The present relationship structure explains 38% of the variance of ­brand-self-congruity and 51% of the variance of brand desirability. With regards to the f2 values, the effect of brand-self-congruity onto brand desirability (f2 = 0.32) is medium with a tendency to high. Looking into the different dimensions of Apple’s brand personality, sincerity has a low effect on the endogenous variables brand-self-congruity (f2 = 0.09) and brand desirability (f2 = 0.04). Excitement’s effect level onto brand desirability is also low with a value of 0.07. Competence has a low effect on brand-self-congruity (f2 = 0.05) but there is no effect on brand desirability recognisable (f2 = 0.0001). Sophistication does not show any effect on neither the mediator variable (f2 = 0.003) nor the dependent variable (f2 = 0.0002). Ruggedness does not affect brand-self-congruity (f2 = 0.006) nor brand desirability (f2 = 0.008). Additionally, Stone-Geisser’s Q2 value (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974) needs to be examined. Indicating the out-of-sample predictive power of the model, the Apple Q2 values of the endogenous variables (mediator and dependent variable) are above the critical threshold of 0.00 which confirms the ­Stone-Geisser criterion. Brand personality can therefore predict the emphasis of the mediator variable brand-self-congruity (Q2 = 0.24) as well as brand desirability (Q2 = 0.32). The rela-

2 Pre-Test

121

tionship between Apple’s brand personality dimension sincerity and brand-self-congruity is significant with a path coefficient of 0.29 and a t-value of 3.49. A strong relation can also be observed between competence and brand-self-congruity (path coefficient = 0.23; t = 2.35). Further, excitement directly links with brand desirability (path coefficient = 0.27; t = 3.04). Additionally, the link between Apple’s brand-self-congruity and brand desirability is very strong with a path coefficient of 0.50 and a t-value of 5.25 (Figure 5).

Figure 5   SEM results of the mediated brand personality—brand desirability—relationship (Apple). (Remarks: R2 = Coefficient of determination R2; Quality criterion for the model’s predictive power. Standardised path coefficients indicated. T-values in brackets and italic. η = 100)

As already mentioned earlier, the five brand personality dimensions are brand-dependent (cf. Section 2.4.1). This gets also underlined by the present results as sophistication and ruggedness show significant effects on brand-self-congruity for the Mini brand, whereas sincerity and competence are positively linked with brand-self-congruity for the Apple brand. A significant direct impact on brand desirability only comes from Apple’s excitement dimension. Besides that, the link between brand-self-congruity is highly significant for both brands as well, which underlines the general significance between those model variables. Summarised, the structural model has a good model fit—considering the fact that items of the brand personality dimensions were not subject to elimination as they are brand-dependent and are all used for the main study. The following figures show the standardised path coefficients and their t-values as well as the coefficient of determination R2 of the intervening and endogenous variables of the mediator model.

122

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

The analysis of the causal relationships of the model show that certain dimensions of brand personality can have either a negative or positive influence on brand-self-congruity. In the present context however, none of the negative effects are significant. Thus, the intensity and direction are brand-dependent. Brand-self-congruity however shows a significant positive effect on brand desirability (Mini: ß = 0.32; t = 2.06; Apple: ß = 0.50; t = 5.25). The results of the path analysis show that—depending on the brand—certain brand personality dimensions have a direct influence on brand desirability. However, it cannot be generalised which brand personality dimension influences brand desirability in a positive or negative manner. On top of that, brand-self-congruity has a direct positive influence on brand desirability. With regards to the indirect effects, an additional analysis is advisable in order to explicitly define the mediating effect. This is done by using the bootstrap-based method, which is explained in detail in Section 1.5 in this chapter. In contrast to SEM, this method authorises not only the explicit examination and calculation of indirect influences but also allows the definition of influences of an independent variable onto the variable to be explained by a mediator which stand in a causal relationship. This is necessary due to the assumption that the influence of certain brand personality dimensions on brand desirability is partly or fully mediated by brand-self-congruity. The results of the bootstrap-based mediator analysis confirm the relationship structure between the model variables that was previously identified by the structural equation analysis. The values differ slightly as a new bootstrap was run in order to investigate potential mediation of brand-self-congruity. The mediator analysis of the Mini data shows that the influence of brand personality dimensions on brand desirability is not mediated by brand-self-congruity. However, when looking into the results of the Apple date set, the influence of sincerity on brand desirability is moderated by brand-self-congruity with a significant indirect effect of 0.14. Besides that, brand-self-congruity does also mediate the relationship between competence and brand desirability positively (indirect effect = 0.11). The indirect effect for those two relations is significant, whereas the direct effect is not. The assessment and significance testing of the mediating effects is based on the 95% confidence intervals’ approach of the indirect effects. The value range of the 95% confidence intervals should not include the value zero. According to the mediation analysis procedure, full mediation takes place when the indirect effect is significant and the direct effect is not significant (cf. Hair et al., 2016, p. 232). In order to be significant, a conformant t-value of more than 1.96 and a p-value of less than 0.05 are required. The following tables show the indirect effects, their 95% confidence intervals (bias corrected), their ­t-values and whether they are significant or not. Those estimations are based on 5,000 bootstrap subsamples (Tables 13 and 14).

2 Pre-Test

123

Table 13   Indirect and direct effects of the five brand personality dimensions on brand desirability (Mini)

Table 14   Indirect and direct effects of the five brand personality dimensions on brand desirability (Apple)

The research results show that different brand personality dimensions can have a significant positive impact on brand desirability, which partly confirms Hypothesis 1. Breaking this effect down onto the individual brand personality dimensions it becomes clear that the effect of individual brand personality dimensions is highly brand-dependent. Thus, only the Apple brand personality dimension excitement causes a significant direct on brand desirability, which partly confirms

124

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Hypothesis 1b. All the other brand personality dimensions do not show significant direct effects for the Apple brand. With regards to the Mini brand, no direct effects occur between the individual brand personality dimensions and brand desirability. Therefore, H1a, H1c, H1d and H1e could not be confirmed within the pre-test. Besides that, brand-self-congruity does not generally act as a mediator between brand personality dimensions and brand desirability. However, depending on the brand indirect effects can appear, which partly confirms Hypothesis 2.

2.5 Summary of the Pre-test and Derivation of the Research Model The pre-test of the mediator model was used to proof the influence of brand personality dimensions on brand desirability and the mediating role of brand-self-congruity between the two constructs. To assess those effect models and therewith the first two hypothesises, a classical online survey on three brands (Rolex, Mini and Apple) was conducted in Germany. 52 randomly addressed Mini participants and 100 Apple participants took part in the survey. As the responses for the brand Rolex were insufficient, examining the results for the brand Rolex was no further followed during the analysis. The results of the hypothesis testing are shown in the following table (Table 15). Table 15   Overview testing of Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 (pre-test) Hypothesises

Examination Result

H1:

Brand personality has a positive impact on brand desirability.

