exploring brand personality congruence - K-REx - Kansas State ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3.1 Research design flowchart for Phase I PHASE I: Scale development ⇓ Development of Instrument ⇓ Sample Selection ⇓ Pre-test ⇓ Pilot Test ⇓ Instrument Refinement ⇓ Data Collection: Online survey ⇓ Data Analysis Data Screening Descriptive Analysis Exploratory Factor Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis Campaign) that they wished the researcher to donate $1. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (ver 11.5) and LISREL (ver 8.54) and will be discussed in the following section. Survey Instrument Due to the nature of the survey constructs, a restaurant brand with an outlet located in Manhattan, Kansas was chosen to ensure that the study population was familiar with the restaurant. This brand was ranked by Restaurants and Institutions (2006) as one of the top three casual dining restaurant chains in the United States. The questionnaire requested 34
espondents to evaluate the focal restaurant on three measurement scales: Brand Personality Congruence, Trust, and Brand Loyalty (Appendix A.2): Brand Personality Congruence (based on Aaker’s (1997) Brand Personality Scale). Initially, the Brand Personality Scale (BPS) was used in its entirety. For the first section, respondents were asked to think of the restaurant as though it was a person (i.e.: This restaurant chain is down-to-earth). These responses showed which of the 42 personality traits or human characteristics came to mind when the respondent thought of this particular restaurant. A five-point Likert-type scale anchored at “not at all descriptive” to “extremely descriptive” was used. Because Aaker (1997) stated that the scale can be used to measure human personality, respondents were then asked to rate themselves on the same traits (i.e.: I am down-to-earth). BPC was operationalized as the difference between the respondents’ brand personality scores and customer personality scores. Trust (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). A four item seven-point Likert-type scale was used to measure the degree of trust that the respondent felt towards the restaurant chain. The scale was anchored at 1 (Strongly Disagree) and 7 (Strongly Agree). Brand Loyalty (Oliver, 1997). Respondents were asked to rate their attitude towards the restaurant. Five items representing each of the loyalty phases (cognitive, affective, conative, and action) and an overall item (“Overall, I consider myself loyal to this restaurant chain”) were used to measure brand loyalty on a seven-point strongly disagree/strongly agree Likert- type scale. The concluding section of the questionnaire requested respondents to provide demographic data. Information collected included: gender, age, income, employment classification, frequency of dining at focal brand, and frequency of dining out at casual dining restaurants. 35
Page 1 and 2: EXPLORING BRAND PERSONALITY CONGRUE
Page 3 and 4: elationship between BPC and satisfa
Page 5 and 6: Copyright AMELIA ESTEPA ASPERIN 200
Page 7 and 8: elationship between BPC and satisfa
Page 9 and 10: Survey Instrument..................
Page 11 and 12: References.........................
Page 13 and 14: List of Tables Table 3.1 Mailing li
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION As the num
Page 17 and 18: on relational variables such as sat
Page 19 and 20: models, there was a need to reasses
Page 21 and 22: References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dim
Page 23 and 24: Upshaw, L.B. (1995). Building brand
Page 25 and 26: linked to the brand that consumers
Page 27 and 28: standing (Temporal, 2001), and cons
Page 29 and 30: emotional stability (i.e. stability
Page 31 and 32: eferent restaurant chain is Applebe
Page 33 and 34: Research has shown that consumers t
Page 35 and 36: once trust is built, this reliance
Page 37 and 38: satisfaction with the current dinin
Page 39 and 40: Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of
Page 41 and 42: Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. (2003).
Page 43 and 44: Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., &
Page 45 and 46: Onkvisit, S. & Shaw, J. (1987). Sel
Page 47: CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY The overall
Page 51 and 52: Figure 3.2 Modified Tailored Design
Page 53 and 54: otation (SPSS, v.13) was then perfo
Page 55 and 56: Direct Personality Comparison. A si
Page 57 and 58: y-invitation only panel as the samp
Page 59 and 60: Figure 3.5 Phase II data analysis f
Page 61 and 62: Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic con
Page 63 and 64: Introduction As global competitiven
Page 65 and 66: depressed), openness to experience
Page 67 and 68: purchased in the marketplace.” Li
Page 69 and 70: Based on the pilot test, a response
Page 71 and 72: Indicators (Aaker, 1997) Brand Pers
Page 73 and 74: unique .68 young .66 original .64 i
Page 75 and 76: Table 4.4 Standardized Factor Loadi
Page 77 and 78: Table 4.5 Factor Loadings, Eigenval
Page 79 and 80: personality dimensions among casual
Page 81 and 82: References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dim
Page 83 and 84: Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic bra
Page 85 and 86: CHAPTER 5 - EXPLORING BRAND PERSONA
Page 87 and 88: BPC, defined as the gap between the
Page 89 and 90: marketing practitioners should expl
Page 91 and 92: was modified where congruence was o
Page 93 and 94: match their own (Kassarjian, 1971;
Page 95 and 96: Survey Instrument Because the sampl
Page 97 and 98: Baltimore, Denver, Pittsburg, Portl
Page 99 and 100:
Table 5.1 Demographic Characteristi
Page 101 and 102:
Table 5.2 Means, Standard Deviation
Page 103 and 104:
ehavior rather than only the direct
Page 105 and 106:
Theoretical Model Testing Using a s
Page 107 and 108:
Table 5.5 Standardized correlations
Page 109 and 110:
Mediating Effect of Trust and Satis
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 5.4 Structural model testing
Page 113 and 114:
ecause satisfaction has no signific
Page 115 and 116:
ehavior. Additionally, image, conce
Page 117 and 118:
directly and indirectly through tru
Page 119 and 120:
Back, K. J. (2005). The effects of
Page 121 and 122:
Graeff, T.R. (1996). Consumption si
Page 123 and 124:
O’Shaughnessy, J., & O’Shaughne
Page 125 and 126:
CHAPTER 6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Page 127 and 128:
loaded on the customer personality
Page 129 and 130:
XYZ as a person, please indicate a
Page 131 and 132:
help managers determine what is imp
Page 133 and 134:
The BPC framework presented in the
Page 135 and 136:
References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dim
Page 137 and 138:
Dear Faculty/Staff member: Appendix
Page 139 and 140:
125
Page 141 and 142:
127
Page 143 and 144:
129
Page 145 and 146:
131
Page 147 and 148:
Document version for non-HTML email
Page 149 and 150:
135
Page 151 and 152:
137
Page 153 and 154:
139
Page 155 and 156:
141
show all

exploring brand personality congruence - K-REx - Kansas State ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?