1

University of Amsterdam Faculty of Economics and Business

The relationship between personality traits and brand loyalty.

An empirical analysis among Greek consumers.

Author: Iliana Tzanaki (10846344) University of Amsterdam Faculty of Economics and Business MSc. In Business Administration – Marketing Track Academic Year: 2014-2015 Under the Supervision of: Dr. Antoon Meulemans Second assessor: Dr. J.H.J.P. Tettero

2

Acknowledgements

This master thesis is submitted as the final requirement of my Masters of Science

degree in Business Studies at the Amsterdam Business School, University of

Amsterdam.

This master thesis would not have been possible without the support of many

people. I would like to acknowledge the advice and guidance of my supervisor Dr.

Toon Meulemans, whose constructive feedback and suggestions made possible the

exploration and understanding of the constructs of lifestyle branding.

Finally, I would like to thank my family, without whose moral and financial support,

the completion of this master thesis and the realization of my aspirations and

ambitions would not have been possible.

3

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Iliana Tzanaki who declares to take full responsibility for

the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this

document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and

its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business

is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the

contents.

4

Contents

Table of Exhibits ....................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 7

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 8

1.1 Research question......................................................................................... 11

1.2 Structure of the study .................................................................................... 12

2. Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 13

2.1 Traditional and Lifestyle Brands .................................................................... 13

2.2 Brand Loyalty ................................................................................................ 17

2.3 Big Five Personality Traits ............................................................................. 22

2.4 Gender differences ........................................................................................ 27

LOYALTY AND GENDER ....................................................................................... 28

2.5 Hypothesis Development ............................................................................... 29

2.6 Conceptual Framework. ................................................................................. 31

3. Research method ................................................................................................ 32

3.1 The Sample ................................................................................................... 32

PRE TESTING .................................................................................................... 34

3.2 The Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 34

TRANSLATION PROCEDURE ................................................................................ 36

3.3 Measurement of variables ............................................................................. 36

LIFESTYLE BRANDS............................................................................................ 36

BIG 5 PERSONALITY TRAITS .............................................................................. 37

BRAND LOYALTY ............................................................................................... 39

CONTROL VARIABLES......................................................................................... 39

4. Results & Analysis .............................................................................................. 41

4.1 Factor Analysis .............................................................................................. 41

4.2 Skewness & Kurtosis ..................................................................................... 45

4.3 Reliability ....................................................................................................... 46

4.4 Multiple Hierarchical Regressions .................................................................. 47

POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON

BRAND LOYALTY OF TRADITIONAL BRANDS : ........................................................ 47

POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON

BRAND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ............................................................. 49

4.5 Moderation .................................................................................................... 51

5

MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRAVERSION

AND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ................................................................ 51

MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS

AND LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS: ................................................................ 52

5. Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................ 54

5.1 Summary of results........................................................................................ 54

5.2 Theoretical and Managerial Implications........................................................ 56

5.3 Limitations and Further Research .................................................................. 58

5.4 Further Research .......................................................................................... 59

6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 60

Appendix ................................................................................................................. 65

Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 65

Factor Analysis .................................................................................................... 70

Regressions ........................................................................................................ 72

6

Table of Exhibits

Table 1. Life Style Dimensions (Plummer,1974) ..................................................... 14

Table 2: Loyalty Phases (Oliver, 1999) ................................................................... 18

Table 3: Model of loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994) ......................................................... 19

Table 4: Ten key gendering issues (Alreck, 1994) .................................................. 28

Table 5: Big 5 Personality Traits Items .................................................................... 38

Table 6: Loyalty items ............................................................................................. 39

Table 7: Eigenvalues .............................................................................................. 42

Table 8: Pattern Matrix ............................................................................................ 44

Table 9: Skewness and Kurtosis ............................................................................. 45

Table 10: Means, standard deviations and correlations. ......................................... 47

Table 11: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on

Loyalty of Traditional brands. .................................................................................. 48

Table 12: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on

Loyalty of Lifestyle brands. ...................................................................................... 50

Table 13: KMO and Bartlett's Test .......................................................................... 70

Table 14: Eigenvalues with four components .......................................................... 70

Table 15: Skewness and Kurtosis for all items ........................................................ 71

Table 16: Regressions for loyalty of traditional brands ............................................ 72

Table 17: ANOVA for loyalty of traditional brands ................................................... 72

Table 18: Coefficients for traditional brands ............................................................ 73

Table 19: Regression for lifestyle brands ................................................................ 73

Table 20: Anova for lifestyle brands ........................................................................ 74

Table 21: Coefficients for lifestyle brands ................................................................ 75

7

Executive Summary

Human personality is an interesting area for marketers attempting to predict

consumer behavior. Nowadays, the Big Five is the most common frame to describe

personality, which helps marketers categorize consumers into different target groups

based on personality traits. Consequently, marketers start to conform their products

in order to appeal to the traits of a consumer group and tailor them to increase

consumer loyalty. Nevertheless, although research on personality traits and their

relation to brand loyalty has been done, research on the connection to loyalty for

lifestyle brands is limited. This thesis attempts to cover this gap in literature. The

central research question is “Do personality traits influence brand loyalty in the cases

of traditional and lifestyle brands?”.

Previous literature supports satisfaction as a main driver in purchase intention and

creation of brand loyalty. Furthermore, congruence between consumers’ personality

traits and brand’s personality has been shown to increase levels of loyalty. This

research is based on both traditional and lifestyle brands and provides feedback for

companies on how and under which conditions should consumers’ personality traits

be taken into account for long-term relationship creation.

Brand loyalty of lifestyle brands was expected to be higher, when there is

congruence between the lifestyle promoted and consumers’ personality traits.

Indeed, mean scores between brands differ, with lifestyle brand generating higher

levels but not significantly higher. Furthermore, an attempt was made to use gender

as moderator of the relationship which did not bare any results. At last, the

consciousness personality trait seems to be a predictor of brand loyalty in the case

of traditional brands only providing an area of focus for marketers.

8

1. Introduction

In the era of technology, individualism and fast moving environments people are

disconnected with each other and seek for more experiences than physical products.

Life is about experience and people always seek for more. Today’s lifestyle brands

are trying to deliver bigger, better and more distinct experiences to the consumers.

An increasing number and variety of brands in lifestyle flourished, by the time brands

realized the impact lifestyle has to consumers’ life.

Polo Ralph Lauren is one of the pioneers of the lifestyle movement, giving us an

aspirational representation to work with. Traditional brands are defined as a name,

sign, symbol or design or even a combination of them attempting to differentiate their

offerings from the competitors according to American Marketing Association

Dictionary (AMA). However, lifestyle branding is not only promoting new styles or

trends but actually a way of living. In other words, “it is the achievement of the

offerings of a brand to form an emotional attachment between the consumer and a

specific lifestyle” (Roumeliotis, 2011). Lifestyle brands are symbolic brands with a

distinct philosophy, a clearly defined image with a specific set of values, according to

my opinion. If marketing is successful, these values are communicated clearly on the

consumers’ minds, bringing them closer to the brand. The shift and the promising

future of lifestyle brands are moving so fast, that even a recent article at Forbes

mentions the freely spending of consumers from emerging markets like Asia and

China on them. Consumers from these markets are of high importance since their

net wealth is increasing at an accelerated pace, they are emotionally connected to

the brands and they are very ambitious (De Marco, 2012). Furthermore, there has

been specific research with regards to brands in which brands are treated as if

having their own personality. A clear example is the research of Jennifer Aaker and

9

Susan Fournier (1995) who having realized the magnitude and importance of brands

conducted a research studying the brand as a character, partner and person

regarding different types of brand personalities. As we expect from our friends to

enrich our lives, we have the same expectation from brands.

One of the main reasons that companies develop this sustainable emotional long-

term relationship with their consumers is to increase loyalty as well as to benefit

financially with premium prices. Especially, popular and favorable lifestyle brands

can also benefit from their existing brand name and brand identity. Several studies

reveal how brands indicate means of self-expression as consumers' identify

themselves through multiple brand identities and personalities (Chernev, Hamilton &

Gal, 2011). Another previous research argues that "the brand may serve as an

expressive device by the individual, individuals will therefore prefer brands whose

image is closest to their own self-images” (Holman, 1980). Moreover, many

companies achieved to become lifestyle brands by associating their products with

either a culture or a group of people that shares the same beliefs and interests, such

as Harley Davidson, which has also succeeded in creating a strong brand

community. A few more examples of lifestyle brands from the existing literature

include Gap, Laura Ashley, Benetton and Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie & Fitch, and

Martha Stewart (Chernev et al. 2011). Also, surprisingly in the electronic industries

Apple has become successfully a lifestyle brand, with some of its customers being in

the point of obsession. Remarkable is the fact that some lifestyle brands have

entered also in the luxury market Armani, BMW, Louis Vuitton and Rolex. In my

opinion an additional interesting way of building lifestyle brands is by promoting the

latest trend of self-branding celebrities. Representatively examples are Gwyneth

Paltrow’s lifestyle brand Goop and Jessica Alba’s The Honest Company.

10

However, after all these discussed above, a question arises: Should we embrace

lifestyle branding? In order to give an answer to this question there are multiple

aspects and consequences that should be taken into account. Brand loyalty is one of

them, providing tangible evidence of the success or failure of a brand and the overall

relationships between the consumer and the brand.

Nevertheless, which are the factors that influence the creation and development of

brand loyalty? Academics suggest that consumers’ personality play a major role in

the brand preferences and consequently in the loyalty levels. In this research focus

was given to whether personality traits can indeed influence consumers’ loyalty

towards lifestyle brands. Loyalty levels were measured also for traditional brands in

order to test possible differences. Given the fact that two (extraversion and

consciousness) out of the five personality traits (extraversion, consciousness,

openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness) are most important for the

content of this study, these two traits were used to predict consumers’ levels of

brand loyalty. Especially, we could argue that extroverted and conscious people are

expected to have higher levels of loyalty. Taken into consideration the extrovert

people, lifestyle branding should embrace their outgoing and sociable nature.

Moreover, for people characterized by consciousness reliability in the product

offerings should be what matters most.