Partly confirmed!

H1a:

The higher the level of sincerity, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability.

Refuted!

H1b:

The higher the level of excitement, the stronger the Partly confirmed! direct effect on brand desirability.

H1c:

The higher the level of competence, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability.

H1d:

The higher the level of sophistication, the stronger Refuted! the direct effect on brand desirability.

H1e:

The higher the level of ruggedness, the stronger the direct effect on brand desirability.

H2:

Brand-self-congruity positively mediates the rela- Partly confirmed! tionship between brand personality perception and brand desirability.

Refuted!

Refuted!

3  Main Study

125

By making use of two different data analysis methods (SEM and mediator analysis), Hypothesis 1 can partly be confirmed. Interestingly and unexpectedly, the five individual brand personality dimensions mainly refute the assumption that a higher level of each dimension has a direct impact on brand desirability. The only brand personality dimension leading to brand desirability is excitement for the brand Apple. This results partly confirms Hypothesis 1b. Based on the findings of the pre-test, H1a, H1c, H1d and H1e cannot be confirmed. Further, Hypothesis 2 can also partly be confirmed. Accordingly, the findings indicate that brand-self-congruity takes up the role of a mediator between certain brand personality dimensions and brand desirability. This again depends on the brand. Thus, brand-self-congruity mediates the relationship between sincerity and brand desirability, and competence and desirability for the Apple sample. The findings of the pre-test indicate that sincerity, excitement and competence are brand personality dimensions which can be connected to brand desirability. In the context of the pre-test, no proof for connections between sophistication and ruggedness in the direction of brand desirability can be identified. When looking into the findings for the Mini brand, it becomes immediately apparent that neither significant direct nor significant indirect effects between brand personality dimensions and brand desirability occur. Sophistication and ruggedness have an impact on brand-self-congruity, but no further link to brand desirability is noticeable. Reasons that no significant effect mechanisms was found for the MINI brand could be based on the small even though scientifically sufficient sample size or the disparate perception of the brand. As a matter of fact, these first findings underline that the effect of brand personality dimensions is highly brand-depended and will therefore be examined carefully during the main study and calls for future research.

3 Main Study 3.1 Objective of the Survey The main study follows the objective to get a deeper understanding of the effects brand personality dimensions have on brand desirability and how ­brand-self-congruity mediates this link. Additionally, the factor culture will be included as a moderator in the described mediator model. The various moderating effects of culture are to be determined. Therefore, culture is not only tested on its moderating effect on the direct and indirect effects but a moderated mediation analysis is also carried out. With regards to previously conducted research

126

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

(e.g. Foscht et al., 2008; Jean Noël Kapferer & Florence, 2016; Matzler et al., 2016), the assumption points out that culture influences consumer behaviour. According to de Mooij and Hofstede (2010, cf. pp. 85), Hofstede’s approach to culture explains differences occurring between three types of concepts—the self, the identity and the personality concept. They then again are used in order to specify directions and variations in the fields of marketing, brand and communication strategies. When applying these cultural dimensions to marketing measures, it turns out that brands might be better perceived by people of a particular culture if their cultural perceptions are congruent with that culture (cf. Foscht et al., 2008, p. 132). Research around the impact of culture with regards to the relationship between consumers and brands has already been conducted. Generally, individualism and uncertainty avoidance are the two dimensions that are the most-relevant and widely applied ones when it comes to brand-self-congruity and personified brand strategies (Aguirre‐Rodriguez, 2014; S. K. Lam et al., 2012; e.g. Litvin & Kar, 2004). Nevertheless, masculinity as well as power distance and long-term orientation have also received attention within customer—brand research (Abubakar, Mokhtar, & Abdullateef, 2013; Marieke De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002; Foscht et al., 2008; Hur et al., 2015; e.g. Roth, 1995). As the scores of the masculinity dimension are too close together, the masculinity dimensions is not included in the subsequent analyses. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are expected to have influences on the entire effect model around brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability. Of greater interest are the moderating effects of the individual cultural dimensions on the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. Therefore, besides again testing Hypothesis 1 including its sub-Hypotheses 1a–1e covering the individual dimensions of brand personality, and Hypothesis 2 which deals with the meditating effect of brand-self-congruity (cf. Section 6 in Chapter 3 Summary of the Hypotheses Framework and Explanatory Model), the main study additionally covers the testing of the following hypotheses: H3:  Culture moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand-self-congruity. H4:  Culture moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability. H5:  Culture moderates the relationship between brand-self congruity and brand desirability.

3  Main Study

127

H6:  Culture moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. H6a:  A high level of power distance negatively moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. H6b:  A high level of individualism positively moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. H6c:  A high level of uncertainty avoidance positively moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity. H6d:  A high level of long-term orientation positively moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand desirability mediated through brand-self-congruity The analysis methods for the main study have already been elaborated earlier in this chapter and their fit to examine the hypotheses has been demonstrated. All executions of the pre-test are analogously applicable to the main study. Firstly, the explorative and confirmative factor analyses need to be conducted in order to examine the measurements’ reliability and validity. The individual quality criteria of reliability and validity, as well as their critical thresholds can be found in Tables 1 and 2. The next step of the data analysis assesses the mediator model of the brand personality—brand desirability relationship and by this again tests Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. This procedure is essential as the effect model of the main study is based on the mediator model of the pre-test. This analysis targets the role of brand-self-congruity with regards to the indirect effects of brand personality. Therefore, the underlying indirect effects need to be determined. Additionally, this procedure assesses the robustness of the mediator model. For this purpose, the bootstrap-based mediator analysis is applied. In order to examine the cause-effect correlations and therewith, to assess the influence of the moderating effect of culture onto the mediated brand personality—brand desirability relationship, the bootstrap-based moderated mediation analysis is applied. Additionally, in order to examine the influence of culture onto the relationship between brand personality dimensions and brand desirability, standard moderation analysis is applied.

