<%BANNER%>

Testing the Reliability and Validity of a Brand-Personality Measurement Tool


PAGE 1

TESTING THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF A BRAND-PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT TOOL By DENA STEIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is dedicated to my family, friends, professors and classmates for their support and encouragement throughout my academic career. Recently, these people have touched my life in many different ways. First and foremost, I would like to give special thanks to Dr. John Sutherland for being an excellent professor, advisor, thesis committee chair, and mentor. I appreciate all the insight and time he put into helping me with my thesis. I am also grateful to him for teaching me the basics, and advancing my knowledge and expertise. I also want to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Chan-Hoan Cho and Dr. Jorge Villegas, for their patience and support. In addition, I would like to commend my professors and classmates for their excellence in representing the first Master of Advertising class at the University of Florida, and I congratulate them for their hard work and achievement. Lastly, I thank my family and friends, who have always supported my goals. I also thank my classmates Mala and Ross, who became my good friends and confidants. I thank my roommate Emily for giving me advice and listening to me. I thank my boyfriend Patrick for his encouragement and his confidence in me. I thank my brother James for always being there and taking care of me. Finally, I thank my parents, for instilling their values in me (especially their values of strong work ethic, determination, and achievement). ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.ii LIST OF TABLES......vi ABSTRACT.viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.....1 Brand Personality...........................1 Significance of Brand Personality.........3 Research Problem..........5 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE....7 Theories Attributed to Brand Personality........ Brand Equity..........7 Relationship Basis Model.... Self Expression Model.........9 Functional Benefit Representation Model.....10 Self-Concept and Purchase Motivation.......10 Self-Image/Product-Image Congruity....12 Measuring Brand Personality Associations.........14 Qualitative Measurement...14 Quantitative Measurement..17 Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).......................................................................20 The MBTI vs. BIG FIVE.......24 The MBTI and Marketing/Advertising...... Strausbaughs Instrument.........26 Hypotheses for our Study........27 Reliability of Instrument............27 Validity of Instrument.........27 3 METHODOLOGY.. Research Design.......29 iii

PAGE 4

Product Category and Brand Selection............30 Product Category.......31 Brand Selection..............................................................32 Pilot Test......................................................................................................................32 Instrumentation................33 Sample......... Measurement.......34 Marketing Variables.......34 Brand Personality.......35 Data Processing....... 4 RESULTS Sample Demographics.........38 Summary of Marketing Statistics.....................38 Familiarity..........39 Acceptability..................................................................................................40 Viewing Intent.......40 Satisfaction.....41 Preference......41 Usage......42 Brand Type Frequencies...............................................................................................42 Hypothesis Testing................................45 Reliability Analysis of the Adjective Scale Hypothesis 1 through 4........45 Hypothesis 1: The Extraversion/Introversion Dimension Adjective Scale Will Have Significant Internal Consistency.........46 Hypothesis 2: The Sensing/Intuition Dimension Adjective Scale Will Have Significant Internal Consistency.........46 Hypothesis 3: The Thinking/Feeling Dimension Adjective Scale Will Have Significant Internal Consistency.........47 Hypothesis 4: The Judging/Perceiving Dimension Adjective Scale Will Have Significant Internal Consistency.................................47 Validating The Survey Instrument Hypothesis 5 Through 8.........49 Hypothesis 5: The Extraversion/Introversion Dimension Adjective Scale Will Be Related To Individual Profile Scores..........49 Hypothesis 6: The Sensing/Intuition Dimension Adjective Scale Will Be Related To Individual Profile Scores... ..........50 Hypothesis 7: The Thinking/Feeling Dimension Adjective Scale Will Be Related To Individual Profile Scores... ..........50 Hypothesis 8: The Judging/Perceiving Dimension Adjective Scale Will Be Related To Individual Profile Scores... ..........50 Effect of Personality on Marketing Variables..........50 Cross Tabulation of Brand Types.........55 iv

PAGE 5

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......57 Summary of Results..........57 Limitations............59 Sample........60 Brands........60 Instrument..........61 Future Research............61 Implications for Marketers and Advertisers.........63 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE ..65 REFERENCES .73 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3-1 Original vs. Replaced Adjectives for each Dimension..37 4-1 Sample Description 4-2 Summary of Familiarity Statistics.40 4-3 Summary of Acceptability Statistics..40 4-4 Summary of Viewing Intent Statistics...41 4-5 Summary of Satisfaction Statistics 4-6 Frequency of Preference 4-7 Summary of Usage Statistics.42 4-8 Marketing Variables Difference in Means between MTV andVH1.42 4-9 MBTI Dimension by Brand...43 4-10 Summary of Type Frequencies..44 4-11 Extraversion-Introversion Reliability Test Results48 4-12 Sensing-Intuition Reliability Test Results.48 4-13 Thinking-Feeling Reliability Test Results.48 4-14 Judging-Perceiving Reliability Test Results..48 4-15 Correlation between Scaled Dimensions and Written Descriptions of Dimensions 4-16 Analysis of Variance Tests ion Dimension Means for Marketing Variables vi

PAGE 7

4-17 Familiarity by MBTI Brand Type..52 4-18 Acceptability by MBTI Brand Type..53 4-19 Viewing Intent by MBTI Brand Type...53 4-20 Satisfaction by MBTI Brand Type.54 4-21 Usage by MBTI Brand Type..54 4-22 Cross Tabulation of MTV Preference with MBTI Type...55 4-23 Cross Tabulation of VH1 Preference with MBTI Type 4-24 Cross Tabulation of MTV type with VH1 type.56 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising TESTING THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF A BRAND-PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT TOOL By Dena Stein May 2004 Chairperson: John C. Sutherland Major Department: Advertising Brand personality is an integral tool to marketers and advertisers, because of its power to differentiate brands. Despite the importance of brand personality, there is still a lack of research that addresses the operational issues of the concept. Because of this gap in research, instruments used to measure of brand personality are scarce. Our purpose was to test the reliability and validity of a preliminary brand-personality measurement tool. During the process, possible effects of different marketing variables on brand personality were also examined. Our study specifically built on earlier work that combined adjectives from the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) with those from the Adjective Check List (ACL) in order to provide a better tool for assessing brand personality. These adjectives were then used in a survey, given to a sample of 240 undergraduate students at the University of Florida. The two branded networks, MTV and VH1, were used as the studys test viii

PAGE 9

brands. Results showed that the new instrument is only partially sound. Only elements of the instrument representing the EI and JP dimensions proved to be both reliable and valid; whereas, components corresponding to the SN and TF dimensions still warrant improvement. Even though the overall instrument was not determined reliable or valid, the adjective scale still proved it was able to differentiate between brands by personality type. In addition, results showed that both brands were found to have more than one predominant personality. The study also revealed that personality dimensions can sometimes affect marketing variables. It was also found that variations in major four-letter types may possibly affect different marketing variables. The study concluded that elements of the instrument still need re examining and improvement before further testing. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Throughout the past two decades, the development of new products has been a popular marketing strategy for many firms. According to the trade publication New Product News, consumer-product companies launch nearly 20,000 new products each year (compared to only 2,689 in 1980) and supermarkets carry an average of 30,000 products compared to 13,067 in 1982 (as cited in Belch & Belch, 2001). Because of an increase in marketplace competition, this newfound brand proliferation threatens the survival of other recent brands. Brand differentiation is now becoming an important tactic for combating competition in this hostile marketplace. A viable solution for establishing the distinctiveness of a brand is through brand personality. Attaching personalities to brands contributes to a differentiating brand identity, which can make brands more desirable to the consumer. Brand Personality The Personality of a brand is the newest amendment to the traditional four Ps of the marketing mix Product, Price, Place, and Promotion (Hendon & Williams, 1985, p.65). The significance of personality in advertising dates back to 1953, when the idea was introduced by David Ogilvy in relation to brand image, You have to decide what image you want for your brand. Image means personality. Products, like people, have personalities, and they can make or break them in the market place (Ogilvy, 1985, p. 14). 1

PAGE 11

2 According to Ogilvy (1985), the name, packaging, price, advertising style, and nature of the product all contributed to the personality of a product (Ogilvy, 1985, p. 14). Although the idea of personality was introduced decades earlier, it was not until the early 1980s that the construct of Brand Personality ecame a popular marketing concept of its own (Hendon & Williams, 1985, p.65). According to Joseph Plummer (1985), former research director of Young & Rubicam, brand personality differs from brand image. Plummer (1985) defines brand image by its physical attributes, functional characteristics, and its overall characterization. Physical attributes include the exact characteristics of the brand; functional characteristics contain the consequences of using the brand, while the characterizations of the brand involve the brands personality (Plummer, 1985). Sal Randazzo, in his book The Mythmakers (1995), further explains the difference between a brands personality and image. Brand Personality is a concept that is often associated with and sometimes confused with, brand identity/image. The two are related, but different. A brand personality is only one aspect of a brands overall identity or image. In the same way that a persons personality is only one aspect of the persons overall identity (albeit an important aspect) (p.18). Brand personality now has a distinct role in forming brand image, which is independent of the other imaging components previously described. Today, the construct of brand personality is commonly defined as the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997, p.347) and essentially, it involves nothing more than describing a product as if it were a human being (Hendon & Williams, 1985, p.66). For example, consumers who perceive the brand Campbells Soup as an all-American mom might further describe the brand as follows: Its a she.a mom with two or three children.Shes a den mother for the Scouts, involved in school functions. She drives a station wagon or one of those

PAGE 12

3 minivans.and the mom and kids are on their way to a Little league game (Randazzo, 1995, p.18). In addition, the associations within the overall brand image (such as with particular characters, symbols, endorsers, lifestyles, and types of users) are typically part of the brand personality (Batra, Myers, & Aaker, 1996). Significance of Brand Personality Brand personality associations help marketers and advertisers create more effective strategies that present products in a language that speaks directly to the mind of the consumer (Hendon & Williams,1998, p.65). For this reason, brand personality is important from the perspective of the advertiser as well as that of the consumer. The personality of a brand is more real than other aspects of a brand because of its relative importance to the consumer (Upshaw, 1995). A distinguishing brand personality is an essential ingredient for building a strong brand, because it allows a consumer to identify with and connect to the product. This creates an added product benefit that stands out from the products tangible attributes. Thus, marketers perceive brand personality as an added product benefit with significant features, because (1) it helps differentiate a brand from the competition, (2) it makes a brand unique and nonpreemptible, and (3) it helps to increase the brands asset value (Batra et al.1996, p.325). Brand differentiation is an important function, because of the many available options that face consumers in the marketplace. When confronted with alternatives, consumers often prefer to make trouble-free choices over complex decision-making strategies that often require much more effort. (Kardes, 2001). To achieve this, consumers relate brand personality to a quick and easy choice, also known as a heuristic

PAGE 13

4 or mental shortcut. While competing brands grow to be more undistinguishable, certain brands will be chosen over others based solely on their brand personality. Therefore, the personality gives the consumer something to relate to that can be more vivid than the perceived positioning, more alive than the physical attributes of a product, more complete than whatever is conveyed by the brand name alone (Upshaw, 1995, p.151). Brand personality is important to marketers because of the difficulty for brands to maintain a unique product or service advantage for any length of time. As technology makes it easier for competition to duplicate innovation, parity becomes the norm (Upshaw, 1995). There are precious few meaningful differences between PC hardware models, long-distance carriers, airlines, juice beverages, stereo systems, insurance plans, and detergents except in the way that they are packaged and presented to the consuming public (Upshaw, 1995, p. 7). However, unlike its features and price, a brands personality is unique, and often cannot be duplicated by competitors (Batra et al., 1996). Lastly, a brands advertising should not be considered as a quick and easy shortterm expense that leads to an instant increase in sales. Recently catching the attention of advertisers and marketers is the problem of advertising losing its effectiveness (Randazzo, 1995). Experts attribute this decline of advertising to the proliferation and fragmentation of media, product proliferation and parity, the networks falling audience share, and the high cost of advertising (Randazzo, 1995, p.25). As a result, the pressure put on brand managers to produce more profitable brands leads to a lot of bottom-line thinking (Randazzo, 1995, p.26). Less-effective use of advertising is the result of these short-term strategies, where The most powerful use of advertising is in building strong, enduring brandsnot short-term, selling or bottom-line fixes (Randazzo, 1995, p.27) An

PAGE 14

5 effective brand-building advertising strategy uses brand personality. Brand personality works to create brand-building advertising by humanizing a brand and making it unique. Many experts believe that building a distinctive brand personality leads to a long-term investment by enhancing the brands equity. Short-term sales may provide a product with the fuel to stay alive for a day, but brand equity is the engine that will keep a brand alive, profitable and vital for a lifetime (Dogherty, 1996, p.16). Companies that create advertising that enhance such brand equity treat the value of a brand (or brand name) as an asset, much like a bank deposit. Advertising that creates or reinforces a brands personality serves to increase asset value of a brand (Batra et. al., 1996). The value of the brand as an asset allows the brand to be bought and sold among companies at a higher sales price which in turn commands a higher price premium from consumers (Batra et al., 1996). Companies with a high asset value gain network distribution access, high consumer awareness and loyalty, and economies in terms of marketing expenses. In return, the high asset value allows these companies to command higher prices (Batra et al. 1996). Research Problem Previous studies of personality in market research focused on the different traits consumers possess, and how their personality affects their purchase behavior. As marketers start to realize that brands are positioned in the minds of the prospect, rather than against others in a product category, researchers are beginning to concentrate on the images and perceptions associated with a brand (Strausbaugh, 1998). Aaker (1991) believes, An association and image both represent perceptions which may or may not reflect objective reality (p.110). This variation of reality creates problems when the consumers interpretation of the brand differs from what the marketer actually intends.

PAGE 15

6 Therefore, when managing brands a frame of reference is often needed in order to stabilize inconsistencies between the intended brand concept and the perceived brand concept. Advertisers who want to avoid costly mistakes often conduct research to determine the perceived personality of their brand. Although practitioners of marketing and advertising concur on the vast range of advantages in using brand personality in consumer research, the study of brand personality is limited. The discord about the nature and components of the construct provide no basis for comparison and restrict its usefulness. (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.3). This absence of baseline prevents the development of a standardized system for measuring brand personality. In answer to this problem, this current research examines the applicability of adapting human personality scales for the use of measuring brand personality. Specifically, this thesis aspires to improve upon instruments that utilize the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to measure individual and brand personality. This thesis will specifically build on the work done in 1998 by Kirsten Strausbaugh, a University of Florida PHD student. This dissertation combined adjectives from the MBTI with those from the Adjective Check List (ACL) in order to provide a better tool for assessing brand personality. The ACL has dimensions that are highly correlated with the MBTI; however, unlike the MBTI the ACL allows for gathering data on third parties. Previous brand personality research that combines the MBTI with the ACL has produced mixed results. Improvement of this instrument is needed before it can become a useful application for measuring brand personality. Once a practical instrument is developed, the advancement in the study of brand personality will no longer be restricted.

PAGE 16

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Theories Attributed to Brand Personality Although practitioners of marketing and advertising agree on the importance of brand personality, there is still a lack of understanding of the concept. This leads to confusion about how to operationally define the concept. In order to understand how to measure brand personality, it is necessary to understand the theories behind brand personality. Why is it relevant to the consumer? How does it add value to a product? Theories that underlie the concept of brand personality provide the answers to these questions. Brand Equity Brand personality adds value to a brand by creating brand equity. Aaker (1991) defines brand equity as a set of intangible assets linked to the brand that add or subtract value to the product or service being delivered. Marketers place importance on brand equity because of the added worth it creates which allows them to command a higher asset value for their brand. Also, brand personality creates equity through relationship qualities, self-expression, and functional benefits (Aaker, 1996). These three primary models are explained further. Relationship Basis Model The power of a brand to connect with consumers is a result of the Relationship Basis Model. Consumers form relationships with brands through two important elements. 7

PAGE 17

8 First, a relationship exists between the brand and the consumer, which corresponds to the relationship between two people (Aaker, 1996). Second, the brand personality provides the consumer strong feelings and favorable attitudes toward the relationship (Aaker, 1996). Along with the personality, a consumer may also form a strictly business relationship based on the brands functional benefits. Moreover, when consumers observe trait-relevant brand behaviors, brands have the ability to become active relationship partners. In this instance, the brands actions and behaviors affect others perceptions of the brand personality; in return this may affect the brand-customer relationship (Aaker, 1996). For example, if a certain brand becomes out of stock, it will damage the relationship between the brand and the interdependent consumers who feel they cannot get along without the out of stock brand (Aaker, 1996). In the context of the brand-relationship metaphor, a goal of brand strategists is to create high brand loyalty through a high brand relationship quality (BRQ) (Aaker, 1996). In her study on brand relationships, Susan Fouriner (1998) finds seven dimensions of brand relationship quality. They are as follows: Behavioral interdependence the brand plays an important role in the consumers life Personal commitment the consumer is very loyal to the brand through good times and bad Love and passion the consumer would be very upset if he/she couldnt find the brand because no other brand can take the place of it Nostalgic connection the brand reminds the consumer of things he/she has done, places he/she has been, or phases in his/her life Intimacy the consumer knows a lot about the brand and the company that makes the brand Partnership quality The consumer knows the brand really appreciates him/her and trusts him/her like a valued customer Self-concept connection the brand reminds the consumer of who he/she is or the brands and the consumers self-image are similar (Fouriner, 1998).

PAGE 18

9 Self-Expression Model Feelings engendered by the brand personality represent how a brand helps to express a users personality. A brand achieves this by attaching feelings to it, just as one would with a person (Aaker, 1996, p.155). A brand associates certain emotions that are congruent to those felt by the user. This makes the user most fulfilled when the brand helps them express those feelings, A warm person will be most fulfilled when a warm feeling occurs; similarly, an aggressive person will seek out context where aggression is accepted (Aaker, 1996, p.155-156). In the self-expression model, brand personality is not limited to the representation of oneself. A brands ability to become part of the self results in an extended self (Belk, 1988). Belk (1988) describes the extended self as a superficially masculine and Western metaphor comprising not only that which is seen as me (the self), but also that which is seen as mine (p.140). Evidence that supports the function of the extended self includes the reaction of burglary victims or victims of natural disaster to the loss of possessions, the possessions of the deceased as powerful remains of the dead persons extended self, and ones extreme attachment to automobiles (Belk, 1988). In order for brand personality to be an effective way of expressing self, it has to fit with the needs and desires of the user. When the brand personality is in the right context and fits the consumers self-expression needs, any brand personality can assist in self-expression. However, symbolic and high involvement product categories might produce larger effects (Aaker, 1996). Symbolism also plays a role in the representation of the functional benefits of brands.

PAGE 19

10 Functional Benefit Representation Model The previous models both reveal how brand personality adds value to a brand by directly linking a brand to a consumer (Aaker, 1996). However, the role of brand personality is much less direct in the functional benefit representation model. In this model brand personality indirectly adds value by becoming a medium for representing and prompting functional benefits along with brand attributes (Aaker, 1996). A successful execution of the functional benefit representation model is the use of distinctive symbols that have appropriate associations with the brand (Batra et al., 1996). An image that visually represents a metaphor, for the brands functional benefits, will stimulate a customers perception of the brand and strengthen the brands personality (Aaker, 1996). For example, emphasizing the country or region of origin associated with a brand builds a strong brand personality by providing an indication of quality and distinctiveness (Aaker, 1996). This demonstrates how brands use associations to imply their functional benefits, which is easier than directly communicating that a certain benefit exists (Aaker, 1996). Also, it is assumed that brand personality is intangible in nature and the nature of functional brand benefit is more concrete. This assumption may be the reasoning behind another implication for brand personality in that attacking a brands personality is harder than attacking a brands functional benefit (Aaker, 1996). Self-Concept and Purchase Motivation Why do people buy products similar to their personality? Maslows hierarchy of needs helps to explain purchase motivation (Solomon, 2002). Marketers motivate consumers by ensuring their appropriate needs will be met by a product. Maslows hierarchy demonstrates how the same product can satisfy different needs. Levels of

PAGE 20

11 motives such as physiological, safety, belongingness, ego, and self actualization needs specify for marketers the certain types of product benefits people might be looking for. As the consumer climbs higher on the hierarchy they consume goods for more symbolic and for less functional reasons. Early studies try to explain consumer behavior through the relationship between a products image and a consumers personality. Strong advocates of this position argue that the brand image symbolizes the buyers personality and they identify the importance of product symbolism on the purchase decision. Grub and Grathwohl (1967) recognize this early work as meaningful, but lacking the theoretical relationships between the personality of the individual and the product image. They suggest a more specific approach for explaining this relationship by introducing self-theory where The concept of the self is more restricted than personality, which facilitates measurement and centers on the critical element of how the individual perceives himself (1967, p. 23). Grub and Grahwohl also agree that self-concept is a partial determinant of human behavior, An individuals evaluation of himself will greatly influence his behavior, and thus, the more valued the self, the more organized and consistent becomes his behavior (1967, p. 23). In order to describe, explain, and predict the role of consumers self-concepts in consumer behavior, Grub and Grahwohl formulate The Model of Consuming Behavior. This model explains that because self-concept is of value to the individual, their behavior will be directed toward the protection and enhancement of self-concept. Also, goods are used as social symbols and are therefore communicative devices. The consumption of goods communicates symbolic meaning to the individual and to others.

PAGE 21

12 Therefore, the consuming behavior of an individual will be directed toward enhancing self-concept through the consumption of goods and symbols (Grubb & Grathwohl, 1967). Self-Image/Product-Image Congruity Similar to the self, products can have many different perceived images. Sirgys (1982) self-image and product-image congruity theory suggests the perceived similarities between a self-image and a product-image/ personality determines the individuals purchase decision. Furthering Grubb and Grathwohls (1967) idea that individuals consume products in order to enhance their self concept, Sirgy (1982) suggests there are two self-concept motives: self-esteem and self-consistency. The tendency to seek experience that enhances self-concept refers to self-esteem and relates to the ideal-self; whereas, the tendency for a person to behave consistently with his/her view of self refers to self-consistency and relates to the actual-self. An individuals purchase decision results from the effect of the motivational state arising from self-esteem and self-consistency needs. In order to maintain self-consistency, actual self-congruity occurs and an individual needs to act in ways that are consistent with his or her self-perception to avoid (cognitive) dissonance, a state of psychological discomfort, that threatens to invalidate the individuals beliefs about the self (Sirgy, 1985, p.197). However, in order to maintain self-esteem, ideal self-congruity occurs and, an individual needs to act in ways that are instrumental in achieving goals to maintain and/or increase positive self regard. (Sirgy, 1985, p.197). According to the model, information that is consistent with a persons existing beliefs and values is easily assimilated because it is in consonance with their existing cognitive structure. On the other hand, information that is inconsistent creates a state of

PAGE 22

13 cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a learning concept that helps to explain cognitive functioning. However, cognitive dissonance can also help to explain the importance of creating an appropriate brand personality. Since the state of cognitive dissonance is psychologically uncomfortable, people try to resolve the incongruity by rejecting the new information or changing their existing values and beliefs (Randazzo, 1995, p.19). Likewise, consumers may often reject a brand if they dont identify with the brands personality (if the personality is inconsistent with their beliefs and values). Consumers need to feel psychologically comfortable with the brands image and personality. Consumers therefore generally choose brands they can identify with ones consistent with their own personality, beliefs, and values or some idealized version thereof (Randazzo, 1995, p.20). According to product congruency, consumers select those brands that have a brand personality that is congruent with their own self-concept (Batra et al., 1996, p. 327). Several studies have supported this relationship between brand personality and consumer personality. A study done by Grubb and Hupp (1968) further substantiated the relationship of self-theory to consumer behavior. Their results indicated that consumers of a specific brand of automobiles perceive themselves with self-concepts similar to others who consume that brand and significantly different from owners of a competing brand (p.58). Similarly, Birdwell (1968) also used automobiles to examine product congruity. He found that automobile consumers sought out cars whose product image was similar to their own image on various personality attributes (such as exciting/dull) (Batra et al., 1996, p.327). Dolich (1969) examined the congruence between consumer self-concept and products of beer, cigarettes, bar soap, and toothpaste. Dolich found that favored brands were consistent with the consumers self-concept. For brands least preferred,

PAGE 23

14 socially conspicuous products (beer and cigarettes) showed less congruence than privately consumed products (bar soap and toothpaste). These differences were not indicated in the studys analysis of most preferred brands. Overall, the findings of congruity studies are often uncertain and their ambiguity is often attributed to improper measurement tools. Measuring Brand Personality Associations The diversity of brand personality scales and measurements that exist prove the lack of concurrence in brand personality research and the struggle that psychologists have had with the definition and measurement of personality likewise becomes a problem for those interested in studying brand images (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990, p.115). This struggle has lead to the employment of various techniques aimed at measuring brand personality. Although no one measurement has gained universal acceptance, there have been many attempts to measure brand personality associations through qualitative and quantitative techniques. Qualitative Measurement Qualitative measurements make considerable contributions to brand personality research. Qualitative techniques are useful for employing indirect approaches to help understand brand perceptions (Aaker, 1991). The inability of direct questioning to reveal a persons true thoughts, feelings and attitudes cause researchers to use indirect techniques for studying brand perceptions. Qualitative projective methods indirectly probe at those thoughts, feelings and attitudes that respondents are either unwilling or unable to divulge (Aaker, 1991). These projective techniques address the limitations of more-direct questioning because they are based on the projective hypothesis, which

PAGE 24

15 proposes that when people attempt to understand an ambiguous or vague stimulus, their interpretation and response to that stimulus reflects a projection of their needs, feelings, attitudes, and experiences (Davis, 1997, p.205). This section highlights different types of qualitative methods used for studying brand personality. To begin, the advertising concept known as free association exemplifies one type of qualitative measurement. Free association utilizes the projective hypothesis by encouraging the respondent to provide the first set of words or associations that comes to mind after their exposure to a stimulus such as a product category, brand name or brand symbol (Aaker, 1991; Batra et al., 1996; Davis, 1997; Durgee & Stuart, 1988). One study illustrates the effectiveness of this methodology by conducting free association tests on five product categories gasoline, casual shoes, iced tea, personal computers and pick-up trucks (Durgee & Stuart, 1988). This study found associations with power and speed in response to the tiger symbol for Exxon; comfort and relaxation associated with the name Floaters; coolness and refreshment associated with Nestls Nestl Plunge; power and dependability associated with the name Hercules for personal computers; toughness and ruggedness associated with Dodges Ram symbol (Durgee & Stuart, 1988). Sentence completions are a variation of free association urging respondents to complete statements like people like (brand name x) because with their initial thoughts (Aaker, 1991; Batra et al., 1996; Davis, 1997). Researchers utilize pictures as another way to indirectly measure brand associations. Pictures allow respondents to express how they really feel by vicariously transferring their feelings and attitudes to the characters in the scene (Aaker, 1991). An early study uses a similar technique, called the Thematic Apperception Test, in order to

PAGE 25

16 help determine the reasoning behind housewives early resistance toward instant coffee (Haire, 1950). Respondents of the study were given two shopping lists one that included an instant coffee brand and one that included a homemade coffee brand. Respondents were asked to read the lists and project yourself into the situation as far as possible until you can more or less characterize the woman who bought the grocerieswrite a brief description of her personality and character (Haire, 1950, p.651). From the descriptions provided by the respondents, the study found perceptions of laziness and bad housekeeper with instant coffee drinkers and perceptions of industrious and good housekeeper with homemade coffee (Haire, 1950). The advertising agency Young & Rubicam efficiently uses projective techniques in their attempt to create brand profiles, which consists of the brand personalitys salient components. The agency invites respondents to relate brands to objects such as animals, cars, magazines, movies, fabrics, or books occupations, countries, and/or people (Plummer, 1984/5). This technique provides rich descriptions of the brand. For example, Oil of Olay emerged as a mink as the animal, France as the country, a secretary as the occupation, silk as the fabric, swimming as the activity, and Vogue as the magazine (Plummer, 1984/50). Related to the previous technique, according to Abrams (1981), Young & Rubicam asked focus group participants to pretend they were two different brands of snack chips and then discuss in what situations they might be served (as cited in Strausbaugh, 1998, p. 18). This type of projective method focuses on the use experience (Aaker, 1991). Use experience once helped researchers find out that the frustration associated with the use of Saran Wrap symbolized a housewifes frustrations in her role

PAGE 26

17 as a homemaker (Aaker, 1991). Similarly Ernest Dichter, the originator of motivation research, observes others to find out their feelings about a product. This act of observation may be deliberate; for instance the technique termed psychodrama has people act out the product, You are a soap. How old are you? Are you feminine? Are you masculine? (Bartos, 1986, p.18). Although indirect techniques bypass the inhibitions of more direct questioning, because their qualitative nature of data is not quantifiable, they lack statistical applicability. The nature of research is also problematic due to non-probability sampling techniques preventing reliable prediction of the population (Aaker, 1991). Moreover, interpretation of the results lacks objectivity because it requires translation by the researcher or practitioner (Aaker, 1991). Quantitative research techniques help solve some of the problems of qualitative techniques and serve as an alternative for measuring brand personality. Quantitative Measurements Scaling brands upon a set of dimensions permits for more objective and quantifiable interpretation of results (Aaker, 1991). The trait approach is a common scaling procedure borrowed from the field of personality psychology. In order to understand brand personality instruments borrowed from the field of personality and psychology, an examination of trait psychology is needed. Traits are formed through cognitive processing; in other words, how individuals efficiently organize the massive amount of information taken from the environmental stimuli around them in order to make use of it (Strausbaugh, 1998; Kardes, 2002). Comprehension is needed because of this limited ability of individuals to think about and attend to information.

