Predicting Consumers' Behavioral Intentions with Perceptions of Brand Personality: A Study in Cell Phone Markets

Abstract

Although there are many factors affecting the attitude and intention of the consumer, it could be said that personality is the most important among them. Differentiating the products, which are getting more similar today, becomes more difficult for the firms. In differentiating the products emotional factors come to the forefront. If the characteristics of the product are subjective and difficult to evaluate, consumers start to trust brand personality. The importance of brand personality is increasing nowadays. The reason is that brand personality increases the trust and loyalty of the consumers for the brand by affecting costumers' preferences and uses. Pragmatic and personality factors have determinative effects on the formation of consumers' attitude toward product and brand. In this study, it is examined whether the perceptions of costumers about brand personality of cell phones affect their behavioral intention, or not. The answers of the 390 respondents, to whom questionnaires are applied with judgment sample method, are identified by brand personality scale adapted for Turkey by Aksoy and Özsomer because of cultural differences. A four dimensional structure is constructed in the study as Aksoy and Özsomer indicated in their work. The study shows that the dimensions of competency and excitement have higher impact on behavioral intention than the dimensions of traditionalist and androgen. The characterization of a technological product such as cell phone as competent proves that the global firms operate in this sector are in the right direction.

Full text

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 193
Predicting Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions with Perceptions
of Brand Personality: A Study in Cell Phone Markets
Murat Akın
School of Economics and Business Administration, Niğde University, Niğde, Turkey
Tel: 90-388-225-2050 E-mail: murat.akin1@gmail.com
Received: December 8, 2010 Accepted: January 13, 2011 doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n6p193
Abstract
Although there are many factors affecting the attitude and intention of the consumer, it could be said that
personality is the most important among them. Differentiating the products, which are getting more similar today,
becomes more difficult for the firms. In differentiating the products emotional factors come to the forefront. If
the characteristics of the product are subjective and difficult to evaluate, consumers start to trust brand
personality. The importance of brand personality is increasing nowadays. The reason is that brand personality
increases the trust and loyalty of the consumers for the brand by affecting costumers’ preferences and uses.
Pragmatic and personality factors have determinative effects on the formation of consumers’ attitude toward
product and brand. In this study, it is examined whether the perceptions of costumers about brand personality of
cell phones affect their behavioral intention, or not. The answers of the 390 respondents, to whom questionnaires
are applied with judgment sample method, are identified by brand personality scale adapted for Turkey by Aksoy
and Özsomer because of cultural differences. A four dimensional structure is constructed in the study as Aksoy
and Özsomer indicated in their work. The study shows that the dimensions of competency and excitement have
higher impact on behavioral intention than the dimensions of traditionalist and androgen. The characterization of
a technological product such as cell phone as competent proves that the global firms operate in this sector are in
the right direction.
Keywords: Personality, Brand personality, Cell phone
1. Introduction
Firms have been developing new products for differentiation in markets due to fierce competition for the last 20
years (Thomas and Sekar, 2008). Rivals can easily copy a new product that is developed for differentiation
thanks to the technological progress at short notice. This makes firms seek different ways along with strategies to
develop new products and their features. Effective brand management is an important competitive advantage for
firms under increasing competition (Eisend and Langer, 2007).
Differentiation a product in its category has been an important marketing strategy today when brands are similar
to each other in terms of quality, price, distribution (Çifçi and Cop, 2007). Emotional factors should be
emphasized more to differentiate a product. Abstract and emotional factors forming a brand are more influential
than concrete and rational ones in positioning a brand or product. Therefore firms are turning to abstract and
emotional factors today. It is seen that consumers trust brand personality more when product features are difficult
to be evaluated or subjective. Brand personality also plays the most important role in final purchase decision and
makes the brand be more advantageous than those of rivals (Büyükyavuz, 2008).
In mature and dense markets, much effort is needed for brand positioning. The perceived quality of products
does not vary much today and it has been difficult to develop new product features for differentiation.
Additionally, with the help of developing technologies, newly-developed product features can be easily imitated.
Therefore, using differentiation strategies is a must in positioning a brand (Aaker, 1997).
Positioning a brand as generic name may cause market share loss since it is perceived as an ordinary thing. When
price differentiation is taken into consideration, it also may weaken the firm's control mechanisms although it
seems easy. However, using personality traits in positioning brand helps firms increase consumers’ preference,
loyalty and trust (Aksoy and Özsomer, 2007). Accordingly, it has an important effect on consumer purchase
intention.

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
194
The most difficult and complex aspect of building a brand is personalizing it. Brand personality is seen as a
strategic tool for both building and managing brand by both academicians and practitioners. Building a strong
brand can be possible by designing and conducting proper and effective brand personality. In unstable and
dynamic markets, firms should promote their right brands with suitable brand personality which can be accepted
by consumers (Keller, 2003: 638).
The brand becomes differentiated from similar brands which have same features with the help of unique brand
personality created. According to Aaker, brand personality is created when consumers attribute personality traits
which help them distinguish brands to a brand (Xue et al., 2007). Firms should decide which brand personality
traits their brand personality will have for a product brand or brand name since the meaning of a brand in the life
of consumer comes from the positioning of the brand and the image it creates. Also, the image which a brand
creates in consumers’ minds depends on brand personality (Dursun, 2009).