128

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

3.2 Operationalisation of the Constructs 3.2.1 Operationalisation of the Exogenous and Endogenous Constructs The operationalisation of the research variables brand desirability, ­brand-self-congruity and brand desirability for the main study is analogously to the pre-test. A detailed description and justification for the choice of measurement instruments can be found under Section 2.2 (Operationalisation of the Constructs). Thus, the survey consists of the previously applied and already tested questions from the pre-test. The same scales and indicators in order to measure the model variables brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability are used in the main study. Even though some items of the different brand personality dimensions did not show a satisfying reliability for the brands Mini and Apple, no elimination took place. Elimination would have only made sense if the main study was covering the same brands. However, as a completely different brand is the basis for the data collection of the main study, the survey of the main study includes all 42 items of Aaker’s (1997) approach to brand personality. The constructs brand-self-congruity and brand desirability showed good quality criteria within the assessment of the pre-test. Therefore, the same scales as introduced in the pre-test are used for the mediator variable brand-self-congruity and the dependent variable brand desirability. Further, in order to examine the effect model, the survey was based on the high-performance automotive sub brand ‘BMW M’. Reasons for that are based on the following: firstly, the compound nature of an automotive brand captivates. According to Lienert (1998) “autos are one of the most highly engineered and complicated products […]; are full with emotional connection with image and fashion, like make-up; and provide experiential satisfaction, like movies” (p. 53); thus, they are amongst the top products which are the most descriptive of one’s self (cf. Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010, p. 170); secondly, “an industry in which the majority of brands have a well-established image” (M. H. Hsieh, 2002, p. 52) in an international context, is best suited for this study. Besides that, automobile manufacturers spend large amounts on marketing and advertising measures in order to reconfirm and strengthen the links between the brand and its perception in the consumers’ mind (cf. Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993, p. 150); and lastly, the present research project is supported by the BMW M GmbH, a 100% subsidiary of the BMW AG. As the main study investigates a sub brand, it is of importance for participates to really know the brand rather than mistaking it for its mother brand or a different product category such as an ‘M Sports Package’ or the ‘Sport Line’ option. In order to guarantee that participants do not mistake the sub brand for some other

3  Main Study

129

brand, it is of great importance to acquire the participants’ familiarity with the brand. The continuous variable brand familiarity reflects the level of both direct and indirect experiences a consumer has had with a brand (cf. Alba & Hutchinson, 1987, p. 411). In order to ensure that an appropriate level of brand is covered which is essential for the complete study, brand familiarity is assessed in the first place by asking the following: ‘I know the brand [mother brand]’, ‘I know the brand [sub brand]’, ‘I have a clear idea of how the sub brand [sub brand] differs from the brand [mother brand]’, and ‘I could describe the brand [sub brand] to others in detail’. Those statements were taken from various research projects such as the ones from Gill and Dawra (2010, p. 196), Nobre, Becker and Brito (2010, p. 209), Krautz (2017, p. 281) and Yoo and Donthu (2001, p. 14) who successfully measured brand familiarity in their research projects. Since the main test is conducted in three countries (China, the USA and Germany), translations as well as back translations into Chinese and English took place in order to avoid any errors or misunderstandings caused by misinterpretation. The translated questionnaires can be found in the Appendix (cf. Appendix 1: Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale in German and Chinese; Appendix 3: Questionnaire Main Study in English; Appendix 4: Questionnaire Main Study in German; Appendix 5: Questionnaire Main Study in Chinese). Subsequently, a complete overview of the operationalisation of the independent variable, the mediator variable and the dependent variable follows.

3.2.2 Operationalisation of the Moderator Variable Additionally, to the just presented and already applied variables brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability, a potential moderator variable is introduced and operationalised for the main study. In the past decades, culture has been defined and scaled many times. In general, it can for sure be stated that the culture of humans has an influence on their behaviour and with that on the decisions they make. Culture consists of various different elements such as values, standards, religion and language, which all have an influence on the way individuals perceive things. Therefore, one of the primary roles of culture is the structure in which individuals evaluate and perceive different things (cf. Geert Hofstede, 2011, p. 3). Generally, culture is divided into different dimensions. As already introduced and outlined in Section 2.2, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) presented their approach to culture in their book ‘Variations in Value Orientation’. They split culture in six dimensions: Beliefs about human nature, relationship to nature, time orientation, relationship between people, human activity and space concept. A couple of years later, in 1980, Geert Hofstede published his book ‘Culture’s Consequences’, where he introduced his four-dimensional scale of

130

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

c­ ulture: Power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity vs. femininity. His research was based on a total of 116,000 questionnaires filled in by 88,000 IBM employees from 72 different countries and regions, and from all hierarchical levels. Later, two additional dimensions, respectively long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation and indulgence vs. restraint were added to his framework. A detailed definition of the relevant dimensions already took place in Section 2.3 in Chapter 2 (Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions). The main study of the present work relies on Hofstede’s (1980b, 1991) approach to culture in order to describe cultural differences. Previous studies found support for the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s measures of culture as a tool for market segmentation (cf. Reisinger & Crotts, 2010, p. 160). Therefore, the present work uses Hofstede’s official scores of four cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation). These country-specific scores range from 0 (low) to 100 (high). The definition of objectives requires a choice of cultures which are diverse enough so that the influence of culture can actually be captured with regards to other study variables. In order to test the later effect model on the influence of culture, this work makes use of high-end brands of their respective industry. Thus, the main study is based on the high-performance automotive sub-brand BMW M. Automobiles offer ample opportunities when it comes to brand identification as they “are rated among the top products that are the most descriptive of the self” (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010, p. 170). Markets highly relevant for this segment need to be identified and subsequently considered in the upcoming data collection and analysis. The following paragraphs give an overview on the markets highly relevant for the present context. When looking into the numbers of new vehicle registrations China has taken over the lead from the USA in 2009. Ever since, the number of Chinese new vehicle registrations has grown from 2.1 million vehicles in 2000 to more than 24 million vehicles in 2015. The second strongest market with regards to new vehicle registrations are the USA. Once the strongest power, they still confirmed above 17 million new vehicle registrations in 2015. Struck off on third place are Japan with 4.39 million registrations and Germany on fourth place with 3.44 million registrations (Statista, 2017a, 2017b). These figures provide the basis for further justification. Generally, as a consequence of “recent global events related to the financial crisis and slow-downs” (cf. Ha and Janda, 2014, p. 216), the Chinese automotive industry has not only developed itself to the biggest market in terms of new vehicle registrations, but to a strongly competitive market with over 220 automotive brands itself. The overall growth of Asian economies but especially

3  Main Study

131

the Chinese one has led to an increase in income level and a rising number of wealthy consumers (cf. PricewaterhouseCoopers Limited, 2017). Considering the strikingly steady growth patterns of the Chinese economy, the demand for automobiles has lately been growing by an astonishing rate of 20–25%. Generally, and measured by production unit, China (since 2008) is one of the world’s largest automotive industries. In fact, back in 2007 China firstly produced more than 8.8 million passenger and commercial vehicles which stands for an increase of 22% over 2006. The rise of this sector began with the outset of the open-door policy in mainland China. The Chinese automotive market is occupied with almost 70% of ­foreign-branded vehicles. Effectively, the Chinese market is on the cards of reaching 20.74 million units in 2020 (cf. Wang and Yang, 2008, p. 460). This underlines the incredible potential and importance of China within the automotive sector. Thus, China is one of the countries integrated in the present work. Subsequently, the cultural classification of China according to Hofstede’s framework is shown (Figure 6). As shown in the previous figure, China scores high in power distance (80) and long-term orientation (87), while scoring low on individualism (20), uncertainty avoidance (30) and indulgence (24). The score for masculinity (66) is in the uper mid-range. With a score of 80 in power distance, the Chinese society accepts inequalities while formal authorities as well as sanctions influence the individual member of the society. Scoring low in individualism, China is a truly