The importance of having up-to-date studies, which can provide some evidence of

how lifestyle brands affect consumers’ loyalty, is higher due to the growing trend of

lifestyle branding. Consumers' loyalty of lifestyle brands in Greece maybe can fill the

gap in literature in sense of lifestyle topic and its focus area. In this research,

consumers’ loyalty in both traditional and lifestyle brands was measured, in order to

provide evidence if lifestyle branding, indeed increases consumers’ levels of loyalty.

11

The study was made in the Greek market. Despite the fact that the Greek population

is not significantly large, the diversity of Greek consumers' is a promising area.

Therefore, there is a high possibility of concluding in unique and contributing findings

at the end of my study.

1.1 Research question

The aim of this research is to address the above literature gap mentioned, by

identifying and quantitatively testing the extraversion and consciousness personality

trait’s influence on consumers’ loyalty levels. Put differently, the impact of those two

personality traits on consumers’ decision-making (attitudinal) and purchase

(behavioral) behaviors. The objectives of this research are: 1) identifying potential

differences between traditional and lifestyle brands’ loyalty levels, 2) to determine

the extent to which those two personality traits influence consumers’ decisions to

form long term relationships with traditional as well as lifestyle brands (consumers’

brand loyalty), and 3) to examine, whether the gender moderates the relationship

between these two personality traits and consumers’ loyalty of lifestyle brands.

The research model is being tested empirically with an online survey study among

Greek consumers. The purpose of this study will attempt to enlighten the topic of

lifestyle brands. Since, the research in this area has been limited to specific

objectives, regarding my knowledge and investigation on the topic, findings with

respect to consumers' loyalty towards lifestyle brands will provide more insights.

Managerial contributions are likely to guide segmentation, targeting and position

marketing strategies. Moreover, branding implications will suggest under which

conditions lifestyle branding should be adopted and how consumers' personality

traits can influence the levels of loyalty towards lifestyle brands.

12

1.2 Structure of the study

This research is organized in the following way: in chapter 2 the theoretical

framework is being presenting as well as the hypotheses proposed and the

conceptual framework. Moreover, the method of the data collection, the sample and

the questionnaire that was used for the data collection is presented in chapter 3. The

data analysis is presenting in chapter 4 and the discussion regarding the meaning of

the results as well as implications and limitations of this study can be found in

chapter 5. Therefore, the following chapter contains the previous literature upon the

conceptual framework was built in order to address the research question.

13

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Traditional and Lifestyle Brands

Recently, lifestyle brands have received a lot of attention. Both academics and

marketers realize that lifestyle branding is an effective strategy in the current

dynamic marketplace. In order to understand lifestyle brands; what they are, how

they are structured and why they are so successful, the key is to understand the

relationships between markets, consumers and the differences between human

personality traits.

Nowadays, personal style such as clothing is a way for people to position

themselves in a society, and communicate their personal background to others.

Brands are commonly used for status signalizing in every day circumstances. Susan

Fournier (1998) conducted an empirical work for a better understanding of the

relationship between the consumers and their brands. This research enlightens the

phenomenon of the consumer-brand relationship in a marketing context, suggesting

“consumer-brand relationships are more a matter of perceived goal compatibility

than congruence between discreet product attributes and personality trait images”

(Fournier, 1998). Furthermore, she states that “ thematic connections operate not

just across brands within a category, or within role-related product constellations

assembled for the expression of social lifestyles, but across the entire collectivity of

disparate brands and categories marshaled in pursuit of a full range of goal-related

tasks” (Fournier, 1998). People are consuming brands not only for their basic living

needs but also in order to give meaning to their lives. Eventually consumers not only

choose brands but more important they choose lives. The main contribution of

Fournier’s article for the marketers is to understand that in the construction of brand

14

relationships what matters the most is what consumers gain from the brands in order

to add meaning and value in their lives as Susan Fournier (1998) suggests. The term

of “lifestyle” originates from the area of psychology. The relation between lifestyle

and consumption is strong since throughout their life people consume in a daily basis

any kind of products or services communicating their way of living.

Activities Interests Opinions Demographics

Work Family Themselves Age

Hobbies Home Social Issues Education

Social Events Job Politics Income

Vacation Community Business Occupation

Entertainment Recreation Economics Family Size

Membership Fashion Education Dwelling

Community Food Products Geography

Shopping Media Future City size

Sports Achievements Culture Stage in life cycle

Table 1. Life Style Dimensions (Plummer,1974)

According to Plummer lifestyle patterns were defined as a systems concept. “It refers

to a distinctive mode of living in its aggregate and broadest sense. It embodies the

patterns that develop and emerge from the dynamics of living in a society” (Plummer,

1974). Over the past, various constructs have been developed in order to

understand the consumer’s behavior, for example constructs based on

15

psychographics or demographics. Lifestyle patterns are used to segment consumers

providing a combination of the existing constructs mentioned above. A commonly

accepted approach to measure lifestyle patterns is the AIO (activities, interests,

opinions) rating statements. As Plummer states “the basic premise of life style

research is that the more you know and understand about your customers the more

effectively you can communicate and market to them’’ (Plummer, 1974). Some of the

main benefits of lifestyle segmentation mentioned in his article are a better

development of marketing, media strategies, communication and product

opportunities.

Lifestyle branding is a topic of scare research and without a clear defined theoretical

framework in my opinion. In the existing literature, lifestyle branding is defined as

“the tailoring of a retail offer or a portfolio of retail offers closely to the lifestyles of

specific market segments” (Chernev et al., 2011). The dimensions of lifestyle brands

as mentioned in the introduction are: distinct philosophy, a clearly defined image and

a specific set of values. Solomon (1994) suggests in his book that lifestyle products

are related to social situations, since people generally are buying and signalizing

products associated with a specific lifestyle. According to Solomon “consumers use

consumption constellations to define, communicate and perform social roles”

(Solomon, 1994, p. 379). In return, the brand is creating more loyal and engaged

customers.

People have their own identities, values and beliefs, thus they consume specific

branded products as a decision to express themselves though the identity of these

brands. Polo Ralf Lauren, Nike, and Apple are currently some of the most common

brands related to “lifestyle” notion and the consumers of these brands state that “this

brand embodies my lifestyle”. Helman and Chernatony explore in their paper the

16

development of lifestyle retail brands (LRB). “A lifestyle retail brand (LRB) is a

focused retail brand, targeted at a specific market segment defined by lifestyle”

(Helman & De Chernatony, 1999). The main contribution of their paper was to

provide new insights in retail branding by achieving a better fit between customer’s

lifestyle needs and retail brand’s offerings. Helman and Chernatony suggest: “The

basic retail proposition is augmented with a set of added values that have symbolic

value and meaning for the lifestyles of a specific consumer group” (Helman & De

Chernatony, 1999).

In the commercial industry, a study by Solomon and Englis explores “the degree to

which consumers’ judgments of the consumption patterns associated with defined

lifestyle groups correspond to actual market data” (Englis & Solomon, 1995). Ralph

Lauren's advertising campaigns indicate a successful example that achieved to

capture the idealized lifestyle of the traditional American world. Despite the fact that

only a few participants of the study could actually identify themselves with this

suggested way of living, campaign’s images of affluence and sophistication are

accepted as real. Clearly, consumers’ product choices are often driven by a desire to

identify or even to avoid idealized lifestyles. Thus, creating meaningful social types

for the targeted group is one of the key points in lifestyle advertising. A more recent

paper by Chernev, et al (2011) is investigating the competition for consumer identity

in lifestyle branding. The authors suggest, “consumers’ need for self-expression

through brands is finite and can be satiated when consumers are exposed to self-

expressive brands” (Chernev et al, 2011). Need satiation is very important on

consumer behavior. Moreover, “consumers need for self-expression can be satiated

not only by using certain brands but also by other available means of self-

expression” (Chernev et al. 2011).

17

Most of the previous attempts to investigate lifestyle brands have been limited to

self-expression theories and approaches used to segment consumers, enlightening

our knowledge about their values and beliefs. Nevertheless, not enough research

has yet investigated the relationship between lifestyle brands and brand loyalty.

2.2 Brand Loyalty

Considering the rise of relationship marketing and the increasing interest in

customer’s loyalty, the brand loyalty concept requires further research. “The shift

from the transaction-focused marketing to relationship marketing provides a clear

evidence of the passage from traditional brands to lifestyle brands” (Grönroos,

1994). There is a concurrence that loyal consumers are the key for the future of the

brands. Having loyal consumers provides better profits, word of mouth and improves

the overall image of the brand. Moreover, loyalty offers the basis for competitive

advantage, an advantage that can be realized through marketing (Dick and Basu

1994). A research has indicated the causal link between lifestyle brands and

consumers loyal behavior in the beer industry. More specifically, Goldberg concluded

that “lifestyle has a differential effect on brand loyalty for different consumer

segments” Goldberg (1982). Thus, in advertising, lifestyle should be very careful, as

it may also cause even negative responses to those who do not support the

promoted lifestyle.

One of the oldest and repeatedly used definition of loyalty comes from Jacoby and

Kyner, who described loyalty as “a biased behavioral response expressed over time

by a decision making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set

of brands and being a function of psychological processes” (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973).

Oliver gives a developed definition by describing loyalty as “a deeply held

18

commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the

future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite

situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching

behavior” (Oliver, 1999). Oliver’s framework consists of four loyalty phases:

cognitive, affective, conative and action loyalty.

Stage Identifying Marker

Cognitive Loyalty to information such as prices, features and so

forth.

Affective Loyalty to as liking: “I buy it because I like it”

Conative Loyalty to an intention: “I am committed to buying it”

Action Loyalty to action inertia, coupled with the overcoming of

obstacles.

Table 2: Loyalty Phases (Oliver, 1999)

Cognitive loyalty is the first phase and focuses on aspects related to brand

performance. Affective loyalty relates to a favorable attitude in consumers mind,

cognition and affect contribute to liking the brand. In the third phase, conative loyalty

refers to behavioral intention or “a brand-specific commitment to repurchase” (Oliver

1999). However, the true loyalty lies only on the final phase, action loyalty. As

obstacles to loyalty, consumer idiosyncrasies and switching incentives are

suggested by the author. Moreover, he investigates the relationship between

satisfaction and loyalty, proposing that “satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty

formation but becomes less significant as loyalty begins to set through other

mechanisms’’ (Oliver, 1999), mechanisms such as personal determinism and social

19

bonding with the brand. For marketers it is very important to achieve both personal

determinism (self-isolation) and social bonding (brand communities) in order to

achieve the highest level of consumers’ loyalty.

