04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 195 (Black plate)

Japanese Psychological Research Invited Paper

2001, Volume 43, No. 4, 195–206
Special Issue: Consumer behavior

The effect of brand personality and brand

identification on brand loyalty: Applying the
theory of social identification

CHUNG K. KIM1
School of Business Administration, Sungkyunkwan University,
3-53 Myungnyun-dong, Chongno-ku, Seoul, Korea

DONGCHUL HAN
School of Business Administration, Seoul Women’s University,
126 Kongnung 2 dong, Nowon-ku, Seoul, Korea

SEUNG-BAE PARK
School of Business Administration, Sungkyunkwan University,
3-53 Myungnyun-dong, Chongno-ku, Seoul, Korea

Abstract: This study investigated the effect of brand personality on brand asset management
by using the concept of consumers’ identification with a brand. The focus was on one im-
portant type of high-technology product, the cellular phone. The authors develop a conceptual
framework to explain the effect of brand identification on brand loyalty. The important
variables of this framework include the attractiveness of the brand personality, the distinctive-
ness of the brand personality, the self-expressive value of the brand personality, positive word-
of-mouth reports of the brand, and brand loyalty. The empirical results indicated that there are
positive relationships between attractiveness, distinctiveness, and self-expressive value of
brand personality. These relationships had a statistically significant effect on consumers’
identification with a brand. Furthermore, brand identification had a direct effect on word-of-
mouth reports and an indirect effect on brand loyalty. The theoretical and managerial impli-
cations of the empirical results are presented, and suggestions are made regarding both the
limitations of the present study and future directions for research.
Key words: brand personality, word-of-mouth reports, brand loyalty, social identification,
self-expression.

Research background and X camera emphasized the image of in-

objectives
Many companies are trying to get target
customers’ attention by creating a distinctive
brand image for their products. In the United
States, promotion of General Motors’
Chevrolet truck emphasized the image of
“Like a rock,” and that of Canon’s EOS Rebel
dependence, dynamism, and brilliance through
the tennis player Andre Agassi. These kinds of
human characteristics associated with a brand
are called “brand personality.”
The importance of brand personality to
consumers’ brand loyalty and repurchasing
behavior has not been widely acknowledged.