CHINA

100 80

87

80 66

60 40 20

30 20

24

0

Figure 6   Hofstede’s cultural classification for China. Source own visualisation following Hofstede (2018)

132

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

collectivistic society. This means that the Chinese neglect the interest of themselves and instead follow the interests of the group. China is a masculine culture and therefore, driven by success. With leisure time being considered as not too important, the Chinese will sacrifice leisure and family for work. In general, ranking is the key criterion with regards to achieving success. The low score in uncertainty avoidance indicates that the Chinese society show comfort for ambiguity. Additionally, they are an entrepreneurial and adaptable society with taking rules and laws rather flexible. The high score in long-term orientation shows that the Chinese culture is very pragmatic. Nonetheless, truth clearly depends on the situation, the context and the timing. With a very low score in indulgence, China is a restrained culture where actions are inhibited by social norms (Hofstede Insights, 2018). It is no secret that Germany is recognised for its excellent engineering performance but especially for its outstanding automotive industry. Not only because the very first automobile was invented in Germany by Carl Benz in 1886, but when it comes to sales and production figures, Germany is the biggest European automotive market. Additionally, Germany’s automotive industry is also Germany’s largest industry with German-manufactured cars being sold all over the world. Every year, the battle is on for the ‘Best Global Brands Ranking’. Amongst the top 50 of the overall brand ranking of 2017, 10 brands are car manufacturers6 and half of them are German. This underlines the enormous importance of Germany with regards to the automotive sector. Being the strongest automotive market, Germany is the second culture to be integrated in the later cross-cultural analysis. The following figure shows the cultural classification of Germany according to Hofstede’s approach (Figure 7). As shown in the figure above, Germany is amongst the lower power distance countries with a score of 35. This results in Germany being a ­highly-decentralised society with a strong middle class. With regards to the other three cultural dimensions, Germany is a truly individualistic (67), masculine (66) and uncertainty avoidant (65) culture. Individualistic, as Germans tend to follow the ideal of self-actualisation while showing loyalty through personal preferences. With regards to communication, Germans use a very direct way of communicating. Masculine, as the German society values performance and members often show their status

67th

Toyota, 9th Mercedes-Benz, 13th BMW, 20th Honda, 33rd Ford, 35th Hyundai, 38th Audi, 39th Honda, 40th Volkswagen, 48th Porsche (Source: Best Global Brands 2017 Rankings, (Interbrand, 2018), http://interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2017/ ranking/, accessed 23rd April, 2018).

3  Main Study

133 GERMANY

100

83

80 67

66

65

60 40

35

40

20 0

Figure 7   Hofstede’s cultural classification for Germany. Source own visualisation following Hofstede (2018)

through technical devices, cars and watches. Uncertainty avoidant, as there is a significant preference for deductive instead of inductive approaches which includes thinking, planning or presenting. It is about showing a systematic overview prior to proceeding. Combined with their low score in power distance, Germans are likely to rely on expertise in order to balance out their high uncertainty. The German score for long-term orientation is 83. This high score is an indicator for pragmatics. Thus, the German society is able to handle changed conditions by adapting traditions. Additionally, they have a penchant for savings and investments while being thrifty. The high score in long-term orientation underlines the Germans’ staying power with regards to achieving results. The low score in the last cultural dimensions— indulgence—is an indicator that the German society is cynical and pessimistic. Thus, they do not value leisure time and they are likely to monitor the fulfilment of their own desires (cf. Hofstede Insights, 2018). As already mentioned previously in this chapter, the USA used to be the strongest market within new vehicle registrations. Even though they have been caught up by China, the USA are still an economic power like no other. Additionally, as it is of great interest to include cultures from different continents and cultural areas, the USA are the third country determined for this work. One could say that it is difficult to treat the vast USA as a single country. However, the results of Hofstede’s show that one cultural classification can be applied. The following figure shows the six cultural dimensions for the USA (Figure 8).

134

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis USA

100

91

80

40

68

62

60 40

46 26

20 0

Figure 8   Hofstede’s cultural classification for the USA. Source own visualisation following Hofstede (2018)

A fairly low power distance score (40) combined with a very high score (91) in individualism underlines the US American premise of ‘liberty and justice for all’. In the American business world, hierarchy is a matter of convenience while the expertise of the individual is valued. Thus, sharing information and consulting each other is part of everyday business. With regards to communication, Americans communicate in an informal, direct and to a degree participative manner. Therefore, Americans are also not shy when it comes to approaching strangers in order to gain information. In terms of society, this is loosely-knit as it is expected that people do not rely on authorities for any kind of support but instead look after themselves plus their immediate family. The high masculinity score of the USA underlines the typical behavioural patterns of Americans. In combination with their high score in individualism, Americans demonstrate their masculine drive all individually. Thus, Americans are very open when talking about their achievements and successes in life. The great motivator for Americans is not the fact of being successful, but to be able to show this success. With a score of 46, Americans score below the mean of 50 on uncertainty avoidance. Consequently, Americans show a reasonable amount of acceptance with regards to new ideas and innovative products. Besides that, Americans show a fair degree of acceptance for willingness when it comes to trying new or different things such as technologies, business practices or food. In terms of their long-term orientation, Americans are rather short-term oriented with a score of 26. Accordingly,

3  Main Study

135

Americans are not the most pragmatic culture but they are practical with a clear ‘can-do’ mentality. Scoring low on long-term orientation also means that the Americans stick with their time-honoured norms and traditions while being suspicious in terms of societal change. With a 68 score on the last cultural dimension indulgence, the USA follows the motto ‘work hard, play hard’ (cf. Hofstede Insights, 2018). In order to illustrate the differences for China, Germany and USA in terms of the cultural classification according to Hofstede, the following figure includes the scores for all six dimensions and all three cultures. This underlines that there are major differences in their cultural classification. The dimensions standing out the most with regards to stark differences are power distance, individualism and long-term orientation. Distinct differences can be investigated for uncertainty avoidance and indulgence, while the dimension masculinity only shows slight differences. Therefore, power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation will be those dimensions investigated on their moderating impact. In the course of collecting the relevant data for the cultural assignment, in the demographic section, survey participants are asked to state their nationality. These answers are the basis for the cultural allocation and with that a manual coding takes place. This procedure has already been applied by several researchers investigating the influence of culture on various topics (Hovav & D’Arcy, 2012; Joshanloo & Jarden, 2016; Matzler et al., 2016; e.g. Roth, 1995). It needs to be mentioned that Hofstede’s sample does not represent an entire populations, but rather the middle class working for multinational companies. As the interest in the present work does not lie in absolute scores but in assessing cross-cultural differences, Hofstede’s scores are valid. Additionally, the sampled responses are well-matched demographically and their only differences systematically is their nationality (cf. Roth, 1995, p. 167). Exemplarily, those participants who stated Germany as their nationality are manually coded with Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance score of 65. Those, who entered the United States of America as their nationality were coded with the uncertainty avoidance score of 46. All relevant culture scores are presented in the previous figure. For the present research and the countries chosen, the individual scores of power distance range from 35 to 80, of individualism from 20 to 91, of uncertainty avoidance from 30 to 65 and of long-term orientation from 26 to 87. As shown in Figure 9, the three countries investigated in the present work differ significantly on the four dimensions. Even though it would have been enriching to also assess the moderating effect of masculinity on the present effect mechanism, the masculinity scores of Germany (66), the USA (62) and China (66) do not