PAGE 27

18 In other words, comprehension consists of a dynamic process (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.31) in which, Ross Vonk (1993) believes, an individual imposes a structure on incoming information through selective attention and categorization (as cited in Strausbaugh, 1998, p.31). Cognitive schemas aid this process of organizing information by filling in any information gaps with information derived from memory and prior knowledge structures (Strausbaugh, 1998; Kardes, 2001). Cognitive schemas also assist in personality perception because they determine how the trait characteristics of others are efficiently structured in the observers head (Strausbaugh, 1998). It would be impossible to develop an instrument that includes every trait that exists in the human language. Researchers realize the impractical nature of the trait method in that it is not feasible to incorporate all personality traits in one instrument. For this reason, only the most salient traits are used to measure personality. Important traits can be identified through three fundamental approaches. The first is the lexical approach, which views all the important traits as captured by the natural language. The lexical approach uses synonym frequency and cross-cultural universality as the criteria for identifying important traits. The second approach, statistical approach to identifying important traits, adopts statistical procedures, such as factor analysis, and attempts to identify clusters of traits that covary. The third approach, uses an existing theory of personality to determine which traits are important (Larson & Buss, 2002, p. 292). Trait taxonomies are applied in the field of marketing by using the consumers rating of a brand on various personality adjectives in order to categorize that brand (Strausbaugh, 1997, p.26). For example, brand personality researchers have used the five basic dimensions of individual personality research as a source for their trait research. Their condensed adjective lists represent the Big Five personality traits. This five factor model used a combination of the lexical and statistical approach to form a

PAGE 28

19 hierarchical structure of traits. The structure includes five basic underlying factors that are each subsumed with more narrow traits (Batra,1996, p323): Extraversion (e.g., adventurous-cautious, sociable-reclusive) Agreeableness (e.g., good-natured-irritable, gentle headstrong) Conscientiousness (e.g., responsible-undependable; tidy-careless) Emotional stability (composed-excitable; calm-anxious) Culture (e.g., artistically sensitive-insensitive; intellectual-unreflective; refinedcrude; imaginative-simple) Jennifer Aaker (1997) draws on research of the Big Five human personality model in an attempt to develop a theoretical framework of brand personality dimensions and a reliable, valid, and generalizeable scale that measures these dimensions (p. 347). Aaker (1997) factor analyzed 114 personality traits across 37 brands from the perceptions of 631 respondents. A five factor solution resulted from this analysis consisting of five brand personality factors she named: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, ruggedness (Aaker, 1997). Providing additional support, a confirmatory factor analysis relied on 180 subjects, 20 brands in ten product categories, and 42 personality traits. This resulted in a 42-item Brand Personality Scale representing the five dimensions (Aaker, 1997). Aaker addresses the limitations of existing brand personality scales in order to draw support for her own research. One argument is against the use of ad hoc scales due to their atheoretical nature. Aaker contends these scales are often developed for the purposes of a specific research study and result in the absence of key traits (Aaker, 1997, p.348). However, Aaker asserts that scales with a theoretical foundation, like those borrowed from personality psychology, are also limited. These scales, like those representing the aforementioned Big Five, may lack validity because some dimensions of human personality might not apply to brands (Aaker, 1997).

PAGE 29

20 Aaker suggests her results have theoretical implications, which explain the weak results in self-congruity literature may be due to the asymmetric relationship in the structure of brand versus human personality (Aaker, 1997, p.353). She counters the argument that her five brand personality dimensions relate to the Big Five human personality dimensions by contending that two dimensions (Sophistication and Ruggedness) differ from any of the Big Five of human personality (Aaker,1997, p.353). Although Jennifer Aaker promotes the theoretical implications of her Brand Personality Scale, other researchers argue its lack of theoretical basis. Instead of using theory, Aaker derives the traits in her study from the field of psychology, past marketing and academic scales, and original qualitative work, Relationships to existing conjecture in the personality arena were a result of post hoc reasoning and were not the foundation for the instruments development (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.29). In response to the lack of theoretical grounding in brand personality scales, Kristen Strausbaugh (1998) adapted two instruments common to the field of personality. Strausbaughs research combined the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Adjective Checklist in order to construct a theoretically sound instrument for the assessment of brand personality. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabella Myers Briggs translated Jungs theory into a more practical and comprehensible measurement for everyday use. In 1975, they published the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for the purpose of measuring personality types based on Jungs theory (CLAPT website). The MBTI is a paper and pencil instrument that utilizes a self-report format. The instrument comes in a variety of forms that function in different settings and are used for different purposes. For example,

PAGE 30

21 versions of the MBTI range in length (from 93 items to 290 items), scoring format (self-score vs. computerized), and even comprehension level (child vs. adult) (CAPT website). The MBTI is the most widely used personality profile in history based on Carl Jungs theory of psychological types (Myers & Myers, 1980). Jung proposes that individuals should be typed by their attitudes and their characteristic preference for a certain style of functioning (Strausbaugh, 1998). These types derive from the combinations of two basic attitudes and four basic functions (Edinger, 1968). The attitudes include introversion, those who connect more with the inner world, and extroversion, those who connect more with the outer world (Edinger, 1968). All people, whether introverted or extroverted, have to cope with the world. Each person copes in a way that is comfortable to them and they use certain strategies that work for them. Jung suggests there are four basic functions, or ways that people deal with the world (Boeree, 1997). These functions include those who perceive things through their five senses, sensation, or through hunches, intuition (Boeree, 1997). The last functions include those who judge and make decisions according to value of information, feeling, or through a logical process, thinking (Boeree, 1997). Together, the combination of introversion, extroversion, sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking forms a two-by-four framework of human psych that produces eight different personality types (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.34). The MBTI is built around the idea that specific differences in personality can be expected in certain people. This is because the variation in human behavior is not due to chance, but rather to observable differences in mental functioning (Myers & Myers,

PAGE 31

22 1980, p.1). Like Jungs types, the MBTI is founded on two basic explanations for difference in personality. These basic differences concern the way people prefer to use their minds, specifically, the way they perceive and the way they make judgments. Perceiving is here understood to include the process of becoming aware of things, people, occurrences, and ideas. Judging includes the process of coming to conclusions about what has been perceived. Together, perception and judgment, which make up a large portion of peoples total mental activity, govern much of their outer behavior, because perception-by definition-determines what people see in a situation, and their judgment determines what they should do about it (Myers & Myers, 1980, p.1). Perception and judgment form the four pairs of dichotomous preferences that are the foundation of the MBTI personality types. Two contrasting ways of perceiving, sensing-intuition (SN), form the first pair and two contrasting ways of judging, thinking-feeling (TF), form the second pair. The third pair, extraversion-introversion (EI), differs from the first two in that basic differences in peoples use of both perception and judgment form this dimension. Because the (EI) dimension concerns both attitudes, it is seen as completely independent of the first two (SN and TF) dimensions. The last pair, judgment-perception (JP), is named after the two core differences because it refers to the choice between the perceptive attitude and the judging attitude as a way of life (Myers & Myers, 1980). According to Pettinger (1993), each dimension includes cognitive and affective preferences that play an important role in forming unique personality types (as cited in Kirshbaum, 1997). The extraversion-introversion preferences refer to the way a person can be energized. Extraverts draw their energy from outside of themselves, they prefer the outer world of people and activities, and they are energized by being with others. Introverts draw their energy from within, they prefer the inner world ideas, emotions, and

PAGE 32

23 impressions, and they are energized by being alone. (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989; Shank & Langmeyer, 1993) The sensing-intuition dimensions refer to the way a person prefers to attend to information. Sensing relates to the preference for perceiving things through the five senses and focusing the immediate, real, practical facts of life and experiences that are grounded in the here-and-now. However, those who are labeled intuitive would rather pay attention to the possibilities of what might or could be, and they are fascinated with the future. (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989; Shank & Langmeyer, 1993) The thinking-feeling dimensions relate to ways a person prefers to make decisions. Thinkers organize and structure information and prefer to make decisions objectively and impersonally. Members of the feeling group prefer to make decisions in a personal and subjective way by weighing the value of their choices and their affect on others. (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989; Shank & Langmeyer, 1993) The last pair, judging-perceiving, relates to how one prefers to live ones life. Those who prefer judgment live a planned and organized life, and they aim to regulate and control events. Perceiving refers to a preference for living in a way that is more spontaneous and flexible and that aims at understanding life and adapting to it. (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989; Shank & Langmeyer, 1993) These eight bi-polar dimensions yield 16 distinct personality types. Because of the scales bi-polar nature, it is assumed that a person will be drawn to one end or the other of each of the four indicators.

PAGE 33

24 THE MBTI vs. BIG FIVE The paired dimensions in the MBTI (introversion/extroversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judgment/perception) differ from the paired factors making up the aforementioned Big Five basic dimensions of individual personality. Even though both instruments measure similar constructs, their opposing dimensions imply different connotations. All of the dimensions that make up the MBTI are non-directional pairs, unlike those of the Big Five, which represent pairs of opposing dimensions. As a result, none of the MBTI types are overly negative or positive. the (big five) model uses the SINGULAR labels for its factors as the ideal or standard, listing the traits that represent these as positive poles and those opposite as negative poles Thus, the MBTI has no negative wrong answer, while the Five Factor model has (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.51). MBTI and Marketing/ Advertising For decades, the MBTI has been used to measure human personality. The MBTI is used in such a variety of applications that approximately two million people a year take the MBTI. Despite its wide acceptance and usefulness, applications of the MBTI have been overlooked in some fields. Only recently have researchers considered applying the MBTI to the fields of marketing and advertising. Prior to this, Shank & Langmeyer (1993) expressed this concern as their justification for applying the MBTI to consumer research. The MBTI has been used in a variety of applications, including aerospace engineering, spiritual development, marriage counseling, and career advisement, to name a few (Batz, 1985). Although the MBTI is the most widely used personality instrument in the world (Batz, 1985; Jeffries, 1991), it has never been applied to marketing (p.158).

PAGE 34

25 Shank and Langmeyers (1993) study was one of the first to apply the MBTI to marketing. Their study used the MBTI to measure consumer personality in an attempt to find a relationship with product images. Their results were not significant and indicated a weak relationship between human personality and product image (Shank & Langmeyer, 1993). Despite weak results, Shank and Langmeyer still promoted the MBTI as the ideal personality inventory for marketers and attributed the weak relationship to the complexity of the product image or product personality construct (Shank & Langmeyer, 1993, p.162). The MBTI is still new to the field of marketing and advertising. While only a small number of researchers have used the MBTI to study consumer behavior, possible applications continue to be explored. In an attempt to address the complexity of the product personality construct, some researchers at the University of Florida have applied the MBTI to the measurement of brand personality, as opposed to the personality of the consumer (Akay, 2000; Douglas, 1997; Egeland, 1997; Kirshbaum, 1997; Strausbaugh, 1998 ). However, the use of the MBTI as a tool for measuring brand personality is still a work in progress due to a lack of significant results. Despite the weak results, some researchers still believe in the MBTI as a potential tool for measuring brand personality. As a result of this optimism, researchers of brand personality have attempted to alter the MBTI into a more useful marketing tool. For instance, some research proposes the combination of the MBTI with another personality inventory in order to improve brand personality measurement. A recent study, by Kirsten Strausbaugh (1998), tests this idea in an attempt to develop a reliable and valid assessment of brand personality.

PAGE 35

26 Stausbaughs Instrument Strausbaugh believed the MBTI could be a useful instrument for marketers, but argued that the scales self report design was not applicable for studying a third party such as brand personality. In order to reconcile this conflict, Strausbaugh developed an instrument based on the MBTI and added another personality scale called the Adjective Checklist. The ACL allowed for gathering data on third parties and had dimensions that were highly correlated with those of the MBTI. The ACL contains a list of 300 adjectives derived from an original study integrating theoretical perspectives of different personality psychologists (Strausbaugh, 1998). Strausbaugh used those adjectives that correlated highly with each MBTI dimension in order to create a standardized instrument for measuring brand personality. She states that Such correlation demonstrates and overlap of Jungian theory on which the MBTI is based and the standardized trait approach for looking at personality, and have allowed researchers to combine items from each to create new instruments for gauging concepts such as the one in question here, brand personality (Strausbaugh, 1998, p. 58). Strausbaugh hypothesized that this new instrument would be a reliable and valid tool for measuring brand personality. Strausbaugh tested her hypothesis on a sample of respondents. In her study she used the instrument to measure the personality of a variety of brands. Overall, Strausbaughs research revealed positive results concerning the reliability and validity of her instrument. the theoretically-based choice of inclusion of adjectives in this study suggests at the very least, a new-and-improved, more academically credible brand personality measurement system. As the current research has shown evidence as to the reliability and validity of the proposed instrument, it could provide a standardized instrument for the use in measurement of brand personality, both in academia and practice (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.186).

PAGE 36

27 This study is a step forward in the research of brand personality and the instrument has a potential future in the field of marketing and advertising. However, practical application of the new instrument has been limited and it has yet to experience any research recognition. Although Strausbaugh revealed positive results for her overall instrument, some of the dimensions had weak results. Thus, further validation and improvement is needed in order for the instrument to gain acceptance in the field of marketing and advertising. This study will attempt to make progress in the research of brand personality by developing a new instrument based on Strausbaughs research. Belief in her instruments strong theoretical foundation and prospective marketing applications provide motivation for the hypotheses in this current study. Hypotheses for Our Current Study Reliability of the Instrument Hypothesis 1: The Extraversion/Introversion dimension adjective scale will have significant internal consistency. Hypothesis 2: The Sensing/Intuitive dimension adjective scale will have significant internal consistency. Hypothesis 3: The Thinking/Feeling dimension adjective scale will have significant internal consistency. Hypothesis 4: The Judging/Perceiving dimension adjective scale will have significant internal consistency. Validity of the Instrument Hypothesis 5: The Extraversion/Introversion dimension adjective scale will be related to individual profile scores.

PAGE 37

28 Hypothesis 6: The Sensing/Intuitive dimension adjective scale will be related to individual profile scores. Hypothesis 7: The Thinking/Feeling dimension adjective scale will be related to individual profile scores. Hypothesis 8: The Judging/Perceiving dimension adjective scale will be related to individual profile scores.

PAGE 38

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Design To test the hypotheses, a survey was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire. This method of research was most appropriate, given the classroom situation. Surveys are flexible in that they have the ability to present a large number of questions to respondents in a short amount of time and, many questions may be asked on a given topic, giving you considerable flexibility in your analysis (Babbie, 1998, p.273). Surveys are also very useful in describing the characteristics of a large group of respondents (Babbie, 1998). In addition, the survey administered in this study utilized a standardized questionnaire format that asked the same questions of everyone. Standardized questionnaires benefit researchers by requiring them to ask exactly the same questions of all subjects and having to impute the same intent to all respondents giving a particular response (Babbie, 1998, p.273). Standardized questionnaires result in an important strength in regard to measurement generally in that it makes standardized surveys high on reliability (Babbie, 1998, p.273). Also previous studies that have tested a similar instrument used in this study have also used a survey design. For these reasons, a survey was chose for the method of data collection in this study. 29

PAGE 39

30 Product Category and Brand Selection The field of consumer research has breadth, and lacks in depth. A variety of consumer attitudes and behaviors have been researched in limited consumption situations. It is sometimes forgotten that modern consumption encompasses a variety of circumstances and is not just limited to the purchase of physical goods. Since the advent of cable television, the competition among television networks has been increasing at an exponential rate. Television viewing is a type of consumerism and television viewing trends have paralleled those of consumer buying habits. For instance, the era of mass-production during the machine age mirrors the beginning of broadcast television during the early days of television. Uniform and mass-produced products that were virtually undistinguishable from one another characterized early consumerism. Similarly broadcast networks that used broad programming to appeal to mass audiences exemplified early television viewing. Since, there has been a surge in technology, innovation, and deregulation which have resulted in product/service proliferation. Now, competition epitomizes the foundation of the modern marketplace that currently provides a number of available options. For goods, mass production has evolved into customization, which created a variety of goods. For services, mass audiences have evolved into niche markets creating a variety of cable networks. Marketing practices have progressed from appeasing the mass audience into focusing on the individual. As a result, the modern marketplace reflects an abundance of product and service choices that respond to a variety of individual needs and desires. Competition does not discriminate and it is prevalent in all modern consumption

PAGE 40

31 situations. For this reason, branding strategies currently have a variety of applications and they should no longer be used sparingly. Product Category Physical goods have generally been used in previous studies that test a similar instrument as the one used for this study. However, branding can occur in many other areas such as: high-tech products, retailers and distributors, people and organizations, sports, arts and entertainment, geographical locations, and services (Keller, 1998). Cable television networks, which are a type of service brand, were the product category chosen to test the instrument in this study. Unlike products, service brands have few tangible differences (Sutherland, Marshall, & Parker, 2003). For this reason, television networks have recently relied on developing brand personalities in order to differentiate themselves. More specially, brand personality can be a valuable asset to cable television (CATV) networks. In the past two decades the numbers of CATV program networks have increased by over100%, From 1980 to 2003, the number of cable program networks has grown from 28 to 339 (NCTA website, 2003). The rapid growth of the CATV market mirrors that of the consumer goods market and both follow a similar pattern: growth led to brand proliferation which resulted in an overcrowded and highly competitive market. In order to survive, it is vital that CATV networks distinguish themselves amongst their competitors. CATV networks were chosen for this study because brand personality has the potential to impact CATV.

PAGE 41

32 Brand Selection The two CATV networks used in the questionnaire were Music Television (MTV) and Video Hits 1 (VH1). These branded networks were chosen because both are widely recognized brands among younger audiences and therefore would be highly familiar to the student sample used in this study. MTV and VH1 were also chosen due to their similar positioning. Previous studies suggested the use of similar brand products, and therefore should not yield large difference due to the comparison of vastly different brands and personalities (Kirschbaum, 1997, p.27). Both MTV and VH1 are similar because they market themselves to a niche audience that shares the same interest in music. MTV is Music Television. It is the music authority where young adults turn to find out whats happening and whats next in music and popular culture. VH1 is the channel with intelligent and innovative programming for adults who are passionate about music (CAB website, cable network profiles, 2003) Pilot Test The initial stages of the research study involved the administration of a pilot test to a small sample of students. The pilot was run in order to assist with the development of the current survey instrument. During this test, two versions of the MBTI were administered to the same sample on two separate occasions. These included a standard 126 item MBTI instrument and a shorter 93 item self-scoring MBTI instrument. An item-by-item comparison of both instruments revealed a total of 48 same items that both versions shared. Only the answers from these same 48 items were compared between the two versions. Analysis of this data revealed the most reliable MBTI items and adjectives that were subsequently used to aid in the development of the current survey instrument. Similar items from previous research on brand personality measurement were also analyzed. Reliability scores from Kirsten Strausbaughs (1998) research revealed strong

PAGE 42

33 versus weak items that measure brand personality. Finally, all items were re-examined for adjectives to remove or replace. The new instrument included the most reliable adjective pairs (24 total) that best describe brand personality associations. Instrumentation The questionnaire for this study was designed to test the reliability and validity of a new brand personality measurement tool (a copy of the questionnaire can be found in the appendix, pg. 68-74). The questionnaire included the adjectives and descriptions pertaining to the tested brands, questions on marketing variables, and demographic questions. The special codes section of the questionnaire contained some demographic questions to determine the college year, gender, and age of the participants. Two questions measuring the respondents viewing habits were also included in this section. A section including questions that measured certain marketing variables like familiarity, satisfaction, acceptability, usage and preference then followed the demographics. Each brand was ranked on a seven-point Likert-type scale in terms of familiarity, acceptability, satisfaction, and viewing intent. Included in section two of the questionnaire were survey questions that employed a seven-point semantic differential scale to determine which MBTI brand profiles best described the tested brands. Section three also used a seven-point semantic differential scale for the purpose of measuring which adjectives best described the tested brands. Sample The survey was administered to a convenience sample of 240 University of Florida students in the spring semester of 2004. The participants were recruited from four undergraduate courses: Advertising Research (ADV 3501), Introduction to Public

PAGE 43

34 Relations (PUR 3000), and Psychology of Personality (PPE 3004). The participants completed the survey in a classroom, which is a setting that is comfortable and familiar to the students. Students were given oral instructions on completing the survey along with written instructions provided on the questionnaire. As an incentive, students were informed that they would be compensated with extra class credit or fulfillment of a class requirement for their participation in the study. Participants were also thanked for their time at the end of the study. Measurement Marketing Variables The marketing variables that were measured in this study included familiarity, acceptability, satisfaction, preference, viewing intent, and time spent viewing each network. Familiarity, acceptability, satisfaction, and viewing intent were all measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale. The first question asked the participants level of familiarity with each network. The participants had to choose on a seven-point continuum, how familiar they were with each network. The scale ranged from (1) very unfamiliar to (7) very familiar with five levels between each extremity, the middle level being (4) neutral. For acceptability, the participants were asked to rate on a seven-point scale how acceptable each network was to them. The scale ranged from (1) very unacceptable at one end to (7) very acceptable at the opposite end with five levels in between. Satisfaction was measured in terms of feelings associated with the networks. Respondents were asked to rate, on a seven-point scale, the amount of satisfaction they

PAGE 44

35 received from watching each network. The scale ranged from (1) terrible to (7) delighted, with five levels in-between. Participants were also asked to rate how likely they were to watch each network the next time they watch television. The scale ranged from (1) definitely will not watch to (7) definitely will watch with five levels in between. Preference was measured by asking the respondents to divided 10 points among the two brands, assigning the most points to the brand with the higher preference. Also included in the preference measure was a forced choice question asking the respondents to choose between the two brands. To determine the number of hours spent watching each network in a typical week, respondents were asked to choose from the following: less than one hour, one hour, two hours, three hours, four hours, five hours, six hours, seven hours, eight hours, or nine or more hours. Brand Personality The instrument in this study is a combination of the MBTI and the ACL. The MBTI was chosen due to its capacity for measuring personality, whereas; the ACL was chosen for its adaptability in measuring personality through the use of a third party. Previous research has accepted both tools as reliable and valid measurements. To measure brand personality in terms of MBTI dimensions, the questionnaire contained brief profiles and adjective pairs. The brief profiles described each of the four individual MBTI dimensions: Extraversion/Introversion, Intuition/Sensing, Feeling/Thinking, and Perceiving/Judging. This totaled as four profile questions to be ranked for each of the two brands. The profiles were taken from previous research studies (Strausbaugh, 1998; Kirschbaum,

PAGE 45

36 1997; and Egeland, 1997). These studies wrote the profiles using synonyms for the MBTI dimension correlated ACL adjectives. The written profiles utilized synonyms of adjectives representing the MBTI dimensions. The majority of adjectives were taken directly from Portraits of Type by Thorne and Gough. However, some adjectives were not supplied with an antonym representing the other end of the MBTI dimension. In these circumstances, the best possible opposite was determined and used by the researchers on this project and their adviser, who has extreme experience in using the MBTI with humans, as well as brand (Kirschbaum, 1997, p.30). The questionnaire also included 24 adjective pairs to be ranked for each brand. An analysis of the pilot test data determined the adjectives that were used. These adjective pairs resembled the aforementioned series of 24, MBTI correlated, ACL adjective pairs used to create the written MBTI profiles. Table 3-1 reveals the original adjectives pairs, for each dimension used in previous research compared to the new adjectives pairs used in this research. In order to avoid the clumping together of one dimensions adjectives and to discourage respondents from bubbling in the same answer throughout, the adjective pairs/ scaled dimensions were randomized and flipped throughout (Egeland, 1997). The adjective pairs were scored across a seven-point continuum. As a result, the MBTI profiles were scored with low numbers (1-3) indicating E, S, T, or J and high numbers (4-7) indicating I, N, F, or P (Egeland, 1997). Data Processing Respondents marked their answers on scan-tron sheets that were then taken to the Office of Instructional Resources at the University of Florida to be coded onto a floppy disk. The raw data from the disk was then uploaded into SPSS PC+ (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then cleaned and recoded where appropriate. Variable names were assigned to the data and then the data was analyzed using frequencies,

PAGE 46

37 correlations, analysis of variance (ANOVAS), reliability tests (chronbach alpha), and chi-squares. Table 3-1: Original vs. Replaced Adjectives for each Dimension Dimension Original Replaced E/I assertive/mild bold/timid E/I reserved/active/reserved restrained/assertive/restrained E/I dynamic/ moderate dynamic/ moderate E/I sociable/shy sociable/shy E/I outspoken/ quiet outspoken/ quiet, reserved E/I energetic/calm energetic/calm S/N systematic/imaginative realistic/imaginative S/N realistic, down to earth/ idealistic, visionary/ matter of fact, down to earth/ creative, theoretical/ S/N practical, functional/ creative, theoretical practical/ clever S/N sensible, factual/ instinctual sensible/ fanciful S/N precise/ wide interests simple/ complex S/N conservative/ unconventional conventional/ unconventional T/F logical/emotional logical/emotional T/F firm-minded/ soft-hearted firm-minded/ soft-hearted T/F heard-headed/warm-hearted heard-headed/warm-hearted T/F rational, thoughtful/ sympathetic, caring/ rational, thoughtful/ sympathetic, caring/ T/F reasonable/empathetic reasonable/empathetic T/F thinking/ feeling/ thinking/ feeling/ J/P clear-cut, definite/ undecided, variable clear-cut, definite/ open, indefinite J/P deliberate/ adaptable planned/ unplanned J/P dependable/changeable dependable, steady/unpredictable, loose J/P steadfast/innovative structured/unstructured J/P well-defined/indistinct focused/unfocused J/P decided/flexible decided/flexible