When building a brand personality, probably the most important factor is whether there is a closeness between
the intended brand personality and consumers’ personality in target market as when brand personality is close to
that of consumer or the admired, his purchase intention to buy brand and brand loyalty is bigger (Yılmaz, 2007).
Brand personality is a strategic tool that forms the communication between brand and consumers. Brands can
reflect and tell themselves in consumers' minds by means of personalities. At this point, brand personality plays a
key role in building loyaler relations or moving up the differentiation ladder in consumers' minds. Brand
personality is about general style and attitude when conveying the message, so brand personality is an important
factor in building emotional connection. When building a personality in connection with brand, it is necessary to
know the conditions and circumstances in which consumers prefer the brand and accordingly, suitable image and
emotion forms (archetypes) should be chosen. When brand personality is based on an archetype, it is noticed
more easily and it finds better place in the minds of the consumers (http://markakimlik.blogspot.com,
23/03/2010).
Consumers' purchase preference is based on information they collect. Consumer who has to make purchase
decision without information feels himself under risk due to uncertainty, so he looks for cues. In this step, brand
and its meaning to consumer and associations (archetype) play important role in purchase preference (Kurtuluş,
2008).
It is asserted in the studies on brand personality that personality attributed to brand is in fact a symbolic usage.
The personality brand represents is a tool that can be used as an indicator that shows “whether it is worth buying
or not” in consumer psychology (Nart, 2008).
Although there are many factors affecting attitude and intentions, personality is the first one that should be taken
into consideration by researchers. Ratchford and Vaughn state in their works that conditional and personality
factors have important and decisive effects on forming attitudes and intentions of consumers for product or brand
(Shavitt, 1989). In literature, there are lots of findings which prove that consumer is affected by behavioral
intentions such as how to make consumer buy and pay more, developing his brand preference, make them tell
others good things about brand (Dursun and Çerçi, 2004; Hayes, 1999). The study is aimed to examine brand
personality perception in connection with consumers' behavioral intentions. Although there are many factors
affecting attitudes and intentions of consumer, personality is especially an important one that should be paid
attention by marketers.
2. Personality
Personality can be defined as all distinctive and unique behaviors of individual. The word "Person" comes from
"Persona" (Latin) meaning mask people wore according to their roles in theatre (Soysal, 2008: 6). Personality
can be also defined as organized set of physical, intellectual and spiritual and characteristics possessed by a
person that make him different from others (Erkal, 2004; www.donusumkonagi.net, 26/02/2010). It can also be
stated that personality is a kind of established, consistent and distinctive relation, including reactions, with others
(Çetin and Beceren, 2007).
According to another definition, personality is set of fixed features and behavioral patterns that help individual
suit his environments (Dursun, 2009). Personality causes people to evaluate everything around them by means of
their personal traits. Sometimes, people in shopping centers say “This cloth does not reflect my personality” or
“This reflects my character” (Mishra and Detta, 2008).
Schiffman and Kanu state that the definition of personality should be based on the following three items (Çetin
2009; Uztuğ, 2003; Odabaşı and Barış, 2003):

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 195
 Personality makes an individual different from others
 Personality is consistent and permanent
 Personality may change
3. Personality Measurement
Psychology, throughout history, has attempted to establish the systematic and generalisable framework which
explains the differences between individuals. A number of personality theories have been developed in order to
determine the similarities and differences between individuals and to seek how these similarities and differences
organize as a form or model. In ancient Greece, it used to be accepted that the physical and spiritual health of an
individual depended upon the balance between four body liquids, that each personal characteristic or trait
stemmed from one of them. According to that, blood would cause an excited personality, black gall would cause
melancholy, yellow gall would cause an angry personality and sputum would cause a reckless personality. Also,
the amount of these liquids in the body would determine the mood of the individual
(http://www.bilgininadresi.net/Madde/33235, 20/03/2010).
Systematic approaches started in 1884 with Galton, who took the words related with personality in English
language into consideration. His studies were followed by Thurnstone. In his study, Thurstone tried to explain
personality in 60 personality traits and under five general topics (Mulyanegra vd, 2009).
According to Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis theory, personality is divided into super ego, ego and id and
develops as a result of an interaction between them (İslamoğlu, 2006;
http://esincolak.blogcu.com/freud-un-psikanaliz-kurami/251049, 22/03/2010). Biological drives, which carry
with them sexual connotations, play a decisive role in this interaction. This approach is one of the most effective
and popular personality theories of our era, even though it has experienced some changes and has been criticized
because it ignored historical and sociological conditions and explained personality development only with
unconscious processes (Ünlü, 2001).
Henry A. Murray, an American psychologist, enumerated approximately twenty basic needs, which each
individual has, claiming that personality develops with these needs. (Onaran, 1981;
http://www.botav.org/henry-alexander-murray, 22/03/2010). His list of needs established the fundamentals of the
tests for evaluating personality with statistical methods. That these tests had an aim to reveal unconscious
behaviors brought with them the idea that personality is a product of these unconscious processes
(http://www.tegim.com/egitim/dosyalar/k-r-bolumler/psikoloji/1977-kisilik.html, 22/03/2010).