1
We would like to thank Dr. Heesung Sung, at Seoul Women’s University, and Hong-Seong Kim, at the Global
Marketing Research Center of Samsung Electronics, for their general support. We also would like to thank Professor
Kojima, Professor Hayashi, and two anonymous reviewers. This study was funded by the Korea Research Foundation.
© 2001 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 108 Cowley Road,
Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 196 (Black plate)
196 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park
Only a few researchers, such as Plummer
(1985) and David Aaker (1996), have pointed
out the importance of brand personality in
building competitive advantage and brand
loyalty. Recently, Jennifer Aaker (1997) pre-
sented the empirical results of her research on
the measurement of brand personality.
In short, the issues of why and how brand
personalities affect consumers’ brand loyalty
have not been addressed. The study reported
here borrowed the methodology developed by
Aaker (1997) to measure some dimensions
of brand personality. This paper presents a
theoretical framework for understanding any
effects of brand personality on brand asset
management. The paper also specifies con-
sumers’ behaviors in respect of word-of-mouth
reports about a brand, and brand loyalty.
The specific research objectives of this study
were as follows. First, it examined the existence
of brand personality in the cellular phone
market in Korea. Furthermore, the research
showed that the self-expressive value and
distinctiveness of the brand influence the
attractiveness of a brand personality. When
there is a fit between brand personality and
a consumer’s self-expression, the consumer
may consider a brand as a person, or even a
companion. In the real world, we find this
kind of relationship between brand and human
(Fournier, 1998). Sometimes, the human charac-
teristics attached to a certain brand are used to
express one’s own image or personality.
Second, this study investigated any possible
linkage between brand and consumer through
the social identification theory developed in
social psychology. The concept of social
identification relates to a person’s sense of
belonging to a certain group or organization
(Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Mael &
Ashforth, 1992). Therefore, a consumer’s
identification with a certain brand or a certain
company makes that consumer differentiate
the brand from others. Social identification
theory is widely used in social psychology
(Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
Third, this study examined the effect of
brand identification on brand loyalty and
positive word-of-mouth reports about the
© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
brand. Social identification theory has mainly
been applied to organizational identification, in
which variables such as organizational prestige,
expectation level, length of membership, and
contact frequency have been studied (Mael &
Ashforth, 1992). Some of these concepts are
applied to our study in order to examine the
role of brand identification.
Many people are likely to express them-
selves and/or enhance themselves by selecting
particular brands. The degree to which the
brand expresses and enhances their identity is
determined by their level of brand identifi-
cation. The major research subjects of our
paper are as follows:
1. With what kinds of brand personalities do
consumers in Korea associate their cellular
phones?
2. How does brand personality affect brand
loyalty?
The latter is broken down into three parts:
1. Which aspects of brand personalities are
connected to a brand’s attractiveness, self-
expressive value, and distinctiveness?
2. Does the attractiveness of brand person-
ality positively affect the level of brand
identification?
3. Does brand identification have a positive
effect on the level of brand loyalty and
word-of-mouth reports?
This study will be of interest both to
businesses and academically. In the business
world, it is expected that the results of studies
like the present one will be used to develop
strategies for corporate advertising and store
design. Furthermore, it will help our under-
standing of how brand personality may be
used to enhance customers’ self-expression
and product differentiation. Academically,
studies about brand personality have pro-
gressed to identifying dimensions of brand
personality. Beyond such identification, this
study, within the framework of social identifi-
cation, examines how brand personality affects
brand loyalty.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 197 (Black plate)
The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty
In the next section, the literature on two
important areas, brand personality and social
identification, is selectively reviewed, and some
hypotheses are introduced. The theoretical back-
ground to this paper is also explained. Then an
interdisciplinary study of marketing and social
psychology is described. The theoretical and
managerial implications of the findings and
future research directions are also presented.
Literature review and hypotheses
Studies of brand personality
How human personality affects various aspects
of consumer behavior has been widely studied,
but studies of brand personality began only
recently, although in the field of marketing
several studies have already been completed
and published. For example, Plummer (1985)
studied how brand personality affects con-
sumers’ choice of a soft drink with a distinctive
brand image in the United States. Aaker (1996)
summarized the role of brand personality in
building up brand power, and pointed out
the importance of and the need for empirical
research. Aaker (1997), after realizing the need
for further empirical research, developed a
new measurement scale for measuring brand
personality along five dimensions, extracted
from her research. These five dimensions were
sincerity, excitement, competence, sophisti-
cation, and ruggedness. But these studies have
not shown how brand personality affects im-
portant marketing variables such as brand
loyalty. We need to study how brand person-
ality affects brand loyalty, using a theoretical
framework such as social identification.
Studies of social identification
In social psychology, social identification means
that a person identifies him/herself as a member
of a society. An expression of identification
with an organization is treated as a special type
of social identification (Bhattacharya et al.,
1995; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Lau, 1989; Mael
& Ashforth, 1992).
People tend to use various factors to classify
themselves as belonging to a specific group.
197
This phenomenon, which is widely rooted in
our social life, is often called social identifi-
cation. In short, social identification implies
the sense of belonging to certain groups or
organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg,
Hardie, & Reyrolds, 1995). Here, a group in-
cludes a reference group; it includes not only a
group to which people belong but also a group
to which they aspire to belong. Fournier (1998)
has studied how consumers identify themselves
with brands by using idiographic analysis.
Studies of organizational identification may
be divided in two. First, there is a group of
studies on the antecedents of identification.
Such studies have examined: the degree of
competition with other organizations (Mael
& Ashforth, 1992); organizational prestige
(Bhattacharya et al., 1995); and tenure (Hall,
Schneider, & Nygren, 1970). Second, there is a
group of studies on the effect of group identi-
fication. For example, Mael and Ashforth
(1992) found a positive relationship between
identification and alumnis’ contribution to
their Alma Mater. Dutton, Dukerich, and
Harquail (1994) argued that there is a positive
relationship between identification and group
cooperation. Shamir (1990) proposed that
identification has a positive effect on the will-
ingness to contribute to collective work.
However, all these studies investigated
organizational identification, not brand identi-
fication. In the papers cited above, studies of
the relationship between consumer and brand
(i.e., consumers’ identification with a brand)
were suggested as a likely next research topic.
Recently, Aaker (1999) offered a concept of
brand identification based on her study of
brand role in self-expression.
Research hypotheses
This study was designed to test the inter-
relationships between six constructs. The
constructs have been categorized into two
groups. The first group (antecedent variables)
comprises the self-expressive value and distinc-
tiveness of brand personality. The second
group (outcome variables) comprises attrac-
tiveness of brand personality, brand identifi-
cation, positive word-of-mouth reports, and
© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 198 (Black plate)