136

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GERMANY USA CHINA

Power Distance 35 40 80

Individualism 67 91 20

Masculinity 66 62 66

Uncertainty Avoidance 65 46 30

Long-Term Orientation 83 26 87

Indulgence 40 68 24

Figure 9   A three-country comparison (Germany, China and the USA) of Hofstede’s cultural classification. Source own visualisation following Hofstede (https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/ accessed: 14th February, 2018)

d­ iffer enough. Conclusively, it needs to be noted that Hofstede’s findings derived from a study conducted nearly four decades ago. Nevertheless, recent works (Reimann et al., 2008; e.g. Tsakumis, 2007) which assessed different international populations found support in terms of stability of Hofstede’s scores (cf. Hovav & D’Arcy, 2012, p. 100).

3.3 Cross-Cultural Equivalence Analysis Research design in general is a highly complex matter. When research is conducted in an environment that is not only international but also intercultural and multilinguistic it gets even more complex (e.g. Durvasula et al., 1993; Van de Vijver, Leung and Leung, 1997; Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 2001; Samuel Craig and Douglas, 2006). In order to secure the cross-cultural equivalence of the questionnaire, the operationalised framework needs to be examined according to six main equivalence categories, which are namely: conceptual equivalence, functional equivalence, translation equivalence, measure equivalence, sample equivalence and data collection equivalence. Firstly, the conceptual equivalence—also called the construct equivalence—of the three surveys follows recognised procedures which assess the unidimensionality through an exploratory factor analysis as well as the validity (convergent and discriminant validity) and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability)

3  Main Study

137

of the underlying constructs (cf. Hult et al., 2008, pp. 1029). With the data collected in the present research being unbiased as well as relevant to the characteristic that is measured, and with the scaling results not showing any experimental errors (cf. Green, Tull and Albaum, 1988, pp. 249 and 253), the conceptual equivalence is given. The second level to secure equivalence is the investigation of the functional equivalence. During this level it needs to be assessed whether similar activities or products perform different functions across different cultures. The present research covers an automotive brand which does not show a different activity or function. Nonetheless, certain products may be used for different reasons—e.g. a watch may be considered as a jewellery in one culture but as a status symbol in another or a time-keeper in a third culture (cf. Usunier and Lee, 2009, p. 185). Thus, an automobile could be considered as a simple transportation mean but also as a status symbol. As the brand examined is a high-performance brand this gap between simple transportation mean and luxury status symbol is fairly low. Further, this phenomenon is on the one hand covered within the cultural dimensions of Hofstede, and on the other hand, it does not influence the results in a negative way. Therefore, the functional equivalence is given. With regards to translation equivalence, the sophisticated back translation technique has been applied. The survey was originally developed as well as tested in the German language, the survey instruments for the main study were translated and back translated into English and Chinese by native speakers in order to ensure proper comparability across countries. Further, some scales such as Aaker’s 42-item scale were originally developed in English and could therefore be used straight away. This method by Campbell et al. (1970) is not only the most applied approach to reach translation equivalence in the field of cross-cultural research but also considered as the most effective translation technique in order to establish translation equivalence (e.g. Peng, Peterson and Shyi, 1991; Sin, Hung and Cheung, 2002; Douglas and Craig, 2007; Hult et al., 2008). The back translation approach ensures that the most inadequate points are discovered (cf. Usunier and Lee, 2009, p. 186). In the present back translation process, only minor inadequacies could be revealed within the Chinese translation, which were then discussed with the two translators. Additionally, research projects such as the ones by Chu and Sung (2011) and Liu et al. (2016) on brand personality dimensions in China were used for comparison. As the results across the three cultures are compared and simultaneously, the reliability of the rating scales are analysed and checked, the measure equivalence is given. This includes the metric equivalence as the scale terms used in the present work were not translated literally but local wordings were taken

138

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

from previously conducted research. Additionally, as certain numbers in China are considered as lucky numbers and therefore, are expected to be selected more frequently (cf. Roy, Walters and Luk, 2001, p. 206), numbers are not included in the scale terms. Both, calibration equivalence and temporal equivalence can be neglected in the present research context. Second to last, the sample equivalence is assessed. It is extremely difficult, if not even impossible to reach perfect comparability as a complete census covering an entire culture is not only too costly but practically impossible (cf. Usunier and Lee, 2009, p. 192). The present research does not make use of any secondary data such as published statistical data. Therefore, no errors with regards to out of date directories can occur. However, as the present research gathers its data by using an online-based questionnaire and therewith a random sample, certain limitations occur. These limitations include the technological capabilities and accessibility of the culture of interest (cf. Usunier and Lee, 2009, pp. 193). As the objective of the present research is to investigate cultural differences with regards to the relationship between brand personality, brand-self-congruity and brand desirability, the random sampling method is applied. By using this probability sampling method sampling errors can be estimated. Since only fully completed and error-free questionnaires are considered for the subsequent statistical analysis, limitations with regards to respondents’ cooperative equivalence are kept at a low level. As just outlined, securing the comparability of samples represents is an incredibly difficult task. Consequently, in the present research certain limitations concerning the generality of a sample do exist and are outlined in Section 3 in Chapter 5 (Conclusive Criticism and Future Need for Research). Nonetheless, the sample and data collection method applied in the present research allows a comparability of the samples. The equivalence analysis concludes with the assessment of the d­ ata-collection equivalence. By back translation, it has already been assured that equivalent national versions of the questionnaire are used. Additionally, it has also been proven that the samples are equivalent and consistent. As the present research makes use of an anonymous online-based questionnaire, the respondents’ cooperation equivalence as well as the context equivalence of data collection and response-style equivalence can be neglected. These equivalences are based on biases that result from the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee (cf. Usunier and Lee, 2009, pp. 194). Summarised, the cross-cultural equivalence analysis shows that the three questionnaires (German, English and Chinese version) and data collection procedure can be declared as equivalent and therefore, the subsequent empirical analysis can be conducted. For the sake of completeness, it needs to be mentioned that limitations in terms of measurement improvement and larger samples do occur.