Gordon W. Allport, an American psychologist, approached personality as a whole consisted of individual and
singular features. According to him, human behavior is designated by unchanging, completely subjective and
singular personality features (Karakaya, 2008).
According to William McDougall’s theory of personality traits, an American psychologist, personality is a whole
consisted of hereditary (primary) and learned (secondary) features (Hazar, 2006). As a result of these approaches,
personality traits such as sincere, assertive, emotional and conscientious were determined.
There is not a generally-accepted definition about personality and there are hundreds of scales for measuring
personality traits. It is seen that most of these scales measure personality traits in different names but same
dimension or vice versa. It is asserted that personality can not be measured academically unless a conceptual
foundation for scales and variables about personality is created (Yelboğa, 2006).
Throughout history, psychology has tried to form a generalisable and systematic framework which can explain
personality. The most comprehensive and acceptable study is five-factor model. Although there is some debate
continuing, psychologists generally accept that these five-factor is enough to measure personality (Geuens et al.
2009).
Five-factor model was mentioned first in 1933 in presidential speech for American Psychological Association by
L. L. Thurstone (Vikipedia, 03.02.2010). Reliability and validity of five-factor model have been verified many
times in many cultures by different researchers throughout the world (Solmuş, www.xing.com, 20.03.2010).
Five-factor model of personality (Big Five) took its final form with McCrea and Costa’s studies which prove that
the model should be accepted to measure personality (Schneider and Bodur, 2009; Mulyanegra et al, 2009).
Lewis Goldberg, Naomi Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey and John M. Digman examined the personality
scales and found that the personality scale Norman created in 1963 reliably measured the five general factors
(Tabak et al. 2010; www.msxlabs.org, 02.03.2010). After this general acceptance of Big-five model by most
researchers, The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) was published in 1985 by Costa and McCrae. These

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
196
five personality dimensions measured by the NEO PI-R, including facets, are as follows: (Bacanlı et al, 2009;
Yürür, 2009; Larson and Sachau: 2009; Caprara et al, 2001):
 Extraversion
 Neuroticism
 Openness to experience
 Agreeableness
 Conscientiousness
4. Brand Personality and Measuring Brand Personality
Personality which is a component of identity is of great importance for communication because if a brand has no
personality, it can not introduce itself and be remembered easily. Therefore, a brand should apply a consistent
image which reflects its style and to be remembered easily. Archetypes are useful tools due to being powerful
personality types having deep roots in terms of mind. It is clear that brand personalities should be taken into
consideration in a flexible and lively way due to the fact that they have changed for centuries
(http://markakimlik.blogspot.com, 23.03.2010). The meanings a brand mentions may be in different dimensions
and there may be various ways to convey those meanings (Özkan, 2005).
If the relation between consumer and brand is bigger, the rate to prefer the brand will also increase. In time, this
preference can create dependence for consumer. To continue this relation, consumer must adapt the brand and
bring into connection with it by personalizing. Adapting and personalizing depend on building the factors of
brand personality (Yılmaz, 2007).
Studies on brand personality and personality psychology start at the same time. Brand personality is a popular
metaphor which is used to reveal the role of real and ideal identities in choosing brand. Consumers are under the
influence of similarities between their personalities and product they prefer among rival products (Rathnoyake,
2008). Aaker (1996) stresses that brand personality is one of fundamental dimensions of brand value. The
importance of brand is mentioned more and more by specialists because brand personality increases not only
consumer preference and usage, but also trust and loyalty at the same time (Aksoy and Özsomer, 2007).
Practitioners and advertisers gave importance to brand personality long before academicians. Brand personality
was defined as a concrete dimension among store features by Matineau (1958). Store personality or character
should be used to differentiate from others (Pandey, 2009).
King (1970) and Plummer (1984) stressed on this point when studying consumer behavior. King (1970) said in
his study that brand personality is useful factor in preferring one between two brands. King also stated that
consumers prefer brands and friends in the same way and attribute human characteristics to their preferred
brands (Cui et al, 2008; Mengxia, 2007). Plummer says that if a brand were a man, consumers ask and judge
brands in their minds with questions like “How does he look like? Where does he live?, What does he do?, What
kinds of magazines does he read?, What does he wear?, Who does he talk about in a party?” (Erdem, 2004).
Aaker developed a valid and reliable scale based on qualitative studies on personality and personality traits used
by marketers and psychologist and formed its theoretical framework (Rojas – Mendez vd., 2004; Rojagopal,
2005).
Aaker states that two different scales can be used to measure brand personality. The first one is the scale that
includes 20-300 character features. Although it seems practical and useful, some basic characters may not be
noticed. Since personality traits are chosen arbitrarily, validity and reliability of the scale becomes contentious.
The other brand personality scale is more theoretical and was created on human characteristics as they are.
Although most of the characters match up with brands, some of them may not be adapted to brands. So Aaker
tried to create a brand personality scale without those advantages (Aaker, 1997). Aaker (1997) defined brand
personality as “a group of humanitarian traits that are associated to a brand”. To measure brand personality,
Aaker adapted five-factor theory used for personality studies in psychology to marketing (Fennis and Pruyn,
2007). Aaker reduced 114 character features to a scale consisted of 42 personality traits, 15 sub-dimensions and
5 basic dimensions (Cui et al, 2008: 532). After the study was completed, it was found out that five dimensions
used to measure personality in the USA are sincereness, excitement, competency, development and robustness.