PAGE 47

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Sample Demographics A total of 240 students completed the questionnaire. The sample included 63 males and 167 females; there were ten respondents who did not fill in their gender. A majority of the students were ages 19-22 (88.7 valid percent). Most of the respondents were college juniors (40 valid percent) and seniors (31.3 valid percent), followed by sophomores (23.5 valid percent) and freshman (5.2 valid percent), respectively. Over 91 % of the students who responded to the question of cable ownership reported that they did have cable television. Respondents who reported their time spent watching television reported an average of 2.6 hours per day watching television. Summary of Marketing Statistics Frequency and descriptive Statistics were calculated from the questionnaires marketing questions for the two brands. Following are the tables that were created for each of the familiarity, acceptance, viewing intent, satisfaction, usage, and preference variables. 38

PAGE 48

39 Table 4-1: Sample Description N % Valid % Age 18 or Under 9 3.8 3.9 19-20 99 41.3 43.0 21-22 105 43.8 45.7 23-24 10 4.2 4.3 25-26 3 1.3 1.3 27+ 4 1.7 1.7 Total 230 95.8 100.0 Missing 10 4.2 Sex Male 63 26.3 27.4 Female 167 69.6 72.6 Total 230 95.8 100.0 Missing 10 4.2 Classification Freshman 12 5.0 5.2 Sophomore 54 22.5 23.5 Junior 92 38.3 40.0 Senior 72 30.0 31.3 Total 230 95.8 100.0 Missing 10 4.2 Has CATV Yes 211 87.9 91.7 No 19 7.9 8.3 Total 230 95.8 100.0 Missing 10 4.2 Time spent watching TV 0 29 12.1 12.8 1 42 17.5 18.6 2 41 17.1 18.1 3 56 23.3 24.8 4 27 11.3 11.9 5 17 7.1 7.5 6 6 2.5 2.7 7 2 .8 .9 8 2 .8 .9 9 4 1.7 1.8 Total 226 94.2 100.0 Missing 14 5.8 Familiarity Table 4-2 reveals how familiar respondents were with the two brands. Repeated measures tests (Table 4-8) were conducted to examine if there was a significant difference in means for familiarity by branded network. At p<0.01, a significant

PAGE 49

40 difference in mean familiarity scores between MTV and VH1 (F = 3003.404, df = 1, 239) was found. According to this data, both brands were fairly familiar to the sample due to the high mean scores they all received. MTV was considered most familiar to the respondents because it had the greatest mean (M = 5.94). This leaves VH1 (M = 5.53) as being the least familiar of the two brands in the survey. Table 4-2: Summary of Familiarity Statistics *p<.01, F=3003.404, df=(1, 239) N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev. MTV 240 0 5.94* 1.65 VH1 240 0 5.53* 1.70 Acceptability Table 4-3 indicates how acceptable each brand was to the respondents. This data revealed a relatively high acceptance of both brands. VH1 had the highest mean (M = 5.62), and was therefore considered more acceptable to the respondents than MTV (M = 5.38). Repeated measures (Table 4-8) reveal mean scores for acceptability were significantly different at the p<.01 level (F = 3621.576, df = 1, 239). Table 4-3: Summary of Acceptability Statistics *p<.01, F = 3621.576, df = (1, 239) N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev. MTV 240 0 5.38* 1.51 VH-1 240 0 5.62* 1.51 Viewing Intent Table 4-4 organizes data on the respondents likelihood to watch the two brands the next time they watch television. This data reveals only a moderate intent to watch the two networks. Respondents were slightly more likely to watch MTV (M = 4.97) than VH1 (M = 4.54) the next time they watch television. Repeated measures (table 4-8)

PAGE 50

41 show there was a significant difference in mean scores at the p<0.01 level (F = 1885.766, df = 1, 239). Table 4-4: Summary of Viewing Intent Statistics *p<0.01, F = 1885.766, df = (1, 239) N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev. MTV 240 0 4.97* 1.94 VH1 240 0 4.54* 1.81 Satisfaction Table 4-5 displays data on the respondents satisfaction with the two brands. According to this data, respondents were only moderately satisfied with the two brands. Respondents were slightly more satisfied with MTV (M = 4.78) than VH-1 (M = 4.67). At p<0.01, there was a significant difference in mean satisfaction scores between MTV and VH1 (F =2764.483, df = 1, 239). Table 4-5: Summary of Satisfaction Statistics *p<.01, F =2764.483, df = (1, 239) N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev. MTV 240 0 4.78* 1.64 VH1 240 0 4.67* 1.55 Preference Table 4-6 reveals the number of respondents that preferred each brand. The majority of the participants who responded to the preference question chose MTV (65.4 valid percent) over VH1 (30.0 valid percent). The number of people who chose MTV over VH1 was significantly different at p<.01 level (chi square=194.561, df=1, 239). Due to an error in the questionnaire, the open-ended scored preference questions (7-10) were not included in the analysis of this data.

PAGE 51

42 Table 4-6: Frequency of Preference N % std. residual Preference MTV 157 65.4 4.5 VH1 72 30.0 9.4 Total 229 95.4 Missing 11 4.6 chi square=194.561, df=1, sig=.000 Usage Table 4-7 illustrates the average number of hours the respondents spend watching each network brand. The respondents spent more time watching MTV (M = 2.33) than they did watching VH1 (M = 1.46). The repeated measures test reveals the difference in mean scores for hours watching MTV and VH-1 were significant at the p<.01 level (F = 281.781, df = 1, 239). Table 4-7: Summary of Usage Statistics *p<.01, F = 281.781, df = (1, 239) N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev. H/week watching MTV 240 0 2.33* 2.17 H/week watching VH1 240 0 1.46* 1.80 Table 4-8: Marketing Variables Difference in Means Between MTV and VH1 Marketing Variable Type III Sum of Squares df (hypothesis df, error df) Mean Square F Familiarity 20.419 1, 239 20.419 59.454* Acceptability 14509.002 1, 239 14509.002 3621.576* Satisfaction 10706.852 1, 239 10706.852 2764.483* Viewing intent 10849.008 1, 239 10849.008 1885.766* Usage 1729.002 1, 239 1729.002 281.781* *p<.01 Brand Type Frequencies An analysis of responses to both scaled dimensions and written descriptions yielded a variety of MBTI types for both brands. Table 4-8 reveals the

PAGE 52

43 means across MBTI dimensions. However, further examination of individual four letter MBTI types was needed because looking at the means across dimensions concealed the different four letter types found. Table 4-9 illustrates the frequencies and valid percent of each of the sixteen personality types across both brands. In order to label each dimension and create MBTI types for statistical analysis, responses were categorized based on a continuum. The MBTI dimensions (EI, SN, TF, JP) were divided among the continuum so that responses fell on one side or the other. For instance, the written description responses of 1-3 were categorized on the Extraverted, Sensing, Thinking, and Judging sides of the continuum and were recoded as E, S, T and J. Written description responses 4-7 were categorized on the Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, and Perceiving sides of the continuum and were recoded into I, N, F, and P. Although a response of 4 falls in the middle of the continuum, MBTI coding procedures rule that it should correspond with the Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, and perceiving side. Responses to the adjective scale section of the survey were recoded the same as the written descriptions; however, the scaled items had to first be averaged before they could be recoded. The average score was computed by adding the items in each of the four dimensions and then dividing the score by six (there were six items for each dimension). Table 4-9: MBTI Dimension by Brand MEAN MEDIAN STD. DEV. MIN. MAX MTV EI 2.27 2.17 .82 1.00 4.67 Adj. Scale Dimensions MTV SN 4.67 4.67 .79 2.17 6.83 MTV TF 3.97 4.00 .58 2.50 5.67 MTV JP 4.04 4.00 .82 1.50 6.33 VH1 EI 3.73 3.83 .95 1.00 6.50 VH1 SN 3.86 4.00 .86 1.17 6.83 VH1 TF 4.09 4.00 .69 2.17 7.00 VH1 JP 3.35 3.33 .85 1.17 6.17 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving

PAGE 53

44 Table 4-10: Summary of Type Frequencies MTV Individual Profiles VH1 Individual Profiles MTV Adj. Scale Dimensions VH1 Adj. Scale Dimensions Type Frequency Valid % Frequency Valid % Frequency Valid % Frequency Valid % Missing 9 3.8% 2 0.8% 8 3.3% 13 5.4% ESTJ 9 3.8 11 4.6 54 22.5 32 13.3 ESTP 5 2.1 3 1.3 46 19.2 6 2.5 ESFJ 3 1.3 9 3.8 20 8.3 30 12.5 ESFP 5 2.1 13 5.4 21 8.8 5 2.1 ENTJ 7 2.9 10 4.2 22 9.2 32 13.3 ENTP 63 26.3 21 8.8 21 8.8 15 6.3 ENFJ 7 2.9 5 2.1 20 8.3 20 8.3 ENFP 93 38.8 32 13.3 23 9.6 10 4.2 ISTJ 0 0.0 17 7.1 2 0.8 33 13.8 ISTP 1 0.4 4 1.7 1 0.4 4 1.7 ISFJ 0 0.0 22 9.2 2 0.8 27 11.3 ISFP 1 0.4 13 5.4 0 0.0 1 0.4 INTJ 3 1.3 13 5.4 0 0.0 1 0.4 INTP 3 1.3 5 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 INFJ 2 0.8 15 6.3 0 0.0 10 4.2 INFP 29 12.1 45 18.8 0 0.0 1 0.4 Total 240 100.0 240 100.0 240 100.0 240 100.0 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving Each branded network was found to have several personalities that were different. The 95% confidence interval for n=240 = +/-6.3% or 15 subjects. Therefore, any personality with a frequency of 15 or greater was considered important. Major personality types found for MTV include ESTJ, ESTP, ESFJ, ESFP, ENTJ, ENTP, ENFJ, and ENFP. However, when looking at the means across MBTI dimensions MTV was predominantly typed as an ENTP. According to Introduction to type in Organizations, ENTP types are logical, decisive, tough, strategic, critical, controlled, challenging, straightforward, objective, fair and theoretical. VH1 also had a number of key personality types. These include ESTJ, ESFJ, ENTJ, ENTP, ENFJ, ISTJ, and ISFJ. Mean scores across dimensions reveal that VH1

PAGE 54

45 has a leading type that is ESFJ. According to Introduction to type in Organizations, ESFJ types are conscientious, loyal, sociable, personable, responsible, harmonious, cooperative, tactful, thorough, responsive, sympathetic, and traditional. Descriptive statistics also reveal that, in comparison, VH1 is more introverted than MTV. The majority of respondents type VH1 as extraverted. However, over 25 percent of the total respondents perceive VH1 as introverted compared to only 0.2 percent of respondents for MTV. Hypothesis Testing Reliability Analysis of Adjective Scale Hypothesis 1 through 4 The preceding descriptive statistics are useful for describing the marketing variables and the nature of the sample. However, more thorough procedures are needed for testing the dependability of the instrument. A reliability analysis was performed to ensure that the adjective scale would yield the same results when applied repeatedly. One method for testing the reliability is through proving the items in the instrument are homogenous. Hypothesis 1 through 4 addressed this form of reliability and proposed that the scale items would be consistent with one another in measuring each of the four dimensions. To test for internal consistency of the adjective scale, chronbach alpha was computed which determines how each item correlated to the remaining items. Means and alpha scores were obtained for each item in the scale in addition to the scale itself. Individual alphas if item deleted were analyzed and inconsistent items were removed in order to maximize overall alphas. Through this testing, the initial 24 items (adjective pairs) were reduced to 17. Tables 4-11 through 4-14 illustrate the mean and alpha if item deleted for each item, as well as the overall MBTI dimension mean and

PAGE 55

46 alpha. Below are the alpha ranges for each dimension. Alpha ranges from Strausbaughs results were examined and a baseline for comparison was determined for this study. Specifically, items with alphas greater than .6 were considered to have internal reliability. Dimension Alpha Range E/I .7341 .7580 S/N .5264 .6162 T/F .3695 .4665 J/P .6184 .7148 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving Hypothesis 1: The Extraversion/Introversion dimension adjective scale will have significant internal consistency. Table 4-10 shows the means and standardized alphas of the Extraversion Introversion dimension. High standardized alpha scores for the EI scale showed that it is a reliable scale across the two brands (MTV = .7341, VH1 = .7580) and thus supported hypothesis 1. Means revealed that respondents perceived both MTV and VH-1 as extraverted (MTV: M = 2.22, VH1: M = 3.71). Hypothesis 2: The Sensing/Intuitive dimension adjective scale will have significant internal consistency. Table 4-11 presents the reliability data found for the Sensing-Intuition dimension scale. Standardized alpha scores for the SN scale were highest for VH1, but for MTV the alpha was lower than what is generally accepted as reliable (MTV = .5264, VH1 = .6162). Because the items used in the SN dimension were not highly inter-related across brands, hypothesis 2 was not supported. The mean scale scores revealed that MTV (M = 4.75) was seen as an intuitive brand while VH1 (M = 3.86) was perceived as a sensing brand.

PAGE 56

47 Hypothesis 3: The Thinking/Feeling dimension adjective scale will have significant internal consistency. Table 4-12 examines internal consistency of the Thinking-Feeling dimension. For this scale the standardized alphas for both MTV and VH1 were lower than what is generally acceptable as reliable (MTV = .3695, VH1 = .4665). Therefore, the items for the Thinking-Feeling dimension did not have good interrelations and hypothesis 3 was not supported. Mean scores for MTV (M = 3.97) indicate that it was viewed as a Thinking brand; whereas, VH1 (M = 4.12) was viewed as feeling. Hypothesis 4: The Judging/Perceiving dimension adjective scale will have significant internal consistency. Table 4-13 consists of means and standardized alphas for the Judging-Perceiving dimension. These results indicate that the items used in the Judging Perceiving scale were highly interrelated. The high standardized alphas across both brands (MTV = .6184, VH1 = .7148) supported hypothesis 4. According to the mean scores, MTV (m = 4.16) was viewed as a Judging brand and VH1 (M = 3.29) was seen as a Perceiving brand. Overall, the EI and JP dimensions produced the highest alpha scores (respectively) and were considered the most reliable dimensions. With weaker result, the SN dimension proved to be somewhat reliable. Conversely, the alphas were too weak for the TF dimension to be deemed reliable and the hypothesis for the TF dimension was not supported. In conclusion, the above results supported the hypotheses for three out of the four dimensions.

PAGE 57

48 Table 4-11: Extraversion-Introversion Reliability Test Results MTV VH1 Item x if deleted x if deleted EI 1 2.02 .7254 3.89 .7367 EI 2 2.58 .7218 4.11 .7381 EI 3 2.16 .6486 3.11 .6885 EI 4 2.05 .6695 3.81 .7064 EI 5 2.29 .6598 3.68 .6934 EI Scale 2.22 .7341* 3.71 .7580* indicated standardized alpha for entire scale Table 4-12: Sensing-Intuition Reliability Test Results MTV VH1 Item x if deleted x if deleted SN 1 4.33 .5007 3.92 .5732 SN 2 5.19 .4860 4.04 .5256 SN 3 4.67 .4915 4.10 .6120 SN 4 4.70 .4204 3.57 .5437 SN 5 4.89 .4422 3.67 .5253 SN Scale 4.75 .5264* 3.86 .6162* indicated standardized alpha for entire scale Table 4-13: Thinking-Feeling Reliability Test Results MTV VH1 Item x if deleted x if deleted TF 1 3.59 .2029 4.20 .2805 TF 2 3.85 .2562 4.08 .3876 TF 3 4.48 .3682 4.23 .4263 TF Scale 3.97 .3695* 4.12 .4665* indicated standardized alpha for entire scale Table 4-14: Judging-Perceiving Reliability Test Results MTV VH1 Item x if deleted x if deleted JP 1 3.50 .5357 3.08 .6332 JP 2 4.70 .5577 3.36 .5871 JP 3 4.11 .5375 3.15 .6081 JP 4 4.34 .5614 3.67 .7663 JP Scale 4.16 .6184* 3.29 .7148* indicated standardized alpha for entire scale

PAGE 58

49 Validating the Survey Instrument Hypotheses 5 through 8 Even if an instrument is deemed reliable, it still may not necessarily be considered valid. Validity relates to whether the measure employed really measures the theoretical concept (variable). Different forms of validity exist; however, due to the nature of the collected data this study only tests the construct validity of the instrument. According to Carmines and Zeller, construct validity is concerned with the extent to which a particular measure relates to other measures that are consistent with theoretically derived hypotheses concerning the concepts (or constructs) being measured (as cited in Davis, 1997, p.271) Convergent validity was assessed utilizing correlations between the dimension scales (adjective pairs) and their corresponding written descriptions. Dimension mean scores, for the previously reduced scale items, were calculated and then correlated (using Pearson correlation coefficient) with their corresponding written description scores. Results of the correlations are summarized in table 4-15. Table 4-15: Correlation between Scaled Dimensions and Written Descriptions of Dimensions SCALE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION MTV VH-1 EI EI .41* .43* SN SN .08 .26* TF TF .11 .10 JP JP .34* .26* : p<.01 (2-tailed) Hypothesis 5: The Extraversion/Introversion dimension adjective scale will be related to individual profile scores. Correlations of the EI scale with written descriptions yielded correlations for both MTV (r = .41, p<.01) and VH1 (r = .43, p<.01). These correlations proved the adjective

PAGE 59

50 scale and individual profile (written description) scores were related, and hypothesis 5 was supported. Hypothesis 6: The Sensing/Intuitive dimension adjective scale will be related to individual profile scores. Only one significant correlation was found for the SN scale, VH1 (r = .26, p<.01). The SN dimension adjective scale for MTV did not correlate with the written descriptions, and therefore hypothesis 6 was not supported. Hypothesis 7: The Thinking/Feeling dimension adjective scale will be related to individual profile scores. Hypothesis 7 was also not supported because no significant correlations were found between the TF scale items, and individual profiles. Hypothesis 8: The Judging/Perceiving dimension adjective scale will be related to individual profile scores. Conversely, correlations for the JP scale and written descriptions yielded two significant correlations. The correlations for MTV (r = .34, p<.01) and VH1 (r = .26, p<.01) were both significant and thus hypothesis 8 was supported. Effect of Personality on Marketing Variables Analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) were used to examine the effect of the perceived personality of the brand on marketing variables. ANOVAs were first used to examine the significant difference in means for marketing variables by MBTI dimension (Table 4-15). For MTV some significant differences in mean scores were found. There were significant differences in mean acceptability scores and viewing intent scores between those that rate MTV as an extraverted brand and those that rate MTV as an Introverted brand (p<.05). There were also significant differences in mean viewing intent, satisfaction, and usage scores between those that rated MTV as a sensing brand and those

PAGE 60

51 that rated MTV as an intuitive brand (p<.05). These results indicate that respondents who see MTV as an extraverted and an intuitive brand will find MTV significantly more acceptable, will be significantly more satisfied with MTV, and intend to view MTV significantly more and for a longer period of time than those who see MTV as introverted and sensing. For VH1, the marketing variables had no effect on the perceived personality dimensions. Also, there were no significant mean differences in marketing variables between those that rate MTV as a thinking brand and those that rate MTV as a feeling brand, and between those that rate MTV as a judging brand and those that rate MTV as a perceiving brand. ANOVAs were also performed on marketing variables to examine if their difference in means were significantly different by MBTI type. Only significant brand MBTI types were analyzed and those representing fewer than 15 (n<15) respondents were deleted. Table 4-16 through 4-19 illustrate the major four letter MBTI brand types for each marketing variable. Results reveal that variations in major four letter personality types for MTV significantly affect respondents intent to watch MTV, satisfaction with MTV, and time spent watching MTV. Again, no significant effects were found for VH1. In conclusion, results from the ANOVA tests revealed that personality types can sometimes affect certain marketing variables. For each brand, cross tabulations and chi squares were calculated for preference by MBTI type. Table 4-22 and 4-23 show the cross tabulations of major brand types by preference. For both MTV and VH1 the cross tabulations were not significant and there were no significant differences in brand preference by MBTI type.

PAGE 61

52 Table 4-16: Analysis of Variance Tests on Dimension Means for Marketing Variables E I S N T F J P Familiarity MTV 5.94 5.20 6.17 5.79 5.92 5.94 5.99 5.88 VH1 5.40 5.74 5.46 5.59 5.42 5.63 5.48 5.73 Acceptability MTV 5.40* 3.80* 5.26 5.57 5.37 5.37 5.36 5.38 VH1 5.55 5.75 5.52 5.71 5.57 5.64 5.61 5.59 Satisfaction MTV 4.77 4.60 4.56** 5.16** 4.74 4.84 4.80 4.75 VH1 4.67 4.68 4.48 4.94 4.65 4.67 4.59 4.95 Likelihood to Watch MTV 5.01^ 2.80^ 4.68^^ 5.51^^ 4.94 5.08 4.98 4.99 VH1 4.52 4.61 4.47 4.70 4.58 4.49 4.43 5.02 Usage MTV 2.30 3.80 1.98*^ 2.97*^ 2.46 2.16 2.22 2.48 VH1 1.36 1.66 1.42 1.58 1.36 1.56 1.53 1.20 *E significantly greater than I, df=2, F=3.58, p<.05, **N significantly greater than S, df=2, F=3.808, p<.05 ^E significantly greater than I, df=2, F=3.269, p<.05, ^^ N significantly greater than S, df=2, F=6.909, p<.05, *^ N significantly greater than S, df=2, F=6.326, p<.05 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving Table 4-17: Familiarity by MBTI Brand Type MBTI Type FREQUENCY VALID PERCENT MEAN STD. DEV. MTV ENFJ 20 9.0% 6.40 1.142 MTV ENFP 23 10.0% 6.22 1.380 MTV ENTJ 22 9.0% 5.86 1.807 MTV ENTP 21 9.0% 6.14 1.852 MTV ESFJ 20 8.2% 5.85 1.461 MTV ESFP 21 7.6% 5.14 2.056 MTV ESTJ 54 22.3% 5.89 1.734 MTV ESTP 46 19.2% 5.96 1.605 VH1 ENFJ 20 8.5% 5.65 1.755 VH1 ENTJ 32 12.7% 5.25 1.832 VH1 ENTP 15 6.9% 6.13 1.302 VH1 ESFJ 30 12.1% 5.37 1.450 VH1 ESTJ 32 12.1% 5.03 2.024 VH1 ISFJ 27 12.5% 6.15 .949 VH1 ISTJ 33 13.3% 5.33 1.594 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving

PAGE 62

53 Table 4-18: Acceptability by MBTI Brand Type MBTI Type FREQUENCY VALID PERCENT MEAN STD. DEV. MTV ENFJ 20 8.5% 5.50 1.357 MTV ENFP 23 9.9% 5.57 1.343 MTV ENTJ 22 9.5% 5.55 1.335 MTV ENTP 21 9.4% 5.76 1.446 MTV ESFJ 20 7.5% 4.85 1.387 MTV ESFP 21 8.8% 5.43 1.287 MTV ESTJ 54 23.2% 5.54 1.575 MTV ESTP 46 18.3% 5.13 1.721 VH1 ENFJ 20 8.5% 5.75 1.118 VH1 ENTJ 32 13.4% 5.62 1.454 VH1 ENTP 15 6.8% 6.07 1.580 VH1 ESFJ 30 12.8% 5.73 1.048 VH1 ESTJ 32 12.1% 5.09 1.692 VH1 ISFJ 27 11.6% 5.81 1.665 VH1 ISTJ 33 13.9% 5.70 1.531 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving Table 4-19: Viewing Intent by MBTI Brand Type MBTI Type FREQUENCY VALID PERCENT MEAN STD. DEV. MTV ENFJ 20 9.3% 5.55* 1.356 MTV ENFP 23 10.8% 5.61* 1.559 MTV ENTJ 22 9.8% 5.32* 1.615 MTV ENTP 21 9.7% 5.52* 1.861 MTV ESFJ 20 6.7% 4.00* 2.248 MTV ESFP 21 8.7% 4.95* 1.936 MTV ESTJ 54 23.2% 5.13* 1.727 MTV ESTP 46 17.4% 4.50* 2.137 VH1 ENFJ 20 8.3% 4.50 1.906 VH1 ENTJ 32 13.6% 4.63 1.809 VH1 ENTP 15 6.6% 4.80 1.859 VH1 ESFJ 30 11.8% 4.30 1.664 VH1 ESTJ 32 11.9% 4.06 1.933 VH1 ISFJ 27 10.7% 4.33 1.840 VH1 ISTJ 33 13.8% 4.55 1.603 *p<.05 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving

PAGE 63

54 Table 4-20: Satisfaction by MBTI Brand Type MBTI Type FREQUENCY VALID PERCENT MEAN STD. DEV. MTV ENFJ 20 9.1% 5.20* 1.542 MTV ENFP 23 10.6% 5.30* 1.146 MTV ENTJ 22 9.3% 4.86* 1.283 MTV ENTP 21 9.6% 5.24* 1.480 MTV ESFJ 20 6.8% 3.90* 1.518 MTV ESFP 21 8.5% 4.62* 1.396 MTV ESTJ 54 23.4% 4.96* 1.659 MTV ESTP 46 17.2% 4.28* 2.029 VH1 ENFJ 20 8.6% 4.80 1.436 VH1 ENTJ 32 13.7% 4.78 1.641 VH1 ENTP 15 7.1% 5.27 1.387 VH1 ESFJ 30 12.1% 4.53 1.479 VH1 ESTJ 32 12.1% 4.22 1.518 VH1 ISFJ 27 11.2% 4.63 1.690 VH1 ISTJ 33 13.4% 4.55 1.175 *p<.05 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving Table 4-21: Usage by MBTI Brand Type MBTI Type FREQUENCY VALID PERCENT MEAN STD. DEV. MTV ENFJ 20 7.7% 2.15* 1.565 MTV ENFP 23 12.7% 3.09* 2.109 MTV ENTJ 22 12.3% 3.14* 3.013 MTV ENTP 21 12.7% 3.38* 2.459 MTV ESFJ 20 5.2% 1.45* 1.605 MTV ESFP 21 6.4% 1.71* 1.554 MTV ESTJ 54 20.4% 2.11* 2.080 MTV ESTP 46 16.4% 2.00* 2.022 VH1 ENFJ 20 6.6% 1.15 1.040 VH1 ENTJ 32 14.5% 1.59 1.478 VH1 ENTP 15 6.0% 1.40 2.098 VH1 ESFJ 30 14.8% 1.73 2.083 VH1 ESTJ 32 10.0% 1.09 1.711 VH1 ISFJ 27 12.3% 1.59 2.241 VH1 ISTJ 33 14.0% 1.48 1.482 *p<.05 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving

PAGE 64

55 Table 4-22: Cross Tabulation of MTV Preference with MBTI Type DIMENSION PREFER MTV NOT PREFER MTV N % Std. residual N % Std. residual ENFJ 16 80 .8 4 20.0 -1.1 ENFP 17 73.9 .5 6 26.1 -.7 ENTJ 15 68.2 .2 7 31.8 -.2 ENTP 18 85.7 1.2 3 14.3 -1.6 ESFJ 11 55 -.6 9 45.0 .8 ESFP 12 57.1 -.5 9 42.9 .6 ESTJ 35 64.8 -.1 19 35.2 .1 ESTP 26 56.5 -.7 20 43.5 1.0 chi square=10.494, df=8, sig=.232 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving Table 4-23: Cross Tabulation of VH1 Preference with MBTI Type DIMENSION PREFER VH1 NOT PREFER VH1 N % Std. residual N % Std. residual ENFJ 3 4.2 -1.2 17 10.1 .8 ENFP 4 5.6 -1.1 19 11.3 .7 ENTJ 6 8.3 -.2 16 9.5 .2 ENTP 2 2.8 -1.7 19 11.3 1.1 ESFJ 7 9.7 .4 13 7.7 -.3 ESFP 9 12.5 1.1 12 7.1 -.7 ESTJ 16 22.2 .0 38 22.6 .0 ESTP 20 27.8 1.7 26 15.5 -1.1 chi square=14.472, df=8, sig=.070 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving Cross Tabulation of Brand Types A cross tabulation of MTV and VH1 major MBTI types revealed the types between the two networks differ from one another. Further, a chi square (chi square=98.503, df=56) proved these variations were significantly different at the p<.01 level. Therefore even though the overall instrument was not determined reliable or valid, the adjective scale still proved it was able to differentiate between brands by personality type.