198 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Self-
expressive
value Word-of-mouth
Attractiveness reports
of brand
personality

Distinctiveness of
brand
personality
Brand
Brand loyalty
identification

Figure 1. The research model.

brand loyalty. The main focus in this study was
on brand identification.
First, self-concept, self-consistency, and self-
continuity are interrelated. The brand will be
perceived as attractive when it helps a person
to express him/herself, and when the person
identifies with the brand (Belk, 1988). Aaker
(1999) argued that a brand is used for self-
expression and to reflect self-concept. When
expressed properly, brand personality posi-
tively affects a consumer’s attitude to the brand.
Based on the literature review, it is expected
that the greater are the self-expressive value
and the distinctiveness of the brand personality,
the more the brand personality will appeal.
Therefore, we have the following hypotheses:
1. The greater the self-expressive value and
the distinctiveness of brand personality
are, the greater will be the attractiveness of
the brand personality.
2. The greater the attractiveness of the brand
personality is, the more consumers will
identify with that brand.
Second, we expect that the more consumers
identify with the brand, the more will be their
word-of-mouth reports and brand loyalty. Some
research results regarding the outcome
variables of identification show that the more
an organization’s members identify with the
organization, the more they agree with its
norms and cooperate with it. As indicated
above, previous studies have empirically shown
that group identification has a positive effect
on alumni’s contributions, group cooperation,
and willingness to contribute to a collective
work (Dutton et al., 1994; Mael & Ashforth,
1992; Shamir, 1990). This means that a
consumer’s identification with a social object
(whether it is a group, an organization, or a
brand) leads the person to behave positively
toward the group. Therefore, we conclude that
brand identification will positively affect brand
loyalty and word-of-mouth reports.2 Therefore,
we have the following additional hypothesis.
3. The more consumers identify with a brand,
the more will be the consumers’ word-of-
mouth reports and brand loyalty.
The three hypotheses are linked in the research
model shown in Figure 1.
2
Bhattacharya et al. (1995) examined the difference
between brand identification and brand loyalty. They
stated that brand loyalty is a reflection of the functional
utility of products and services, whereas brand iden-
tification is necessarily related to the goals of the
organization and the reasons why it exists. Therefore,
brand identification can affect brand loyalty, but brand
loyalty does not guarantee identification with the brand
or the company.

© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 199 (Black plate)
The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty
Method
Sample and data collection
Since this research dealt with the effect of
brand identification on consumer behavior,
any product could be the object of study as
long as consumers carried a sense of brand
identification in relation to it. The cellular
phone was chosen as the target product for this
empirical study. When the data were collected
in late 1999, five companies were competing for
the market of cellular phones in Korea.
First, a questionnaire was devised and a
short pretest conducted; the questionnaire was
then revised based on the results of the pretest.
Second, 180 of the revised questionnaires
were distributed to university students in
Seoul, Korea. Of the 150 that were returned
(a response rate of approximately 83%),
130 were entered in the final data analysis
(20 incomplete questionnaires were omitted).
Measures
Most of the major variables in this study were
measured using multi-item five-point or seven-
point scales developed and validated by pre-
vious research. The specific items are presented
in Table 2. Seven instruments were used to
gather the data to test the three research
hypotheses. Some appropriate modifications
were made to the items.
1 Forty-two dimensions of brand personality
were measured with the Brand Personality
Scale (BPS), developed by Aaker (1997).
The BPS employs a five-point Likert scale
(1 being “strongly agree,” 5 “strongly
disagree”).
2. Brand identification was measured on a
six-item, seven-point Likert scale (1 being
“strongly disagree,” 7 “strongly agree”),
originally developed by Mael and Ashforth
(1992).
3. Brand loyalty was measured on a four-item
scale developed by Aaker (1996) and
Ratchford (1987) and modified by Kim
(1998). This scale comprised a seven-point
Likert scale (1 being “strongly disagree,”
7 “strongly agree”).
199
4. Word-of-mouth report behavior was
measured on a three-item, seven-point
Likert scale, based on that used in the
study by File, Judd, and Prince (1992).
5. The scale for the self-expressive value of
brand personality was based on previous
studies by the authors. It comprised
three items rated on a seven-point scale:
“The brand helps me to express myself,”
“The brand reflects my personality,”
and “The brand enhances myself.”
6. The scale for attractiveness of brand per-
sonality was also based on the authors’
previous studies and comprised three
items rated on a seven-point scale: “It
is attractive,” “It is favorable,” and “It is
distinctive.”
7. The distinctiveness of the brand person-
ality was measured by another group of
three items which compared different
products on a seven-point scale: closely
related vs. not related; completely similar
vs. different; and many common features
vs. few common features.
Results
In order to test the hypotheses, the structural
modeling method called LISREL was used. We
found several interesting and important results
in relation to the hypotheses. Before we
present the main results, however, we show an
initial analysis procedure and some findings
regarding the dimensions of brand personality.
We also present the reliability and validity of
the measures used in the main analysis.
Analyzing the dimensions of brand
personality
An exploratory factor analysis was done on the
42 items of brand personality with a varimax
rotation. During the factor analysis, six
variables that were not related to any factor
(i.e., down-to-earth, family-oriented, real, in-
dependent, cool, cheerful) were excluded, and
a total of five factors were extracted from
remaining 36 items. The factors were named
“Sincerity,” “Excitement,” “Competence,”
© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 200 (Black plate)
200 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park
“Sophistication,” and “Ruggedness,” in accord-
ance with their respective factor loadings
(Table 1).
Reliability and validity of the measures
First, the Cronbach’s alphas were determined
in order to test the reliability of the variables.
The results (Table 2) indicated that the
measures of the key variables were generally
reliable.
Second, in order to test the validity of the
measures, the data were analyzed using
LISREL VIII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). A
confirmatory factor analysis was performed
according to the method of Bagozzi (1980). As
shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, the
validity of outcome variables and antecedent
variables was tested in order. The result of the
confirmatory factor analysis for 13 outcome
variables is shown in Table 3. The overall
match for the measurement model regarding
the attractiveness of brand personality, brand
identification, word-of-mouth reports, and
brand loyalty was within acceptable levels
(χ2 = 102.59, p = .05). The following indices
were found to be appropriate: root mean
square residual (RMSR) (.05), goodness-of-fit
index (GFI) (.91), adjusted goodness-of-fit
index (AGFI) (.86), normed fit index (NFI)
(.89), and comparative fit index (CFI) (.97).
The result of the confirmatory factor analysis
for five measures of the two antecedent
constructs is shown in Table 4. The overall fit
for the measurement model according to the
self-expressive value of brand personality and
the distinctiveness of brand personality was
also within acceptable levels (χ2 = 28.02,
p = .05). The indices were found to be
appropriate: RMSR (.06), GFI (.95), AGFI
(.89), NFI (.95), and CFI (.98). Thus the
measures used for the main analysis were
valid.
Results of hypothesis testing and
implications
The test result of the measurement model for
this study was positive. The correlation analysis
was done on the data in order to identify the
directions of relationships among the variables
© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
measured. For this empirical testing, mean
scores on the measures were utilized. The
results are shown in Table 5.
Before hypothesis testing, a separate test
was done to identify whether the self-
expressive value of brand personality and the
distinctiveness of brand personality were
related to the level of brand identification
without the attractiveness of brand personality
(alternative model). Indices for the overall fit
for this alternative model were GFI (.83),
AGFI (.77), RMSR (.08), NFI (.81), CFI (.89);
χ2 = 262.38, df = 125, p = .00.
The various indices for the overall fit of the
research model (shown in Figure 1) were GFI
(.82), AGFI (.76), RMSR (.89), NFI (.80), CFI
(.88); χ2 = 275.04, df = 127, p = .00. The
difference between the research model and
the alternative model was not significant
(χ2 = 12.66, df = 2).
The relationships between variables and
path coefficients of the structural model are
presented in Table 6. The self-expressive value
of the brand personality had a significant effect
on the attractiveness of the brand personality
(γ11 = .84, t = 6.17). The distinctiveness of the
brand personality had a significant effect on
the attractiveness of the brand personality
(γ21 = .21, t = 2.31), but the effect was weaker
than that of self-expressive value. Therefore,
these results support hypothesis 1 (the higher
the self-expressive value of the brand person-
ality and the higher the distinctiveness of
the brand personality are, the more attractive
will be the brand personality). Furthermore,
the attractiveness of the brand personality
had a significant effect on the level of
brand identification (β21 = .56, t = 4.61). There-
fore, hypothesis 2 (the more attractive the
brand personality is, the higher the level of
brand identification will be) is also supported.
The degree of brand identification positively
affected word-of-mouth reports (β32 = .38,
t = 3.00), but it did not significantly affect the
level of brand loyalty (β42 = –.11. t = –0.88).
Therefore, hypothesis 3 (the higher the con-
sumers’ identification with brand is, the higher
the consumers’ word-of-mouth reports and
brand loyalty will be) is only partly supported.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 201 (Black plate)