With the help of those personality traits, answers (1: Can not be defined properly, 5: Defined perfectly) were
obtained using 5-point grading (Aaker, 1997; Romaniuk, 2008). Validity and reliability of characters and
dimensions were tested by many studies using the scale (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003; Morschett et al. 2008).
Aaker shows in his study where theoretical framework of brand personality is defined that brand personality is

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 197
five-dimensioned as in psychology. He asserts the dimensions are a reliable, valid, systematic and generalisable
scale that can measure brand personality (Aaker, 1997; Rekom, vd., 2006).
Through sincereness dimension, Aaker points at brands used by earthly people living in a small town and are
good providers. This dimension is also related to honesty, being fair, physical and mental satisfaction brand
provides, as well as physical features of brand, such as color. Besides all these, by emotional aspects of brand
used, helpfulness of brand like a friend is also pointed out (Mishra and Datta, 2008; Aaker, 1997). Excitement
dimension is related to personality traits such as captivity, liveliness, creativity and modernity. Competency is
attached to character traits such as, reliability, intelligence and success. Development dimension is a personalized
dimension which is sophisticated, attractive in upper class (Rathnoyake, 2008; Mishra and Data, 2008).
Aaker defines brand personality at individual brand level and says that individual brands can be used to measure
brand personality. However it is thought that five dimensions are suitable for a structure consisted of different
brands and product categories. If researchers think that each individual brand have the same five-dimensioned
structure or a simplified scale can be used to measure only brand, they have to be careful. In this case, Aaker’s
scale consisted of 42 variables and five dimensions should be revised again and adapted (Cui et al, 2008).
Therefore, in this study, cell phone brands are discussed as a general category and their brand personalities are
aimed to be measured.
Culture may also cause Aaker’s five-dimensioned structure. When brand personalities are compared among
cultures, brand perceptions are defined according to value and needs of these cultures. Differences among
cultures differ when brand personalities are determined (Sung ve Tinkham, 2005).
The scale for brand personality developed by Aaker (1997) focuses on measuring brand personality according to
consumer perceptions. The studies using this scale mainly measure brand personalities in western cultures.
Therefore, most of the personality adjectives used in the scale is for western cultures. The personality adjectives
should be adapted to the different cultures (Aksoy and Özsomer, 2007). Trade marks are identified with human
characteristics. These symbolic meanings attributed to brands point out the values and beliefs of the culture
(Sung and Tinkham, 2005). Thomas and Sekar (2008) used Aaker's scale consisted of 42 variables to measure
brand personality of Colgate and they reached five dimensions. The studies done in Japan and Spain were carried
out as five-dimensioned (Aaker et al. 2001). In the study done to measure brand personality of Ford, it was
carried out as four-dimensioned (Thomas ve Sekar, 2008).
It was seen that competence and excitement dimensions were formed in every culture although adjectives vary in
sub-variable forming the dimensions. It was found out that South Korea is similar to Turkey in terms of brand
personality (www.ekonometrik.com.tr, 24/05/2009). It was discovered that conventional and androgenic
dimensions are peculiar to Turkey. Traditionalism is often used to define Turkish culture. Androgen is used for
both men and women. Androgenic dimension was seen in the studies done in South Korea (Büyükyavuz, 2008).
When Aksoy and Özsomer (2007) created the scale according to the needs and values of Turkey, they modified it
to a structure that has four-dimension and 39 variables in their study which prove reliability and validity of
Aaker's brand personality scale for Turkey. In our study, the scale which was ed for Turkey by Aksoy and
Özsomer (table 1) is used. The study is similar to other studies carried out on the subject in terms of dimension.
However the adjectives used in the study are mainly appropriate for Turkey.
[INSERT TABLE 1: DIMENSIONS FORMING BRAND PERSONALITY IN TURKEY]
5. Methodology
5.1 Research Model and Hypotheses
The aim of the study is to predict behavioral intentions of cell phone users for cell phone brands with brand
personality perceptions. To reach this aim, Aaker's scale adapted by Aksoy and Özsomer (2007) was used in the
study. The adjectives given at Table 1 were used to measure cell phone brand personality. The research is limited
to Niğde city center. Niğde is a small city in the center of Turkey with a population of 100 000 people. This is a
significant limitation of the study for generalization. The aim of the research is to find out the effect of brand
personality on purchase intention.
[INSERT FIGURE 1: RESEARCH MODEL]
There are many factors effecting attitude and intentions of consumer. However personality is the first one we
face. Ratchford and Vaughn emphasized in their studies that situational and personality factors have
determinative effect on attitudes and intentions for forming consumer behavior towards product and brand
(Shavitt, 1989). In the literature, there are findings that brand personality is affected by behavioral intentions

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
198
such as how to make consumer buy and pay more, developing his brand preference, make them tell others good
things about brand (Dursun and Çerçi, 2004; Hayes, 1999). The study which studies brand personality
perceptions and its effect on behavioral intentions are based on the studies in literature.