PAGE 65

56 Table 4-24: Cross Tabulation of MTV type with VH1 type VH1 ENFJ VH1 ENTJ VH1 ENTP n std. residual n std. residual n std. residual n std. residual 5 1.3 0 -1.0 0 -1.3 0 -.9 MTV ENFJ 4 -.1 6 3.4 4 .8 0 -1.1 MTV ENFP 4 -.4 2 .1 0 -1.8 0 -1,2 MTV ENTJ 3 -.8 0 -1.4 7 2.4 1 -.3 MTV ENTP 4 -.2 0 -1.3 2 -.5 3 1.5 MTV ESFJ 3 -.6 4 1.8 3 .2 0 -1.1 MTV ESFP 8 1.7 2 .2 3 .1 1 -.3 MTV ESTJ 8 1.0 3 -.7 11 1,4 4 .3 MTV ESTP 12 .7 3 -.4 2 -1.7 6 1.8 VH1 ESFJ VH1 ESTJ VH1 ISFJ VH1 ISTJ MTV ENFJ n std. residual n std. residual n std. residual n std. residual MTV ENFP 2 .3 3 1 1 -.4 2 .2 MTV ENTJ 1 -.9 3 .2 0 -1.5 2 -.5 MTV ENTP 2 -.5 1 -1.2 7 2.7 7 2.2 MTV ESFJ 6 2.0 2 -.5 3 .3 0 -1.7 MTV ESFP 3 .2 1 -1.1 5 1.7 3 .1 MTV ESTJ 4 .9 3 ,2 0 -1,5 3 .2 MTV ESTP 0 -1.6 2 -.5 2 -.2 3 .1 MTV ENFJ 7 .1 13 22 3 -1.2 5 -.9 MTV ENFP 5 -.3 4 -.9 6 .4 8 .7 chi square=98.503, df=56, sig.=.000 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving

PAGE 66

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In todays highly competitive market, being able to distinguish a brand from its competition is vital to the brands survival. Thus, brand personality is an integral tool to marketers and advertisers because of its power to differentiate brands. Despite the importance of brand personality, there is still a lack of research that addresses the operational issues of the concept. Due to this gap in research, instruments used for the measurement of brand personality are scarce. The current study responds to this problem by testing the soundness of a preliminary brand personality measurement tool. During the process, possible effects of different marketing variables on brand personality were also examined. Summary of Results In light of the new measure, it was first hypothesized that the adjective scale would be deemed reliable as a result of significant findings for the dimensions internal consistency. Results support this hypothesis for three out of the four dimensions. The EI and JP dimensions produced the highest alpha scores (respectively) and were considered the most reliable dimensions. With weaker result, the SN dimension proved to be somewhat reliable. Conversely, the alphas were too weak for the TF dimension to be deemed reliable and the hypothesis for the TF dimension was not supported. It was hypothesized that the instrument would prove to be valid as a result of significant correlations between the scaled dimensions and written descriptions. Similar 57

PAGE 67

58 to the aforementioned reliability results, the EI and JP dimensions produced the most significant results respectively. However, the instrument can only be validated for the EI and JP dimensions due to the lack of significant findings for the SN and TF dimensions. Results from the hypothesis testing conclude that the new instrument is only partially sound. Only elements of the instrument representing the EI and JP dimensions prove to be both reliable and valid; whereas, components corresponding to the SN and TF dimensions still warrant improvement. Even though the overall instrument was not determined reliable or valid, the adjective scale still proved it was able to differentiate between brands by personality type. A cross tabulation of the brands major types revealed the types between the two networks differ from one another. Further, a chi square proved these variations were significantly different than findings that normally occur as a result of chance. In addition, results show that both brands were found to have more than one predominant personality. Major personality types found for MTV were ESTJ, ESTP, ESFJ, ESFP, ENTJ, ENTP, ENFJ, and ENFP. Frequently found types for VH1 were ESTJ, ESFJ, ENTJ, ENTP, ENFJ, ISTJ, and ISFJ. However, when looking at mean scores across dimension, the scale was also able to forecast a leading four letter type for each brand. The mean scores predominantly typed MTV as an ENTP and VH1 as an ESFJ. Furthermore, these types take on added meaning when detailed profiles are provided. For instance, MTV can be described in more detail by the following ENTP profile, and VH1 can be depicted more specifically by the following ESFJ profile: In general, ENTPs are known for their quest of the novel and complex. They have faith in their ability to improvise and overcome any challenges that they face. They are highly independent, and value adaptability and innovation. They may be

PAGE 68

59 several steps ahead of others in encouraging and valuing change (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989). In general, ESFJs are helpful people who place high value on harmony. Paying close attention to peoples needs and wants, they work well with others to complete tasks in a timely and accurate way. ESFJs follow through on their commitments. They like closure and prefer structured, organized situations in which warmth and compassion are shown (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989). Although not part of the hypothesis, responses to a number of marketing variables were also analyzed. Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed that MTV and VH1 had varying degrees of different marketing variables. These marketing variations are important because it allows for the comparison of personality types between a more familiar, more preferred, more satisfactory, and more often watched network (MTV) and a network that is less familiar, less preferred, less satisfactory, and less often watched (VH1). ANOVAs also revealed that personality dimensions can sometimes affect marketing variables. For example, respondents who see MTV as an extraverted and an intuitive brand will find MTV significantly more acceptable, will be significantly more satisfied with MTV, and intend to view MTV significantly more and for a longer period of time than those who see MTV as introverted and sensing. It is also possible for variations in major four letter types to affect different variables as revealed by ANOVAs for MTV and viewing intent, satisfaction, and usage variables. Limitations This study has several limitations, which may account for the lack of significant results required to support all of the hypotheses.

PAGE 69

60 Sample The nature of the sample used for this study mainly limited the research findings. A small convenience sample of university students was used instead of a random sample and therefore the results should not be generalized beyond the sample of students. In addition, the sample was slanted with more women (73%) then men (27%), and a majority of the students are most likely advertising, psychology or public relations majors (because of classes recruited for the sample) who are familiar with these types of research methods. These circumstances may also skew the results and lead to flawed conclusions. Brands Limitations may also be related to the marketing variations in the branded networks chosen. Although MTV familiarity, usage, and satisfaction variables for MTV were significantly higher than VH1, MTV was still viewed as significantly less acceptable than VH1. A possible explanation for this deviation might be due to pre-use expectations. In other words, respondents who were familiar with MTV and had watched it more knew what to expect and found it less acceptable; whereas, respondents had more positive expectations for VH1 because they were less familiar with the network and watched it less. Although plausible, this explanation does not explain the contradictory results between acceptability and satisfaction variables and further analysis of the brands marketing variations is needed. The ambiguity from marketing variables may cause inaccurate results. The use of different brands that produce clearer responses to marketing variable may contribute to more accurate results.

PAGE 70

61 Instrument Another limitation involves the length format of the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire may have produced response wear out which can reduce the quality of collected information. Reducing the number of items on the questionnaire may have produced better results. Also, the self-report format of the instrument may not yield accurate responses because the respondents may not be willing or able to answer the questions provided. Some students may have provided inaccurate information intentionally by being dishonest, or unintentionally because they lack accurate self-knowledge. Future Research Future research should address the limitations of this study and further test the measurement tool in this study. This instrument should be further tested on a larger, random sample and should use more accurate behavior measures of the marketing variables. The instrument should also be re examined and improvements should be made before further testing. For instance, only two MBTI dimensions (EI and JP) were deemed reliable and valid from the results of this study. Therefore, the SN and TF adjectives should be re examined and the written descriptions should be re written. Also, to increase reliability of the adjective scale, future research should only include the adjective pairs from this study that produced high standardized alpha scores. Although previous correlations failed to confirm the validity of the current instrument, it still has potential for validation. In order to further validate the instrument, future research should perform a confirmatory factor analysis on the adjective scale items.

PAGE 71

62 This test would reveal items in each dimension that are not accurate measures of the dimension. The removal of inapt items will increase the instruments ability to assess the theoretical concept it intends to measure and thus provide evidence of having construct validity. Another suggestion for further research involves testing the instrument on other competing branded networks and on different product categories. It is possible that variations may be found in how consumers use brand personality types among different product categories. One suggestion would be to use broadcast networks in addition to cable networks and compare the personalities of the two categories. In lieu of networks, this instrument may also be useful in typing television programs or television commercials. Although it is useful for marketers to be aware of how consumers perceive and type different brands, it is even more useful for marketers to understand how their target consumer related to different brands. Future research can use this tool to test self-concept/product congruity theory by comparing the consumers perceived personality with the brands perceived personality. Further, the instrument can measure the consumers ideal, actual, and undesired personalities and compare them to the perceived personality of the brand he/she buys. These suggestions are minimal compared to the several options available to researchers in the complicated area of brand personality. Some important questions to keep in mind when researching brand personality include: How does the consumer use brand personality and how does it relate to them? What types of brand personalities exist? Do consumers perceive brand images similar to individual personalities? What effect

PAGE 72

63 does brand personality have on purchase decisions and how important is it on purchase decisions? How can brand personality be most effectively used? In answering these questions, future research will be of much more use to those interested in the concept of brand personality. Implications for Marketers and Advertisers The importance of brand personality to marketers and advertisers has already been established in the Review of Literature. However, the implications for a sound brand personality measurement tool have not been as clearly addressed. Marketers and advertisers often have the difficult task of controlling the different images their brand communicates. The difficulty lays in the fact that brand perceptions exist in the mind of the consumer and are not easily controlled by the marketer or advertiser. For example, Randazzo (1995) describes the psychic role a brand plays in marketing communication in more detail: A brand exists in psychological space, in the consumers mind. It is a perceptual identity with a definite psychic content that is malleable and dynamic. Advertising is the vehicle that allows us to access the consumers mind, to create a perceptual inventory of imagery, symbols, and feeling that come to define the perceptual entity we call a brand (p.8) A discrepancy between the controlled message intended by the advertiser or marketer and the message perceived by the consumer has the ability to create a gap in the marketing communication and can also create miscommunication of the brand image. In order to reduce this gap in communication and better control their intended brand messages, marketers and advertisers need to constantly monitor and measure consumers brand perceptions. For this reason, the development of a reliable and valid instrument that measures brand perceptions is needed. Therefore, with the improvement upon the

PAGE 73

64 reliability and validity of the preliminary brand personality measurement tool used in this study, advertisers and marketers will greatly benefit by gaining more control of their marketing communications. Moreover with future improvement, applications of this instrument will make it more plausible for the consumer and the marketer/advertiser to share the same perceptual brand space.

PAGE 74

APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 75

66 Informed Consent for Participation in Brand Study GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING STUDY This study is being conducted by Dena Stein, a graduate student in Advertising at the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of thesis requirements. The faculty member responsible for supervising the research effort is Dr. John C. Sutherland, Professor, Department of Advertising. PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to design a standardized instrument for measuring the personality of a brand, also referred as the image or identity of a brand. This studys objective is to develop a reliable and valid instrument that might be applied to all brands and product categories. RISKS There are no direct benefits or risks to you for participating in this study. CONFIDENTIALITY Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. For questions concerning the nature or results of the research, participants may contact either: Dena Stein dena@ufl.edu 271-8011 or John Sutherland 2086 Weimer Hall 392-9172 Questions concerning your rights as a research participant in the study can be directed to: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 392-0433. PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT AGREEMENT My participation in this study is strictly voluntary, and that I may terminate it at any time during the survey without penalty. My answers will remain confidential, they will only be used for the purpose of said research, and my name and ID # will be replaced by numbered codes during the analysis of data. The study involves a pencil-and-paper survey that will take approximately 30 minutes to complete, and that I do not have to answer any questions that I do not wish to answer. I have read the information and procedure above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure, and have received a copy of this form. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 76

67 Special Codes #A-#E Please answer the following five questions in the space marked Special Codes on your answer sheet. Begin with the letter A. Each letter corresponds to the existing column on the answer sheet. Please bubble in all of your answers. A.) What year are you in college? (1) Freshman (2) Sophomore (3) Junior (4) Senior (5) Graduate School B.) What is your gender? (1) Male (2) Female C.) What is your age? (1) Under 18 (2) 19-20 (3) 21-22 (4) 23-24 (5) 25-26 (6) 27 or over D.) Do you have cable television? (1) Yes (2) No E.) On average, how many hour(s) do you spend watching television per day? (0=less than one hour, 1=1hr, 2=2hrs, 3=3hrs, 4=4hrs, 5=5hrs, 6=6hrs, 7=7hrs, 8=8hrs, 9=nine or more hours) INTRODUCTION DIRECTIONS Please fill in your name and student ID number and wait for the oral instructions about the special codes section on the left side of the bubble sheet. Please be sure to answer ALL of the questions in the survey. We will be unable to use incomplete questionnaires. Bubble in all of y our answers on the sheet. We appreciate y our time and assistance with this research SECTION 1 How familiar are you with the following cable networks? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Unfamiliar Unfamiliar Unfamiliar Neutral Familiar Familiar Familiar 1. MTV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. VH-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 How acceptable are the following cable networks to you? Extremely Slightly Slightly Extremely Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Neutral Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 3. MTV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. VH-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 77

68 How likely are you to watch the following networks the next time you watch television? Definitely Very likely Might Probably Definitely will not watch will watch not watch Neutral Might watch will watch will watch 5. MTV 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. VH-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 You have ten points. Please divide those points among the two networks listed below, giving higher scores to the network you like the most. (The total score of the two networks is equal to ten) If your score for the item is less than 10, please fill in a zero for the first number. For example, if your score for MTV is 5, please fill in "0" for number 7 and "5" for number 8. 7.-8. MTV 9.-10. VH-1 How do you feel about the following cable networks? Terrible Delighted 11. MTV 1 2 3 4 5 6 12.VH-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 About how many hours would you say you spend in a typical week watching programs on each of the following networks? (0=less than one hour, 1=1hr, 2=2hrs, 3=3hrs, 4=4hrs, 5=5hrs, 6=6hrs, 7=7hrs, 8=8hrs,9=nine or more hours) 13. MTV 14. VH-1 15. If you had to choose among MTV and VH-1, which would you prefer to watch at any given time? Choose only one! (1) MTV (2) VH-1 7 7

PAGE 78

69 DIRECTIONS SECTION 2 What follows are sets of descriptions of different networks. We'd like you to choose the description that you believe best fits how you feel about the network. Let's use Question #16 to illustrate. If the description on the left is, in your mind the best of the two descriptions of MTV, you should choose #1. If you feel the description on the right is the best, you should choose #7. If you feel MTV is somewhere between the left and right description, you should choose a number between #1 and #7. In the following questions, you will be choosing between several descriptions of MTV and VH-1. Which of the following descriptions best describes MTV cable network? 16. I believe MTV I associate MTV is upbeat, outgoing, enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with peaceful time spent alone. and fun. I associate the brand with I think of it as calm, thoughtful, lots of people at social gatherings and somewhat subdued. and events. 17. To me, MTV is I think of MTV as simple & conventional. I associate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 individualistic and creative. I the brand with being self-satisfied associate the brand with freedom and satisfied with one's current situation. from societal constraints and the To me, MTV is sensible constraints of a daily routine. and down to earth. 18. I believe MTV is, To me, MTV is affectionate rational, intelligent and efficient. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & sentimental. It is I associate the brand with thinking, tender, loving and kind. planning, organizing & achieving goals. 19. I think of MTV as I believe MTV is rebellious being systematic, orderly, always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and nonconforming. finishing what is started. It is stable I associate the brand with relaxed yet optimistic. atmospheres & self-indulgent leisure activities.

PAGE 79

70 Which of the following descriptions best describes VH1cable network? 16. I believe VH1 I associate VH1 is upbeat, outgoing, enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with peaceful time spent alone. and fun. I associate the brand with I think of it as calm, thoughtful, lots of people at social gatherings and somewhat subdued. and events. 17. To me, VH1 is I think of VH1 as simple & conventional. I associate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 individualistic and creative. I the brand with being self-satisfied associate the brand with freedom and satisfied with one's current situation. from societal constraints and the To me, VH1 is sensible constraints of a daily routine. and down to earth. 18. I believe VH1 is, To me, VH1 is affectionate rational, intelligent and efficient. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & sentimental. It is I associate the brand with thinking, tender, loving and kind. planning, organizing & achieving goals. 19. I think of VH1 as I believe VH1 is rebellious being systematic, orderly, always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and nonconforming. finishing what is started. It is stable I associate the brand with relaxed yet optimistic. atmospheres & self-indulgent leisure activities.

PAGE 80

71 DIRECTIONS SECTION 3 What follow are a series of adjectives that might be used to describe brands. Mark an X on the space that indicates which adjective you think best describes the brand. Using number 37 for an example, you should mark line #1 if you feel "sociable" is the best description of MTV compared to "shy." If you feel "shy" is the best descriptor of the two, mark line #7. If you feel MTV is somewhere between "sociable" and "shy" mark lines #2-#6. Mark the boxes for the adjectives that best fit MTV. 24. bold ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ timid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. realistic ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ imaginative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. logical ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ emotional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. clear-cut ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ definite 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. creative, theoretical ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ matter-of-fact, down-to-earth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. soft-hearted ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ firm-minded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. unplanned ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ planned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. restrained ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ assertive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. heard-headed ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ warm-hearted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. dependable, steady ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ unpredictable, loose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. moderate ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ dynamic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. clever ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ practical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. unstructured ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ structured 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. sociable ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ shy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. sensible ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ fanciful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. sympathetic, caring ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ rational, thoughtful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. quiet, reserved ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ outspoken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. complex ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ simple 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. reasonable ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ empathetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. unfocused ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ focused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. energetic ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ calm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. conventional ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ unconventional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. feeling ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ thinking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. decided ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ flexible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 81

72 Mark the boxes for the adjectives that best fit VH-1. 48. bold ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ timid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. realistic ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ imaginative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. logical ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ emotional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51. clear-cut ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ definite 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. creative, theoretical ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ matter-of-fact, down-to-earth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53. soft-hearted ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ firm-minded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54. unplanned ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ planned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 55. restrained ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ assertive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56. heard-headed ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ warm-hearted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57. dependable, steady ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ unpredictable, loose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 58. moderate ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ dynamic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 59. clever ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ practical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60. unstructured ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ structured 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61. sociable ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ shy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 62. sensible ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ fanciful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. sympathetic, caring ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ rational, thoughtful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64. quiet, reserved ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ outspoken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 65. complex ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ simple 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 66. reasonable ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ empathetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 67. unfocused ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ focused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 68. energetic ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ calm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 69. conventional ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ unconventional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 70. feeling ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ thinking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 71. decided ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ flexible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thank you very much for your time and participation. Please turn in your materials.

PAGE 82

REFERENCES Aaker, D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, D. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347-356. Akay, E. (2000). The Effects of Educational Elements of Advertisements on the Perception of Brand Personality (Masters thesis, University of Florida, 2000). Babbie, E. (1998). The Practice of Social Research (8 th ed.). New York: Wadsworth Publishing Bartos, R. (1986). Ernest Dichter: Motive Interpreter. Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (1), 272-279. Batra, R., & Myers, J.G., Aaker, D.A. (1996). Advertising Management (4 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Belch, G., & Belch, A. (2001). Advertising and promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (5 th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139-168. Birdwell, A. (1968). A Study of the Influence of image Congruence on consumer Choice. Journal of Business, 47, 76-82. Boeree, C. G., (1997). Personality theories: Carl Young. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from Social psychology Network Web site: http://www.socialpsychology.org/ Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau CAB (2003). Network profiles. Retrieved February 21, 2004, from Web site: http://www.cabletvadbureau.com/ Center for Applications of Psychological Type, The MBTI Instrument (n.d). The Story of Isabel Briggs Meyers. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from http://www.capt.org 73

PAGE 83

74 Davis, Joel B. (1997). Advertising Research: Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Dobni, D. & Zinkhan, G.M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. In M.E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R.W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (17) pp. 110-119. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Dogherty, T. (1996). Dont Mix Brand with Position. Brandweek, 37, 13-16. Dolich, I. J. (1969, February). Congruence Relationship Between Self-Image and Product Brands. Journal of marketing Research, 6, pp. 80-84. Douglas, J.E. (1999). The Congruity Between the Ideal Network and Television Networks Brand Personality: What Makes the Difference? (Masters thesis, University of Florida, 1999). Durgee, J.F., & Stuart, R.W. (1987). Advertising Symbols and Brand Names that Best Represent Key Product Meanings. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4 (3), 15-24. Edinger, E. (1968). An Outline of Analytical Psychology. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from Center for Applications of Psychological Type Web site: http://www.capt.org Egeland, E. (1997). The Creation and Preliminary Testing of a Brand Personality Measurement Tool (Masters thesis, University of Florida). Fouriner, Susan. (1998) Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373 Grubb, E., & Grathwohl, H.L. (1967, October). Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism and Market Behavior: A Theoretical Approach. Journal of Marketing, 31, 22-27. Grubb, E., & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, Generalized Stereotypes and Brand Selection. Journal of marketing Research, 5, 58-63. Haire, M. (1950). Projective Techniques in Marketing Research. Journal of Marketing, 14 (5), 649-656. Hendon, D. & Williams, E. (1985). Winning the Battle for Your Consumer. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2, 65-75. Hirsh, S. & Kummerow, J. (1989). Life Types. New York: Warner Books. Kardes, Frank R. (2001). Consumer Behavior and Managerial Decision Making. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

PAGE 84

75 Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kirshbaum, M.N. (1997). Brand Personality: Constructing and Testing a Measurement Tool (Masters thesis, University of Florida, 1997). Larsen, R.L., & Buss, D.M. (2002). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature. New York: McGraw-Hill Myers, Isabel Briggs & Meyers, Peter B. (1995). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black Publishing. National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) (2003). Mandating A La Carte Distribution of Cable programming Would Not Benefit Consumers. Retrieved February 21, 2004, from Web site: www.ncta.com Ogilvy, David. (1985). Ogilvy on advertising. New York: Vintage. Plummer, Joseph T. (1984/85). How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (6), 27-31. Randazzo, Sal (1995). They Mythmakers: How Advertisers Apply the Power of Classic Myths and symbols to Create Modern Day Legends. Chicago: Probus Publishing. Shank, M.D. & Lagmeyer, L. (1993). Does Personality Influence Brand Image? The Journal of Psychology. 128, 157-164. Sirgy, M. Joseph (1985, December). Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp.287-300. Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982, December). Self Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp. 287-299. Solomon, Michael R. (2002). Consumer Behavior: Buying Having and Being. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Strausbaugh, Kirsten Lynn (1998). Miss Congeniality or No More Mr. Nice Guy?: On a Method for Assessing Brand Personality and Building Brand Personality Profiles. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1998) Sutherland, J., Marshall, S., Parker, B. (2003). Real, Ideal, and Undesired Self Concepts and Their Effects on Viewer Preferences: Who Do You Love? Paper presented at 2004 American Academy of Advertising annual conference, Baton Rouge, La Upshaw, Lynn B. (1995). Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile Marketplace. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

PAGE 85

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dena Stein was born on May 5, 1979, in Kansas City, Kansas. After moving from Kansas when she was young, she spent most of her life growing up in Florida. She earned a B.S. in Telecommunications from the University of Florida in May, 2001. After continuing her education at the University of Florida, she expects to receive her Master of Advertising degree in May 2004. After graduation, she plans to pursue a career in advertisin, with specific interests in account services, strategic planning, consumer research, and brand management. 76


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004886/00001

Material Information

Title: Testing the Reliability and Validity of a Brand-Personality Measurement Tool
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004886:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004886/00001

Material Information

Title: Testing the Reliability and Validity of a Brand-Personality Measurement Tool
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004886:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












TESTING THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF A BRAND-PERSONALITY
MEASUREMENT TOOL














By

DENA STEIN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis is dedicated to my family, friends, professors and classmates for their

support and encouragement throughout my academic career. Recently, these people

have touched my life in many different ways.

First and foremost, I would like to give special thanks to Dr. John Sutherland for

being an excellent professor, advisor, thesis committee chair, and mentor. I appreciate all

the insight and time he put into helping me with my thesis. I am also grateful to him for

teaching me the basics, and advancing my knowledge and expertise. I also want to thank

my thesis committee members, Dr. Chan-Hoan Cho and Dr. Jorge Villegas, for their

patience and support.

In addition, I would like to commend my professors and classmates for their

excellence in representing the first Master of Advertising class at the University of

Florida, and I congratulate them for their hard work and achievement.

Lastly, I thank my family and friends, who have always supported my goals. I

also thank my classmates Mala and Ross, who became my good friends and confidants. I

thank my roommate Emily for giving me advice and listening to me. I thank my

boyfriend Patrick for his encouragement and his confidence in me. I thank my brother

James for always being there and taking care of me. Finally, I thank my parents, for

instilling their values in me (especially their values of strong work ethic, determination,

and achievement).



















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLED GMENT S .............. ...........ii............. ....


LIST OF TABLES ............... .............vi............ ....


AB STRACT ........._..__ ...........viii...............


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ............... ............1... ...............


Brand Personality ........... ....... ...............1.......... ......
Significance of Brand Personality ............... ..............................3
Re search Prob lem ............... .............5............. ...


2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............... ............7... ..............


Theories Attributed to Brand Personality ............... ......... ..............7
Brand Equity ............... ............. .............7........
Relationship Basis Model ............... ............7... ......... ....
Self Expression Model ............... ............. .............9........
Functional Benefit Representation Model ............... .....................10
Self-Concept and Purchase Motivation ............... .......... ..............10
Self-Image/Product-Image Congruity ............... ......................12
Measuring Brand Personality Associations ............... ............... ...._.14
Qualitative Measurement........... ............14..
Quantitative Measurement ........._.. ....___.. ........___......17
Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)............... ...............20.
The MBTI vs. BIG FIVE. ...._ ......_____ ......__ ..........2
The MBTI and Marketing/Advertising. ....._____ ......__ ............24
Strausbaugh' s Instrument. ...._.. ...._._._.. ......___. ...........2
Hypotheses for our Study ...._.. ...._._._.. ......___. ...........2
Reliability of Instrument ........_ ............... ............. 27.......
Validity of Instrument. ...._._._._ ......... ....__._ ...........27


3 METHODOLOGY. ....___ ...._._._.. ......_... ..........2


Research Design. .........___ ....___. ........ ............2













Product Category and Brand Selection ............... ...........................30
Product Category ............... .............31..................
Brand Selection ................. ............32.. .......... ...
Pilot Test ................. ...............32.................
Instrumentation .....__. ............... ..............33. .....
Sample. ............... ............33.. ...............
Measurement ............... .............34..................
Marketing Variables. ...._.. ...._._._.. ......_... ............3
Brand Personality ...._.. ...._._._.. ......_... ............3
Data Processing. .........___ ....___. ........ ............3


4 RE SULT S .............. ...........38..................


Sample Demographics........... ............38..
Summary of Marketing Statistics ............... ...............38........... ...
Familiarity ............... ..............39. ...............
Acceptability ................ ...............40.................
Viewing Intent ............... .............40..................
S ati sfacti on ............... ............41.. ..............
Preference........... .............41..
Usage ........... .... .............42........... ......
Brand Type Frequencies............... ..............4
Hypothesis Testing. ............. ... ..... ......... ... .. ... ... .. ... .......4
Reliability Analysis of the Adj ective Scale Hypothesis 1 through 4 ................... .45
Hypothesis 1: The Extraversion/Introversion Dimension Adjective Scale
Will Have Signifieant Internal Consistency ............... ..... ........... ....46
Hypothesis 2: The Sensing/Intuition Dimension Adjective Scale
Will Have Signifieant Internal Consistency ............... ..... ........... ....46
Hypothesis 3: The Thinking/Feeling Dimension Adjective Scale
Will Have Signifieant Internal Consistency ........... ..... ..... ........... ....47
Hypothesis 4: The Judging/Perceiving Dimension Adjective Scale
Will Have Signifieant Internal Consistency ............... .......................47
Validating The Survey Instrument Hypothesis 5 Through 8 ........... ....... ..........49
Hypothesis 5: The Extraversion/Introversion Dimension Adjective Scale
Will Be Related To Individual Profie Scores. ........._. ._ .... ............. 49
Hypothesis 6: The Sensing/Intuition Dimension Adjective Scale
Will Be Related To Individual Profile Scores ...... ......... ....... ........... ..50
Hypothesis 7: The Thinking/Feeling Dimension Adjective Scale
Will Be Related To Individual Profile Scores ...... ...... ...... ................ ..50
Hypothesis 8: The Judging/Perceiving Dimension Adjective Scale
Will Be Related To Individual Profile Scores ....... ....... ................ .50
Effect of Personality on Marketing Variables ............... ......................50
Cross Tabulation of Brand Types ............... .............................55













5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....._____ ......___ ............57


Summary of Results ............... ..............57. .......... ....
Limitations ............... .............59..................