The American Marketing Association extents the existing definition of brand loyalty to

“the situation in which a consumer generally buys the same manufacturer- originated

product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from multiple suppliers

within the category” or “the degree to which a consumer consistently purchases the

same brand within a product class” (AMA). Today, brand loyalty is categorized into

two major approaches: attitudinal and behavioral both of which have been studied

extensively.

Attitudinal loyalty is a systematically favorable expression of preference for the

brand (Dick & Basu, 1994). An emotional attachment between the consumers and

their brands that creates a commitment to repurchase. The framework suggested in

their paper points out social norms and situational factors as moderators of the

relationship between attitude and behavior (Dick & Basu, 1994). Dick and Basu’s

study identifies search for motivation, resistance to counter-persuasion, and word of

mouth as the consequences of loyalty. This type of loyalty represents the long-term

impact of loyal consumers to a certain brand.

Repeat Purchase Possibility

High Low

Related

Attitude

High True Loyalty Latent Loyalty

Low Spurious Loyalty No Loyalty

Table 3: Model of loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994)

20

On the other hand, “behavioral loyalty refers to the consumers tendency to

repurchase a brand, where consumers commitment becomes meaningful and

profitable for the firm” (Anatolevena Anisimova, 2007). Commonly, behavioral loyalty

can be measured by observation of a repeating purchasing behavior. In this paper

the author investigates the influence of the corporate brand on attitudinal and

behavioral consumer loyalty. According to the findings “corporate values, corporate

brand personality and functional consumer benefits are the most critical and

consistent predictors of both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty” (Anatolevena

Anisimova, 2007). The main contribution of this research was to help marketers

develop corporate branding strategies while at the same time build both attitudinal

and behavioral consumer loyalty.

At this point, it is important to distinguish loyal purchase behavior from inertia.

Repurchasing the same brand may be attributed in two different ways. Either it is a

result of brand commitment or inertia of purchase which refers to “a repeated

purchasing of the same brand without true motive of this choice’’ (Odin & Valette-

Florence, 2001). Regarding consumer-brand identification theories, a fruitful

research explores the effects of brand personality and brand identification on brand

loyalty. In general, a lot of theories have been developed in social psychology

regarding social identification, suggesting that people identify themselves through

certain groups. In an article regarding the cell phone industry, the authors focus on

the identification of the consumer and the brand. The study suggests that a “careful

management of brand personality helps consumers to develop a favorable image of

the company’’ (Kim, Han & Park, 2001). The conceptual framework that authors built

consists of the following variables: the attractiveness of the brand personality, the

distinctiveness of the brand personality, the self-expressive value of the brand

21

personality, the positive word of mouth reports of the brand and brand loyalty (Kim et

al, 2001).

Positive relationships between distinctiveness, attractiveness and self-expressive

value of brand personality are having remarkable effects on consumers’ identification

with the brand. Regarding brand loyalty, consumer-brand identification has an

indirect effect, contributing in the existing literature. Kim, Han and Park through their

study point out how important brand personality is in the consumers’ minds for the

generation of brand identification and the long-term benefits of this relationship.

Recently, another paper explores the concept of brand experience and provides

evidence about its relationship with brand loyalty. The scale of brand experience

consists of four dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral, a

conclusion reached through six in depth studies. “Brand experience is

conceptualized as sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses

evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand's design and identity,

packaging, communications, and environments” (Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello,

2009).

So how does brand experience affect loyalty? There is a direct effect of brand

experience on consumer satisfaction and an indirect effect on brand loyalty, through

multiple brand personality associations. However, Brakus et al in their study suggest

that these effects are only short-term consequences. Specifically, one of the studies

from this paper focuses on using brand experience to predict consumer behavior in

satisfaction and loyalty. Seems like brand experience can be a strong predictor of

actual buying behaviors. The authors suggest “if a brand stimulates the senses,

makes the person feel good, and engages the mind and body, a stimulation seeking

organism may strive to receive such stimulation again” (Brakus et al, 2009). Despite

22

the several ways that have been used to explore consumer’s brand loyalty, not

enough attention has been given whether consumers’ personality traits have a direct

or indirect effect in the formation of loyalty bonds. Oliver (1999) identifies the effect of

consumer’s idiosyncrasies on loyalty but did not explore it any further.

2.3 Big Five Personality Traits

Personality traits play a significant role not only on the brand choice but also on the

brand loyalty. People, who identify themselves with a certain brand, share the same

values and beliefs may be led to greater levels of brand loyalty. In the marketing

research, personality traits have been used in order to study a variety of emotional

responses such as customers’ satisfaction (Oliver, 1999). The most widely used

approach to study the personality traits is The Big Five model. In this research we

will focus on two out of five personality traits and the positive or negative effect they

have on brand loyalty. Namely the two personality traits tested to predict levels of

brand loyalty are extraversion and consciousness. Traditionally, the big five

personality traits have been developed to predict behavior. Most of the researches

use personality traits to understand and manipulate behaviors regarding health,

psychology or social issues.

A recent study investigates the Big Five personality traits and the prediction of

consequential outcomes. Especially, using the Big Five personality factors the

authors identify numerous consequential relations associated at an individual,

interpersonal and social institutional level (Ozer & Benet-Martınez, 2006). At an

individual level (happiness, physical and psychological health, spirituality, and

identity) extraversion is positively related with happiness and subjective well-being.

Regarding the interpersonal level (relationships with peers, family and romantic)

23

extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness seems to have positive

outcomes regarding peer and family relations. Finally, at the social institutional level,

interesting outcomes suggest that only extraversion is positively related to

occupational choice & performance (social and enterprising interests, satisfaction,

commitment), while the other four personality traits have mostly negative outcomes

(Ozer & Benet-Martınez, 2006). Through this mechanism the authors identify

consequential outcomes related to personality traits and processes. However there

is a controversy regarding whether personality stays consistent over time and

context.

For a better understanding, the Big Five personality traits offer a taxonomy by which

personality can be consistently measured and defined. Norman described the five

factors as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and

Culture (Norman, 1963). However, there have been some concerns about the

meaning of these constructs over the past. For the current study, the scheme that

will be used is based on the Big Five taxonomy as defined by McCrae and Costa

(1987). More specifically, extraversion defines a person who is “sociable, fun-loving,

affectionate, friendly, and talkative”. Openness to experience is associated with

being “original, imaginative, broad interests and daring”. Agreeableness is

associated with being cooperated, forgiving, good natured and generous.

Conscientiousness describes a person who “should be dutiful, scrupulous, and

perhaps moralistic”. Some more characteristics could be hardworking, ambitiousness

and willingness to achieve. Neuroticism is associated with “negative emotionality, the

propensity to experience a variety of negative effects, such as anxiety, depression,

anger, and embarrassment” (McCrae and Costa, 1987).

24

As it was mentioned earlier, for the purpose of this study the focus was given on the

extraversion and consciousness personality traits. One more previous and well-

known study has investigated the relation of the Big Five personality dimensions and

job performance. There have been used three job performance criteria: job

proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data for five occupational groups:

professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled (Barrick & Mount,

1991). The results indicate that conscientiousness shows consistent relations with all

of the three job performance criteria and for all occupational groups. Furthermore,

extraversion and openness to experience seems to be valid predictors of the training

proficiency criterion across occupations. In general, the study highlights the benefits

that may occur using the five-factor model of personality in order to assemble and

communicate strong and valid empirical findings.

Particularly in the branding concept, there’s a study which investigates the impact of

consumer personality on preferences towards a brand personality (Mulyanegara,

Tsarenko & Anderson, 2009). Using also a five-scale measurement of brand

personality the authors categorize brand personality as follows: emotive, trusted,

sociable, exciting and sincere. Insights are provided whether indeed there is a

relationship between consumers’ personalities and brands personalities. Considering

the differences between genders, the authors suggest that “male consumers are

more self-expressive in their brand preferences compared to female consumers”

(Mulyanegara et al, 2009). Consistency between the results of this study and the

previous ones support that indeed consumers use brands to express their

personality. For consumers who have been characterized by conscientiousness,

reliability seems to be what they are looking for so trusted brands are preferable. On

the other hand, sociable brands are preferred by extroverts reflecting their outgoing

25

nature and by consumers characterized by neuroticism trying to reduce their anxiety.

In Taiwan a year later, an empirical study explored the relationship between

consumer’s personality traits, brand personality and brand loyalty (Lin, 2010). The

study used also the Big Five model to measure human personality and the newly

established brand personality scale which consist of the following five dimensions:

excitement, competence, peacefulness, sincerity and sophistication.

Referring to brand loyalty, both attitudinal and behavioral have been measured,

providing some fruitful findings. There is a “significantly positive relationship between

extroversion personality trait and excitement brand personality as well as between

agreeableness personality trait and excitement brand personality, sincerity brand

personality and competence brand personality” (Lin, 2010). Agreeableness and

openness of personality traits, competence and sophistication of brand personality

dimensions have a significant positive influence on affective (attitudinal) loyalty. In

addition, agreeableness and openness human personality traits as well as

competence, peacefulness and sophistication brand personality dimensions proved

to have significantly positive influence on action (behavioral) loyalty (Lin, 2010).

Extraversion and consciousness did not yield significant results in that research.

Since action loyalty measures the actual purchasing behavior, this study contributed

academically in the existing literature but more important managerially for the

marketers.

Another research provides more insights exploring the relationship among two

personality traits (extraversion and openness), hedonic value, brand affect and

loyalty (Matzler, Bidmon & Grabner-Kräuter, 2006). The findings propose that these

two personality traits are positively related to hedonic product value. Moreover,

“personality traits directly (openness) and indirectly (extraversion, via hedonic value)

26

influence brand affect which in turn drives attitudinal and purchase loyalty” (Matzler

et al, 2006). Consequently, people characterized by extraversion and openness tend

to respond stronger to affective stimulus. The findings of this study are of high

importance for marketers who want to create strong and long-term bonds with their

consumers.