The hypostesis of the research in accordance with its model and aim is developed as follow:
H1: Consumers’ perceptions of brand personality affect behavioral intentions
5.2 Sample Selection and Sample Size
Due to cost and time limits, judgment sampling, one of non-random samplings, was used to reach much data as
quick and cost-effective as possible (Nakip, 2003). Therefore, no generalization is made using the results of the
study. “To obtain normal results, each parameter in the scale should be answered by at least ten answerers when
calculating sample size is large enough for the study” (Hair et al., 1998). Since there are 39 personality
adjectives to measure brand personality and four variables to measure behavioral intentions, totally 43
parameters, sample size should be at least 430. The study was carried out with 490 people using judgment
sampling. Thus Hair's advice for sample size was followed in the study.
5.3 Data Gathering Method and Tool
Data needed for analysis was gathered with questionnaire method using face-to-face interview technique. The
questionnaire has three parts. In the first part, 39 personality adjectives to measure cell phone brand personality
are given. In the second part, there are questions to measure their behavioral intentions (consumer's intention to
buy more, his desire to pay more, developing his brand preference, telling others good things about brand). In the
last part, there are questions to get to know them and information about their demographic features. Questions
were formatted using 5-point Likert scale as “1: can not be defined correctly, 5: Can be defined perfectly.
5.4 The Analysis of Data and Findings
Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to analyze the data. Exploratory Factor Analysis aims to define the basic
structure and to determine each dimension forming this structure separately. (Hair et al., 1998). Regression
analysis was used in the study to predict behavioral intentions of cell phone users with brand personality. For
Exploratory Factor Analysis and regression analysis, SPSS 17.0 Statistical Packet was used in the study. First of
all, evaluations related to demographic questions were carried out. It was found out that % 62.5 of participants
are men. % 28 of all participants are between 25 and 34. % 49 are graduates of university or vocational
college. % 29 have 700-1300 $ US monthly income. Nokia is the most owned cell phone brand with % 37.5.
The reliability and average of the brand personality scale used in the study are calculated as 0.949 and 3, 605,
respectively. When the results of the study are compared with other studies using the same scale adapted from
Aaker's by Aksoy and Özsomer, it was seen that Aksoy and Özsomer (2007), Yener (2007), Yılmaz (2007),
Büyükyavuz (2008), Çetin (2009) calculated its reliability as 0.90, 0.85, 0.946, 0.968, 0.89, respectively. Thus, it
can be said that the reliability of the study to measure brand personality is normal. The reliability and average of
the scale to measure behavioral intentions were found to be 0.896 and 3.612. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient,
which shows internal consistency of the variables forming the scale is used to evaluate the reliability of the study.
When Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is 0.60 or less, the results related to internal consistency are not satisfactory.
The value of Cronbach’s Alpha should be higher than 0.70. When it is higher, the reliability also increases due to
the value of correlation coefficient between variables.
Factor analysis was used to measure the reliability of brand personality scale. 39 personality adjectives
developed for Turkey by Aksoy and Özsomer (2007) were used completely and four dimensions were obtained
at the end of the test. Varimax rotation was used to do the analysis. First of all, KMO and Barlett test values were
examined to determine whether 39 variables could be factorized or not. KMO values were bigger than 0.50 for
both scales (personality and behavioral intention). Thus 39 personality adjectives were evaluated with factor
analysis. It is seen that factor loads of all dimensions are bigger than 0.50. Taking these results into consideration,
it can be said that the scale measures a certain structure and the scales are valid structurally. When the variances
are examined, it was seen that total variance of androgen, traditionalism, excitement, and competence whose
Eigen values are bigger than 1 is 0.735.
[INSERT TABLE 2: FACTOR MATRIX]
It is seen that cell phone brands are perceived as qualified, successful, good, original and global under
competence dimension. When excitement dimension is examined, it is seen that they are perceived as tempting,
cheerful and sympathetic. The underlying reason can be the effect of cell phone advertisements given lately.
When traditionalism is taken into consideration, adjectives like cost-effective, classical and family-focused

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 199
caught our attention.
This proves that Turkish consumers do not perceive cell phones as conventional. It is remarkable that femininity
and ostentation come to forefront under androgenic dimension. Rotation methods were not used since the
structure that measure behavioral intention (consumer's intention to buy more, his desire to pay more, developing
his brand preference, telling others good things about brand) is one-dimensioned. Behavioral intention explains 0.
85 of total variance.
Regression analysis was used to test alternative hypothesis in the study which researches the effect of consumers'
perceptions of cell phone brand personality on behavioral intentions.
[INSERT TABLE 3: REGRESSION MODEL]
Table 3 gives information about the effect level. When the table is examined, correlation coefficient is 0.816. It
means that there is a strong relationship. Determination coefficient explains consumers' behavioral intentions
(brand personality dimensions that are determined as competence, traditionalism, androgenic, excitement) as
0.66. The first steps of the hypothesis is proved, in other words, it can be said that brand personality has an effect
on behavioral intention. To understand whether this relationship is meaningful or not, ANOVA table should be
examined.
[INSERT TABLE 4: ANOVA TABLE]
Since the meaningfulness is less than 0.05, there is a significant effect of perceived brand personality on
consumers' behavioral intentions.
[INSERT TABLE 5: COEFFICIENT]
Standardized loads (ß) and significance level (p) which shows the effect of competence, excitement,
conventionalism, androgenic dimensions which form brand personality on behavioral intentions and
relationships between them are given. In this case, the hypothesis H1 which asserts that there is a significant
relationship between consumers' perception of brand personality and behavioral intentions was accepted.