3  Main Study

139

3.4 Procedure of Data Collection, Data Entry and Sample Description To examine the present effect model of the main study, a fully standardised, traditional online survey took place in summer 2017 (17th July–24th August). The approach of the data collection as well as the examination procedure were handled widely analogue to the pre-test. This means that great overlaps with regards to the pre-test occurred among the invitation letter to participate in the survey as well as the structure and design of the questionnaire. Subsequently, only a brief description of the examination procedure is outlined. For a more detailed description of the examination procedure and based on the existing overlap with the pre-test, reference is made to Section 2.3. The pre-test was only conducted in Germany and therefore, was only available in German. The main study however seeks to analyse the influence of culture (respectively the US American, German and Chinese) and therefore, three surveys in the languages English, German and Chinese (traditional) were set up. As the only pre-requirement for participation was a certain level of brand familiarity which was tested in the first section of the survey, there were no limitations when sending out the invitation letters. Potential participants were contacted via social media networks such as LinkedIn, Xing, Facebook, WeChat and blogs (BMWBlog, Bimmerpost, Bimmertoday), as well as through car clubs such as the BMW Car Club of America and the M Club Shanghai. Additional support in distributing the survey outside the own rows came from BMW related entities such as BMW of North America, BMW Performance Center, BMW China and BMW Brilliance Automotive Ltd. It was avoided to include BMW and BMW M employees in the survey as they are likely to be biased. The invitation letter contained a hyperlink which directly led to the online questionnaire. The tool used to conduct the survey for the main study was—just like in the pre-test—the software application ‘Unipark’ by ‘questback’. Analogous to the pre-test, the questionnaire structure of the main study is oriented towards the presumed causal relationship structure between the model variables. The questionnaire started with the language selection. Participants were asked to state their nationality which then led them to the questionnaire in their respective language (German, English or Chinese). Afterwards, prior to measuring the constructs brand personality, brand-self congruity and brand desirability, brand familiarity were captured. The questionnaire was closed with the collection of sociodemographic characteristics. Culture was acquired on the basis of the response regarding their nationality in the demographic section. A complete overview of all questions and indicators of the main study is provided in Table 16 (Overview Operationalisation (Main Study)).

140

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 16   Overview operationalisation (main study)

(continued)

3  Main Study Table 16   (continued)

141

142

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

The questionnaire design of the main study is identical to the design of the pre-test. In order to measure the study variables, solely commutated five-point Likert-type scales were used. The gaps between the different answer categories were the same size and therefore, quasi metric or more specifically interval-scaled measurement instruments were present. The different subject areas/study variables were introduced with short transition sentences in order to lead the participants smoothly through the survey. In total, 1,681 people from over 40 countries participated in the survey. However, 1,087 participants completed the survey till the end. This means that 206 participants took the German questionnaire, 622 the US American one, 203 the Chinese questionnaire and 56 participants clicked ‘Other’ on the language selection page, which also led to the English version of the survey. Figure 10 shows the data funnel of the optimisation steps of the original data sets which took place. This includes various levels of checks including the filter with regards to the brand familiarity. In order to filter valid cases with regards to sufficient brand familiarity, cases were sorted out if their level of brand familiarity was not sufficient. This means that within their answers, they had to at least ‘agree’ on the first two brand familiarity questions (‘I know the brand BMW’ and ‘I know the brand BMW M’) and ‘neither agree nor disagree’ for the third and fourth question. It was highly necessary for participants to know that there is a difference between the mother brand and the sub brand. Otherwise it can be assumed that the responses to the rest of the survey questions would not actually reflect the respective sub brand. 76.7% of the fully completed German surveys were familiar

Figure 10   Data set funnel. Source author’s own

3  Main Study

143

enough with the brand to be included in the previous selection process. 83.3% of the US participants and 53.2% of the Chinese participants showed a sufficient enough brand familiarity. The high familiarity ratio amongst the US participants can be explained through the involvement of the BMW Car Club of America. Members of a (mother-) brand related club are more likely to know the sub-brand BMW M. In the Chinese data sets nearly half the people (46.8%) who completed the survey did not show a high enough level of brand familiarity. Reasons for that can be found in the general brand awareness for the sub-brand investigated. Market research conducted by the BMW Group has shown that the aided brand awareness of BMW M differs across Germany (50), the USA (47) and China (42) (BMW Group, 2017). The lower aided brand awareness in China demonstrates that BMW M is not as known as in the other two countries which is also reflected in the present data. On top of that, data sets had to also be eliminated when there were false responses with regards to product ownership (e.g. Mini Couper or a series BMW model). This clearly indicates a misunderstanding and insufficient knowledge of the brand, even though previously stated as given. Further, data sets with erroneous entries such as a year of birth of ‘1187’ or ‘1234’; as well as random entries regarding their nationality (e.g. ‘planet earth’ or ‘the planet Zoognarg’) were also eliminated. Additionally, data sets which did not explicitly state the participant’s nationality (e.g. ‘North American’) were also disposed of the subsequent analysis. After carefully revising all data sets and as shown in the previous figure, an analysable sample of 143 German, 479 US American and 101 Chinese data sets remained. Thus, the overall sample consists of 723 valid data sets. Just as the pre-test, the present sample of the main study is a convenience sample which is considered as acceptable in the present case as during the recruiting process no characteristics such as gender, age, and highest level of education or municipal origin were preferred or neglected. Further, none of the 723 data sets have any missing values. The German sample of the main study consists of 69% male and 31% female participants. The average age of the German sample is 37 years (standard deviation of 10.6 years). 11% of the German respondents claimed brand ownership. With regards to the American sample, 95% of the participants are male and 5% female, with an average age of 56 years (standard deviation of 13.6 years). 76% of the American participants stated that they own something of the brand. Conclusively, 79% of the Chinese respondents are male and 21% female. 33 years (standard deviation of 7.2 years) is the average age of the Chinese sample and 10% of the respondents are brand owners. The lower percentage of female participants can be explained through the industry and brand choice. The automotive sector is still

144

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 17   Demographic profiles of respondents Characteristic

Overall

Germany

USA

China

η = 723

η = 143

η = 479

η = 101

Male Female

88% 12%

69% 31%

95% 5%

79% 21%

Age

49

37

56

33

Brand Ownership

54%

11%

76%

10%

Gender

rather male-dominated and it can be expected that women are often not familiar with high-performance sub brands but only with the mother brand. The customer ratio of BMW M automobiles is also very male-driven. Conclusively, the following table shows the demographic profiles of the survey participants (Table 17).