Taking all the above into consideration it could be argued that differences in

consumers’ personality traits are those who make their relationship with the brands

as well as their loyalty more or less strong. To sum up, sociable brands are preferred

by extroverts and reliable brands by people characterized by consciousness. Given

the fact that this research was made for mainly clothing brands, extraversion and

consciousness are considered as the most appropriate traits to test for. Especially in

clothing, since people use clothes to express themselves and signalize their style or

even their psychological condition through their personal style of clothing. Previous

empirical evidence supports that there is a relation between personality traits and

loyalty for the traditional brands, indirectly via brand affect (Matzler et al, 2006).

Consequently, what might happen when we move from traditional brands to lifestyle

brands?

The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence that lifestyle branding can

improve brand loyalty taking into account the different types of human personality

traits. This leads to the following question: What is the relationship between

extraversion and consciousness personality traits and brand loyalty of lifestyle

brands?

27

2.4 Gender differences

Gender as a definition can include a variety of things like stereotypes, differences in

abilities and decision-making, and the list goes on. Costa describes genders as “the

way members of the two sexes are perceived, evaluated and expected to behave”

(Costa, 1994, p. 5). Biological theory argues that differences depend on biological

factors and social psychological suggest that gender differences depend on gender

roles. In general, gender roles depend on many factors since people are being

affected a lot by their culture.

Greece is a county where the gender roles are well defined and we could argue that

women are highly involved in household shopping, as well as shopping for their

children and husband. Therefore a lot of attention has been given to female Greek

consumers since their involvement is significantly higher than men. In fact, a lot of

products can be associated with a specific sex (Costa, 1994). “Gendering a product

or brand simply means imbuing it with a masculine or a feminine image and identity”

Alreck, (1994). According to Alreck (1994) there are ten key issues that companies

should consider when examining the market potential of a gendered product.

1. Basic Gender Attributes Masculine strength, feminine gentleness.

2. Basic Gender Concerns Feminine attachment, masculine freedom.

3. Sex Role Requirements Acting like a lady for women, being strong for

men.

4. Sex Role Prohibitions Are only important if the target market is likely to

adhere closely to traditional sex roles.

5. Negative Reactions When a gendered product avoids the sex roles

prohibitions of the traditional adherences.

6. Opposite Sex Rejection When men use sometimes products even though

28

they have feminine identity.

7. The Age Threshold The order the buyers, the more likely they are to

ascribe to traditional roles.

8. Social Class Effects The social class of the consumers has strong

effect on sex role adherence and acceptance of

gendered brands.

9. Subtle Gender Symbols Contradictions between the phrases and words

that a gender product should avoid.

10. Gender Credibility Whether a brand has the ability to convince the

consumer that the re is feminine or masculine

identity about the brand.

Table 4: Ten key gendering issues (Alreck, 1994)

LOYALTY AND GENDER

Especially in marketing, high focus is given on these two segments, men and

women. During the last years there have been not a lot of research regarding gender

differences in brand loyalty. Ndubisi (2006) in his study investigates the role of

gender in the relationship between four marketing underpinnings and customer

loyalty for the banking services in Malaysia. The four underpinnings of relationship

marketing are: “trust, commitment, communication and conflict handling” Ndubisi

(2006). The findings showed that all of the four underpinnings of relationship

marketing indeed do contribute significantly to customer loyalty. Trust, commitment,

communication and conflict handling together, predict 29% of the variance in

customer loyalty. “Significant gender difference exists in the trust-loyalty

relationship”, according to Ndubisi (2006). One of the most important findings of this

research was that women are more loyal then men for higher levels of trust towards

the bank. Gender moderates the relationship between trust and customer loyalty,

29

while there is no supporting evidence that gender moderates the relationship

between the rest three underpinnings and customer loyalty.

Another previous research focused on gender differences, tried to explore whether

women are more loyal customers than men. More specifically, the authors based

their research on differences in self-construal (Melnyk, Osselaer & Bijmolt, 2009).

Specifically they argue that “the difference between genders’ self-construal is not in

terms of dependent versus interdependent”, like previous research has shown

(Melnyk et all, 2009). However, the difference between the self-construal of genders

is in terms of relational versus collective interdependence. The authors suggest:

“female consumers tend to develop and maintain loyalty to individuals, whereas male

consumers tend to be more loyal to groups” (Melnyk et all, 2009). Consequently,

women are more loyal to individual service providers while men are more loyal to

companies. However, due to changes in our society, the traditional gender

stereotypes have changed the past years and new gender roles have emerged. As

Alreck states, “from these changes new consumers have surfaced and it is vital for

companies to understand the new consumers so that advertising and brands are

adjusted to appeal to the modern consumer” (Alreck, 1994).

2.5 Hypothesis Development

This study was designed to test the relationship between extraversion and

consciousness personality traits and brand loyalty, regarding both traditional and

lifestyle brands. A brand can be perceived as a lifestyle if is attractive and at the

same time helps the consumer to express himself. Thus, the more clear and distinct

a lifestyle brand philosophy and consequently personality is, the more consumers

can find themselves identified with the brand. However, a lifestyle has different

30

effects considering different consumer segments Goldberg (1982). Nevertheless,

congruence between a human personality trait and a brand personality is not enough

to achieve brand loyalty. Considering the variability of consumers’ idiosyncrasies,

the relationship between extraversion and consciousness personality trait and brand

loyalty maybe be weaker or stronger for both type of brands (traditional & lifestyle).

In terms of brand loyalty Matzler, et al said “personality traits directly and indirectly

influence brand affect which in turn drives attitudinal and purchase loyalty” (Matzler

et al, 2006). Taking into consideration the review of the literature, further empirical

research needs to be done in this topic. Therefore, the hypotheses of this study can

be developed as follows:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality

trait and loyalty of traditional brands.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality

trait and loyalty of traditional brands.

Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality

trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands.

Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality

trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands.

Nevertheless, gender differences play also important role on the formation of either

short term or long-term relationships between the consumer and the brand. Previous

research has shown that gender plays an important role in the relationship between

trust and loyalty (Ndubisi, 2006). But what is the role of gender on the relationship

between personality traits and brand loyalty? The statements that arise based on

gender differences could be summed up as follows:

31

Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and

loyalty of lifestyle brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for male than

for female consumers.

Hypothesis 6: The positive relationship between consciousness personality trait

and loyalty of lifestyle brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for male

than for female consumers.

2.6 Conceptual Framework.

Extraversion

Brand Loyalty

Gender

H1,3

H2,4

H6

H5 Consciousness

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

32

3. Research method

So as to test the six hypotheses mentioned above, a positivism research philosophy

was adopted. The use of a questionnaire was considered as the most appropriate

decision for the purpose of this study. The main advantage of this method is its

ability to gather a large amount of data. Nevertheless, one of the main

disadvantages of this method is the lack of answer flexibility, which may drive forced

answers. In the last chapter this disadvantage will be discussed on the limitation

section. The sample, the questionnaire that was developed and the measurement of

the variables are presented below.

3.1 The Sample

A non-probability, convenience sampling technique was used to select participants.

This technique could be susceptible to biased selection, although, this choice was

made for practical constraints. The sample of the study was drawn from the area of

Athens, Greece. The age range of the participants varies among 20-35 years. The

sample consists of 147 Greek consumers, 50% males and females in order to

maximize the validity of the results. Specifically, from the 147 participants, 74 were

males and 73 females. Moreover, the sample comprises a broad range of

educational backgrounds of the respondents. Specifically, there was diversity among

the different levels of educational background within the respondents. Most of them

(N=91) hold a university degree, while there is a significant number of participants

(N=42) that hold a master degree. Only few participants have completed high school

(N=5) and IEK (technical school in Greece) (N=9) concluding that most of the

participants were highly educated.

33

The objective of this research was to test the effect of consumers’ extraversion and

consciousness personality trait on their loyalty towards traditional and lifestyle

brands. Consequently, by recruiting respondents aged from 20 to 35, it was ensured

that all the participants were familiar especially with the concept of lifestyle brands

and were consumers of these clothing brands. Almost half of the sample (N=75)

was between 20-25 years old, with the rest (N=54), aged between 25-30. Only a few

were above 30 years old, suggesting that the sample was a good representative of

the youth Greek consumers. In this way, the representativeness of the sample was

guaranteed. Greece’s geographical location makes it a very interesting case study.

Greek has a mix market, which consists of a variety of consumers with diverse levels

of perceptions and behaviors. In general, Greeks are highly affected by remarks

made from friends and relatives (Barbonis & Laspita, 2005). Historically they are

characterized by high levels of fashion consciousness and style. Therefore, the new

fashion and lifestyle trends are being adopted quickly in such a market. This factor

makes the research even more interesting within the Greek market as fruitful results

are expected regarding lifestyle brands.

According to a previous research, Greeks prefer and purchase imported high fashion

apparel over local designers. “Better aesthetics, better lines and better quality

compared to the domestic ones is the cause of this phenomenon” (Kamenidou,

Mylonakis & Nikolouli, 2007). The large number of appeal, fashion and lifestyle

brands available in the Greek market gives many options to the consumers. As a

consequence, higher signals of loyalty towards lifestyle brands are expected

regarding Greeks’ consumer behavior.

34

PRE TESTING

A pre testing, before the final distribution of the questionnaire, was conducted for two

main reasons. The first reason was to ensure the validity of the questions in order to

avoid any misunderstanding in answering them. After the completion of the

questionnaire respondents were asked two additional questions. At first, they were

asked to name five traditional and five lifestyle brands of their own choice. Later, the

participants were asked to justify their selection of these brands by shortly explaining

what does lifestyle means to them regarding the choice they made and consequently

give their own dimensions to the concept of lifestyle brands. Using these two

additional questions the validity of the appropriate selection of both traditional and

lifestyle brands used in questionnaire was ensured and the second reason of the pre

testing was achieved.