One of the aims of regression analysis is to make projections about future. Thus mathematical regression model
must be created. Beta coefficients in table 4 and their levels of meaningfulness give information about the
usability of the model and the meaningfulness of projection that can be made for future. The mathematical model
that is created is realized as follows:
y = 0.032 + 0.758 (competence) + 0.283 (excitement) + 0.061 (traditionalism) + 0.102 (androgen)
It shows that when any information about created mathematical regression model and dimensions is obtained,
consumers' behavioral intention can be predicted. When beta coefficients are taken into consideration,
competence and excitement dimensions which are among cell phone brand personalities have more effects on
consumers' behavioral intentions than any other factors. Thus, it can be said that the effect of competence and
excitement dimensions on transforming. Turkish consumers' perceptions of cell phone brand personality into
buying intention are higher than those of androgenic and traditionalist dimensions. That cell phones which are
technological products are perceived as competent and exciting shows us that firms are also successful in
positioning.
6. Conclusion
Conditions of competition are changing rapidly today and companies that strategize and react to these changes
promptly and quickly are the most successful. Due to technological developments, physical differences of
products have decreased. Differentiation should be made on the meanings products bear instead of on their
physical features.
A successful brand differentiation can be possible by building personality. Thanks to brand personality, consumer
sees brand as friend since it provides him with emotional benefits. A well-formed brand personality increases
brand preference and usage. Also, a strong emotional tie built by brand personality ensures trust for brand.
Brand personality provides brand and firms with various benefits. The most important is that it makes brand
different from others. This differentiation helps consumer for preference. In this step, brand and the meaning
which brand bears and associations for consumers play important roles in consumer preference. Right brand
personality formed for the needs of target market can help brand to be noticed and to be preferred. The aim of
brand personality is that when consumer has difficulty in deciding, it affects his emotional decisions and makes
consumer buy the brand. Brand personality gives firms a sustainable competition advantage. Original brand
personality which is created against rivals can help firms have competition advantage, emphasizing on

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
200
positioning and promotion. The preferred brands are indicators for consumers.
Brand is an important part of product policies. The possibility of brand personality measurement can contribute
to product positioning and creating advertisement message and is an important element for brand extension.
Aksoy and Özsomer (2007:10) state that brand personality is defined differently in Turkey and the scales
developed for other countries can not be used in Turkey. If used, it would have misleading results. Therefore, in
the study, the scale adapted by Aksoy and Özsomer for Turkish culture was used to measure brand personality.
Competency and excitement dimensions are two important factors of brand personality scale in countries such as
the USA, South Korea, Spain and Japan which are of different culture. In our study, it was seen that these two
dimensions are also effective in Turkey.
In Turkey, a concept of being global is under competency dimension. This makes Turkish consumers perceive
global brands as more competent although this does not exist in countries such as the USA, Spain. Brand
personality positioning created on competency and excitement for global brands can help them enter new
markets easily. Brand personality created on competency and excitement make same messages in different
markets be used successfully.
In this pilot study researching the effects of consumer perception of cell phone brand personality on behavioral
intentions, the effect of personality attributed to brands on behavioral intentions like preference, advice, and
desire to pay more for brands was examined.
The personality adjectives adapted by Aksoy and Özsomer were used to measure the personality Turkish
consumer attribute to brands because it is known that personality is affected by cultural factors. As a result of
factor analysis done, it is seen that four-dimensioned brand personality was formed. The first two factors are
competency and excitement. Although it is normal to perceive cell phone which is a technological product as
competent, it is surprising that brands are perceived as family-focused and classical in traditionalism dimension
which forms the third dimension. Additionally, it can be said that in androgenic dimension, cell phones are
perceived as femininity and ostentatious. Behavioral intentions of consumers are approached as one-dimensioned.
When the effect of brand personality on purchase intention for cell phone is examined, it is seen that the effect is
very strong.
That the effect of competency dimension on behavioral intentions is more that those of other dimensions in terms
of market share shows that global brands position themselves in the correct way in cell phone markets where
global brands are in existence. It is seen that the effect of traditionalism and androgenic dimensions on
behavioral intentions is smaller that others. When the brands and products are international and global,
perceptions as traditional are not preferred naturally.
It is thought that personality perceptions towards cell phone brands may be effective for developing positive
attitude and behavior and building brand loyalty. It is also thought that the firms who intend to enter markets
should emphasize the same features so as to increase their competition chance. As a result, that knowing
perceptions towards brand personality which has effects on brand preference can help firms make decisions
related to brand management in a correct and effective way. Positive perceptions of brands can be used to help
firms be advantageous in fierce markets. Firms should promote right brands with brand personality that can be
accepted by consumers in unstable and dynamic markets. Thanks to the formed brand personality which is
unique and original, the brand is differentiated from the brands which have same product features. Due to the
limitations in the study, it is not possible to generalize the results. However, it is thought that the obtained
findings and data in the study will be useful for similar studies in the future.
References
Aaker, J.L., V. Benet-Martinez. ve J. Garolera. (2001). Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study F
Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3).
492-508.
Aaker Jennifer L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXIV,
August 97.