Sam ple........... .............60....
Brands ............... .............60..................
Instrument. ........._. .. .............61......... .....
Future Research ........... ..... ..... ........ ..............61.......

Implications for Marketers and Advertisers ............... ................ ......63


APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE ............... ........... ....____.......65


REFERENCES.......... ...........73....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. ...._.. ...._._._._ ......_... ...........7




















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

3-1 Original vs. Replaced Adj ectives for each Dimension ............... ............37

4-1 Sample Description ............... ...........39............. ....

4-2 Summary of Familiarity Statistics ............... .......... .............40

4-3 Summary of Acceptability Statistics ............... .......... .............40

4-4 Summary of Viewing Intent Statistics ............... ............... ...._.41

4-5 Summary of Satisfaction Statistics ............... .......................41

4-6 Frequency of Preference ....._._ ............... ........... 42... ....

4-7 Summary of Usage Statistics ............... ............. ......... ...42

4-8 Marketing Variables' Difference in Means between MTV andVH1 ...............42

4-9 MBTI Dimension by Brand ...._ ......_____ .. ....____.......43

4-10 Summary of Type Frequencies. ....._____ ......__ ...........__..44

4-11 Extraversion-Introversion Reliability Test Results ........... .. .........__48

4-12 Sensing-Intuition Reliability Test Results ............... ....................48

4-13 Thinking-Feeling Reliability Test Results ............... ........... .......48

4-14 Judging-Perceiving Reliability Test Results ............... ...................48

4-15 Correlation between Scaled Dimensions and Written Descriptions of
Di men si ons ............... ...........49.................

4-16 Analysis of Variance Tests ion Dimension Means for Marketing Variables......52











4-17 Familiarity by MBTI Brand Type ....._____ ......___ ............. 52

4-18 Acceptability by MBTI Brand Type ............... .......... ............53

4-19 Viewing Intent by MBTI Brand Type. ....._____ ......__ ............53

4-20 Satisfaction by MBTI Brand Type. ....._____ ......__ .............54

4-21 Usage by MBTI Brand Type ...._ ......_____ .. .......__......5

4-22 Cross Tabulation of MTV Preference with MBTI Type. ..........__ ...........55

4-23 Cross Tabulation of VH1 Preference with MBTI Type. ..........__ ...........55

4-24 Cross Tabulation of MTV type with VH1 type. .........._.. ............... 56















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising

TESTING THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF A BRAND-PERSONALITY
MEASUREMENT TOOL

By

Dena Stein

May 2004

Chairperson: John C. Sutherland
Major Department: Advertising

Brand personality is an integral tool to marketers and advertisers, because of its

power to differentiate brands. Despite the importance of brand personality, there is still a

lack of research that addresses the operational issues of the concept. Because of this gap

in research, instruments used to measure of brand personality are scarce.

Our purpose was to test the reliability and validity of a preliminary brand-

personality measurement tool. During the process, possible effects of different marketing

variables on brand personality were also examined.

Our study specifically built on earlier work that combined adj ectives from the

Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) with those from the Adj ective Check List (ACL)

in order to provide a better tool for assessing brand personality. These adj ectives were

then used in a survey, given to a sample of 240 undergraduate students at the University

of Florida. The two branded networks, MTV and VH1, were used as the study's test









brands. Results showed that the new instrument is only partially sound. Only elements

of the instrument representing the El and JP dimensions proved to be both reliable and

valid; whereas, components corresponding to the SN and TF dimensions still warrant

improvement.

Even though the overall instrument was not determined reliable or valid, the

adj ective scale still proved it was able to differentiate between brands by personality type.

In addition, results showed that both brands were found to have more than one

predominant personality. The study also revealed that personality dimensions can

sometimes affect marketing variables. It was also found that variations in maj or four-

letter types may possibly affect different marketing variables. The study concluded that

elements of the instrument still need re examining and improvement before further testing.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Throughout the past two decades, the development of new products has been a

popular marketing strategy for many firms. According to the trade publication New

Product News, consumer-product companies launch nearly 20,000 new products each

year (compared to only 2,689 in 1980) and supermarkets carry an average of 30,000

products compared to 13,067 in 1982 (as cited in Belch & Belch, 2001). Because of an

increase in marketplace competition, this newfound brand proliferation threatens the

survival of other recent brands. Brand differentiation is now becoming an important

tactic for combating competition in this hostile marketplace. A viable solution for

establishing the distinctiveness of a brand is through brand personality. Attaching

personalities to brands contributes to a differentiating brand identity, which can make

brands more desirable to the consumer.

Brand Personality

The Personality of a brand is the newest amendment to the traditional four P's of

the marketing mix Product, Price, Place, and Promotion (Hendon & Williams, 1985,

p.65). The significance of personality in advertising dates back to 1953, when the idea

was introduced by David Ogilvy in relation to brand image, "You have to decide what

'image' you want for your brand. Image means personality. Products, like people, have

personalities, and they can make or break them in the market place" (Ogilvy, 1985, p. 14).









According to Ogilvy (1985), the name, packaging, price, advertising style, and

nature of the product all contributed to the personality of a product (Ogilvy, 1985, p. 14).

Although the idea of personality was introduced decades earlier, it was not until

the early 1980s that the construct of "Brand Personality" ecame a popular marketing

concept of its own (Hendon & Williams, 1985, p.65). According to Joseph Plummer

(1985), former research director of Young & Rubicam, brand personality differs from

brand image. Plummer (1985) defines brand image by its physical attributes, functional

characteristics, and its overall characterization. Physical attributes include the exact

characteristics of the brand; functional characteristics contain the consequences of using

the brand, while the characterizations of the brand involve the brand' s personality

(Plummer, 1985). Sal Randazzo, in his book The Mythmakers (1995), further explains

the difference between a brand's personality and image.

"Brand Personality is a concept that is often associated with and sometimes
confused with, brand identity/image. The two are related, but different. A brand
personality is only one aspect of a brand's overall identity or image. In the same
way that a person' s personality is only one aspect of the person' s overall identity
(albeit an important aspect)" (p.18).

Brand personality now has a distinct role in forming brand image, which is

independent of the other imaging components previously described. Today, the construct

of brand personality is commonly defined as "the set of human characteristics associated

with a brand" (Aaker, 1997, p.347) and essentially, "it involves nothing more than

describing a product as if it were a human being" (Hendon & Williams, 1985, p.66). For

example, consumers who perceive the brand Campbell's Soup as an "all-American mom"

might further describe the brand as follows:

"It' s a she....a mom with two or three children....She' s a den mother for the
Scouts, involved in school functions. She drives a station wagon or one of those









minivans....and the mom and kids are on their way to a Little league game"
(Randazzo, 1995, p.18).

In addition, the associations within the overall brand image (such as with particular

characters, symbols, endorsers, lifestyles, and types of users) are typically part of the

brand personality (Batra, Myers, & Aaker, 1996).

Significance of Brand Personality

Brand personality associations help marketers and advertisers create more

effective strategies that "present products in a language that speaks directly to the mind of

the consumer" (Hendon & Williams,1998, p.65). For this reason, brand personality is

important from the perspective of the advertiser as well as that of the consumer.

The personality of a brand is more real than other aspects of a brand because of its

relative importance to the consumer (Upshaw, 1995). A distinguishing brand personality

is an essential ingredient for building a strong brand, because it allows a consumer to

identify with and connect to the product. This creates an added product benefit that

stands out from the product' s tangible attributes. Thus, marketers perceive brand

personality as an added product benefit with significant features, because (1) it helps

differentiate a brand from the competition, (2) it makes a brand unique and

nonpreemptible, and (3) it helps to increase the brand' s asset value (Batra et al.1996,

p.325).

Brand differentiation is an important function, because of the many available

options that face consumers in the marketplace. When confronted with alternatives,

consumers often prefer to make trouble-free choices over complex decision-making

strategies that often require much more effort. (Kardes, 2001). To achieve this,

consumers relate brand personality to a quick and easy choice, also known as a heuristic









or mental shortcut. While competing brands grow to be more undistinguishable, certain

brands will be chosen over others based solely on their brand personality. Therefore,

"the personality gives the consumer something to relate to that can be more vivid than the

perceived positioning, more alive than the physical attributes of a product, more complete

than whatever is conveyed by the brand name alone" (Upshaw, 1995, p.151).

Brand personality is important to marketers because of the difficulty for brands to

maintain a unique product or service advantage for any length of time. As technology

makes it easier for competition to duplicate innovation, parity becomes the norm

(Upshaw, 1995). "There are precious few meaningful differences between PC hardware

models, long-distance carriers, airlines, juice beverages, stereo systems, insurance plans,

and detergents except in the way that they are packaged and presented to the consuming

public" (Upshaw, 1995, p. 7). However, unlike its features and price, a brand' s

personality is unique, and often cannot be duplicated by competitors (Batra et al., 1996).

Lastly, a brand's advertising should not be considered as a quick and easy short-

term expense that leads to an instant increase in sales. Recently catching the attention of

advertisers and marketers is the problem of advertising losing its effectiveness (Randazzo,

1995). Experts attribute this "decline of advertising" to the proliferation and

fragmentation of media, product proliferation and parity, the networks' falling audience

share, and the high cost of advertising (Randazzo, 1995, p.25). As a result, the pressure

put on brand managers to produce more profitable brands leads to a lot of"bottom-line

thinking" (Randazzo, 1995, p.26). Less-effective use of advertising is the result of these

short-term strategies, where "The most powerful use of advertising is in building strong,

enduring brands-not short-term, selling or bottom-line fixes" (Randazzo, 1995, p.27) An









effective brand-building advertising strategy uses brand personality. Brand personality

works to create brand-building advertising by humanizing a brand and making it unique.

Many experts believe that building a distinctive brand personality leads to a long-term

investment by enhancing the brand's equity.

"Short-term sales may provide a product with the fuel to stay alive for a day, but
brand equity is the engine that will keep a brand alive, profitable and vital for a
lifetime" (Dogherty, 1996, p.16).

"Companies that create advertising that enhance such brand equity treat the value
of a brand (or brand name) as an asset, much like a bank deposit. Advertising that
creates or reinforces a brand's personality serves to increase asset value of a
brand" (Batra et. al., 1996).

The value of the brand as an asset allows the brand to be bought and sold among

companies at a higher sales price which in turn commands a higher price premium from

consumers (Batra et al., 1996). Companies with a high asset value gain network

distribution access, high consumer awareness and loyalty, and economies in terms of

marketing expenses. In return, the high asset value allows these companies to command

higher prices (Batra et al. 1996).

Research Problem

Previous studies of personality in market research focused on the different traits

consumers possess, and how their personality affects their purchase behavior. As

marketers start to realize that brands are positioned in the minds of the prospect, rather

than against others in a product category, researchers are beginning to concentrate on the

images and perceptions associated with a brand (Strausbaugh, 1998). Aaker (1991)

believes, "An association and image both represent perceptions which may or may not

reflect objective reality" (p. 110). This variation of reality creates problems when the

consumer' s interpretation of the brand differs from what the marketer actually intends.









Therefore, when managing brands a frame of reference is often needed in order to

stabilize inconsistencies between the intended brand concept and the perceived brand

concept. Advertisers who want to avoid costly mistakes often conduct research to

determine the perceived personality of their brand.

Although practitioners of marketing and advertising concur on the vast range of

advantages in using brand personality in consumer research, the study of brand

personality is limited. The discord about the nature and components of the construct

provide "no basis for comparison" and restrict its usefulness. (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.3).

This absence of 'baseline' prevents the development of a standardized system for

measuring brand personality.

In answer to this problem, this current research examines the applicability of

adapting human personality scales for the use of measuring brand personality.

Specifically, this thesis aspires to improve upon instruments that utilize the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI) to measure individual and brand personality. This thesis will

specifically build on the work done in 1998 by Kirsten Strausbaugh, a University of

Florida PHD student. This dissertation combined adjectives from the MBTI with those

from the Adj ective Check List (ACL) in order to provide a better tool for assessing brand

personality. The ACL has dimensions that are highly correlated with the MBTI;

however, unlike the MBTI the ACL allows for gathering data on third parties. Previous

brand personality research that combines the MBTI with the ACL has produced mixed

results. Improvement of this instrument is needed before it can become a useful

application for measuring brand personality. Once a practical instrument is developed,

the advancement in the study of brand personality will no longer be restricted.
















CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Theories Attributed to Brand Personality

Although practitioners of marketing and advertising agree on the importance of

brand personality, there is still a lack of understanding of the concept. This leads to

confusion about how to operationally define the concept. In order to understand how to

measure brand personality, it is necessary to understand the theories behind brand

personality. Why is it relevant to the consumer? How does it add value to a product?

Theories that underlie the concept of brand personality provide the answers to these

questions.

Brand Equity

Brand personality adds value to a brand by creating brand equity. Aaker (1991)

defines brand equity as a set of intangible assets linked to the brand that add or subtract

value to the product or service being delivered. Marketers place importance on brand

equity because of the added worth it creates which allows them to command a higher

asset value for their brand. Also, brand personality creates equity through relationship

qualities, self-expression, and functional benefits (Aaker, 1996). These three primary

models are explained further.

Relationship Basis Model

The power of a brand to connect with consumers is a result of the Relationship

Basis Model. Consumers form relationships with brands through two important elements.










First, a relationship exists between the brand and the consumer, which corresponds to the

relationship between two people (Aaker, 1996). Second, the brand personality provides

the consumer strong feelings and favorable attitudes toward the relationship (Aaker,

1996). Along with the personality, a consumer may also form a "strictly business"

relationship based on the brand's functional benefits. Moreover, when consumers

observe trait-relevant brand behaviors, brands have the ability to become active

relationship partners. In this instance, the brand' s actions and behaviors affect others'

perceptions of the brand personality; in return this may affect the brand-customer

relationship (Aaker, 1996). For example, if a certain brand becomes out of stock, it will

damage the relationship between the brand and the interdependent consumers who feel

they cannot get along without the out of stock brand (Aaker, 1996).

In the context of the brand-relationship metaphor, a goal of brand strategists is to

create high brand loyalty through a high brand relationship quality (BRQ) (Aaker, 1996).

In her study on brand relationships, Susan Fouriner (1998) finds seven dimensions of

brand relationship quality. They are as follows:

Behavioral interdependence the brand plays an important role in the consumer's
life
Personal commitment -the consumer is very loyal to the brand through good
times and bad
Love and passion -the consumer would be very upset if he/she couldn't find the
brand because no other brand can take the place of it
Nostalgic connection -the brand reminds the consumer of things he/she has done,
places he/she has been, or phases in his/her life
Intimacy -the consumer knows a lot about the brand and the company that makes
the brand
Partnership quality The consumer knows the brand really appreciates him/her
and trusts him/her like a valued customer
Self-concept connection -the brand reminds the consumer of who he/she is or the
brand' s and the consumer' s self-image are similar (Fouriner, 1998).









Self-Expression Model

Feelings engendered by the brand personality represent how a brand helps to

express a user' s personality. A brand achieves this by attaching feelings to it, just as one

would with a person (Aaker, 1996, p.155). A brand associates certain emotions that are

congruent to those felt by the user. This makes the user most fulfilled when the brand

helps them express those feelings, "A warm person will be most fulfilled when a warm

feeling occurs; similarly, an aggressive person will seek out context where aggression is

accepted" (Aaker, 1996, p.155-156).

In the self-expression model, brand personality is not limited to the representation

of oneself. A brand' s ability to become part of the self results in an "extended self (Belk,

1988). Belk (1988) describes the extended self as "a superficially masculine and Western

metaphor comprising not only that which is seen as 'me' (the self), but also that which is

seen as 'mine'" (p.140). Evidence that supports the function of the "extended self '

includes the reaction of burglary victims or victims of natural disaster to the loss of

possessions, the possessions of the deceased as powerful remains of the dead person' s

extended self, and one's extreme attachment to automobiles (Belk, 1988).

In order for brand personality to be an effective way of expressing self, it has to

fit with the needs and desires of the user. When the brand personality is in the right

context and fits the consumer' s self-expression needs, any brand personality can assist in

self-expression. However, symbolic and high involvement product categories might

produce larger effects (Aaker, 1996). Symbolism also plays a role in the representation

of the functional benefits of brands.









Functional Benefit Representation Model

The previous models both reveal how brand personality adds value to a brand by

directly linking a brand to a consumer (Aaker, 1996). However, the role of brand

personality is much less direct in the 'functional benefit representation model'. In this

model brand personality indirectly adds value by becoming a medium for representing

and prompting functional benefits along with brand attributes (Aaker, 1996). A

successful execution of the 'functional benefit representation model' is the use of

distinctive symbols that have appropriate associations with the brand (Batra et al., 1996).

An image that visually represents a metaphor, for the brand's functional benefits, will

stimulate a customer' s perception of the brand and strengthen the brand' s personality

(Aaker, 1996). For example, emphasizing the country or region of origin associated with

a brand builds a strong brand personality by providing an indication of quality and

distinctiveness (Aaker, 1996). This demonstrates how brands use associations to imply

their functional benefits, which is easier than directly communicating that a certain

benefit exists (Aaker, 1996). Also, it is assumed that brand personality is intangible in

nature and the nature of functional brand benefit is more concrete. This assumption may

be the reasoning behind another implication for brand personality in that attacking a

brand' s personality is harder than attacking a brand' s functional benefit (Aaker, 1996).

Self-Concept and Purchase Motivation

Why do people buy products similar to their personality? Maslow's hierarchy of

needs helps to explain purchase motivation (Solomon, 2002). Marketers motivate

consumers by ensuring their appropriate needs will be met by a product. Maslow's

hierarchy demonstrates how the same product can satisfy different needs. Levels of









motives such as physiological, safety, belongingness, ego, and self actualization needs

specify for marketers the certain types of product benefits people might be looking for.

As the consumer climbs higher on the hierarchy they consume goods for more symbolic

and for less functional reasons.

Early studies try to explain consumer behavior through the relationship between a

product' s image and a consumer' s personality. Strong advocates of this position argue

that the brand image symbolizes the buyer' s personality and they identify the importance

of product symbolism on the purchase decision. Grub and Grathwohl (1967) recognize

this early work as meaningful, but lacking the theoretical relationships between the

personality of the individual and the product image. They suggest a more specific

approach for explaining this relationship by introducing self-theory where "The concept

of the self is more restricted than personality, which facilitates measurement and centers

on the critical element of how the individual perceives himself' (1967, p. 23).

Grub and Grahwohl also agree that self-concept is a partial determinant of human

behavior, "An individual's evaluation of himself will greatly influence his behavior, and

thus, the more valued the self, the more organized and consistent becomes his behavior"

(1967, p. 23). In order to describe, explain, and predict the role of consumers' self-

concepts in consumer behavior, Grub and Grahwohl formulate The Model of Consuming

Behavior. This model explains that because self-concept is of value to the individual,

their behavior will be directed toward the protection and enhancement of self-concept.

Also, goods are used as social symbols and are therefore communicative devices. The

consumption of goods communicates symbolic meaning to the individual and to others.









Therefore, the consuming behavior of an individual will be directed toward enhancing

self-concept through the consumption of goods and symbols (Grubb & Grathwohl, 1967).

Self-Image/Product-Image Congruity

Similar to the self, products can have many different perceived images. Sirgy's

(1982) self-image and product-image congruity theory suggests the perceived similarities

between a self-image and a product-image/ personality determines the individual's

purchase decision. Furthering Grubb and Grathwohl's (1967) idea that individuals

consume products in order to enhance their self concept, Sirgy (1982) suggests there are

two self-concept motives: self-esteem and self-consistency. The tendency to seek

experience that enhances self-concept refers to self-esteem and relates to the ideal-self;

whereas, the tendency for a person to behave consistently with his/her view of self refers

to self-consistency and relates to the actual-self. An individual's purchase decision

results from the effect of the motivational state arising from self-esteem and self-

consistency needs. In order to maintain self-consistency, actual self-congruity occurs and

an individual needs "to act in ways that are consistent with his or her self-perception" to

avoid (cognitive) dissonance, a state of psychological discomfort, that threatens to

invalidate the individual's beliefs about the self' (Sirgy, 1985, p. 197). However, in

order to maintain self-esteem, ideal self-congruity occurs and, "an individual needs to act

in ways that are instrumental in achieving goals to maintain and/or increase positive self

regard." (Sirgy, 1985, p.197).

According to the model, information that is consistent with a person's existing

beliefs and values is easily assimilated because it is in consonance with their existing

cognitive structure. On the other hand, information that is inconsistent creates a state of










cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a learning concept that helps to explain

cognitive functioning. However, cognitive dissonance can also help to explain the

importance of creating an appropriate brand personality. Since the state of cognitive

dissonance is "psychologically uncomfortable", people try to resolve the incongruity by

rej ecting the new information or changing their existing values and beliefs (Randazzo,

1995, p.19). Likewise, consumers may often rej ect a brand if they don't identify with

the brand' s personality (if the personality is inconsistent with their beliefs and values).

"Consumers need to feel psychologically comfortable with the brand's image and
personality. Consumers therefore generally choose brands they can identify with
ones consistent with their own personality, beliefs, and values or some idealized
version thereof' (Randazzo, 1995, p.20).

According to product congruency, "consumers select those brands that have a

brand personality that is congruent with their own self-concept" (Batra et al., 1996, p.

327). Several studies have supported this relationship between brand personality and

consumer personality.

A study done by Grubb and Hupp (1968) further substantiated the relationship of

self-theory to consumer behavior. Their results indicated that "consumers of a specific

brand of automobiles perceive themselves with self-concepts similar to others who

consume that brand and significantly different from owners of a competing brand" (p.58).

Similarly, Birdwell (1968) also used automobiles to examine product congruity. He

found that "automobile consumers sought out cars whose product image was similar to

their own image on various personality attributes (such as exciting/dull)" (Batra et al.,

1996, p.327). Dolich (1969) examined the congruence between consumer self-concept

and products of beer, cigarettes, bar soap, and toothpaste. Dolich found that favored

brands were consistent with the consumers' self-concept. For brands least preferred,









socially conspicuous products (beer and cigarettes) showed less congruence than

privately consumed products (bar soap and toothpaste). These differences were not

indicated in the study's analysis of most preferred brands. Overall, the findings of

congruity studies are often uncertain and their ambiguity is often attributed to improper

measurement tools.

Measuring Brand Personality Associations

The diversity of brand personality scales and measurements that exist prove the

lack of concurrence in brand personality research and "the struggle that psychologists

have had with the definition and measurement of personality likewise becomes a problem

for those interested in studying brand images" (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990, p. 115). This

struggle has lead to the employment of various techniques aimed at measuring brand

personality. Although no one measurement has gained universal acceptance, there have

been many attempts to measure brand personality associations through qualitative and

quantitative techniques.

Qualitative Measurement

Qualitative measurements make considerable contributions to brand personality

research. Qualitative techniques are useful for employing indirect approaches to help

understand brand perceptions (Aaker, 1991). The inability of direct questioning to reveal

a person's true thoughts, feelings and attitudes cause researchers to use indirect

techniques for studying brand perceptions. Qualitative proj ective methods indirectly

probe at those thoughts, feelings and attitudes that respondents are either unwilling or

unable to divulge (Aaker, 1991). These proj ective techniques address the limitations of

more-direct questioning because they "are based on the 'proj ective hypothesis,' which










proposes that when people attempt to understand an ambiguous or vague stimulus, their

interpretation and response to that stimulus reflects a proj section of their needs, feelings,

attitudes, and experiences" (Davis, 1997, p.205). This section highlights different types

of qualitative methods used for studying brand personality. To begin, the advertising

concept known as "free association" exemplifies one type of qualitative measurement.

Free association utilizes the 'proj ective hypothesis' by encouraging the

respondent to provide the first set of words or associations that comes to mind after their

exposure to a stimulus such as a product category, brand name or brand symbol (Aaker,

1991; Batra et al., 1996; Davis, 1997; Durgee & Stuart, 1988). One study illustrates the

effectiveness of this methodology by conducting free association tests on five product

categories gasoline, casual shoes, iced tea, personal computers and pick-up trucks

(Durgee & Stuart, 1988). This study found associations with 'power' and 'speed' in

response to the tiger symbol for Exxon; 'comfort' and 'relaxation' associated with the

name "Floaters"; 'coolness' and 'refreshment' associated with Nestle's "Nestle Plunge";

'power' and 'dependability' associated with the name "Hercules" for personal computers;

'toughness' and 'ruggedness' associated with Dodge's Ram symbol (Durgee & Stuart,

1988). Sentence completions are a variation of free association urging respondents to

complete statements like "people like (brand name x) because..." with their initial

thoughts (Aaker, 1991; Batra et al., 1996; Davis, 1997).

Researchers utilize pictures as another way to indirectly measure brand

associations. Pictures allow respondent' s to express how they really feel by vicariously

transferring their feelings and attitudes to the characters in the scene (Aaker, 1991). An

early study uses a similar technique, called the Thematic Apperception Test, in order to










help determine the reasoning behind housewives' early resistance toward instant coffee

(Haire, 1950). Respondents of the study were given two shopping lists one that

included an instant coffee brand and one that included a homemade coffee brand.

Respondents were asked to read the lists and "proj ect yourself into the situation as far as

possible until you can more or less characterize the woman who bought the

groceries...write a brief description of her personality and character" (Haire, 1950, p.651).

From the descriptions provided by the respondents, the study found perceptions of

"laziness" and "bad housekeeper" with instant coffee drinkers and perceptions of

"industrious" and "good housekeeper" with homemade coffee (Haire, 1950).

The advertising agency Young & Rubicam efficiently uses proj ective techniques

in their attempt to create brand profiles, which consists of the brand personality's salient

components. The agency invites respondents to relate brands to obj ects such as

animals, cars, magazines, movies, fabrics, or books occupations, countries, and/or

people (Plummer, 1984/5). This technique provides rich descriptions of the brand. For

example, Oil of Olay emerged as a mink as the animal, France as the country, a secretary

as the occupation, silk as the fabric, swimming as the activity, and Vogue as the magazine

(Plummer, 1984/50).