3.2 The Questionnaire

To answer the research question of the current paper quantitative method was

employed. An online survey was designed for the measurement of the variables

presented in the conceptual framework. The data was collected with an online

questionnaire, which was sent to the participant’s email address. Originally the form

of the questionnaire was in English but it was translated to Greek in order to avoid

misconceptions since the sample consist of Greek respondents. The meaning and

the structure of the questions were clearly and carefully constructed. The purpose

was to provide an easy method for the respondent while answering and at the same

time to avoid forced responses. Divided into three sections the questionnaire at first

collected respondents’ demographics. Specifically, age, gender and educational

background were asked. Subsequently, the second section consisted of 30

questions regarding personality traits in a five-point scale (1 being “strongly

35

disagree”, 5 being “strongly agree”). The Big Five personality trait is the most

commonly used model of personality in psychology and its validity has been proven

in the past. The third and last section of the questionnaire form measured the levels

of participants’ loyalty towards suggested brands.

For maximizing the theoretical and managerial contribution of this study, loyalty was

measured towards both non-lifestyle (traditional) and lifestyle brands. Specifically,

the aim of this research was to provide empirical evidence whether lifestyle brands

are able to achieve higher levels of loyalty. Participants after choosing one of the

suggested non-lifestyle (traditional) brands were asked to answer four additional

questions regarding their loyalty towards them in a seven-point scale (1 being

“strongly disagree”, 7 being “strongly agree”). Afterwards, the same procedure was

followed by choosing a suggested lifestyle brand. As mentioned above a pre-test

was made to ensure the appropriateness of the selection of the two types of brands

used in the questionnaire.

The results of the pre-test were consistent with the dimensions of the lifestyle brands

that have been developed in the previous sections (chapter 1 and 2). As lifestyle the

participants have chosen the brands with a distinct philosophy and values that are

promoting a certain lifestyle. Participants who consume lifestyle brands not only

become loyal towards them but also share the same values and follow the promoted

lifestyle those brands promote in all the aspects of their life. Therefore, lifestyle

brands were expected to have higher levels of brand loyalty than the traditional

brands.

36

TRANSLATION PROCEDURE

Since the sample of this research was drawn from the area of Athens a translation of

the original questionnaire from English to Greek was needed. The originality of the

measurements that were used was in English; therefore the English version was

developed first. Two Greek native speakers, graduates of English Philology

translated the questionnaire from English to Greek, ensuring that the questionnaire is

well structured and understood.

3.3 Measurement of variables

Existing measurement scales developed by previous research and taken from the

literature were used to test the hypotheses, maximizing the validity of the constructs.

LIFESTYLE BRANDS

The aim of this research was to measure consumers’ loyalty of traditional as well as

lifestyle brands. Therefore, both traditional and lifestyle brands that was chosen are

referring to the same industry, clothing. The reason that those 10 (traditional +

lifestyle) brands have been chosen, as mentioned above was due to the pre-test.

Especially, regarding the lifestyle brands, it should be clear that each one of them

represented a different lifestyle. In chapter 2, dimensions for a lifestyle brand have

been given (symbolic brand with a distinct philosophy, clearly defined image, specific

set of values). Tommy Hilfiger, Gap, Levi’s, Benneton, Polo Ralf Lauren were chosen

regarding lifestyle brands and Zara, H&M, Topshop, Oxford Company, Esprit

regarding traditional. The traditional brands are big corporations except Oxford

Company, which is a famous Greek brand. Zara, Topshop, etc. are representing the

mass clothing production with medium price and quality. However, those lifestyle

brands represent a medium price with high quality. The price range is relatively the

37

same between the two types of brands (traditional and lifestyle) in order to have

equality in the questionnaire and to avoid any biased answers. Tommy Hilfiger and

Polo Ralf Lauren are two of the most widely spread clothing brands in Greece for a

casual and chic style. Benneton, Gap and Levi’s are more sportive and casual

brands, being supported by youth and younger ages in general. At last, most of the

brands used in the questionnaire (Gap and Benneton for instance) are based on

previous literature (Helman and De Chernatony, 1999).

BIG 5 PERSONALITY TRAITS

This study used the Big Five personality model to measure respondents’ personality

traits as proposed by Costa and McCrae (1987,1992). Participants were asked to

answer 30 questions regarding their beliefs, values and psychological state

developed by an online test (Loner Wolf, 2014) (1 being “strongly disagree”, 5 being

“strongly agree”), originally developed by McCrae&Costa (1992). The decision of

using this online test was made for minimizing the length of the questionnaire.

Several additional tests are available online as well as on the literature but the

majority consists of 50 question, length that was considered too long for the structure

of this questionnaire. The aim was to avoid effects that could influence participants’

answers and consequently the validity of the results, since the vast majority would be

unpleased to spend more than 10-15 minutes in the procedure. An example item

was “I believe that others have good intentions”. Table 5 is presenting the total items

of the Big five personality traits. The 12 items used for the regression analysis for the

measurement of extraversion and consciousness are highlighted.

38

Big 5 Personality Traits

⎯ I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities.

⎯ I love to help others.

⎯ I’m very self-disciplined.

⎯ I complete tasks successfully.

⎯ I often feel blue.

⎯ I have a vivid imagination.

⎯ I go on a lot of binges.

⎯ I prefer variety to routine.

⎯ I love large parties.

⎯ I panic easily.

⎯ I like to tidy up.

⎯ I often lack energy and have difficulty initiating

activities.

⎯ I forgive people easily.

⎯ I worry about things.

⎯ I love to read challenging material.

⎯ I enjoy challenging authority.

⎯ I am always prepared.

⎯ I believe in the importance of art.

⎯ I radiate joy.

⎯ I long to explore the world and travel.

⎯ I trust others.

⎯ I’m usually very thoughtful with others.

⎯ I make friends easily.

⎯ I take my time and am cautious when making

decisions.

⎯ I like to take charge.

⎯ I live a fast-paced, busy life.

⎯ I keep my promises.

⎯ I believe that others have good intentions.

⎯ I’m modest and don’t like taking credit for my work.

⎯ I get angry easily.

Adapted from an

online personality traits

test (Loner Wolf, 2014)

Original developed by

McCrae & Costa

(1992).

Table 5: Big 5 Personality Traits Items

39

BRAND LOYALTY

In the literature two groups measuring brand loyalty have been developed: attitudinal

and behavioral measures, since the aim was to measure consumers’ preferences for

traditional and lifestyle brands (attitudinal loyalty) as well as consumers’ purchasing

behavior (behavioral loyalty). Therefore brand loyalty was measured with four

questions on a seven-point scale based on a method modified by Kim (1998), which

according to her was originally developed simultaneously by Aaker (1996) and

Ratchford (1987) (1 being “strongly disagree”, 7 being “strongly agree”) (Kim et al,

2001). An example item is “I would buy additional products and service of this

brand”.

Brand Loyalty

⎯ I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and

acquainted with the brand

⎯ I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals

⎯ I would buy additional products and service in this brand

⎯ I prefer the brand to others

Adapted from Kim et al

(2001)

Table 6: Loyalty items

CONTROL VARIABLES

The first three questions of the questionnaire asked participants to indicate their

gender, age and educational level. Since the gender variable was used as a

moderator of the relationship between extraversion and consciousness personality

trait and brand loyalty, the sample was controlled for the age and education

variables. Recapitulating, the questionnaire consisted of 43 questions in total. In the

40

beginning, there were 3 questions regarding participants’ demographics.

Additionally, the questionnaire contained 30 rating questions ranging from 1(strongly

disagree) to 5(strongly agree) about big 5 personality traits and 10 rating questions

ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) about loyalty. A detailed

overview of the questionnaire can be seen in the appendix.

41

4. Results & Analysis

In the first steps, the frequencies of the variables were tested, crosschecking if there

were any missing values or coding errors. Three questionnaires were totally empty

and were excluded from the data set and after that, there were no missing values.

After conducting the missing values analysis, excluding the three empty

questionnaires, the sample was 147, three participants less than the original sample

(N=150). Moreover, the data file tested whether there are counter indicative items.

No counter indicative items were spotted, therefore no item was recorded.

4.1 Factor Analysis

The next step was to examine the factorability of the 12 items regarding the two

independent variables (6 items for extraversion and six items for consciousness).

Firstly, the correlations among the 12 items were tested, with 4 of the 12 items

correlated at least .3 sphericity (2 (66) = 193.412, p < .05) (Table 13: KMO and

Bartlett's Test). Secondly, all the diagonals of the anti-image rest around .2.

Moreover, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .67, which is

above the sufficient value of .6. Significant was the Bartlett’s test of correlation matrix

were over .5, which supports the inclusion of the items in the factor analysis. Lastly,

all the communalities were above .30 except one item “I keep my promises”. Overall,

after all these indicators the factor analysis was conducted with the original 12 items.

At first, a principle components analysis was used since the aim was to reduce the

large set of variables into a smaller (called principle components).

Eigenvalues

The first factor explained 19% of the variance, the second factor 14% of the variance

and the third explained 10% of the variance, as the initial eigenvalues showed. The

42

fourth factor had eigenvalue just above one, explained 9% of the variance. Together,

the four factors explained 53.643 of the variance. Three and two factor solutions

examined by using oblimin rotations and varimax option, with the two-factor solution

being preferred. There was not significant difference between oblimin rotations and

the varimax. Therefore, before deciding an oblimin rotation for the final solution, both

of them were examined. Consequently, a principle components analysis of the 12

items was conducted, using oblimin rotation, with the two factors together explaining

33% of the variance.

Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums

of Squared Loadings

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

1 2.369 19.740 19.740 2.369 19.740 19.740 2.289

2 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.808

3 1.280 10.663 44.514

4 1.096 9.129 53.643

5 .959 7.996 61.639

6 .869 7.242 68.881

7 .768 6.403 75.285

8 .673 5.607 80.892

9 .652 5.435 86.327

10 .626 5.213 91.539

11 .535 4.461 96.001

12 .480 3.999 100.000

Table 7: Eigenvalues

Oblimin Rotation

The oblimin rotation method was the best defined structure for factor analysis.

During several steps, two items (“I keep my promises”, “I enjoy exciting and

stimulating activities”) did not meet the criteria of having a factor loading .04 or

above, which after the factor analysis did not excluded. The decision of not excluded

43

these two items was made for reliability reasons, which will be discussed later in the

reliability analysis. Therefore, all the six items was kept for the measurement of the

two personality traits. In the pattern matrix below all of the items with their loadings

are presented.