The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty 201

Table 1. Factor analysis results – brand personality

Factor 1: Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4: Factor 5:

Factor item sincerity excitement competence sophistication ruggedness Communality
a
Intelligent .79 .12 .17 .10 –.02 .6737
Successful .72a .26 .17 –.07 .24 .6754
Leader .66a .07 .05 .06 .40 .6088
Upper class .66a .11 .36 –.13 .27 .6717
Secure .66a .15 .24 .24 .10 .5811
Technical .65a .34 .14 .14 .27 .6512
Corporate .65a –.01 .36 .36 .09 .5677
Reliable .63a –.01 .37 .37 .12 .6256
Hardworking .63a .17 .34 .34 .03 .5587
Confident .60a .30 .14 .14 .19 .5218

Trendy .04 .79a .18 –.12 –.11 .6924

Young –.01 .70a .15 .14 –.05 .6412
Contemporary .41 .71a –.05 .02 –.08 .6758
Unique .21 .68a .28 .06 .17 .6125
Up-to-date .35 .65a .21 –.20 –.09 .6348
Spirited .04 .64a .24 .29 .03 .5556
Western .30 .58a .11 .01 .41 .6069
Outdoorsy .15 .50a .18 .12 .45 .5263

Charming .30 .27 .70a .26 .14

Sentimental .20 –.10 .69a .24 –.03 .7488
Smooth .20 .06 .67a .38 .16 .5829
Feminine –.06 .28 .66a .09 .12 .6603
Good-looking .17 .25 .65a .27 .19 .5399
Glamorous .35 .20 .64a .25 .10 .6285
Imaginative .13 .32 .54a .12 .08 .6432
Daring .33 .22 .54a –.13 .32 .4420
Exciting .25 .39 .53a –.14 –.10 .5624

Wholesome .13 .05 .11 .74a .02 .5778

Honest .29 –.01 .02 .69a .19 .5962
Small-town –.06 –.08 .16 .63a .11 .4420
Sincere .19 .03 .25 .62a .25 .5462
Friendly .13 .39 .24 .50a .06 .4783
Original .32 .16 .17 .50a .09 .4134

Tough .16 –.12 .13 .24 .80a .7623

Masculine .29 –.13 .15 .28 .75a .7626
Rugged .44 .15 .16 .21 .60a .6449

Explained by factors 5.9736 4.7723 4.4836 3.6345 2.7770

Eigenvalue 12.2277 3.6994 2.5413 1.6902 1.4824
Cronbach’s α .9110 .8702 .8825 .7768 .8373

a
Factor loading ù .5.

© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 202 (Black plate)

202 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Table 2. Reliability of items

Original number Final number Cronbach’s

Construct Item of items of items α

Attractiveness of 1. Attractive 3 3 .89

brand personality 2. Favorable
3. Distinctive

Self-expressive value 1. The brand helps me to express myself 3 3 .92

of brand personality 2. The brand reflects my personality
3. The brand enhances myself

Distinctiveness of 1. The brand was not related to other brands 3 2 .50

brand personality (vs. closely related)
2. The brand is completely different from other
brandsa (vs. completely similar)
3. The brand has few features in common with
other brands (vs. many features)

Brand identification 1. This brand’s successes are my successes 6 5 .82

2. I am interested in what others think about this
brand
3. When someone praises this brand, it feels like
a personal complimenta
4. When I talk about this brand, I usually say “we”
rather than “they”
5. If a story in the media criticized the brand, I
would feel embarrassed
6. When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like
a personal insult

Word-of-mouth 1. Recommend to other people that the brand 3 2 .78

reports should be theirs as soon as possiblea
2. Recommend the brand to other people
3. Talk directly about your experience with them

Brand loyalty 1. I will continue to use this brand because I am 4 3 .81

satisfied and acquainted with the brand
2. I will use this brand in spite of competitors’
deals
3. I would buy additional products and service in
this branda
4. I prefer the brand to others
a
Those items which were not reliable and loading low on the corresponding constructs were excluded from further
analysis.