Related to the previous technique, according to Abrams (1981), Young &

Rubicam asked focus group participants to "pretend they were two different brands of

snack chips and then discuss in what situations they might be served" (as cited in

Strausbaugh, 1998, p. 18). This type of projective method focuses on the use experience

(Aaker, 1991). Use experience once helped researchers find out that the frustration

associated with the use of Saran Wrap symbolized a housewife's frustrations in her role









as a homemaker (Aaker, 1991). Similarly Ernest Dichter, the originator of motivation

research, observes others to Eind out their feelings about a product. This act of

observation may be deliberate; for instance the technique termed psychodrama has people

act out the product, "You are a soap. How old are you? Are you feminine? Are you

masculine?" (Bartos, 1986, p.18).

Although indirect techniques bypass the inhibitions of more direct questioning,

because their qualitative nature of data is not quantifiable, they lack statistical

applicability. The nature of research is also problematic due to non-probability sampling

techniques preventing reliable prediction of the population (Aaker, 1991). Moreover,

interpretation of the results lacks obj activity because it requires translation by the

researcher or practitioner (Aaker, 1991). Quantitative research techniques help solve

some of the problems of qualitative techniques and serve as an alternative for measuring

brand personality.

Quantitative Measurements

Scaling brands upon a set of dimensions permits for more obj ective and

quantifiable interpretation of results (Aaker, 1991). The trait approach is a common

scaling procedure borrowed from the Hield of personality psychology. In order to

understand brand personality instruments borrowed from the Hield of personality and

psychology, an examination of trait psychology is needed. Traits are formed through

cognitive processing; in other words, how individuals efficiently organize the massive

amount of information taken from the environmental stimuli around them in order to

make use of it (Strausbaugh, 1998; Kardes, 2002). Comprehension is needed because of

this limited ability of individuals to think about and attend to information.









In other words, "comprehension consists of a dynamic process" (Strausbaugh,

1998, p.31) in which, Ross Vonk (1993) believes, "an individual imposes a structure on

incoming information through selective attention and categorization" (as cited in

Strausbaugh, 1998, p.31). Cognitive schemas aid this process of organizing information

by filling in any information gaps with information derived from memory and prior

knowledge structures (Strausbaugh, 1998; Kardes, 2001). Cognitive schemas also assist

in personality perception because they determine how the trait characteristics of others

are efficiently structured in the observer's head (Strausbaugh, 1998).

It would be impossible to develop an instrument that includes every trait that

exists in the human language. Researchers realize the impractical nature of the trait

method in that it is not feasible to incorporate all personality traits in one instrument. For

this reason, only the most salient traits are used to measure personality. Important traits

can be identified through three fundamental approaches.

"The first is the lexical approach, which views all the important traits as captured
by the natural language. The lexical approach uses synonym frequency and cross-
cultural universality as the criteria for identifying important traits. The second
approach, statistical approach to identifying important traits, adopts statistical
procedures, such as factor analysis, and attempts to identify clusters of traits that
covary. The third approach, uses an existing theory of personality to determine
which traits are important" (Larson & Buss, 2002, p. 292).

Trait taxonomies are applied in the field of marketing by using the consumer' s

rating of a brand on various personality adj ectives in order to categorize that brand

(Strausbaugh, 1997, p.26). For example, brand personality researchers have used the five

basic dimensions of individual personality research as a source for their trait research.

Their condensed adjective lists represent the "Big Five" personality traits. This five

factor model used a combination of the lexical and statistical approach to form a









hierarchical structure of traits. The structure includes five basic underlying factors that

are each subsumed with more narrow traits (Batra,1996, p323):

Extraversion (e.g., adventurous-cautious, sociable-reclusive)
Agreeableness (e.g., good-natured-irritable, gentle -headstrong)
Conscientiousness (e.g., responsible-undependable; tidy-careless)
Emotional stability (composed-excitable; calm-anxious)
Culture (e.g., artistically sensitive-insensitive; intellectual-unreflective; refined-
crude; imaginative-simple)

Jennifer Aaker (1997) draws on research of the "Big Five" human personality

model in an attempt to develop "a theoretical framework of brand personality dimensions

and a reliable, valid, and generalizeable scale that measures these dimensions" (p. 347).

Aaker (1997) factor analyzed 114 personality traits across 37 brands from the perceptions

of 63 1 respondents. A five factor solution resulted from this analysis consisting of five

brand personality factors she named: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication,

ruggedness (Aaker, 1997). Providing additional support, a confirmatory factor analysis

relied on 180 subj ects, 20 brands in ten product categories, and 42 personality traits.

This resulted in a 42-item Brand Personality Scale representing the five dimensions

(Aaker, 1997).

Aaker addresses the limitations of existing brand personality scales in order to

draw support for her own research. One argument is against the use of ad hoc scales

due to their theoretical nature. Aaker contends these scales are "often developed for the

purposes of a specific research study" and result in the absence of key traits (Aaker, 1997,

p.348). However, Aaker asserts that scales with a theoretical foundation, like those

borrowed from personality psychology, are also limited. These scales, like those

representing the aforementioned "Big Five," may lack validity because some dimensions

of human personality might not apply to brands (Aaker, 1997).









Aaker suggests her results have theoretical implications, which explain the weak

results in self-congruity literature "may be due to the asymmetric relationship in the

structure of brand versus human personality" (Aaker, 1997, p.3 53). She counters the

argument that her five brand personality dimensions relate to the "Big Five" human

personality dimensions by contending that "two dimensions (Sophistication and

Ruggedness) differ from any of the 'Big Five' of human personality" (Aaker, 1997,

p.353).

Although Jennifer Aaker promotes the theoretical implications of her Brand

Personality Scale, other researchers argue its lack of theoretical basis. Instead of using

theory, Aaker derives the traits in her study from the field of psychology, past marketing

and academic scales, and original qualitative work, "Relationships to existing conjecture

in the personality arena were a result of post hoc reasoning and were not the foundation

for the instrument' s development" (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.29). In response to the lack of

theoretical grounding in brand personality scales, Kristen Strausbaugh (1998) adapted

two instruments common to the field of personality. Strausbaugh's research combined

the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Adj ective Checklist in order to construct a

theoretically sound instrument for the assessment of brand personality.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabella Myers Briggs translated Jung's theory

into a more practical and comprehensible measurement for everyday use. In 1975, they

published the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for the purpose of measuring

personality types based on Jung's theory (CLAPT website). The MBTI is a paper and

pencil instrument that utilizes a self-report format. The instrument comes in a variety of

forms that function in different settings and are used for different purposes. For example,









versions of the MBTI range in length (from 93 items to 290 items), scoring format (self-

score vs. computerized), and even comprehension level (child vs. adult) (CAPT website).

The MBTI is the most widely used personality profile in history based on Carl

Jung's theory of psychological types (Myers & Myers, 1980). Jung proposes that

individuals should be typed by their attitudes and their characteristic preference for a

certain style of functioning (Strausbaugh, 1998). These types derive from the

combinations of two basic attitudes and four basic functions (Edinger, 1968). The

attitudes include "introversion," those who connect more with the inner world, and

"extroversion," those who connect more with the outer world (Edinger, 1968). All

people, whether introverted or extroverted, have to cope with the world. Each person

copes in a way that is comfortable to them and they use certain strategies that work for

them. Jung suggests there are four basic functions, or ways that people deal with the

world (Boeree, 1997). These functions include those who perceive things through their

five senses, "sensation," or through hunches, "intuition" (Boeree, 1997). The last

functions include those who judge and make decisions according to value of information,

"feeling," or through a logical process, "thinking" (Boeree, 1997). Together, the

combination of introversion, extroversion, sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking

forms a "two-by-four framework of human psych" that produces eight different

personality types (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.34).

The MBTI is built around the idea that specific differences in personality can be

expected in certain people. This is because the variation in human behavior is not due to

chance, but rather to "observable differences in mental functioning" (Myers & Myers,










1980, p.1). Like Jung's types, the MBTI is founded on two basic explanations for

difference in personality.

"These basic differences concern the way people prefer to use their minds,
specifically, the way they perceive and the way they make judgments. Perceiving
is here understood to include the process of becoming aware of things, people,
occurrences, and ideas. Judging includes the process of coming to conclusions
about what has been perceived. Together, perception and judgment, which make
up a large portion of people' s total mental activity, govern much of their outer
behavior, because perception-by definition-determines what people see in a
situation, and their judgment determines what they should do about it" (Myers &
Myers, 1980, p.1).

Perception and judgment form the four pairs of dichotomous preferences that are

the foundation of the MBTI personality types. Two contrasting ways of perceiving,

sensing-intuition (SN), form the first pair and two contrasting ways of judging, thinking-

feeling (TF), form the second pair. The third pair, extraversion-introversion (EI), differs

from the first two in that basic differences in people's use of both perception and

judgment form this dimension. Because the (EI) dimension concerns both attitudes, it is

seen as completely independent of the first two (SN and TF) dimensions. The last pair,

judgment-perception (JP), is named after the two core differences because it refers to the

"choice between the perceptive attitude and the judging attitude as a way of life" (Myers

& Myers, 1980). According to Pettinger (1993), each dimension includes cognitive and

affective preferences that play an important role in forming unique personality types (as

cited in Kirshbaum, 1997).

The extraversion-introversion preferences refer to the way a person can be

energized. Extraverts draw their energy from outside of themselves, they prefer the outer

world of people and activities, and they are energized by being with others. Introverts

draw their energy from within, they prefer the inner world ideas, emotions, and










impressions, and they are energized by being alone. (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989; Shank

& Langmeyer, 1993)

The sensing-intuition dimensions refer to the way a person prefers to attend to

information. Sensing relates to the preference for perceiving things through the five

senses and focusing the immediate, real, practical facts of life and experiences that are

grounded in the here-and-now. However, those who are labeled intuitive would rather

pay attention to the possibilities of what might or could be, and they are fascinated with

the future. (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989; Shank & Langmeyer, 1993)

The thinking-feeling dimensions relate to ways a person prefers to make decisions.

Thinkers organize and structure information and prefer to make decisions obj ectively and

impersonally. Members of the feeling group prefer to make decisions in a personal and

subjective way by weighing the value of their choices and their affect on others. (Hirsh &

Kummerow, 1989; Shank & Langmeyer, 1993)

The last pair, judging-perceiving, relates to how one prefers to live one's life.

Those who prefer judgment live a planned and organized life, and they aim to regulate

and control events. Perceiving refers to a preference for living in a way that is more

spontaneous and flexible and that aims at understanding life and adapting to it. (Hirsh &

Kummerow, 1989; Shank & Langmeyer, 1993)

These eight bi-polar dimensions yield 16 distinct personality types. Because of

the scale's bi-polar nature, it is assumed that a person will be drawn to one end or the

other of each of the four indicators.









THE MBTI vs. BIG FIVE

The paired dimensions in the MBTI (introversion/extroversion, sensing/intuition,

thinking/feeling, and judgment/perception) differ from the paired factors making up the

aforementioned "Big Five" basic dimensions of individual personality. Even though both

instruments measure similar constructs, their opposing dimensions imply different

connotations. All of the dimensions that make up the MBTI are non-directional pairs,

unlike those of the "Big Five," which represent pairs of opposing dimensions. As a result,

none of the MBTI types are overly negative or positive.

"the (big five) model uses the SINGULAR labels for its factors as the 'ideal or
standard,' listing the traits that represent these as 'positive' poles and those
opposite as 'negative' poles... Thus, the MBTI has no negative wrong answer,
while the Five Factor model has" (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.51).

MBTI and Marketing/ Advertising

For decades, the MBTI has been used to measure human personality. The MBTI

is used in such a variety of applications that approximately two million people a year take

the MBTI. Despite its wide acceptance and usefulness, applications of the MBTI have

been overlooked in some fields. Only recently have researchers considered applying the

MBTI to the fields of marketing and advertising. Prior to this, Shank & Langmeyer

(1993) expressed this concern as their justification for applying the MBTI to consumer

research.

"The MBTI has been used in a variety of applications, including aerospace
engineering, spiritual development, marriage counseling, and career advisement,
to name a few (Batz, 1985). Although the MBTI is the most widely used
personality instrument in the world (Batz, 1985; Jeffries, 1991), it has never been
applied to marketing" (p.158).









Shank and Langmeyer' s (1993) study was one of the first to apply the MBTI to

marketing. Their study used the MBTI to measure consumer personality in an attempt to

Eind a relationship with product images. Their results were not significant and indicated a

weak relationship between human personality and product image (Shank & Langmeyer,

1993). Despite weak results, Shank and Langmeyer still promoted the MBTI as "the

ideal personality inventory for marketers" and attributed the weak relationship to "the

complexity of the product image or product personality construct" (Shank & Langmeyer,

1993, p.162).

The MBTI is still new to the Hield of marketing and advertising. While only a

small number of researchers have used the MBTI to study consumer behavior, possible

applications continue to be explored. In an attempt to address the complexity of the

product personality construct, some researchers at the University of Florida have applied

the MBTI to the measurement of brand personality, as opposed to the personality of the

consumer (Akay, 2000; Douglas, 1997; Egeland, 1997; Kirshbaum, 1997; Strausbaugh,

1998 ). However, the use of the MBTI as a tool for measuring brand personality is still

a work in progress due to a lack of significant results. Despite the weak results, some

researchers still believe in the MBTI as a potential tool for measuring brand personality.

As a result of this optimism, researchers of brand personality have attempted to alter the

MBTI into a more useful marketing tool. For instance, some research proposes the

combination of the MBTI with another personality inventory in order to improve brand

personality measurement. A recent study, by Kirsten Strausbaugh (1998), tests this idea

in an attempt to develop a reliable and valid assessment of brand personality.









Stausbaugh's Instrument

Strausbaugh believed the MBTI could be a useful instrument for marketers, but

argued that the scale's self report design was not applicable for studying a third party

such as brand personality. In order to reconcile this conflict, Strausbaugh developed an

instrument based on the MBTI and added another personality scale called the Adjective

Checklist. The ACL allowed for gathering data on third parties and had dimensions that

were highly correlated with those of the MBTI. The ACL contains a list of 300

adj ectives derived from an original study integrating theoretical perspectives of different

personality psychologists (Strausbaugh, 1998). Strausbaugh used those adjectives that

correlated highly with each MBTI dimension in order to create a standardized instrument

for measuring brand personality. She states that "Such correlation demonstrates and

overlap of Jungian theory on which the MBTI is based and the standardized trait

approach for looking at personality, and have allowed researchers to combine items from

each to create new instruments for gauging concepts such as the one in question here,

brand personality" (Strausbaugh, 1998, p. 58). Strausbaugh hypothesized that this new

instrument would be a reliable and valid tool for measuring brand personality.

Strausbaugh tested her hypothesis on a sample of respondents. In her study she

used the instrument to measure the personality of a variety of brands. Overall,

Strausbaugh' s research revealed positive results concerning the reliability and validity of

her instrument.

"...the theoretically-based choice of inclusion of adj ectives in this study suggests
at the very least, a 'new-and-improved', more academically credible brand
personality measurement system. As the current research has shown evidence as
to the reliability and validity of the proposed instrument, it could provide a
standardized instrument for the use in measurement of brand personality, both in
academia and practice" (Strausbaugh, 1998, p.186).











This study is a step forward in the research of brand personality and the

instrument has a potential future in the Hield of marketing and advertising. However,

practical application of the new instrument has been limited and it has yet to experience

any research recognition. Although Strausbaugh revealed positive results for her overall

instrument, some of the dimensions had weak results. Thus, further validation and

improvement is needed in order for the instrument to gain acceptance in the Hield of

marketing and advertising. This study will attempt to make progress in the research of

brand personality by developing a new instrument based on Strausbaugh' s research.

Belief in her instrument' s strong theoretical foundation and prospective marketing

applications provide motivation for the hypotheses in this current study.

Hypotheses for Our Current Study

Reliability of the Instrument

Hypothesis 1: The Extraversion/Introversion dimension adjective scale will have

significant internal consistency.

Hypothesis 2: The Sensing/Intuitive dimension adjective scale will have significant

internal consistency.

Hypothesis 3: The Thinking/Feeling dimension adjective scale will have significant

internal consistency.

Hypothesis 4: The Judging/Perceiving dimension adjective scale will have significant

internal consistency.

Validity of the Instrument

Hypothesis 5: The Extraversion/Introversion dimension adj ective scale will be related to

individual profile scores.









Hypothesis 6: The Sensing/Intuitive dimension adj ective scale will be related to

individual profie scores.

Hypothesis 7: The Thinking/Feeling dimension adj ective scale will be related to

individual profie scores.

Hypothesis 8: The Judging/Perceiving dimension adj ective scale will be related to

individual profie scores.















CHAPTER 3
IVETHODOLOGY

Research Design

To test the hypotheses, a survey was conducted using a self-administered

questionnaire. This method of research was most appropriate, given the classroom

situation. Surveys are flexible in that they have the ability to present a large number of

questions to respondents in a short amount of time and, "many questions may be asked on

a given topic, giving you considerable flexibility in your analysis" (Babbie, 1998, p.273).

Surveys are also very useful in describing the characteristics of a large group of

respondents (Babbie, 1998).

In addition, the survey administered in this study utilized a standardized

questionnaire format that asked the same questions of everyone. Standardized

questionnaires benefit researchers by requiring them "to ask exactly the same questions

of all subj ects and having to impute the same intent to all respondents giving a particular

response" (Babbie, 1998, p.273). Standardized questionnaires result in "an important

strength in regard to measurement generally" in that it makes standardized surveys high

on reliability (Babbie, 1998, p.273).

Also previous studies that have tested a similar instrument used in this study have

also used a survey design. For these reasons, a survey was chose for the method of data

collection in this study.









Product Category and Brand Selection

The field of consumer research has breadth, and lacks in depth. A variety of

consumer attitudes and behaviors have been researched in limited consumption situations.

It is sometimes forgotten that modern consumption encompasses a variety of

circumstances and is not just limited to the purchase of physical goods.

Since the advent of cable television, the competition among television networks

has been increasing at an exponential rate. Television viewing is a type of consumerism

and television viewing trends have paralleled those of consumer buying habits. For

instance, the era of mass-production during the machine age mirrors the beginning of

broadcast television during the early days of television. Uniform and mass-produced

products that were virtually undistinguishable from one another characterized early

consumerism. Similarly broadcast networks that used broad programming to appeal to

mass audiences exemplified early television viewing. Since, there has been a surge in

technology, innovation, and deregulation which have resulted in product/service

proliferation. Now, competition epitomizes the foundation of the modern marketplace

that currently provides a number of available options. For goods, mass production has

evolved into customization, which created a variety of goods. For services, mass

audiences have evolved into niche markets creating a variety of cable networks.

Marketing practices have progressed from appeasing the mass audience into

focusing on the individual. As a result, the modern marketplace reflects an abundance of

product and service choices that respond to a variety of individual needs and desires.

Competition does not discriminate and it is prevalent in all modern consumption









situations. For this reason, branding strategies currently have a variety of applications

and they should no longer be used sparingly.

Product Category

Physical goods have generally been used in previous studies that test a similar

instrument as the one used for this study. However, branding can occur in many other

areas such as: high-tech products, retailers and distributors, people and organizations,

sports, arts and entertainment, geographical locations, and services (Keller, 1998). Cable

television networks, which are a type of service brand, were the product category chosen

to test the instrument in this study.

Unlike products, service brands have few tangible differences (Sutherland,

Marshall, & Parker, 2003). For this reason, television networks have recently relied on

developing brand personalities in order to differentiate themselves. More specially,

brand personality can be a valuable asset to cable television (CATV) networks.

In the past two decades the numbers of CATV program networks have increased

by overl00%, "From 1980 to 2003, the number of cable program networks has grown

from 28 to 339" (NCTA website, 2003). The rapid growth of the CATV market mirrors

that of the consumer goods market and both follow a similar pattern: growth led to brand

proliferation which resulted in an overcrowded and highly competitive market. In order

to survive, it is vital that CATV networks distinguish themselves amongst their

competitors. CATV networks were chosen for this study because brand personality has

the potential to impact CATV.









Brand Selection

The two CATV networks used in the questionnaire were Music Television (MTV)

and Video Hits 1 (VH1). These branded networks were chosen because both are

widely recognized brands among younger audiences and therefore would be highly

familiar to the student sample used in this study. MTV and VH1 were also chosen due

to their similar positioning. Previous studies suggested the use of similar brand products,

"and therefore should not yield large difference due to the comparison of vastly different

brands and personalities" (Kirschbaum, 1997, p.27). Both MTV and VH1 are similar

because they market themselves to a niche audience that shares the same interest in music.

"MTV is Music Television. It is the music authority where young adults turn to
find out what' s happening and what' s next in music and popular culture. VH1 is
the channel with intelligent and innovative programming for adults who are
passionate about music" (CAB website, cable network profiles, 2003)

Pilot Test

The initial stages of the research study involved the administration of a pilot test

to a small sample of students. The pilot was run in order to assist with the development

of the current survey instrument. During this test, two versions of the MBTI were

administered to the same sample on two separate occasions. These included a standard

126 item MBTI instrument and a shorter 93 item self-scoring MBTI instrument. An

item-by-item comparison of both instruments revealed a total of 48 same items that both

versions shared. Only the answers from these same 48 items were compared between the

two versions. Analysis of this data revealed the most reliable MBTI items and adj ectives

that were subsequently used to aid in the development of the current survey instrument.

Similar items from previous research on brand personality measurement were also

analyzed. Reliability scores from Kirsten Strausbaugh's (1998) research revealed strong









versus weak items that measure brand personality. Finally, all items were re-examined

for adj ectives to remove or replace. The new instrument included the most reliable

adj ective pairs (24 total) that best describe brand personality associations.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire for this study was designed to test the reliability and validity of

a new brand personality measurement tool (a copy of the questionnaire can be found in

the appendix, pg. 68-74). The questionnaire included the adj ectives and descriptions

pertaining to the tested brands, questions on marketing variables, and demographic

questions. The special codes section of the questionnaire contained some demographic

questions to determine the college year, gender, and age of the participants. Two

questions measuring the respondents viewing habits were also included in this section. A

section including questions that measured certain marketing variables like familiarity,

satisfaction, acceptability, usage and preference then followed the demographics. Each

brand was ranked on a seven-point Likert-type scale in terms of familiarity, acceptability,

satisfaction, and viewing intent. Included in section two of the questionnaire were

survey questions that employed a seven-point semantic differential scale to determine

which 1VBTI brand profiles best described the tested brands. Section three also used a

seven-point semantic differential scale for the purpose of measuring which adj ectives

best described the tested brands.

Sample

The survey was administered to a convenience sample of 240 University of

Florida students in the spring semester of 2004. The participants were recruited from four

undergraduate courses: Advertising Research (ADV 3501), Introduction to Public









Relations (PUR 3000), and Psychology of Personality (PPE 3004). The participants

completed the survey in a classroom, which is a setting that is comfortable and familiar to

the students. Students were given oral instructions on completing the survey along with

written instructions provided on the questionnaire. As an incentive, students were

informed that they would be compensated with extra class credit or fulfillment of a class

requirement for their participation in the study. Participants were also thanked for their

time at the end of the study.

Measurement

Marketing Variables

The marketing variables that were measured in this study included familiarity,

acceptability, satisfaction, preference, viewing intent, and time spent viewing each

network. Familiarity, acceptability, satisfaction, and viewing intent were all measured

on a seven-point Likert-type scale.

The first question asked the participant' s level of familiarity with each network.

The participants had to choose on a seven-point continuum, how familiar they were with

each network. The scale ranged from (1) very unfamiliar to (7) very familiar with five

levels between each extremity, the middle level being (4) neutral.

For acceptability, the participants were asked to rate on a seven-point scale how

acceptable each network was to them. The scale ranged from (1) very unacceptable at

one end to (7) very acceptable at the opposite end with five levels in between.

Satisfaction was measured in terms of feelings associated with the networks.

Respondents were asked to rate, on a seven-point scale, the amount of satisfaction they









received from watching each network. The scale ranged from (1) terrible to (7) delighted,

with five levels in-between.

Participants were also asked to rate how likely they were to watch each network

the next time they watch television. The scale ranged from (1) definitely will not watch

to (7) definitely will watch with five levels in between.

Preference was measured by asking the respondents to divided 10 points among

the two brands, assigning the most points to the brand with the higher preference. Also

included in the preference measure was a forced choice question asking the respondents

to choose between the two brands. To determine the number of hours spent watching

each network in a typical week, respondents were asked to choose from the following:

less than one hour, one hour, two hours, three hours, four hours, five hours, six hours,

seven hours, eight hours, or nine or more hours.

Brand Personality

The instrument in this study is a combination of the IVBTI and the ACL. The

IVBTI was chosen due to its capacity for measuring personality, whereas; the ACL was

chosen for its adaptability in measuring personality through the use of a third party.

Previous research has accepted both tools as reliable and valid measurements. To

measure brand personality in terms of MBTI dimensions, the questionnaire contained

brief profiles and adj ective pairs.

The brief profiles described each of the four individual lVBTI dimensions:

Extraversion/Introversion, Intuition/Sensing, Feeling/Thinking, and Perceiving/Judging.

This totaled as four profile questions to be ranked for each of the two brands. The

profiles were taken from previous research studies (Strausbaugh, 1998; Kirschbaum,










1997; and Egeland, 1997). These studies wrote the profies using synonyms for the

MBTI dimension correlated ACL adj ectives.

"The written profies utilized synonyms of adj ectives representing the MBTI
dimensions. The maj ority of adj ectives were taken directly from Portraits of Type
by Thorne and Gough. However, some adjectives were not supplied with an
antonym representing the other end of the MBTI dimension. In these
circumstances, the best possible opposite was determined and used by the
researchers on this proj ect and their adviser, who has extreme experience in using
the MBTI with humans, as well as brand" (Kirschbaum, 1997, p.30).

The questionnaire also included 24 adj ective pairs to be ranked for each brand.

An analysis of the pilot test data determined the adj ectives that were used. These

adj ective pairs resembled the aforementioned series of 24, MBTI correlated, ACL

adjective pairs used to create the written MBTI profies. Table 3-1 reveals the original

adj ectives pairs, for each dimension used in previous research compared to the new

adj ectives pairs used in this research. In order to avoid the clumping together of one

dimension' s adj ectives and to discourage respondents from bubbling in the same answer

throughout, the adj ective pairs/ scaled dimensions were randomized and flipped

throughout (Egeland, 1997). The adjective pairs were scored across a seven-point

continuum. As a result, the MBTI profies were scored with low numbers (1-3)

indicating E, S, T, or J and high numbers (4-7) indicating I, N, F, or P (Egeland, 1997).

Data Processing

Respondents marked their answers on scan-tron sheets that were then taken to the

Office of Instructional Resources at the University of Florida to be coded onto a floppy

disk. The raw data from the disk was then uploaded into SPSS PC+ (Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences) and then cleaned and recorded where appropriate. Variable

names were assigned to the data and then the data was analyzed using frequencies,

















Original
assertive/mild
reserved/active/reserved
dynamic/ moderate
sociable/shy
outspoken/ quiet
energetic/calm
sy stemati c/imaginative
realistic, down to earth/ idealistic
visionary/
practical, functional/ creative,
theoretical
sensible, factual/ instinctual
precise/ wide interests
conservative/ unconventional
logical/emotional
firm-minded/ soft-hearted
heard-headed/warm-hearted
rational, thoughtful/ sympathetic,
caring/
reasonable/empathetic
thinking/ feeling/
clear-cut, definite/ undecided, variable
deliberate/ adaptable

dependable/changeable
steadfast/innovative
well-defined/indi stinct
decided/flexible


Replaced
bold/timid
re strai ned/as sertive/re strai ned
dynamic/ moderate
sociable/shy
outspoken/ quiet, reserved
energetic/calm
re alisti c/i magi native
matter of fact, down to earth/
creative, theoretical/

practical/ clever
sensible/ fanciful
simple/ complex
conventional/ unconventional
logical/emotional
firm-minded/ soft-hearted
heard-headed/warm-hearted
rational, thoughtful/ sympathetic,
caring/
reasonable/empathetic
thinking/ feeling/
clear-cut, definite/ open, indefinite
planned/ unplanned
dependable, steady/unpredictable'
loose
structured/unstructured
focused/unfocused
decided/flexible


correlations, analysis of variance (ANOVAS), reliability tests (chronbach alpha), and chi-

squares.