Pattern Matrix

In the first component, three items are loading high, above .5. The item “I am always

prepared” item is loading above .5, specifically .592 and the item “I am very self-

disciplined”, item with the highest loading (.65). These two items are referring to the

consciousness personality trait, with the third item loading high in the first component

referring to the extraversion personality trait. This item is the “I like to take charge”

and is loading with .50. In the second component two are the items that load highest

for the extraversion personality trait. The item “I radiate joy” is loading with .65 and

the item “I make friends easily” is loading with .79, almost .80, indicating that this

item is of high importance. The reason of this correspondence between those two

personality traits, extraversion and consciousness could be explained based on

previous literature and theory. Concluding, two out of six items are highly important

for the consciousness personality trait and three out of six items are highly important

for the extraversion personality trait. Therefore, those items are the most important

questions that we should take into account in order to determine how extraverted

and conscious the participant is. The factor loading matrix (or pattern matrix) is

presented in Table 5.

44

Component

1 2

I’m very self-disciplined .652

I am always prepared. .592

I like to take charge. .502

I like to tidy up. .491

I complete tasks

successfully.

.483

I live a fast-paced, busy

life.

.459

I take my time and am

cautious when making

decisions.

.457

I keep my promises. .385

I make friends easily. .798

I radiate joy. .651

I love large parties. .487

I enjoy exciting and

stimulating activities.

.357

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 8: Pattern Matrix

45

4.2 Skewness & Kurtosis

Additionally, normality, skewness and kurtosis test were conducted for the means of

the variables, concluding that one of the items had a normal distribution. The mean

for loyalty of traditional brands has a skewness of -.105, which is a moderate

negative skewness. Moreover, the mean of loyalty for lifestyle brands has a

skewness of -1.229, which indicates that has a substantially negative skewness. For

the extraversion mean, the skewness is -.101, which indicates that the distribution

was moderately negative. At last, the mean of consciousness personality trait has

skewness .112, therefore this variable is normal distributed. For the three variables

the kurtosis is positive except the extraversion, which is negative. At Table 15:

Skewness and Kurtosis for all items are presented. Below you can see the skewness

and kurtosis for each item of the means of the variables.

N Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

EX_TOT 147 -.101 .200 -.404 .397

CO_TOT 147 .112 .200 .180 .397

LT_TOT 147 -.105 .200 2.612 .397

LL_TOT 147 -1.229 .200 3.579 .397

Valid N (listwise) 147

Table 9: Skewness and Kurtosis

46

4.3 Reliability

Reliability analysis regarding the scales was measured. The reliability of the two

personality traits extraversion and consciousness did not generate the expected

results. In both scales a Cronbach a less .70 was found (Extraversion a=.536,

Consciousness a=.536). Even after excluding some of the items in each scale, the

Cronbach would not increase or increase only from a=.536 to a=.554 for extraversion

scale. Therefore, no items were deleted, with the trait scales remaining with the six

original items for each. Considering that a Cronbach a above .70 is needed to

ensure the reliability of the scales, the reliability of these two traits is acceptable but

partially satisfactory. However, these findings are not surprising, as other

researchers have reported comparable results of the NEO-FFI scales (MCrae &

Costa, 1992). The other two constructs regarding brand loyalty showed very

satisfactory reliability results (Loyalty for traditional brands, a=721, Loyalty for

lifestyle bands, a=774), ensuring the reliability of the scales. Additionally, the

corrected item-total correlation was above .30 for all items, ensuring that the scales

for loyalty were good. At last, you can see in table 7 the means, standard deviations

and correlations of the variables.

47

Variables Mea

n

SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Age 1.61 0.70 -

Education 4.16 0.68 0.57 -

Gender 1.50 0.50 .29** .10 -

Extraversion 3.83 0.47 0.75 .04 .08 - (.54)

Consciousnes

s

3.77 0.42 0.38 -.01 -.02 .17* - (.54)

Loyalty Trad. 4.18 0.77 -.02 .15 -.10 .06 .22** - (.72)

Loyalty Lif. 4.26 0.79 -.02 .12 -.02 .09 .14 .44** - (.77)

Table 10: Means, standard deviations and correlations. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Listwise N=214

4.4 Multiple Hierarchical Regressions

POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON BRAND

LOYALTY OF TRADITIONAL BRANDS:

Hierarchical multiple regression was performed to test the capability of the

extraversion and consciousness personality trait to predict levels of loyalty of

traditional brands, after the controlling for age and education. The first step of

hierarchical multiple regression entered two predictors; age and education. The

control of these two variables achieved to ensure that the effect of extraversion and

consciousness personality trait on loyalty of traditional brands was free of the effect

of age and education. The results of the hierarchical multiple regression are

presented in the table below (Table 11).

48

R 𝑹𝟐

𝑹𝟐Chang

e

B SE Beta t

Step1 .154 .024 .010

Age -.028 .091 -.025 -.304

Education .173 .093 .153 1.856

Step2 .267 .071 .045

Age -.038 .089 -.035 -.426

Education .173 .091 .154 1.894

Extraversio

n

.026 .136 .016 .195

Conscious

ness

. 396 .151 .215* 2.624

Table 11: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on Loyalty of Traditional brands. Statistical significance *p<0.05 ;**p<.01

The model was not statistically significant F(2,144)=1,743; sig.=.179 and explained

2,4% of variance on loyalty of traditional brands, in the first step. At the second step,

after the entry of extraversion and consciousness personality traits the total variance

explained by the model was 7,1% F(4,142)=2.727; sig. =.032<0.05. Introducing

extraversion and consciousness personality trait explained additional 4,7% variance

on loyalty of lifestyle brands, after controlling for age and education (R2 Change=.048

; F(2,142)=3.647; sig.=.029<0.05). One out of four predictors was significant in the

final model, the consciousness personality trait (beta=.215, sig.=.010<0.05). The

linear relationship between extraversion personality trait (beta=.016, sig.= .845) and

49

loyalty of traditional brands was not significant. Therefore, the consciousness

personality trait was shown to have a positive effect on loyalty of traditional brands.

This indicates that for higher levels of consciousness personality trait, loyalty of

traditional brands is increased.

H1 “There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and

loyalty of traditional brands” is rejected at 5% significance level

H2 “There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality

trait and loyalty of traditional brands” is accepted at 5% significance

level.

POSITIVE EFFECT OF EXTRAVERSION & CONSCIOUSNESS PERSONALITY TRAIT ON BRAND

LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS:

Same procedure was followed for predicting the linear relationship between

extraversion and consciousness personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands. The

results of the hierarchical multiple regression can be seen in Table 12.

R 𝑹𝟐

𝑹𝟐Chang

e

B SE Beta t

Step1 .121 .015 .001

Age -.035 .094 -.031 -.376

Education .138 .097 .118 1.429

Step2 .196 .038 .011

Age -.047 .094 -.041 -.498

50

Education .136 .096 .116 1.412

Extraversi

on

.121 .143 .071 .846

Consciou

sness

. 241 .159 .126 1.514

Table 12: Hierarchical regression model for Extraversion & Consciousness on Loyalty of Lifestyle brands. Statistical significance *p<.05 ;**p<.01

Similarly, in the first step the model was not statistically significant F(2,144)=1,064;

sig.=.348) and explained 1,5% of variance on loyalty of lifestyle brands. At step 2,

after the entry of extraversion and consciousness personality trait the variance

explained by the model as a whole was 3,8% (F(2,142)=21.764 ; sig.=.175). The

introduction of extraversion and consciousness personality trait explained additional

2,3% variance on loyalty of lifestyle brands after controlling for age and education.

None of the predictors were significant in the final model. Specifically, the two

independent variables, extraversion personality trait (beta=.071, sig.=.399) and

consciousness personality trait (beta=.126, sig.=.132) were not significant.

H3 “There is a positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and

loyalty of lifestyle brands” is rejected at 5% significance level.

H4 “There is a positive relationship between consciousness personality

trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands” is rejected at 5% significance

level.

51

4.5 Moderation

MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRAVERSION AND

LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS:

Furthermore, the moderating effect of gender was tested. Using the process method,

developed by Andrew F. Hayes the conditional effect of gender was tested in

moderated multiple regression. The means of the independent and dependent

variables did not require cantering or standardization, as Andrew F. Hayes suggests

(Hayes, 2014). Adding gender as moderator, the model could explain 2,4% of the

variance in loyalty of lifestyle brands. Overall the model was not significant:

F(3,143)= 1.3808, sig.=.2511. Thus, it could be marked that for a level of confidence

of 95%, there was not a significant (beta=.4243, sig.=.1040) moderating effect of

gender on the relationship between extraversion personality trait and loyalty of

lifestyle brands. The table below presents the results of the moderating effect of

gender.

Model Summary

R R-sq F df1 df2 p

.1578 .0249 1.3808 3.0000 143.0000 .2511

Conditional effects of X on Y at values of the moderator(s)

Gender Effect se t p

1.0000 -.0411 .1766 -.2329 .8162

2.0000 .3831 .1899 2.0176 .0455*

52

Loyalty of traditional brands

Interaction Variables Beta SE t

Gender -1.6737 1.0089 -1.6590

EX_TOT -.4654 .4010 -.1.1605

EX_TOT x Gender .4243 .2593 1.6360

Statistical significance *p<.05 ;**p<.01

H5 “The positive relationship between extraversion personality trait and

loyalty of traditional brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for

male than for female consumers”, is rejected at 5% significance level.

MODERATING EFFECT OF GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS AND

LOYALTY OF LIFESTYLE BRANDS:

In addition, the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between

consciousness personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands was tested. The results

were similar, indicating that gender did not have significant effect as moderator on

the relationship between consciousness and loyalty of lifestyle brands. The model

was able to explain 2,8% of the variance in loyalty of lifestyle brands, after adding

gender as moderator. Overall the model was not significant: F(3,143)= .7288,

sig.=.5364. Thus, it could be reported that for a level of confidence of 95%, there

53

was not a significant (beta=-.3708, sig.=.3653) moderating effect of gender on the

relationship between consciousness personality trait and loyalty of lifestyle brands.