Finally, the attractiveness of the brand Discussion and conclusion

personality significantly affected positive word-
of-mouth reports, but it did not significantly Summary of results
affect brand loyalty (β31 = .33, t = 2.64, β41 = .14, Most of the hypotheses were supported by the
t = 1.16). test results. The confirmation of the first

© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 203 (Black plate)

The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty 203

Table 3. Factor loadings (t values) from the confirmatory factor analysis of outcome variables

Factor itemsa Attractiveness Brand identification Word-of-mouth reports Brand loyalty

Attractiveness of brand personality

Item 1 .86 (7.52)
Item 2 .86 (7.54)
Item 3 .84 (7.40)

Brand identification
Item 1 .75 (8.78)
Item 2 .54 (5.95)
Item 4 .76 (8.98)
Item 5 .80 (8.76)
Item 6 .55 (6.08)

Word-of-mouth reports
Item 2 .84 (8.76)
Item 3 .77 (8.45)

Brand loyalty
Item 1 .73 (6.60)
Item 2 .74 (6.66)
Item 3 .79 (6.91)

GFI = .91, AGFI = .86, RMSR = .05, NFI = .89, CFI = .97; χ2 = 102.59, df = 80, p = .05.
a
See Table 2 for the numbered items.

hypothesis (the higher the self-expressive value
of the brand personality and the higher the
distinctiveness of brand personality, the higher
consumers will evaluate the attractiveness of
the brand personality) shows that there is a
positive relationship between customer and
brand.
Second, it turns out that the brand identifi-
cation has a positive effect on word-of-mouth
reports, but it does not have a significant direct
effect on brand loyalty. But, since word-of-
mouth reports significantly affect brand loyalty
and since brand identification significantly
affects word-of-mouth reports, it can be said
that brand identification has an indirect effect
on brand loyalty through positive word-of-
mouth reports.
Similarly, the attractiveness of the brand
personality directly affects positive word-of-
mouth reports and indirectly affects brand
loyalty. Unlike previous studies which argued
that the strength of five dimensions of brand
personalities affect brand asset, the instrument
Table 4. Factor loadings (t values) from the
confirmatory factor analysis of antecedent
variables
Self-expressive
Factorsa value Distinctiveness
Self-expressive value
1 .91 (13.10)
2 .91 (13.06)
3 .81 (10.84)
Distinctiveness
1 .71 (3.53)
3 .53 (3.29)
GFI = .95, AGFI = .89, RMSR = .06, NFI = .95, CFI = .98;
χ2 = 28.02, df = 17, p = .05.
a
See Table 2 for the numbered items.
measuring attractiveness in this study had
three dimensions – attractiveness, distinctive-
ness, and favorableness – and these were
shown to affect brand loyalty and word-of-
mouth reports.

© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 204 (Black plate)

204 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park

Table 5. Correlation matrix of research constructs

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Self-expressive value 3.58 1.49 1.000

2. Distinctiveness 4.41 1.12 –.156* 1.000
3. Attractiveness 3.96 1.28 .760* –.021 1.000
4. Brand identification 3.20 1.30 .378* –.151* .326* 1.000
5. Word-of-mouth reports 3.42 1.53 .445* –.109 .386* .411* 1.000
6. Brand loyalty 3.87 1.50 .323* .047 .424* .299* .588* 1.000

This table shows the correlation matrix used for the LISREL analysis. Those who would like to replicate our analysis could
use the correlation matrix rather than the full data set.
*p , .1.

Table 6. Results of model and hypotheses

Hypothesis Coefficient value t value

γ11 Self-expressive value → Attractiveness .84 6.17**

γ21 Distinctiveness → Attractiveness .21 2.31**
β21 Attractiveness → Identification .56 4.61**
β31 Attractiveness → Word-of-mouth reports .33 2.64**
β41 Attractiveness → Brand loyalty .14 1.16
β32 Identification → Word-of-mouth reports .38 3.00**
β42 Identification → Brand loyalty –.11 0.88
β43 Word-of-mouth reports → Brand loyalty .74 4.08**

GFI = .82, AGFI = .76, RMSR = .89, NFI = .80, CFI=.88; χ2 = 275.04, df = 127, p = .00.
**p , .05.