3.5 Empirical Causal Analysis for Research Model Testing 3.5.1 Assessment of the Quality Criteria and Optimisation of the Measurement Instruments Before examining the effect model of the main study, the psychometric quality (reliability and validity) of the measurement instruments needs to be tested. By means of the reliability quality criteria, the optimisation of the measurements is carried out. The quality criteria Cronbach’s alpha, item-to-total correlation and factor loading identify those indicators of a scale that, from an empirical point of view, are less suited to measure the respective study variable. Based on theoretical/logical considerations, those inadequate indicators are eliminated gradually in order to ensure reliability in terms of the measurement instruments and the data (cf. Homburg and Giering, 1996, pp. 12). The subsequent analysis does not only contain the examination of the overall model which includes the data sets from all three cultures, but it also includes the examination of the individual research models for each respective culture. This detects overall cultural differences and indicates whether the relationships among the study variables within one country differ in comparison to the overall model that includes the data of all three cultures. The original results of PLS-SEM of the overall, German, US American and Chinese sample can be found in the subsequent four tables (Tables 18, 19, 20 and 21).

3  Main Study

145

Table 18   Pre-elimination results of the measurement instruments (Overall sample)

(continued)

146 Table 18   (continued)

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

3  Main Study

147

Table 19   Pre-elimination results of the measurement instruments (German sample)

(continued)

148

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 19   (continued)

Model Assessment In regard to the used measurement instruments, Cronbach’s alpha is for all variables and all four samples (overall, German, US American and Chinese) above the critical threshold of 0.7, except for the overall (α = 0.68) and German (α = 0.58) brand personality dimension ruggedness. The factor loadings for brand-self-congruity and brand desirability are for the overall sample and all three cultures above 0.7. However, amongst the five brand personality dimensions and throughout all samples, indicators do hold outer loading values of less than 0.7 (refer to Tables 18, 19, 20 and 21). The values presented in italic font are below their respective critical threshold and should therefore be considered for elimination in order to improve the quality of the measurement model.

3  Main Study

149

Table 20   Pre-elimination results of the measurement instruments (US sample)

(continued)

150

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 20   (continued)

As Aaker’s (1997) measurement instrument which is used in the present work in order to measure brand personality has already been tested and improved over the last two decades and therewith its goodness has been confirmed multiple times, an elimination of certain items would actually not be necessary. However, as the aim of this work is to provide measurement frameworks that are culture-specific, the subsequent analysis makes use of alpha-optimisation even though this does not allow a direct comparison of the individual data sets. For the sake of completeness and research correctness, and in order to support and provide a reliable basis for comparison, the results of the raw model assessment have already been presented in Tables 18, 19, 20 and 21 and the respective HTMT values can be found in the tables of Appendix 10–13.

3  Main Study

151

Table 21   Pre-elimination results of the measurement instruments (Chinese sample)

(continued)

152

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 21   (continued)

Further, the results of the SEM analysis of the mediated brand personality— brand desirability relationship, as well as the indirect, direct and total effects of the brand personality dimensions on brand desirability show that the effect mechanisms between the different variables are—with minimal deviations—similar to the calculations of the alpha-optimised data sets. This assessment is part of Section 3.5.3. With regards to the corrected item-to-total correlations, the scales measuring brand-self-congruity and brand desirability show satisfying results with values all above 0.6. Generally, and as already presented in Table 1: Quality Criteria to Assess Reliability including their Thresholds), the threshold for item-to-total correlation is 0.3. However, a value of above 0.2 is often still considered as reliable. A correlation value of less than 0.2 or 0.3 is an indicator that the corresponding item does not show a high correlation level with the scale overall and therefore

3  Main Study

153

may be dropped. The overall sample shows consistently satisfying item-to-total correlations. Amongst the German results, only one indicator (outdoorsy) within the ruggedness variable shows a too low value of 0.04 and should therefore be eliminated. Three other items within the German results (SIN: small-town with a value of 0.29; EXC: spirited with a value of 0.24; and RUG: masculine with 0.28) are above the extended threshold of 0.2 and should therefore be considered for elimination. All the other indicators have values of 0.3 or above. Amongst the US American results, only three out of the 51 indicators show item-to-total correlation values below 0.3 but above 0.2 (COM: corporate with a value of 0.22; SOP: feminine with 0.28; RUG: masculine with 0.29). The Chinese results for ­item-to-total correlation are all above the critical threshold, with two items (COM: technical with 0.28; SOP: upper class with 0.23) being above 0.2. The item-to-total correlations for the constructs brand-self-congruity and brand desirability are all above 0.60. When examining composite reliability, the values again are all above the critical threshold of 0.7. Finally, when examining the AVE of all constructs, the values for brand-self congruity and brand desirability are for all four samples above the critical threshold of 0.5. Various brand personality dimensions across the overall sample and the three country-specific samples fail by not reaching the AVE threshold. Summarised and from an empirical point of view, there is potential for optimisation amongst all brand personality dimensions. Therefore, individual indicators are to be excluded from further analyses. During the elimination process, indicators were continuously eliminated in order to monitor the change in the different thresholds. As an example, the systematic elimination procedure for the brand personality dimension excitement of the overall sample and for the brand personality dimension sincerity of the German sample follows. Additionally, the subsequent tables demonstrate this s­ tep-by-step improvement of the factor loadings. The relevant elimination steps of all other brand personality dimensions and for all four samples can be found in Appendix 6–9. The elimination procedure starts off with dropping the item with the construct’s lowest factor loading. If all items are above the critical threshold of 0.7, no item needs to be considered for elimination at this point. In this particular case, the item trendy (0.40; cf. Table 22) was eliminated in the first place. Subsequently, the PLSSEM algorithm was run again. These results are presented in the column showing the factor loadings after the first elimination. The item with then the lowest factor loading—in this case young (0.50)—is eliminated in the second place. After every item elimination, another PLS-SEM algorithm is run. Based on the newly achieved results, the next item is dropped. Therefore, spirited (0.58), exciting (0.57), cool (0.55) and daring (0.65) are eliminated one after the other. At the same time, when

154

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 22   Exemplary procedure of item elimination for the brand personality dimension excitement (overall sample)

eliminating items which are slightly below the critical threshold, such as the item daring (0.65) after the sixth elimination, elimination should only take place if this pushes composite reliability and AVE above their critical threshold. As the values of composite reliability and AVE do not chance, the item daring was eliminated. The content reliability of the respective construct was always kept in mind and paid attention to. Finally, this leads to a remaining item set of five items measuring the construct sincerity for the overall sample: imaginative, unique, up-to-date, independent and contemporary. Throughout the elimination process, the AVE climbed from 0.42 above the critical threshold of 0.5 to 0.62. In order to underpin the structural item elimination process, the elimination procedure for the German sincerity dimension is presented in the table below and subsequently, outlined as well. Indicators firstly considered for elimination amongst the German brand personality dimension sincerity are, based on their factor loadings, the following items: down-to-earth (0.64), family-oriented (0.65), small-town (0.34), real (0.56), original (0.59), cheerful (0.51), sentimental (0.57) and friendly (0.69).