Aksoy Lerzan ve A. Özsomer. (2007). Marka Kişiliği Tanımının Türkiye’de Geçerliliği. (Validity of Brand
Personality Definition in Turkey), TÜBİTAK Proje No: 105K153, Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırma Grubu,
Ekim 2007, İstanbul.
Aksoy Lerzan ve A. Özsomer. (2007). Türkiye’de Marka Kişiliği Oluşturan Boyutlar. (Dimensions Forming
Brand Personality in Turkey), 12. Ulusal Pazarlama Kongresi Bildirisi - Sakarya Üniversitesi, 2007, 1-14.

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 201
Azoulay, Audrey ve Jean-Noel Kapferer. (2003). Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand Personality.
Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, November.
Bacanli Hasan T. İlhan ve S. Aslan. (2009). Beş Faktör Kuramına Dayalı Bir Kişilik Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi:
Sıfatlara Dayalı Kişilik Testi (SDKT). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Bahar, 7(2), 261-279
Büyükyavuz Celal Özgür. (2008). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kullandıkları Spor Ayakkabılarına İlişkin Marka
Kişiliği Algılarındaki Farklılıkların Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Pilot Araştırma. (A Pilot Study to Determine the
Differences in Perceptions of Brand Personality Related to Trainers Worn by University Students), İstanbul
Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Pazarlama Ana Bilim dalı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Caprara Gian Vittorio, C. Barbaranellı ve G. Guido. (2001). Brand Personality: How to make the metaphor fit?.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 377 – 395.
Chong, V.K. ve M.J. Rundus. (2004). Total Quality Management, Market Competition and Organizational
Performance. The British Accounting Review, 36(2), 155-172.
CUI Annie Peng, J. Albanese Paul. Robert D. Jewell ve Michael Y. Hu. (2008). Profiling the Brand Personality
of Specific Brands. Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 35, 534 – 541.
Cetin Birsen. (2009). Türkiye’de Lüks Tüketim Ürünlerinde Marka Kişiliğinin Marka Sadakatine Etkisi Ve Bir
Uygulama. (Effects of Brand Personality on Brand Loyalty in Luxury Consumer Goods in Turkey), Marmara
Üniversitesi, Soysal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Halkla İlişkiler Anabilim Dalı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Cetin Nesrin Gökben, E. Beceren. (2007). Lider Kişilik: Gandhi. (Leader Personality: Gandhi), Süleyman
Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Yıl/Volume: 3, Sayı/Issue: 5, 110-132.
Çifci Sertaç, R. Cop. (2007). Marka ve Marka Yönetimi Kavramları: Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kot Pantolon
Marka Tercihlerine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. (Brand and Brand Management Concepts: A Study on Preferences of
University Students for Brands of Jeans), Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar Cilt: 44 Sayı: 512
Dursun Yunus ve M. Çerçi. (2004). Algılanan Sağlık Hizmeti Kalitesi, Algılanan Değer, Hasta Tatmini ve
Davranışsal Niyet İlişkileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (A Study on Perceived Health Service Quality, Patient
Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions Relations), Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi
Dergisi, Sayı: 23, Temmuz-Aralık 2004, 1-16.
Dursun Tolga. (2009). Marka Kişiliği Yaratma Süreci ve Marka Kişiliği Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (Process to
Create a Brand Personality and a Study on Brand Personality), Marmara İletişim Dergisi, Sayı 14, Ocak 2009,
İstanbul
Eisend Martin ve A. Langer. (2007). The Impact of Brand Personality Dimensions on Brand Performance.
American Marketing Association, winter.
Erdem, S. (2004). Marka Değerini Oluşturan Faktörlerin Müşteri Odaklı Ölçümlenmesi ve Süt Ürünleri
Sektörüne Yönelik Bir Araştırma. (Measuring the Factors Forming Brand Personality and Study on Dairy Sector),
Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
Erkal Buket. (2004). Kişilik Psikolojisi ve Kişilik Kuramları, Davranış Bilimlerine Giriş. (Personality
Psychology, Personality Theories and Introduction to Behavioral Sciences), Enver Özkalp (Editör), Anadolu
Üniversitesi, AÖF Yayınları, Eskişehir.
Fennis Bob M., and H. Pruyn. (2007). You are What You Wear: Brand Personality Influences on Consumer
Impression Formation. Journal of Business Research, 60 (2007) 634–639, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.013,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.013
Geuens Maggie, B. Weijters ve K. De Wulf. (2009). A New Measure of Brand Personality. Intern. J. of Research
in Marketing 26 (2009) 97–107, doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.12.002,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.12.002
Hair, Joseph F. Jr. Rolph E. Andreson. Ronald L. Tahtam. William C. Black. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis.
Fifth Edition Prentice-Hall International Inc, New Jersey, USA.
Hayes James Bryan. (1999). Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Personality. Mississippi State University,
Mississippi, PHD Thessis, UMI Number: 9959055.
Hazar Çetin Murat. (2006). Kişilik ve İletişim Tipleri. (Personality and Types of Communication), Selçuk İletişim
4, 2, 125 – 140.
Islamoğlu A. Hamdi. (2006). Pazarlama Yönetimi. (Marketing Management), Genişletilmiş Üçüncü Baskı, Beta

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
202
Basım, İstanbul.
Jonsson P. (2000). An Empirical Taxonomy of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 20(12), 1446-1474.