Table 3-1: Original vs. Replaced Adj ectives for each Dimension


Dimension
E/I
E/I
E/I
E/I
E/I
E/I
S/N


S/N

S/N
S/N
S/N
T/F
T/F
T/F
T/F
T/F
T/F
J/P
J/P
J/P















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Sample Demographics

A total of 240 students completed the questionnaire. The sample included 63

males and 167 females; there were ten respondents who did not fill in their gender.

A majority of the students were ages 19-22 (88.7 valid percent). Most of the

respondents were college juniors (40 valid percent) and seniors (31.3 valid percent),

followed by sophomores (23.5 valid percent) and freshman (5.2 valid percent),

respectively .

Over 91 % of the students who responded to the question of cable ownership

reported that they did have cable television. Respondents who reported their time spent

watching television reported an average of 2.6 hours per day watching television.

Summary of Marketing Statistics

Frequency and descriptive Statistics were calculated from the questionnaire's

marketing questions for the two brands. Following are the tables that were created for

each of the familiarity, acceptance, viewing intent, satisfaction, usage, and preference

variables.






















































Total
Missing


Familiarity

Table 4-2 reveals how familiar respondents were with the two brands. Repeated

measures tests (Table 4-8) were conducted to examine if there was a significant

difference in means for familiarity by branded network. At p<0.01, a significant


Table 4-1: Sample Description


3.8
41.3
43.8
4.2
1.3
1.7
95.8
4.2
26.3
69.6
95.8
4.2
5.0
22.5
38.3
30.0
95.8
4.2
87.9
7.9
95.8
4.2

12.1

17.5
17.1
23.3
11.3
7.1
2.5
.8
.8
1.7
94.2
5.8


Valid %
3.9
43.0
45.7
4.3
1.3
1.7
100.0

27.4
72.6
100.0

5.2
23.5
40.0
31.3
100.0

91.7
8.3
100.0


12.8

18.6
18.1
24.8
11.9
7.5
2.7
.9
.9
1.8
100.0


N
9
99
105
10
3
4
230
10
63
167
230
10
12
54
92
72
230
10
211
19
230
10

29

42
41
56
27
17
6
2
2
4
226
14


Age


18 or Under
19-20
21-22
23-24
25-26
27+


Male
Female


Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior


Yes
No



0


Total
Missing
Sex

Total
Missing
Classification




Total
Missing
Has CATV

Total
Missing
Time spent
watching TV









difference in mean familiarity scores between MTV and VH1 (F = 3003.404, df = 1, 239)

was found. According to this data, both brands were fairly familiar to the sample due to

the high mean scores they all received. MTV was considered most familiar to the

respondents because it had the greatest mean (M = 5.94). This leaves VH1 (M = 5.53) as

being the least familiar of the two brands in the survey.

Table 4-2: Summary of Familiarity Statistics

N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev.
MTV 240 0 5.94* 1.65
VH1 240 0 5.53* 1.70
*p<.01, F=3003 .404, df=(1, 239)

Acceptability

Table 4-3 indicates how acceptable each brand was to the respondents. This data

revealed a relatively high acceptance of both brands. VH1 had the highest mean (M =

5.62), and was therefore considered more acceptable to the respondents than MTV (M =

5.38). Repeated measures (Table 4-8) reveal mean scores for acceptability were

significantly different at the p<.01 level (F = 3621.576, df = 1, 239).

Table 4-3: Summary of Acceptability Statistics

N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev.
MTV 240 0 5.38* 1.51
VH-1 240 0 5.62* 1.51
*p<.01, F = 3621.576, df = (1, 239)

Viewing Intent

Table 4-4 organizes data on the respondents' likelihood to watch the two brands

the next time they watch television. This data reveals only a moderate intent to watch the

two networks. Respondents were slightly more likely to watch MTV (M = 4.97) than

VH1 (M = 4.54) the next time they watch television. Repeated measures (table 4-8)










show there was a significant difference in mean scores at the p<0.01 level (F = 1885.766,

df = 1, 239).

Table 4-4: Summary of Viewing Intent Statistics

N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev.
MTV 240 0 4.97* 1.94
VH1 240 0 4.54* 1.81
*p<0.01, F = 1885.766, df = (1, 239)

Satisfaction

Table 4-5 displays data on the respondents' satisfaction with the two brands.

According to this data, respondents were only moderately satisfied with the two brands.

Respondents were slightly more satisfied with MTV (M = 4.78) than VH-1 (M = 4.67).

At p<0.01, there was a significant difference in mean satisfaction scores between MTV

and VH1 (F =2764.483, df = 1, 239).

Table 4-5: Summary of Satisfaction Statistics

N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev.
MTV 240 0 4.78* 1.64
VH1 240 0 4.67* 1.55
*p<.01, F =2764.483, df = (1, 239)

Preference

Table 4-6 reveals the number of respondents that preferred each brand. The

maj ority of the participants who responded to the preference question chose MTV (65.4

valid percent) over VH1 (30.0 valid percent). The number of people who chose MTV

over VH1 was significantly different at p<.01 level (chi square=194.561, df=1, 239).

Due to an error in the questionnaire, the open-ended scored preference questions (7-10)

were not included in the analysis of this data.









Table 4-6: Frequency of Preference

N % std. residual
Preference MTV 157 65.4 4.5
VH1 72 30.0 9.4
Total 229 95.4
Missing 11 4.6
chi square=194.561, df=1, sig=.000

Usage

Table 4-7 illustrates the average number of hours the respondents spend watching

each network brand. The respondents spent more time watching MTV (M = 2.33) than

they did watching VH1 (M = 1.46). The repeated measures test reveals the difference in

mean scores for hours watching MTV and VH-1 were significant at the p<.01 level (F =

281.781, df = 1, 239).

Table 4-7: Summary of Usage Statistics

N Valid N Missing Mean Stand. Dev.
H/week
240 0 2.33* 2.17
watching MTV
H/week
240 0 1.46* 1.80
watching VH1
*p<.01, F = 281.781, df = (1, 239)

Table 4-8: Marketing Variables' Difference in Means Between MTV and VH1

df
Marketing Type III Sum of.
.aibeSlae (hypothesis df, Mean Square F
error df)
Familiarity 20.419 1, 239 20.419 59.454*
Accetabilit 14509.002 1, 239 14509.002 3621.576*
S ati sfacti on 1 0706. 852 1, 239 1 0706.852 2764.483*
Viewing intent 10849.008 1, 239 10849.008 1885.766*
Usage 1729.002 1, 239 1729.002 281.781*
*p<.01
Brand Type Frequencies

An analysis of responses to both scaled dimensions and written

descriptions yielded a variety of MBTI types for both brands. Table 4-8 reveals the










means across MBTI dimensions. However, further examination of individual four letter

MBTI types was needed because looking at the means across dimensions concealed the

different four letter types found. Table 4-9 illustrates the frequencies and valid percent of

each of the sixteen personality types across both brands.

In order to label each dimension and create MBTI types for statistical analysis,

responses were categorized based on a continuum. The MBTI dimensions (EI, SN, TF,

JP) were divided among the continuum so that responses fell on one side or the other.

For instance, the written description responses of 1-3 were categorized on the Extraverted,

Sensing, Thinking, and Judging sides of the continuum and were recorded as E, S, T and J.

Written description responses 4-7 were categorized on the Introversion, Intuition, Feeling,

and Perceiving sides of the continuum and were recorded into I, N, F, and P. Although a

response of 4 falls in the middle of the continuum, MBTI coding procedures rule that it

should correspond with the Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, and perceiving side.

Responses to the adj ective scale section of the survey were recorded the same as the

written descriptions; however, the scaled items had to first be averaged before they could

be recorded. The average score was computed by adding the items in each of the four

dimensions and then dividing the score by six (there were six items for each dimension).

Table 4-9: MBTI Dimension by Brand

MEAN MEDIAN STD. DEV. MIN. MAX
Adj. Scale MTV El 2.27 2. 17 .82 1.00 4.67
Dimensions MTV SN 4.67 4.67 .79 2.17 6.83
MTV TF 3.97 4.00 .58 2.50 5.67
MTV JP 4.04 4.00 .82 1.50 6.33
VH1 El 3.73 3.83 .95 1.00 6.50
VH1 SN 3.86 4.00 .86 1.17 6.83
VH1 TF 4.09 4.00 .69 2.17 7.00
VH1 JP 3.35 3.33 .85 1.17 6.17
E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving












MTV Individual VH1 Individual MTV Adj. Scale VH1 Adj. Scale
Profiles Profiles Dimensions Dimensions
Valid Valid Valid
Type Frequency a Frequency a Frequency a Frequency Valid %
Missing 9 3.8% 2 0.8% 8 3.3% 13 5.4%
ESTJ 9 3.8 11 4.6 54 22.5 32 13.3
ESTP 5 2.1 3 1.3 46 19.2 6 2.5
ESFJ 3 1.3 9 3.8 20 8.3 30 12.5
ESFP 5 2.1 13 5.4 21 8.8 5 2.1
ENTJ 7 2.9 10 4.2 22 9.2 32 13.3
ENTP 63 26.3 21 8.8 21 8.8 15 6.3
ENFJ 7 2.9 5 2.1 20 8.3 20 8.3
ENFP 93 38.8 32 13.3 23 9.6 10 4.2
ISTJ 0 0.0 17 7.1 2 0.8 33 13.8
ISTP 1 0.4 4 1.7 1 0.4 4 1.7
ISFJ 0 0.0 22 9.2 2 0.8 27 11.3
ISFP 1 0.4 13 5.4 0 0.0 1 0.4
INTJ 3 1.3 13 5.4 0 0.0 1 0.4
INTP 3 1.3 5 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0
INFJ 2 0.8 15 6.3 0 0.0 10 4.2
INFP 29 12.1 45 18.8 0 0.0 1 0.4
Total 240 100.0 240 100.0 240 100.0 240 100.0
E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S= Sensing, N=Intuition, T= Thinking, F=Feeling,
J= Judging, P=Perceiving

Each branded network was found to have several personalities that were different.

The 95% confidence interval for n=240 = +/-6.3% or 15 subjects. Therefore, any

personality with a frequency of 15 or greater was considered important.

Maj or personality types found for MTV include ESTJ, ESTP, ESFJ, ESFP, ENTJ,

ENTP, ENFJ, and ENFP. However, when looking at the means across MBTI

dimensions MTV was predominantly typed as an ENTP. According to Introduction to

type in Organizations, ENTP types are logical, decisive, tough, strategic, critical,

controlled, challenging, straightforward, objective, fair and theoretical.

VH1 also had a number of key personality types. These include ESTJ, ESFJ,

ENTJ, ENTP, ENFJ, ISTJ, and ISFJ. Mean scores across dimensions reveal that VH1


Table 4-10: Summary of Type Frequencies









has a leading type that is ESFJ. According to Introduction to type in Organizations, ESFJ

types are conscientious, loyal, sociable, personable, responsible, harmonious, cooperative,

tactful, thorough, responsive, sympathetic, and traditional.

Descriptive statistics also reveal that, in comparison, VH1 is more introverted

than MTV. The majority of respondents type VH1 as extraverted. However, over 25

percent of the total respondents perceive VH1 as introverted compared to only 0.2

percent of respondents for MTV.

Hypothesis Testing

Reliability Analysis of Adjective Scale Hypothesis 1 through 4

The preceding descriptive statistics are useful for describing the marketing

variables and the nature of the sample. However, more thorough procedures are needed

for testing the dependability of the instrument. A reliability analysis was performed to

ensure that the adj ective scale would yield the same results when applied repeatedly.

One method for testing the reliability is through proving the items in the instrument are

homogenous. Hypothesis 1 through 4 addressed this form of reliability and proposed that

the scale items would be consistent with one another in measuring each of the four

dimensions. To test for internal consistency of the adjective scale, chronbach alpha was

computed which determines how each item correlated to the remaining items.

Means and alpha scores were obtained for each item in the scale in addition to the

scale itself. Individual alphas if item deleted were analyzed and inconsistent items were

removed in order to maximize overall alphas. Through this testing, the initial 24 items

(adjective pairs) were reduced to 17. Tables 4-11 through 4-14 illustrate the mean and

alpha if item deleted for each item, as well as the overall MBTI dimension mean and










alpha. Below are the alpha ranges for each dimension. Alpha ranges from

Strausbaugh's results were examined and a baseline for comparison was determined for

this study. Specifically, items with alphas greater than .6 were considered to have

internal reliability.

Dimension Alpha Range
E/I .7341 -.7580
S/N .5264- .6162
T/F .3695 -.4665
J/P .6184 .7148
E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S= Sensing, N=Intuition, T= Thinking, F=Feeling,
J= Judging, P=Perceiving

Hypothesis 1: The Extraversion/Introversion dimension adjective scale will have
significant internal consistency.

Table 4-10 shows the means and standardized alphas of the Extraversion -

Introversion dimension. High standardized alpha scores for the El scale showed that it

is a reliable scale across the two brands (MTV a = .7341, VH1 a = .7580) and thus

supported hypothesis 1. Means revealed that respondents perceived both MTV and VH-1

as extraverted (MTV: M = 2.22, VH1: M = 3.71).

Hypothesis 2: The Sensing/Intuitive dimension adjective scale will have significant
internal consistency.

Table 4-11 presents the reliability data found for the Sensing-Intuition dimension

scale. Standardized alpha scores for the SN scale were highest for VH1, but for MTV the

alpha was lower than what is generally accepted as reliable (MTV a = .5264, VH1 a

=.6162). Because the items used in the SN dimension were not highly inter-related

across brands, hypothesis 2 was not supported. The mean scale scores revealed that

MTV (M = 4.75) was seen as an intuitive brand while VH1 (M = 3.86) was perceived as

a sensing brand.










Hypothesis 3: The Thinking/Feeling dimension adjective scale will have significant

internal consistency.


Table 4-12 examines internal consistency of the Thinking-Feeling dimension.

For this scale the standardized alphas for both MTV and VH1 were lower than what is

generally acceptable as reliable (MTV a = .3695, VH1 a = .4665). Therefore, the items

for the Thinking-Feeling dimension did not have good interrelations and hypothesis 3

was not supported. Mean scores for MTV (M = 3.97) indicate that it was viewed as a

Thinking brand; whereas, VH1 (M = 4.12) was viewed as feeling.

Hypothesis 4: The Judging/Perceiving dimension adjective scale will have significant
internal consistency.

Table 4-13 consists of means and standardized alphas for the Judging-Perceiving

dimension. These results indicate that the items used in the Judging Perceiving scale

were highly interrelated. The high standardized alphas across both brands (MTV a

=.6184, VH1 a = .7148) supported hypothesis 4. According to the mean scores, MTV

(m = 4. 16) was viewed as a Judging brand and VH1 (M = 3.29) was seen as a Perceiving

brand.

Overall, the El and JP dimensions produced the highest alpha scores (respectively)

and were considered the most reliable dimensions. With weaker result, the SN dimension

proved to be somewhat reliable. Conversely, the alphas were too weak for the TF

dimension to be deemed reliable and the hypothesis for the TF dimension was not

supported. In conclusion, the above results supported the hypotheses for three out of the

four dimensions.










Table 4-11: Extraversion-Introversion Reliability Test Results

MTV VH1
Item x a if deleted x a if deleted
El 1 2.02 .7254 3.89 .7367
El 2 2.58 .7218 4.11 .7381
El 3 2.16 .6486 3.11 .6885
El 4 2.05 .6695 3.81 .7064
El 5 2.29 .6598 3.68 .6934
El Scale 2.22 .7341* 3.71 .7580*
indicated standardized alpha for entire scale

Table 4-12: Sensing-Intuition Reliability Test Results

MTV VH1
Item x a if deleted x a if deleted
SN 1 4.33 .5007 3.92 .5732
SN 2 5.19 .4860 4.04 .5256
SN 3 4.67 .4915 4.10 .6120
SN 4 4.70 .4204 3.57 .5437
SN 5 4.89 .4422 3.67 .5253
SN Scale 4.75 .5264* 3.86 .6162*
indicated standardized alpha for entire scale

Table 4-13: Thinking-Feeling Reliability Test Results

MTV VH1
Item x a if deleted x a if deleted
TF 1 3.59 .2029 4.20 .2805
TF 2 3.85 .2562 4.08 .3876
TF 3 4.48 .3682 4.23 .4263
TF Scale 3.97 .3695* 4.12 .4665*
indicated standardized alpha for entire scale

Table 4-14: Judging-Perceiving Reliability Test Results

MTV VH1
Item x a if deleted x a if deleted
JP 1 3.50 .5357 3.08 .6332
JP 2 4.70 .5577 3.36 .5871
JP 3 4.11 .5375 3.15 .6081
JP 4 4.34 .5614 3.67 .7663
JP Scale 4.16 .6184* 3.29 .7148*
* indicated standardized alpha for entire scale










Validating the Survey Instrument Hypotheses 5 through 8

Even if an instrument is deemed reliable, it still may not necessarily be considered

valid. Validity relates to whether the measure employed really measures the theoretical

concept (variable). Different forms of validity exist; however, due to the nature of the

collected data this study only tests the construct validity of the instrument. According to

Carmines and Zeller, construct validity "is concerned with the extent to which a

particular measure relates to other measures that are consistent with theoretically derived

hypotheses concerning the concepts (or constructs) being measured" (as cited in Davis,

1997, p.271)

Convergent validity was assessed utilizing correlations between the dimension

scales (adjective pairs) and their corresponding written descriptions. Dimension mean

scores, for the previously reduced scale items, were calculated and then correlated (using

Pearson correlation coefficient) with their corresponding written description scores.

Results of the correlations are summarized in table 4-15.

Table 4-15: Correlation between Scaled Dimensions and Written Descriptions of
Dimensions
WRITTEN
SCALE MTV VH-1
DESCRIPTION
El El .41* .43*
SN SN .08 .26*
TF TF .11 .10
JP JP .34* .26*
* : p<.01 (2-tailed)

Hypothesis 5: The Extraversion/Introversion dimension adjective scale will be
related to individual profile scores.

Correlations of the El scale with written descriptions yielded correlations for both

MTV (r = .41, p<.01) and VH1 (r = .43, p<.01). These correlations proved the adjective









scale and individual profie (written description) scores were related, and hypothesis 5

was supported.

Hypothesis 6: The Sensing/Intuitive dimension adjective scale will be related to
individual profile scores.

Only one significant correlation was found for the SN scale, VH1 (r = .26, p<.01).

The SN dimension adj ective scale for MTV did not correlate with the written descriptions,

and therefore hypothesis 6 was not supported.

Hypothesis 7: The Thinking/Feeling dimension adjective scale will be related to
individual profile scores.

Hypothesis 7 was also not supported because no significant correlations were

found between the TF scale items, and individual profies.

Hypothesis 8: The Judging/Perceiving dimension adjective scale will be related to
individual profile scores.

Conversely, correlations for the JP scale and written descriptions yielded two

significant correlations. The correlations for MTV (r = .34, p<.01) and VH1 (r = .26,

p<.01) were both significant and thus hypothesis 8 was supported.

Effect of Personality on Marketing Variables

Analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) were used to examine the effect of the

perceived personality of the brand on marketing variables. ANOVAs were first used to

examine the significant difference in means for marketing variables by MBTI dimension

(Table 4-15). For MTV some significant differences in mean scores were found. There

were significant differences in mean acceptability scores and viewing intent scores

between those that rate MTV as an extraverted brand and those that rate MTV as an

Introverted brand (p<.05). There were also significant differences in mean viewing intent,

satisfaction, and usage scores between those that rated MTV as a sensing brand and those









that rated MTV as an intuitive brand (p<.05). These results indicate that respondents

who see MTV as an extraverted and an intuitive brand will find MTV significantly more

acceptable, will be significantly more satisfied with MTV, and intend to view MTV

significantly more and for a longer period of time than those who see MTV as introverted

and sensing. For VH1, the marketing variables had no effect on the perceived personality

dimensions. Also, there were no significant mean differences in marketing variables

between those that rate MTV as a thinking brand and those that rate MTV as a feeling

brand, and between those that rate MTV as a judging brand and those that rate MTV as a

perceiving brand.

ANOVAs were also performed on marketing variables to examine if their

difference in means were significantly different by MBTI type. Only significant brand

MBTI types were analyzed and those representing fewer than 15 (n<15) respondents

were deleted. Table 4-16 through 4-19 illustrate the maj or four letter MBTI brand types

for each marketing variable. Results reveal that variations in maj or four letter personality

types for MTV significantly affect respondents' intent to watch MTV, satisfaction with

MTV, and time spent watching MTV. Again, no significant effects were found for VH1.

In conclusion, results from the ANOVA tests revealed that personality types can

sometimes affect certain marketing variables.

For each brand, cross tabulations and chi squares were calculated for preference

by MBTI type. Table 4-22 and 4-23 show the cross tabulations of maj or brand types by

preference. For both MTV and VH1 the cross tabulations were not significant and there

were no significant differences in brand preference by MBTI type.










Table 4-16: Analysis of Variance Tests on Dimension Means for Marketing Variables

ElI S N T F J P
Familiarity
MTV 5.94 5.20 6.17 5.79 5.92 5.94 5.99 5.88
VH1 5.40 5.74 5.46 5.59 5.42 5.63 5.48 5.73
Acceptability
MTV 5.40* 3.80* 5.26 5.57 5.37 5.37 5.36 5.38
VH1 5.55 5.75 5.52 5.71 5.57 5.64 5.61 5.59
S ati sfacti on
MTV 4.77 4.60 4.56** 5.16** 4.74 4.84 4.80 4.75
VH1 4.67 4.68 4.48 4.94 4.65 4.67 4.59 4.95
Likelihood to Watch
MTV 5.01^` 2.80^` 4.68^^ 551^ 4.94 5.08 4.98 4.99
VH1 4.52 4.61 4.47 4.70 4.58 4.49 4.43 5.02
Usage
MTV 2.30 3.80 1.98*^\ 2.97*^ 2.46 2.16 2.22 2.48
VH1 1.36 1.66 1.42 1.58 1.36 1.56 1.53 1.20
*E significantly greater than I, df=2, F=3.58, p<.05, **N significantly greater than S, df=2, F=3.808, p<.05
^`E significantly greater than I, df-2, F=3.269, p<.05, ^^/ N significantly greater than S, df-2, F=6.909,
p<.05, *^` N significantly greater than S, df-2, F=6.326, p<.05
E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving


VALID
MBTI Type FREQUENCY MEAN STD. DEV.
PERCENT
MTV ENFJ 20 9.0% 6.40 1.142
MTV ENFP 23 10.0% 6.22 1.380
MTV ENTJ 22 9.0% 5.86 1.807
MTV ENTP 21 9.0% 6.14 1.852
MTV ESFJ 20 8.2% 5.85 1.461
MTV ESFP 21 7.6% 5.14 2.056
MTV ESTJ 54 22.3% 5.89 1.734
MTV ESTP 46 19.2% 5.96 1.605
VH1 ENFJ 20 8.5% 5.65 1.755
VH1 ENTJ 32 12.7% 5.25 1.832
VH1 ENTP 15 6.9% 6.13 1.302
VH1 ESFJ 30 12.1% 5.37 1.450
VH1 ESTJ 32 12.1% 5.03 2.024
VH1 ISFJ 27 12.5% 6.15 .949
VH1 ISTJ 33 13.3% 5.33 1.594
E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving


Table 4-17: Familiarity by MBTI Brand Type










































9.3%
10.8%
9.8%
9.7%
6.7%
8.7%
23.2%
17.4%
8.3%
13.6%
6.6%
11.8%
11.9%
10.7%
13.8%
=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=


MTV ENFJ 20
MTV ENFP 23
MTV ENTJ 22
MTV ENTP 21
MTV ESFJ 20
MTV ESFP 21
MTV ESTJ 54
MTV ESTP 46
VH1 ENFJ 20
VH1 ENTJ 32
VH1 ENTP 15
VH1 ESFJ 30
VH1 ESTJ 32
VH1 ISFJ 27
VH1 ISTJ 33
*p<.05 E=Extraversion, I
J= Judging, P=Perceiving


5.55* 1.356
5.61* 1.559
5.32* 1.615
5.52* 1.861
4.00* 2.248
4.95* 1.936
5.13* 1.727
4.50* 2.137
4.50 1.906
4.63 1.809
4.80 1.859
4.30 1.664
4.06 1.933
4.33 1.840
4.55 1.603
Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling,


VALID
PERCENT
8.5%
9.9%
9.5%
9.4%
7.5%
8.8%
23.2%
18.3%
8.5%
13.4%
6.8%
12.8%
12.1%
11.6%
13.9%


MEAN STD. DEV.


MBTI Type FREQUENCY

MTV ENFJ 20
MTV ENFP 23
MTV ENTJ 22
MTV ENTP 21
MTV ESFJ 20
MTV ESFP 21
MTV ESTJ 54
MTV ESTP 46
VH1 ENFJ 20
VH1 ENTJ 32
VH1 ENTP 15
VH1 ESFJ 30
VH1 ESTJ 32
VH1 ISFJ 27
VH1 ISTJ 33


E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S= Sensing, N=Intuition, T= Thinking, F=Feeling,
J= Judging, P=Perceiving

Table 4-19: Viewing Intent by MBTI Brand Type

VALID
MBTI Type FREQUENCY MEAN STD. DEV.
PERCENT


I


Table 4-18: Acceptability by MBTI Brand Type


5.50
5.57
5.55
5.76
4.85
5.43
5.54
5.13
5.75
5.62
6.07
5.73
5.09
5.81
5.70


1.357
1.343
1.335
1.446
1.387
1.287
1.575
1.721
1.118
1.454
1.580
1.048
1.692
1.665
1.531















5.20*
5.30*
4.86*
5.24*
3.90*
4.62*
4.96*
4.28*
4.80
4.78
5.27
4.53
4.22
4.63
4.55


1.542
1.146
1.283
1.480
1.518
1.396
1.659
2.029
1.436
1.641
1.387
1.479
1.518
1.690
1.175


VALID
ENCY MEAN STD. DEV.
PERCENT
7.7% 2.15* 1.565
12.7% 3.09* 2.109
12.3% 3.14* 3.013
12.7% 3.38* 2.459
5.2% 1.45* 1.605
6.4% 1.71* 1.554
20.4% 2.11* 2.080
16.4% 2.00* 2.022
6.6% 1.15 1.040
14.5% 1.59 1.478
6.0% 1.40 2.098
14.8% 1.73 2.083
10.0% 1.09 1.711
12.3% 1.59 2.241
14.0% 1.48 1.482
=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling,


MTV ENFJ 20
MTV ENFP 23
MTV ENTJ 22
MTV ENTP 21
MTV ESFJ 20
MTV ESFP 21
MTV ESTJ 54
MTV ESTP 46
VH1 ENFJ 20
VH1 ENTJ 32
VH1 ENTP 15
VH1 ESFJ 30
VH1 ESTJ 32
VH1 ISFJ 27
VH1 ISTJ 33
*p<.05 E=Extraversion, I
J= Judging, P=Perceiving


VALID
ENCY
PERCENT
9.1%
10.6%
9.3%
9.6%
6.8%
8.5%
23.4%
17.2%
8.6%
13.7%
7.1%
12.1%
12.1%
11.2%
13.4%


MEAN STD. DEV.