3  Main Study

155

The elimination procedure starts with dropping the item with the lowest factor loading. In this particular case, small-town (0.34) was the first item to be eliminated, followed by cheerful, sentimental, original, real and friendly. Running the PLS-SEM algorithm again with the reduced item set after every item elimination led to new values amongst the remaining items as shown in Table 23. Meanwhile, and due to eliminating the just mentioned items, the factor loadings of the items down-to-earth (0.72) and family-oriented (0.71) climbed above the critical threshold of 0.7 and could therefore be kept for further analysis. Thus, the final set of items consists of down-to-earth (0.72), family-oriented (0.71), honest (0.82), sincere (0.79) and wholesome (0.75). By eliminating unsuitable items, the AVE score also went up from 0.40 (cf. Table 19) to 0.57 (cf. Table 25) and therewith also reached the respective critical threshold of 0.5. This systematic procedure was applied to all five brand personality dimensions across all four samples (cf. Appendix 6–9). No elimination had to be conducted for the constructs brand-self-congruity and brand desirability as their items showed satisfying factor loadings. For the final reliability assessment of the optimised measurements instruments of the main study, the factor loadings and Cronbach’s Alpha as well as

Table 23   Exemplary procedure of item elimination for the brand personality dimension sincerity (German sample)

156

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

the ­construct reliability and AVE were determined de novo. With regards to the factor loadings, a few indicators are still below 0.7. This involves the following items: original (SIN) of the overall sample with a factor loading of 0.68 and rugged (RUG) of the overall sample with a loading of 0.64; cheerful (SIN) of the US sample with a value of 0.68; and feminine (SOP) of the Chinese sample with 0.66. However, eliminations should only take place if firstly their value is below 0.4 and secondly, if their value is between 0.4 and 0.7, indicators should be considered for elimination but only actually be eliminated if this brings the composite reliability and/or the AVE value above the respective threshold (cf. Hair et al.: 2017, pp. 113). After elimination, the German and the US American brand personality dimension ruggedness end up with only two indicators. The Cronbach’s Alpha values of the overall (α = 0.67) and the German (α = 0.65) ruggedness dimension just drop below the threshold. Overall, the results of the newly conducted assessment of the adjusted variables show that the quality criteria Cronbach’s Alpha, construct reliability and AVE are all above their critical thresholds. Hence, the optimised measurement instruments have a high level of internal consistency and are classified as reliable. When eliminating less well-suited indicators, it was paid attention to capturing the content-conceptual meaning of the constructs while also making sure that each study variable is measured with at least two, ideally three indicators. The following tables (Tables 24, 25, 26 and 27) show the optimised study variables of the main study including their quality criteria which are also used in the subsequent analysis. The next step of the validation process covers the examination of the substantial accuracy of the feature recording. This involves the assessment of the following validities: content, convergent, discriminant and nomological. A contextual-valid measuring of all study variables of the main study is ensured as the operationalisation was based on theoretical/logical considerations. Additionally, only existing scales, whose psychometric goodness has been confirmed, were used. Furthermore, optimising the applied measurement instruments by eliminating certain brand personality items ensures that the scales are unidimensional. The adjustment of the measurement instruments followed statistical quality criteria and theoretical-contextual considerations were taken into account. This means that all contextual-semantic areas and substantial contents of the study variables are captured. In addition, the nomological validity needs to be assessed. As the assumed causal relationships between the study variables derived from different explanatory approaches and therewith, are embedded in a subordinate theoretical framework, the requirements for the nomological validity are fulfilled.

3  Main Study

157

Table 24   Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (overall sample)

158

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 25   Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (German sample)

3  Main Study

159

Table 26   Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (US ­sample)

160

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 27   Assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement instruments (Chinese sample)

3  Main Study

161

The quality criteria to assess the psychometric goodness of the used scales also show a convergence valid measuring of the study variables. After the optimisation, within the overall sample and the Chinese and US American sample, indicators show factor loadings of less than 0.7. The indicators falling below the threshold have values of 0.68 (ALL: original), 0.64 (ALL: rugged), 0.66 (CHN: feminine) and 0.68 (USA: cheerful). However, besides the previously stated justification for keeping these items, deleting them would have also lead to a decrease of Cronbach’s Alpha and convergent validity. Therefore, those indicators are kept for further analysis. The required minimum values for construct reliability (critical threshold of 0.7) and average variance extracted (critical threshold of 0.5) are met by all study variables across all four samples. Conclusively, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio is used in order to assess the discriminant validity. The HTMT ratio proofs whether the constructs are the same or different latent factors. The threshold for this criterion is 0.9. Only one ratio (CHN: RUG—SOP) has a value of 0.92 and thus is just above the critical threshold. This can be traced back to the low outer loading of the indicator feminine within the sophistication dimension of brand personality. Its elimination would lead to a satisfying HTMT value of 0.89 but also to a reduction of the Cronbach’s Alpha (to a value of 0.66) of sophistication. All the other factors across the overall sample and the three cultures have HTMT values of below 0.9 which indicates that these are different factors and have discriminant validity. The following tables show all constructs pairs in a matrix format (Tables 28, 29, 30 and 31). Summarised, the results of the reliability and validity examination show that the used and optimised study variables provide very good psychometric characteristics and therewith reliable and valid data. Therefore, these measurement instruments are used in the data analysis and in order to assess the effect model of the main study and its effect mechanisms.

Table 28   HTMT values (overall sample)

162

4  Model Testing and Empirical Analysis

Table 29   HTMT values (Germany)

Table 30   HTMT values (USA)

Table 31   HTMT values (China)

3.5.2 Hypotheses Testing Before examining the mediator and effect model, the first step of the data analysis contains a descriptive review of the data collected. Therefore, the following tables cover the means and standard deviations of the main study’s model variables as well as the correlations amongst those variables. A comparison of the means and standard deviations between the study variables of the pre-test, especially the

3  Main Study

163

results of the Apple brand, and the main study shows that the deviations are minimal (refer to Tables 11 and 12). These results in combination with low standard deviations amongst the present data indicate that the means of the study variables have a good representativeness and therefore are suitable values. The values presented in the following tables show that across all four samples, the investigated brand BMW M is highly affiliated with excitement and competence. Amongst the overall, German and Chinese samples, sincerity is reflected the least, while ruggedness is less distinct amongst the US American sample. Across all data sets, the brand personality dimensions receive high emphasis. Generally, brand desirability is rated above average, whereas brand-self congruity is valued lower (Table 32). Besides analysing the means and standard deviations, the correlation matrices of the main study need to also be examined. All variables of the structural model show incomplete positive linear relations/correlations. These correlative relations support the underlying mediator model of the brand personality—brand desirability relationship. With regards to the moderator variable culture and its five dimensions, mainly linear negative correlations occur with all other model variables of the main study. All relations show significant correlations with values of p  0.01) and competence (b = 0.18; t = 4.37; p