The table below presents the analysis results of the moderating effect of gender on

the relationship between consciousness and loyalty of lifestyle brands.

Model Summary

R R-sq F df1 df2 p

.1687 .0284 .7288 3.0000 143.0000 .5364

Conditional effects of X on Y at values of the moderator(s)

Gender Effect se t p

1.0000 .4494 .3161 1.4219 .1572

2.0000 .0787 .2584 .3044 .7613

Loyalty of lifestyle brands

Interaction Variables Beta SE t

Gender 1.3652 1.5688 .8702

CO_TOT .8202 .6829 1.2010

CO_TOT x Gender -.3708 .4082 -.9082

Statistical significance *p<.05 ;**p<.01

54

H6 “The positive relationship between consciousness personality trait and

loyalty of lifestyle brands is moderated by gender, so it is weaker for male

than for female consumers”, is rejected at 5% significance level.

5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1 Summary of results

Previous research on personality traits is well developed, contributing on how they

directly affect consumers’ preferences, identification, and how they indirectly affect

consumers’ commitment to a brand. In addition, loyalty and more specific brand

loyalty have also been researched by many academics. However, with regards to

lifestyle brands research is recent and offers limited insights. The proposed model

indicates that consciousness as a personality trait can affect the formation of long-

term relationships with a brand, but only for traditional brands. At first, in this

research two different types of personality traits were tested extraversion and

consciousness, however, only the consciousness trait achieved to predict

consumers’ level of loyalty. Secondly, the moderating effect of gender was tested

only for the loyalty of lifestyle brands. Results showed that gender did not play a

significant role in the linear relationship between those two personality traits and

lifestyle brands. The general scores of both loyalties on the traditional and lifestyle

brands are discussed and the gender differences are evaluated.

The regression models in this research failed to confirm the hypotheses tested

except from Hypothesis1 (positive relationship between consciousness personality

55

trait and loyalty of traditional brands). In contrast, extraversion did not achieve to

predict consumers’ levels of loyalty either for traditional or for lifestyle brands. These

findings are not in line with my expectations that personality traits can play an

important role in the formation of short as well as long-term relationships between

the brand and the consumer. Especially for lifestyle brands it was expected that

personality characteristics would be the basic aspects for the preference and

purchase of a brand.

Overall ratings of loyalty were higher for lifestyle brands than for traditional.

However, the mean scores did not differ significant with the loyalty of lifestyle brands

overall score standing at 4.26 and for traditional at 4.18 (mean scores in a seven-

point scale). Therefore, it can be argued that lifestyle branding can increase

consumers’ loyalty but not significantly. The highest scores regarding brand loyalty

were in two out of the four questions. The item “I will continue to buy this brand

because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand” and “I would buy additional

products and service in this brand” scored the highest rates. This finding indicates

that satisfaction is needed in order to achieve loyalty. In terms of satisfaction Oliver

said “satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty formation but becomes less

significant as loyalty begins to set through other mechanisms’’ (Oliver, 1999). In

addition, in the process of relationship formation between the consumer and the

brand, familiarity of the brand and the product offerings plays an important role as

the results propose. At last, consumers’ willingness to buy additional products of the

brand (behavioral loyalty) scored higher for lifestyle brands. Thus, brand knowledge

as well as brand awareness are increasing, in the case of lifestyle brands, while

positive word of mouth is likely to appear also from loyal consumers/customers.

56

Finally, the moderating effect of gender was tested for the relationship between

personality traits and lifestyle brands. The results indicate that gender differences do

not play a significant role in the formation of loyalty bonds. It was expected that

female consumers could yield higher levels of loyalty especially in the context of

lifestyle brands. These results suggest that gendered products might be a good

option for marketers in the segmentation process but not in the creation of long-term

bonds. Gendering products will be discussed in detail in the next section.

5.2 Theoretical and Managerial Implications

From a theoretical perspective, this study attempted to enlighten the topic of lifestyle

brands. After having analysed consumers’ personality traits as predictor of brand

loyalty of lifestyle and traditional brands, the results indicate that loyalty of lifestyle

brands does not depend on consumers’ personality traits. However, regarding

traditional brands, consciousness is a personality trait that plays an important role in

the creation of long-term bonds. Therefore, theoretical implications arise with regards

to the consciousness personality trait and its positive relationship with loyalty in the

case of traditional brands. More research needs to be done to explore why this trait

is significant in the creation of loyalty bonds and how companies could benefit from

conscious consumers. In previous marketing research, personality traits have been

used to predict consumers’ satisfaction or consumers’ preference towards a brand

personality (Oliver, 1999, Mulyanegara et al, 2009). Thus, this study points out the

promising area of personality traits regarding loyalty bonds.

Considering the managerial implications that this study can provide, brands should

take into account conscious consumers, who are loyal to the brand. If the brand

57

stays consistent over time and provides reliable offerings, these consumers’ are

wiling to buy additional products, ignoring competitors attempts to attract them. In

addition, regarding lifestyle brands their self-expression nature seems to be one of

the most important factors to attract and maintain consumers. In terms of self-

expression Wallace, Buil and Chernatony said that “consumers who engage with

inner self-expressive brands are more likely to offer WOM for that brand” (Wallace,

Buil, & Chernatony, 2014). Moreover, marketers should take into consideration

gender differences in order to commercialize their product or services offerings.

However, this implication will have an impact on consumers’ preferences and

purchases but not in the creation and maintenance of loyalty bonds.

As a previous research states, male consumers are more self-expressive

(Mulyanegara et al, 2009). Therefore lifestyle brands should focus more on male

consumers who nowadays are getting more involved in shopping either for personal

items, such as clothing, or for household spending. Gender roles are changing over

time and since more male consumers are entering the market, all types of brands

could benefit from this segment. At last, the results of this research showed that

behavioral loyalty generates the highest levels of loyalty, thus the tough part for the

brands is to approach and attract new consumers. Today, the marketplace is getting

bigger and bigger, with online and offline tools entering incessantly. If a brand

achieves to identify its personality and product/service offerings with the consumer

it’s a matter of the right marketing strategy to retain him and add him to its customer

lifetime value. Whether embracing lifestyle branding would make this process more

efficient remains unanswered.

58

5.3 Limitations and Further Research

The limitations of this research could be related to sampling, validity & number of

constructs tested and the research approach.

The sample consisted of the Greek youth segment aged from 20-35 years old. Thus,

a different segment could have given different results regarding loyalty levels.

Especially in the case of lifestyle brands an older age segment could have revealed

higher levels of loyalty due to their higher average buying power. In addition, the

older age group due to its seniority could have adopted a more sophisticated style in

their work environment and day to day social interactions that could potentially

further increase their loyalty in lifestyle brands. Concerning the convenience

sampling technique that was used to recruit the participants, it could be argued that it

is susceptible to biased selection. This issue may have skewed the results

distribution in certain questions in favour of answers that are closer to my social

environment’s lifestyle..

Regarding the validity of the constructs, the reliability analysis of the two personality

traits showed a Cronbach a that was less than .70 (A Cronbach a that is higher than

0.70 is considered to be reliable). Therefore, more reliable constructs for the

measurements could have been used since any manipulations that were applied to

improve the reliability of the constructs did not manage to increase their Cronbach a.

Furthermore, two out of five personality traits were used to predict consumers’ levels

of loyalty. This choice was made due to the context of this research since it was

made for clothing brands and the aim was to test consumers’ levels of loyalty

towards them.

59

Finally, concerning the research approach, the experiment did not take into account

the different lifestyles of the promoted brands asked in the questionnaire as well as

the different lifestyles of the participants. Specifically, the questionnaire could have

more questions regarding consumers’ lifestyle dimensions, such as activities,

interests and opinions (Plummer, 1974). This could have given more insights

regarding higher levels of loyalty on lifestyle brands compared to traditional due, for

example, to the congruence between the participant’s lifestyle and the promoted

brand’s lifestyle amongst other factors.

5.4 Further Research

This research focused on extraversion and consciousness as a factor driving loyalty

in lifestyle as well as traditional brands. An interesting area to explore would be to

study shifts in consumers’ lifestyles and compare them with their personality traits in

order to predict levels of loyalty. This could provide deeper insights for the change in

loyalty towards specific brands and allow to marketers use more effective

segmentation strategies. In addition, examining whether a well-known brand

compare to a less known would drive to different effects of loyalty, for both types of

brands. Further research could also test if self-expressive brands achieve to

generate higher levels of loyalty.

Regarding the product offerings and gender differences, marketing research has no

conclusive answer whether gendered products outperform unisex products. Since

this research suggested that gender differences do not affect the consumer’s loyalty,

more research can be made in order to observe whether gender differences do act

as drivers of other marketing aspects of the product, guiding marketers into

embracing more effective gender based strategies.

60

6. REFERENCES

-Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person:

three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in consumer

research, 22, 391-391.

-Alreck, P. L. (1994). Commentary: A new formula for gendering products and

brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 3(1), 6-18.

-American Marketing Association Dictionary. Retrieved 2015-03-21 from

https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx.

-Anatolevena Anisimova, T. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on

attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of consumer marketing, 24(7),

395-405.

-Barbonis, P. A., & Laspita, S. (2005, September). Some factors influencing adoption

of e-commerce in Greece. In Engineering Management Conference, 2005.

Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International (Vol. 1, pp. 31-35). IEEE.

-Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: a meta‐ analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

-Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it?

How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. Journal of marketing, 73(3), 52-68.

-Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: Limits

to self-expression and the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 66-

82.

61

-Costa, J. A. (1994). Gender issues and consumer behavior. Thousands Oaks, CA:

Sage.

-Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R.. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa,

FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

-De Marco Anthony (2012). PPR’s Shifts to Luxury, Sports and Lifestyle Is The

Result of Dramatic Consumer Growth In Asia. Retrieved 2015-04-11 from:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonydemarco/2012/12/07/pprs-shift-to-luxury-sports-

and-lifestyle-is-the-result-of-dramatic-consumer-growth-in-asia/.

-Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual

framework. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 22(2), 99-113.