Implications for marketing strategies loyalty and word-of-mouth reports. Usually,

Some strategic implications of this empirical
study are as follows. First, it is necessary for
firms to develop efficient communication
methods in order to launch a distinctive and
attractive brand personality. Communication
plays a vital role in creating and maintaining
brand personality. Unlike foreign examples,
there are few Korean cases in which brand
personality is consistently created. This re-
quires not only communication strategies but
also other activities such as the firm’s com-
munity service and consumer support activities.
However, many companies fail because they
emphasize and focus only on short-term goals
by responding ad hoc or emulating other
companies’ strategies. Therefore, the effective
use of brand personality (uniquely and in such
a way that the brand helps people enhance
their self-expression) can increase brand
brand personality is created by various
activities such as marketing communication,
sales promotion, social contribution, and
public relations. Therefore, brand personality is
not easily created, but once created it tends to
have a long life.
The results of this study have an important
theoretical implication, concerning the relation-
ship between brand and consumer. Recently,
with the increasing number of Internet users,
more businesses have been focusing on customer
relationship management (CRM). The develop-
ment of brand identification affects the building
of a relationship between brand and consumer.
In other words, when brand personality seems
attractive, brand identification is created. If
brand identification increases, then online con-
sumers will not so readily click away from the
brand’s website. Brand personality would also

© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.

04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 205 (Black plate)
The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty
help a website powerfully differentiate itself
from competing sites, although they are
necessarily similar to each other, physically and
functionally. In short, developing and main-
taining brand identification through brand
personality helps consumers consider the
brand as their long-term companion. This kind
of long-term relationship with customers is the
main objective of CRM.
Academically, this study has the following
theoretical implications. Unlike previous
research, this study tested possible relationships
between the self-expressive value of brand
personality, distinctiveness of brand person-
ality, and attractiveness of brand personality.
Most of these relationships are supported by
the current data. In short, careful management
of brand personality helps consumers to develop
a favorable image of the company.
Limitations and future research directions
This study makes an important theoretical
contribution to connect the concept of brand
personality with the theory of social identifi-
cation. Nevertheless, it has some limitations.
First, this study focuses only on cellular
phones, and many other products categories
could have been tested for the same purpose.
One of the interesting future areas is to
examine the issue of brand identification in
relation to sports marketing, brand extension,
Internet marketing, and so on. For example, a
consumer’s identification with the brand of
a company (or simply brand identification)
would be significantly affected by the con-
sumer’s identification with the sports team or a
star player sponsored by the company.
Second, this study tested the relationship
between brand identification and brand loyalty/
word-of-mouth reports, but additional theoret-
ical relationships could be tested within the
same framework. For example, repurchasing
behavior or intention offline (or revisit be-
havior or intention online) could be included in
a future study.3
3
We would like to thank one of the reviewers who
suggested this idea to us.
205
References
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York:
Free Press.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality.
Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.
Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: the role of self-
expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36, 45–57.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity
theory and the organization. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Bagozzi, R. (1980). Causal models in marketing.
Boston: John Wiley & Sons.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September),
139–168.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995).
Understanding the bond of identification: an
investigation of its correlates among art museum
members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 46–57.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V.
(1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,
39, 239–263.
File, K., Judd, B., & Prince, R. (1992). Interactive
marketing: the influence of participation on
positive word-of-mouth and referrals. Journal of
Service Marketing, 6(4), 5–14.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands:
developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24,
343–373.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970).
Personal factors in organizational identifi-
cation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15,
176–190.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifi-
cations: A social psychology of intergroup rela-
tions and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., Hardie, E. A., & Reyrolds, K. J. (1995).
Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and
depersonalized attraction: a perspective on
group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 25, 159–177.
Karl, G. J., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8:
Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Chicago: Science Software
International.
Kim, C. (1998). Brand personality and advertising
strategy: an empirical study of mobile-phone
services. Korean Journal of Advertising, 9, 37–52.
Lau, R. (1989). Individual and contextual influences
on group identification. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 52, 220–231.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
04_Kim 07/09/2001 11:59 am Page 206 (Black plate)
206 C. K. Kim, D. Han, and S. B. Park
Mael, F. B., & Ashforth, E. (1992). Alumni and
their alma mater: a partial test of the reformu-
lated model of organizational identification.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
103–123.
Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a
difference. Journal of Advertising Research,
24(6), 27–31.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2001.
Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB
grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4),
34–38.
Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identi-
ties: the sources of collectivistic work motiva-
tion. Human Relations, 43, 313–332.
(Received Jan. 17, 2001; accepted May 13, 2001)