MBTI Type FREQUI

MTV ENFJ 20
MTV ENFP 23
MTV ENTJ 22
MTV ENTP 21
MTV ESFJ 20
MTV ESFP 21
MTV ESTJ 54
MTV ESTP 46
VH1 ENFJ 20
VH1 ENTJ 32
VH1 ENTP 15
VH1 ESFJ 30
VH1 ESTJ 32
VH1 ISFJ 27
VH1 ISTJ 33


*p<.05 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S= Sensing, N=Intuition, T= Thinking, F=Feeling,
J= Judging, P=Perceiving


Table 4-21: Usage by MBTI Brand Type


MBTI Type FREQUI


I


Table 4-20: Satisfaction by MBTI Brand Type










Table 4-22: Cross Tabulation of MTV Preference with MBTI Type

DIMENSION PREFER MTV NOT PREFER MTV
Std. Std.
N % N %
residual residual
ENFJ 16 80 .8 4 20.0 -1.1
ENFP 17 73.9 .5 6 26.1 -.7
ENTJ 15 68.2 .2 7 31.8 -.2
ENTP 18 85.7 1.2 3 14.3 -1.6
ESFJ 11 55 -.6 9 45.0 .8
ESFP 12 57.1 -.5 9 42.9 .6
ESTJ 35 64.8 -.1 19 35.2 .1
ESTP 26 56.5 -.7 20 43.5 1.0
chi square=10.494, df=8, sig=.232 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition,
T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving

Table 4-23: Cross Tabulation of VH1 Preference with MBTI Type

DIMENSION PREFER VH1 NOT PREFER VH1
Std. Std.
N % N %
residual residual
ENFJ 3 4.2 -1.2 17 10.1 .8
ENFP 4 5.6 -1.1 19 11.3 .7
ENTJ 6 8.3 -.2 16 9.5 .2
ENTP 2 2.8 -1.7 19 11.3 1.1
ESFJ 7 9.7 .4 13 7.7 -.3
ESFP 9 12.5 1.1 12 7.1 -.7
ESTJ 16 22.2 .0 38 22.6 .0
ESTP 20 27.8 1.7 26 15.5 -1.1
chi square=14.472, df=8, sig=.070 E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N=Intuition,
T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving

Cross Tabulation of Brand Types

A cross tabulation of MTV and VH1 maj or MBTI types revealed the types

between the two networks differ from one another. Further, a chi square (chi

square=98.503, df=56) proved these variations were significantly different at the p<.01

level. Therefore even though the overall instrument was not determined reliable or valid,

the adj ective scale still proved it was able to differentiate between brands by personality

type.













VH1 ENFJ VH1 ENTJ VH1 ENTP
std. std. std. std.
n residual n residual n residual n residual
5 1.3 0 -1.0 0 -1.3 0 -.9
MTV
4 -.1 6 3.4 4 .8 0 -1.1
ENFJ
MTV
4 -.4 2 .1 0 -1.8 0 -1,2
ENFP
MTV
3 -.8 0 -1.4 7 2.4 1 -.3
ENTJ
MTV
4 -.2 0 -1.3 2 -.5 3 1.5
ENTP
MTV
3 -.6 4 1.8 3 .2 0 -1.1
ESFJ
MTV
8 1.7 2 .2 3 .1 1 -.3
ESFP
MTV
8 1.0 3 -.7 11 1,4 4 .3
ESTJ
MTV
12 .7 3 -.4 2 -1.7 6 1.8
ESTP

VH1 ESFJ VH1 ESTJ VH1 ISFJ VH1 ISTJ
MTV std. std. std. std.
ENFJ n residual n residual n residual n residual
MTV
2 .3 3 1 1 -.4 2 .2
ENFP
MTV
1 -.9 3 .2 0 -1.5 2 -.5
ENTJ
MTV
2 -.5 1 -1.2 7 2.7 7 2.2
ENTP
MTV
6 2.0 2 -.5 3 .3 0 -1.7
ESFJ
MTV
3 .2 1 -1.1 5 1.7 3 .1
ESFP
MTV
4 .9 3 ,2 0 -1,5 3 .2
ESTJ
MTV
0 -1.6 2 5 2 2 3 .1
ESTP
MTV
7 .1 13 22 3 -1.2 5 -.9
ENFJ
MTV
5 -.3 4 -.9 6 .4 8 .7
ENFP


Table 4-24: Cross Tabulation of MTV type with VH1 type


chi square=98.503, df=56, sig.=.000
E=Extraversion, I=Introversion, S=Sensing, N


=Intuition, T=Thinking, F=Feeling, J=Judging, P=Perceiving















CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


In today's highly competitive market, being able to distinguish a brand from its

competition is vital to the brand's survival. Thus, brand personality is an integral tool to

marketers and advertisers because of its power to differentiate brands. Despite the

importance of brand personality, there is still a lack of research that addresses the

operational issues of the concept. Due to this gap in research, instruments used for the

measurement of brand personality are scarce. The current study responds to this

problem by testing the soundness of a preliminary brand personality measurement tool.

During the process, possible effects of different marketing variables on brand personality

were also examined.

Summary of Results

In light of the new measure, it was first hypothesized that the adj ective scale

would be deemed reliable as a result of significant findings for the dimensions' internal

consistency. Results support this hypothesis for three out of the four dimensions. The El

and JP dimensions produced the highest alpha scores (respectively) and were considered

the most reliable dimensions. With weaker result, the SN dimension proved to be

somewhat reliable. Conversely, the alphas were too weak for the TF dimension to be

deemed reliable and the hypothesis for the TF dimension was not supported.

It was hypothesized that the instrument would prove to be valid as a result of

significant correlations between the scaled dimensions and written descriptions. Similar









to the aforementioned reliability results, the El and JP dimensions produced the most

significant results respectively. However, the instrument can only be validated for the El

and JP dimensions due to the lack of significant Eindings for the SN and TF dimensions.

Results from the hypothesis testing conclude that the new instrument is only

partially sound. Only elements of the instrument representing the El and JP dimensions

prove to be both reliable and valid; whereas, components corresponding to the SN and TF

dimensions still warrant improvement.

Even though the overall instrument was not determined reliable or valid, the

adj ective scale still proved it was able to differentiate between brands by personality type.

A cross tabulation of the brands' maj or types revealed the types between the two

networks differ from one another. Further, a chi square proved these variations were

significantly different than findings that normally occur as a result of chance. In addition,

results show that both brands were found to have more than one predominant personality.

Maj or personality types found for MTV were ESTJ, ESTP, ESFJ, ESFP, ENTJ, ENTP,

ENFJ, and ENFP. Frequently found types for VH1 were ESTJ, ESFJ, ENTJ, ENTP,

ENFJ, ISTJ, and ISFJ. However, when looking at mean scores across dimension, the

scale was also able to forecast a leading four letter type for each brand. The mean scores

predominantly typed MTV as an ENTP and VH1 as an ESFJ. Furthermore, these types

take on added meaning when detailed profies are provided. For instance, MTV can be

described in more detail by the following ENTP profile, and VH1 can be depicted more

specifically by the following ESFJ profile:

"In general, ENTPs are known for their quest of the novel and complex. They
have faith in their ability to improvise and overcome any challenges that they face.
They are highly independent, and value adaptability and innovation. They may be









several steps ahead of others in encouraging and valuing change" (Hirsh &
Kummerow, 1989).

"In general, ESFJ' s are helpful people who place high value on harmony. Paying
close attention to people's needs and wants, they work well with others to
complete tasks in a timely and accurate way. ESFJs follow through on their
commitments. They like closure and prefer structured, organized situations in
which warmth and compassion are shown" (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1989).

Although not part of the hypothesis, responses to a number of marketing variables

were also analyzed. Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed that MTV and VH1 had

varying degrees of different marketing variables. These marketing variations are

important because it allows for the comparison of personality types between a more

familiar, more preferred, more satisfactory, and more often watched network (MTV) and

a network that is less familiar, less preferred, less satisfactory, and less often watched

(VH 1).

ANOVAs also revealed that personality dimensions can sometimes affect

marketing variables. For example, respondents who see MTV as an extraverted and an

intuitive brand will find MTV significantly more acceptable, will be significantly more

satisfied with MTV, and intend to view MTV significantly more and for a longer period

of time than those who see MTV as introverted and sensing. It is also possible for

variations in maj or four letter types to affect different variables as revealed by ANOVAs

for MTV and viewing intent, satisfaction, and usage variables.

Limitations

This study has several limitations, which may account for the lack of significant

results required to support all of the hypotheses.










Sample

The nature of the sample used for this study mainly limited the research findings.

A small convenience sample of university students was used instead of a random sample

and therefore the results should not be generalized beyond the sample of students. In

addition, the sample was slanted with more women (73%) then men (27%), and a

maj ority of the students are most likely advertising, psychology or public relations maj ors

(because of classes recruited for the sample) who are familiar with these types of research

methods. These circumstances may also skew the results and lead to flawed conclusions.

Brands

Limitations may also be related to the marketing variations in the branded

networks chosen. Although MTV familiarity, usage, and satisfaction variables for MTV

were significantly higher than VH1, MTV was still viewed as significantly less

acceptable than VH1. A possible explanation for this deviation might be due to pre-use

expectations. In other words, respondents who were familiar with MTV and had watched

it more knew what to expect and found it less acceptable; whereas, respondents had more

positive expectations for VH1 because they were less familiar with the network and

watched it less. Although plausible, this explanation does not explain the contradictory

results between acceptability and satisfaction variables and further analysis of the brands'

marketing variations is needed. The ambiguity from marketing variables may cause

inaccurate results. The use of different brands that produce clearer responses to

marketing variable may contribute to more accurate results.










Instrument

Another limitation involves the length format of the survey questionnaire. The

questionnaire may have produced response wear out which can reduce the quality of

collected information. Reducing the number of items on the questionnaire may have

produced better results. Also, the self-report format of the instrument may not yield

accurate responses because the respondents may not be willing or able to answer the

questions provided. Some students may have provided inaccurate information

intentionally by being dishonest, or unintentionally because they lack accurate self-

knowledge.

Future Research

Future research should address the limitations of this study and further test the

measurement tool in this study. This instrument should be further tested on a larger,

random sample and should use more accurate behavior measures of the marketing

variables.

The instrument should also be re examined and improvements should be made

before further testing. For instance, only two MBTI dimensions (El and JP) were deemed

reliable and valid from the results of this study. Therefore, the SN and TF adjectives

should be re examined and the written descriptions should be re written. Also, to

increase reliability of the adj ective scale, future research should only include the

adj ective pairs from this study that produced high standardized alpha scores.

Although previous correlations failed to confirm the validity of the current

instrument, it still has potential for validation. In order to further validate the instrument,

future research should perform a confirmatory factor analysis on the adjective scale items.









This test would reveal items in each dimension that are not accurate measures of the

dimension. The removal of inapt items will increase the instrument' s ability to assess

the theoretical concept it intends to measure and thus provide evidence of having

construct validity.

Another suggestion for further research involves testing the instrument on other

competing branded networks and on different product categories. It is possible that

variations may be found in how consumers use brand personality types among different

product categories. One suggestion would be to use broadcast networks in addition to

cable networks and compare the personalities of the two categories. In lieu of networks,

this instrument may also be useful in typing television programs or television

commercials.

Although it is useful for marketers to be aware of how consumers perceive and

type different brands, it is even more useful for marketers to understand how their target

consumer related to different brands. Future research can use this tool to test self-

concept/product congruity theory by comparing the consumers' perceived personality

with the brands' perceived personality. Further, the instrument can measure the

consumer' s ideal, actual, and undesired personalities and compare them to the perceived

personality of the brand he/she buys.

These suggestions are minimal compared to the several options available to

researchers in the complicated area of brand personality. Some important questions to

keep in mind when researching brand personality include: How does the consumer use

brand personality and how does it relate to them? What types of brand personalities exist?

Do consumers perceive brand images similar to individual personalities? What effect









does brand personality have on purchase decisions and how important is it on purchase

decisions? How can brand personality be most effectively used? In answering these

questions, future research will be of much more use to those interested in the concept of

brand personality.

Implications for Marketers and Advertisers

The importance of brand personality to marketers and advertisers has already

been established in the Review of Literature. However, the implications for a sound

brand personality measurement tool have not been as clearly addressed.

Marketers and advertisers often have the difficult task of controlling the different

images their brand communicates. The difficulty lays in the fact that brand perceptions

exist in the mind of the consumer and are not easily controlled by the marketer or

advertiser. For example, Randazzo (1995) describes the psychic role a brand plays in

marketing communication in more detail:

"A brand exists in psychological space, in the consumer's mind. It is a
perceptual identity with a definite psychic content that is malleable and
dynamic. Advertising is the vehicle that allows us to access the
consumer' s mind, to create a perceptual inventory of imagery, symbols,
and feeling that come to define the perceptual entity we call a brand" (p.8)

A discrepancy between the controlled message intended by the advertiser or marketer and

the message perceived by the consumer has the ability to create a gap in the marketing

communication and can also create miscommunication of the brand image. In order to

reduce this gap in communication and better control their intended brand messages,

marketers and advertisers need to constantly monitor and measure consumers' brand

perceptions. For this reason, the development of a reliable and valid instrument that

measures brand perceptions is needed. Therefore, with the improvement upon the









reliability and validity of the preliminary brand personality measurement tool used in this

study, advertisers and marketers will greatly benefit by gaining more control of their

marketing communications. Moreover with future improvement, applications of this

instrument will make it more plausible for the consumer and the marketer/advertiser to

share the same perceptual brand space.














APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE










Informed Consent for Participation in Brand Study

GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING STUDY
This study is being conducted by Dena Stein, a graduate student in Advertising at the University of Florida in
partial fulfillment of thesis requirements. The faculty member responsible for supervising the research effort is
Dr. John C. Sutherland, Professor, Department of Advertising.

PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to design a standardized instrument for measuring the personality of a brand, also
referred as the image or identity of a brand. This study's objective is to develop a reliable and valid instrument
that might be applied to all brands and product categories.

RISKS
There are no direct benefits or risks to you for participating in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law.

For questions concerning the nature or results of the research, participants may contact either:
Dena Stein
denarcufl.edu
271-8011

John Sutherland
2086 Weimer Hall
392-9172

Questions concerning your rights as a research participant in the study can be directed to:
UFIRB Offiee,
Box 112250,
University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
392-0433.

PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT AGREEMENT

My participation in this study is strictly voluntary, and that I may terminate it at any time during the survey
without penalty.

My answers will remain confidential, they will only be used for the purpose of said research, and my name and
ID # will be replaced by numbered codes during the analysis of data.

The study involves a pencil-and-paper survey that will take approximately 30 minutes to complete, and that I
do not have to answer any questions that I do not wish to answer.

I have read the information and procedure above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure, and have
received a copy of this form.

Participant: Date:


Principal Investigator:


Date:










Special Codes #A-#E
Please answer the following five questions in the space marked "Special Codes" on your answer
sheet. Begin with the letter 'A'. Each letter corresponds to the existing column on the answer
sheet. Please bubble in all of your answers.


A.) What year are you in college?
(1) Freshman (2) Sophomore


(3) Junior


(4) Senior (5) Graduate School


B.) What is your gender?
(1) Male (:

C.) What is your age?
(1) Under 18 (:


2) Female


2) 19-20


(3) 21-22


(4) 23-24 (5) 25-26 (6) 27 or


over

D.) Do you have cable television?
(1) Yes (2) No


E.) On average, how many hours) do you spend watching television per day?
(0=1ess than one hour, 1=1hr, 2=2hrs, 3=3hrs, 4=4hrs, 5=5hrs, 6=6hrs,
7=7hrs, 8=8hrs, 9=nine or more hours)

INTRODUCTION DIRECTIONS
Please fill in your name and student ID number and wait for the oral instructions about the
special codes section on the left side of the bubble sheet. Please be sure to answer ALL of
the questions in the survey. We will be unable to use incomplete questionnaires. Bubble in
all of your answers on the sheet. We appreciate your time and assistance with this research

SECTION 1
How familiar are you with the following cable networks?


Very
Unfamiliar Unfamiliar
1 2


Somewhat
Unfamiliar


Somewhat
Neutral Familiar
4 5


Verv
Familiar
7
7


Familiar
6
6


1. MTV
2. VH-1


How acceptable are the following cable networks to you?


Extremely Slightly Slightly Extremely
Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Neutral Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable


3. MTV 1
4. VH-1 1


6 7












How likely are you to watch the following networks the next time you watch television?


Definitely Very likely Might Probably
Definitely
will not watch will watch not watch Neutral Might watch will watch will
watch


5. MTV

6. VH-1


You have ten points. Please divide those points among the two networks listed below, giving
higher scores to the network you like the most. (The total score of the two networks is equal
to ten) If your score for the item is less than 10, please fill in a zero for the first number. For
example, if your score for MTV is 5, please fill in "O" for number 7 and "5 for number 8.

7.-8. MTV


9.-10. VH-1


How do you feel about the following cable networks?


Terrible


Delighted


11. MTV

12.VH-1


About how many hours would you say you spend in a typical week watching programs on
each of the following networks?
(0=1ess than one hour, 1=1hr, 2=2hrs, 3=3hrs, 4=4hrs, 5=5hrs, 6=6hrs,
7=7hrs, 8=8hrs,9-nine or more hours)



13. MTV

14. VH-1


15. If you had to choose among MTV and VH-1, which would you prefer to watch at any given time?
( i n,,,-w only one!


(1) MTV (2) VH-1














DIRECTIONS SECTION 2
What follows are sets of descriptions of different networks. We'd like you to choose the description
that you believe best fits how you feel about the network. Let's use Question #16 to illustrate. If the
description on the left is, in your mind the best of the two descriptions of MTV, you should choose
#1. If you feel the description on the right is the best, you should choose #7. If you feel MTV is
somewhere between the left and right description, you should choose a number between #1 and #7.
In the following questions, you will be choosing between several descriptions of MTV and VH-1.


Which of the following descriptions best describes MTV cable network?


16. I believe MTV
is upbeat, outgoing, enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and fun. I associate the brand with
lots of people at social gatherings
and events.

17. To me, MTV is
simple & conventional. I associate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the brand with being self-satisfied
and satisfied with one's current situation.
To me, MTV is sensible
and down to earth.

18. I believe MTV is,
rational, intelligent and efficient. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I associate the brand with thinking,
planning, organizing & achieving goals.

19. I think of MTV as
being systematic, orderly, always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
finishing what is started. It is stable
yet optimistic.


I associate MTV
with peaceful time spent alone.
I think of it as calm, thoughtful,
and somewhat subdued.


I think of MTV as
individualistic and creative. I
associate the brand with freedom
from societal constraints and the
constraints of a daily routine.


To me, MTV is affectionate
& sentimental. It is
tender, loving and kind.


I believe MTV is rebellious
and non- conforming.
I associate the brand with relaxed
atmospheres & self-indulgent
leisure activities.











Which of the following descriptions best describes VH1 cable network?


16. I believe VH1
is upbeat, outgoing, enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and fun. I associate the brand with
lots of people at social gatherings
and events.

17. To me, VH1 is
simple & conventional. I associate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the brand with being self-satisfied
and satisfied with one's current situation.
To me, VH1 is sensible
and down to earth.

18. I believe VH1 is,
rational, intelligent and efficient. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I associate the brand with thinking,
planning, organizing & achieving goals.

19. I think of VH1 as
being systematic, orderly, always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
finishing what is started. It is stable
yet optimistic.


I associate VH1
with peaceful time spent alone.
I think of it as calm, thoughtful,
and somewhat subdued.


I think of VH1 as
individualistic and creative. I
associate the brand with freedom
from societal constraints and the
constraints of a daily routine.


To me, VH1 is affectionate
& sentimental. It is
tender, loving and kind.


I believe VH1 is rebellious
and non- conforming.
I associate the brand with relaxed
atmospheres & self-indulgent
leisure activities.










DIRECTIONS SECTION 3
What follow are a series of adjectives that might be used to describe brands. Mark an 'X'
on the space that indicates which adjective you think best describes the brand. Using
number 37 for an example, you should mark line #1 if you feel "sociable" is the best
description of MTV compared to "shy." If you feel "shy" is the best descriptor of the two,
mark line #7. If you feel MTV is somewhere between "sociable" and "shy" mark lines #2-
#6.

Mark the boxes for the adj ectives that best fit MTV.


24. bold
25. realistic

26. logical _
27. clear-cut

28. creative, theoretical


29. soft-hearted

30. unplanned
31. restrained

32. heard-headed

33. dependable, steady


34. moderate

35. clever
36. unstructured

37. sociable
38. sensible

39. sympathetic, caring

40. quiet, reserved
41. complex
42. reasonable
43. unfocused

44. energetic
45. conventional

46. feeling _
47. decided


timid

imaginative
emotional
definite

matter-of-fact,
down-to-earth


firm-minded

planned
assertive

warm-hearted

unpredictable,
loose

dynamic

practical
structured

shy
fanciful

rational, thoughtful

outspoken
simple

empathetic
focused


calm
unconventional

thinking
flexible











Mark the boxes for the adj ectives that best fit VH-1.


48. bold
49. realistic

50. logical _
51. clear-cut

52. creative, theoretical


53. soft-hearted

54. unplanned
55. restrained
56. heard-headed

57. dependable, steady
58. moderate
59. clever
60. unstructured
61. sociable
62. sensible

63. sympathetic, caring


timid

imaginative
emotional
definite

matter-of-fact,
down-to-earth
firm-minded

planned
assertive
warm-hearted

unpredictable, loose
dynamic
practical
structured

shy
fanciful

rational,
thoughtful
outspoken
simple
empathetic
focused
calm
unconventional

thinking
flexible


quiet, reserved
complex
reasonable
unfocused

energetic
conventional

feeling
decided


Thank you very much for your time and participation. Please turn in your materials.















REFERENCES

Aaker, D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Vahte of a Brand
Name. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of2arketing
Research, 34 (3), 347-356.

Akay, E. (2000). The Effects of Educational Elements ofAdvertisentents on the
Perception ofBrandPersonality (Master' s thesis, University of Florida, 2000).

Babble, E. (1998). The Practice ofSocialResearch (8th ed.). New York: Wadsworth
Publishing

Bartos, R. (1986). Ernest Dichter: Motive Interpreter. Journal ofAdvertising
Research, 26 (1), 272-279.

Batra, R., & Myers, J.G., Aaker, D.A. (1996). Advertising Management (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Belch, G., & Belch, A. (2001). Advertising and promotion: An Integrated2\a~rketing
Conanunications Perspective (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consunter
Research, 15 (2), 139-168.

Birdwell, A. (1968). A Study of the Influence of image Congruence on consumer Choice.
Journal ofBusiness, 47, 76-82.

Boeree, C. G., (1997). Personalityrll~~ hmile Carl Young. Retrieved February 3, 2004,
from Social psychology Network Web site: http://www. socialpsychology. org/

Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau CAB (2003). Network profiles. Retrieved February
21, 2004, from Web site: http://www. cabletvadbureau.com/

Center for Applications of Psychological Type, The MBTI Instrument (n.d). The Story of
Isabel Briggs 2eyers. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from http://www.capt.org










Davis, Joel B. (1997). Advertising Research: Theory and Practice.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Dobni, D. & Zinkhan, G.M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis.
In M.E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R.W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in Consumer
Research (17) pp. 110-119. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Dogherty, T. (1996). Don't Mix Brand with Position. Brandweek, 37, 13-16.

Dolich, I. J. (1969, February). Congruence Relationship Between Self-Image and Product
Brands. Journal ofnzarketingResea~rch, 6, pp. 80-84.

Douglas, J.E. (1999). The Congruity Between the Ideal Network and Television
Network' s Brand Personality: What Makes the Difference? (Master's thesis,
University of Florida, 1999).

Durgee, J.F., & Stuart, R.W. (1987). Advertising Symbols and Brand
Names that Best Represent Key Product Meanings. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 4 (3), 15-24.

Edinger, E. (1968). An Outline ofAnalytical Psychology. Retrieved February 3, 2004,
from Center for Applications of Psychological Type Web site:
http://www. capt. org

E geland, E. (1997). The Creation and Prelinzinary Testing of a Brand Personality
Measurement Tool (Master' s thesis, University of Florida).

Fouriner, Susan. (1998) Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory
in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373

Grubb, E., & Grathwohl, H.L. (1967, October). Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism
and Market Behavior: A Theoretical Approach. Journal of2arketing, 31, 22-27.

Grubb, E., & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, Generalized Stereotypes and Brand
Selection. Journal of marketing Research, 5, 58-63.

Haire, M. (1950). Projective Techniques in Marketing Research. Journal of2arketing,
14 (5), 649-656.

Hendon, D. & Williams, E. (1985). Winning the Battle for Your Consumer. The Journal
of Consumer Ma'~rketing, 2, 65-75.

Hirsh, S. & Kummerow, J. (1989). Life Types. New York: Warner Books.

Kardes, Frank R. (2001). Consumer Behavior and Managerial Decision Making. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.










Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic Brand Ma'~naggement Building, M~easuring and Managgin
Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kirshbaum, M.N. (1997). Brand Personality: Constructing and Testing a~ea~surentent
Tool (Master' s thesis, University of Florida, 1997).

Larsen, R.L., & Buss, D.M. (2002). Personality Psychology: Domains ofKlnowledge
About Human Nature. New York: McGraw-Hill

Myers, Isabel Briggs & Meyers, Peter B. (1995). Gifts Differing: Thiderstanding
Personality Type. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black Publishing.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) (2003). Mandating A La
Carte Distribution of Cable progrananing Would Not Benefit Consumers.
Retrieved February 21, 2004, from Web site: www.ncta.com

Ogilvy, David. (1985). Ogilvy on advertising. New York: Vintage.

Plummer, Joseph T. (1984/85). How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of
Advertising Resea~rch, 24 (6), 27-3 1.

Randazzo, Sal (1995). They Myhna\ 1llll~ How Advertisers Apply the Power of Classic
Myths and symbols to Create M~odern Day Legends. Chicago: Probus Publishing.

Shank, M.D. & Lagmeyer, L. (1993). Does Personality Influence Brand Image? The
Journal ofPsychology. 128, 157-164.

Sirgy, M. Joseph (1985, December). Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict
Purchase Motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp.287-300.

Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982, December). Self -Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical
Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp. 287-299.

Solomon, Michael R. (2002). Consumer Behavior: Buying Having and Being. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Strausbaugh, Kirsten Lynn (1998). "Mliss Congeniality or "No M~ore M~r. Nice Guy? ":
On a M~ethod for Assessing Brand Personality and Building Brand Personality
Profiles. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1998)

Sutherland, J., Marshall, S., Parker, B. (2003). Real, Ideal, and thidesired Self concept
and Their Effects on Viewer Preferences: Who Do You Love? Paper presented at
2004 American Academy of Advertising annual conference, Baton Rouge, La

Up shaw, Lynn B. (1995). Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile
Marketplace. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Dena Stein was born on May 5, 1979, in Kansas City, Kansas. After moving

from Kansas when she was young, she spent most of her life growing up in Florida. She

earned a B.S. in Telecommunications from the University of Florida in May, 2001. After

continuing her education at the University of Florida, she expects to receive her Master of

Advertising degree in May 2004. After graduation, she plans to pursue a career in

advertising, with specific interests in account services, strategic planning, consumer

research, and brand management.