-Englis, B. G., & Solomon, M. R. (1995). To be and not to be: lifestyle imagery,

reference groups, and the clustering of America. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 13-28.

-Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in

consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 24(4), 343-353.

-Goldberg, S. M. (1982). An empirical study of lifestyle correlates to brand loyalty

behavior. Advances in consumer research, 9(1), 456-460.

-Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a

paradigm shift in marketing. Management decision, 32(2), 4-20.

-Hayes F. Andrew (2014). Comparing Conditional Effects in Moderated Multiple

Regression: Implementation using PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved 2015-

06-02 from http://www.afhayes.com/public/comparingslopes.pdf.

62

-Helman, D., & Chernatony, L. D. (1999). Exploring the development of lifestyle retail

brands. Service Industries Journal, 19(2), 49-68.

-Holman, R. H. (1980). A sociological approach to brand choice: the concept of

situational self image. Advances in consumer research, 7, 610-614.

-Jacoby, J., & D. B. Kyner (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing

behavior. Journal of Marketing research, Vol. 10, No 1, pp. 1-9.

-Kamenidou, I., Mylonakis, J., & Nikolouli, K. (2007). An exploratory study on the

reasons for purchasing imported high fashion apparels: The case of Greece. Journal

of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 11(1), 148-160.

-Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand

identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese

Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206.

-Lin, L. Y. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality

and brand loyalty: an empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 19(1), 4-17.

-Loner Wolf. (2014). Big 5 Personality Traits Test. Retrieved 2015-03-30 from http

//lonerwolf.com/big-5-personality-test/

-Matzler, K., Bidmon, S., & Grabner-Kräuter, S. (2006). Individual determinants of

brand affect: the role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to

experience. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(7), 427-434.

63

-McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of

personality across instruments and observers. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 52(1), 81.

-Melnyk, V., Van Osselaer, S. M., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2009). Are women more loyal

customers than men? Gender differences in loyalty to firms and individual service

providers. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 82-96.

-Mulyanegara, R. C., Tsarenko, Y., & Anderson, A. (2009). The Big Five and brand

personality: Investigating the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards

particular brand personality. Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 234-247.

-Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:

Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574.

-Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual and operational

aspects of brand loyalty: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business

Research, 53(2), 75-84.

-Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty?. the Journal of Marketing, 33-44.

-Oly Ndubisi, N. (2006). Effect of gender on customer loyalty: a relationship

marketing approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 48-61.

-Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of

consequential outcomes. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 401-421.

-Plummer, J. T. (1974). The concept and application of life style segmentation. the

Journal of Marketing, 33-37.

64

-Roumelioris D. James. (2011). Lifestyle Branding: Engagement and the Total

Experience. Retrieved 2015-03-25 from

http://savvychicksmedia.com/topic/business/lifestyle-branding-engagement-and-the-

total-experience/.

-Solomon, M.R. (1994) Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, Being. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

- Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2014). Consumer engagement with self-

expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 23(1), 33-42.

65

Appendix

Questionnaire

What is your age?

1. 20-25 2. 25-30 3. 30-35

What is your gender?

1. Female 2. Male

Specify your educational background

1. Primary school / 2.High school / 3. IEK/Technical School / 4.University / 5. Master

/ 6. Phd

I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I love to help others.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I’m very self-disciplined.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I complete tasks successfully.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I often feel blue.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

66

I have a vivid imagination.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I go on a lot of binges.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I prefer variety to routine.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I love large parties.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I panic easily.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I like to tidy up.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I often lack energy and have difficulty initiating activities.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I forgive people easily.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I worry about things.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I love to read challenging material.

67

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I enjoy challenging authority.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I am always prepared.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I believe in the importance of art.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I radiate joy.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I long to explore the world and travel.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I trust others.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I’m usually very thoughtful with others.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I make friends easily.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I take my time and am cautious when making decisions.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

68

I like to take charge.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I live a fast-paced, busy life.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I keep my promises.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I believe that others have good intentions.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I’m modest and don’t like taking credit for my work.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

I get angry easily.

Strongly Disagree O O O O O Strongly Agree

Choose one of the brands above that you are more familiar with and answer the 4

additional questions regarding your choice :

1. ZARA 2. H&M 3. ESPRIT 4. Topshop 5. Oxford Company

I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand

Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree

I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals

Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree

69

I would buy additional products and service in this brand

Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree

I prefer the brand to others

Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree

Now choose one of the lifestyle brands above that you are more familiar with and

answer the 4 additional questions regarding your choice :

1. Abercrombie & Fitch 2. GAP 3. Ralf Lauren 4. Diesel 5. Benetton

I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand

Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree

I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals

Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree

I would buy additional products and service in this brand

Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree

I prefer the brand to others

Strongly Disagree O O O O O O O Strongly Agree

70

Factor Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .663

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 193.412

df 66

Sig. .000

Table 13: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums

of Squared Loadings

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

1 2.369 19.740 19.740 2.369 19.740 19.740 1.976

2 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.693 14.112 33.851 1.706

3 1.280 10.663 44.514 1.280 10.663 44.514 1.770

4 1.096 9.129 53.643 1.096 9.129 53.643 1.290

5 .959 7.996 61.639

6 .869 7.242 68.881

7 .768 6.403 75.285

8 .673 5.607 80.892

9 .652 5.435 86.327

10 .626 5.213 91.539

11 .535 4.461 96.001

12 .480 3.999 100.000

Table 14: Eigenvalues with four components

71

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std.

Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error

Statistic Std. Error

I enjoy exciting and stimulating activities

147 4.27 .647 -.330 .200 -.699 .397

I’m very self-disciplined 147 3.53 .886 -.543 .200 .206 .397

I complete tasks successfully 147 3.97 .656 -.113 .200 -.213 .397

I like to tidy up 147 3.92 .798 -.507 .200 -.001 .397

I radiate joy 147 3.96 .810 -.317 .200 -.158 .397

I love large parties. 147 3.57 .929 -.186 .200 -.337 .397

I am always prepared 147 3.29 .778 .055 .200 -.452 .397

I make friends easily 147 3.55 .987 -.338 .200 -.589 .397

I take my time and am cautious when making decisions.

147 3.76 .822 -.432 .200 -.186 .397

I keep my promises 147 4.12 .572 .006 .200 -.027 .397

I like to take charge 147 3.75 .792 -.690 .200 .698 .397

I live a fast-paced, busy life 147 3.90 .878 -.427 .200 -.522 .397

I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand

147 4.60 .984 -.345 .200 2.579 .397

I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals

147 3.45 1.118 .115 .200 .743 .397

I would buy additional products and service in this brand

147 4.37 .937 -.089 .200 1466 .397

I prefer the brand to others 147 4.32 1.104 -.230 .200 1756 .397

I will continue to use this brand because I am satisfied and acquainted with the brand

147 4.57 .914 -1.496 .200 3.841 .397

I will use this brand in spite of competitors’ deals

147 3.65 1.163 -.404 .200 -.189 .397

I would buy additional products and service in this brand

147 4.50 .924 -.907 .200 2.476 .397

I prefer the brand to others 147 4.33 1.093 -.649 .200 1.783 .397

Valid N (listwise) 147

Table 15: Skewness and Kurtosis for all items

72

Regressions

Model Summary

Model R R

Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Change Statistics Change Statistics

Durbin-Watson R Square Change

F Change

df1 df2 Sig. F Change

1 .154a .024 .010 .76213 .024 1.743 2

a 144 .179

2 .267b .071 .045 .74849 .048 3.647 2

b 142 .029 2.198

a. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background, What is your age?

b. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background , What is your age?, CO_TOT, EX_TOT

c. Dependent Variable: LT_MEAN

Table 16: Regressions for loyalty of traditional brands

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 2.025 2 1.012 1.743 .179b

Residual 83.641 144 .581

Total 85.666 146

2

Regression 6.111 4 1.528 2.727 .032c

Residual 79.554 142 .560

Total 85.666 146

a. Dependent Variable: LT_MEAN

b. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background, What is your age? c. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background ,What is your age?, CO_TOT, EX_TOT

Table 17: ANOVA for loyalty of traditional brands

73

Coefficients

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients t

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 3.511 .410 8.558

What is your age? -.028 .091 -.025 -.304

Specify your Educational Background .173 .093 .153 1.856

2

(Constant) 1.934 .796 2.430

What is your age? -.038 .089 -.035 -.426

Specify your Educational Background .173 .091 .154 1.894

EX_TOT .026 .136 .016 .195

CO_TOT .396 .151 .215 2.624

Table 18: Coefficients for traditional brands

Model Summary

Model R R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Change Statistics Change Statistics

Durbin-Watson R Square Change

F Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .121a .015 .001 .79389 .015 1.064 2

a 144 .348

2 .196b .038 .011 .78971 .024 1.764 2

b 142 .175 1.959

a. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background, What is your age?

b. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background ,What is your age?, CO_TOT, EX_TOT

c. Dependent Variable: LL_MEAN

Table 19: Regression for lifestyle brands

74

ANOVA

Model

Sum of Squares

df Mean

Square F Sig.

1

Regression 1.341 2 .671 1.064 .348b

Residual 90.757 144 .630

Total 92.098 146

2

Regression 3.542 4 .885 1.420 .230c

Residual 88.556 142 .624

Total 92.098 146

a. Dependent Variable: LL_MEAN

b. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background, What is your age?

c. Predictors: (Constant), Specify your Educational Background ,What is your age?, CO_TOT, EX_TOT

Table 20: Anova for loyalty of lifestyle brands

75

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error

Beta Tolerance VIF

1

(Constant) 3.746 .427 8.766 .000

What is your age?

-.035 .094 -.031 -.376 .708 .997 1.003

Specify your Educational Background

.138 .097 .118 1.429 .155 .997 1.003

2

(Constant) 2.403 .840 2.861 .005

What is your age?

-.047 .094 -.041 -.498 .619 .991 1.009

Specify your Educational Background

.136 .096 .116 1.412 .160 .995 1.005

EX_TOT .121 .143 .071 .846 .399 .966 1.035

CO_TOT .241 .159 .126 1.514 .132 .971 1.030

a. Dependent Variable: LL_MEAN

Table 21: Coefficients for loyalty of lifestyle brands