Karakaya Semra. (2008). Dindarlık ve Kişilik Arasındaki İlişki, Allport Ve Fromm’un Karşılaştırmalı Analizi.
(Relationship Between Religiousness and Personality, Comperative Analysis of Allport and From) Çukurova
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi
Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. 2nd edn,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kurtulus Sema Dündar. (2008). Ülkelerin Marka Kişiliği Üzerine Bir Arastırma. (A Study on Brand Personality
of Countries), İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 22, Temmuz 2008, Sayı: 2, 287 – 300.
Larson Andrea J. ve A. Sachau Daniel. (2009). Effects of Incentives and the Big Five Personality Dimensions on
Internet Panellists’ Ratings. International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 51 Issue 5, DOI:
10.2501/S1470785309200888
Lee Jung Wan. (2009). Relationship between Consumer Personality and Brand Personality as Self-Concept:
From the Case of Korean Automobile Brands. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 13, Number , 25 –
44.
Mccrae, Robert R., and Paul T. Costa. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality across
Instruments and Observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (January), 81–90.
Mengxia Zhang. (2007). Impact of Brand Personality on PALI: A Comparative Research between Two Different
Brands. International Management Review, Vol: 3, No. 3, 36 -44.
Mishra Pallabi ve B. Datta. (2008). Consanguinity between Consumer and Brand Personality: A Review. The
Icfai University Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. III, No. 3, 7 – 14.
Morschett Dirk, H. Klein -, F. Hälsig, ve J. Magali. (2008). The Influence of Self-Congruity, Brand Personality
and Brand Performance on Store Loyalty. European Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 8, 417 – 418.
Mulyanegara Riza Casidy, Y. Tsarenko ve A. Anderson. (2009). The Big Five and Brand Personality:
Investigating the Impact of Consumer Personality on Preferences towards Particular Brand Personality. Journal
of Brand Management, 16, 234 – 247. published online 8 June 2007. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550093,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550093
Nakip, Mahir. (2003). Pazarlama Araştırmalarıi. (Marketing Researches), Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Nart Sima. (2008). Menşe Ülke Etkisinin Tüketici Algılamaları ve Davranışlarına Yansımaları: İngiltere
Pazarında Türk ve Alman Markalarının Karşılaştırılması. (The Reflection of Effects of Origin Country on
Consumer Perceptions and Behaviours: Comparing Turkish and German Commodities in UK), Süleyman
Demirel Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, C.13, S.3: 153 - 177.
Odabasi, Yavuz, G. BARIŞ. (2003). Tüketici Davranışı. (Consumer Behaviour). İstanbul: Mediacat Yayınları,
2005: 24
Onaran OĞUZ. (1981). Çalışma Yaşamında Güdülenme Kuramları. (Motivation Theories in Business Life),
Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayinları, Yayin No: 470, Sevinç Matbaası, Ankara.
Pandey, Anuja. (2009). Understanding Consumer Perception of Brand Personality, IUP Journal of Brand
Management, Sep 2009, Vol. 6 Issue 3/4, p26-50,
Rathnayake C V. (2008). Brand Personality and its Impact on Brand Feelings: A Study among Young Television
Viewer s. South Asian Journal of Management, Apr-Jun2008, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p7-24
Ravichandran, T. ve R. Arun, (1999). Total Quality Management in Information Systems Development: Key
Constructs and Relationship. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 119-156.
Rekom Johan, J. Gabriele ve P. Verlegh. (2006). Measuring and Managing The Essence of a Brand Personality.
Marketing Letters, Jul 2006, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p181-192.
Rojas-Me´ Ndez Jose´ I., I. Podlech ve E. Olave. (2004). The Ford Brand Personality in Chile. Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2004, pp. 232–251.
Rojagopal. (2005). Impact of Advertising Variability on Building Customer – Based Brand Personality in a
Competitive Environment: Emprical Analyis with Reference to Mexico. Latin American Business Review, Vol.

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 203
6(3): 63 – 84. doi: 10.1300/JI40v06n03_03.
Romaniuk Jenni. (2008). Comparing Methods of Measuring Brand Personality Traits. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol 16, 153 – 161, DOI 10.2753/MTP1069-6679160205.
Shavitt Sharon. (1989). Products, Personalities and Situations in Attitude Functions: Implications for Consumer
Behavior. Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 16): 300 – 305.
Schneider Gülpınar Kelemci ve C. K. Bodur. (2009). Tüketicilerde Marka Kişiliği Algısı İle Marka Tercihine
İlişkin Bir Analiz: Hijyenik Ürünler Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. (An Analysis on Brand Personality Perceptions
and Brand Preferences of Consumers: An Application in Hygienic Products Sector), Dumlupınar Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı 24.
Solmus Tarık, İş Ya şamında Kullanılan Kişilik Ölçüm Ararçları: Hangisi “Doğru”, Hangisi “Yanlış”?.
(Personality Measurement Tools in Business Life: Which is True?, Which is Wrong?), [Online] Available:
www.xing.com, 03/20/2010
Soysal Abdullah. (2008). Çalışma Yaşamında Kişilik Tipleri: Bir Literatür Taraması. (Personality Types in
Business Life: A Literature Review), Çimento İşveren, Ocak, 4 – 19.
Sung Yongjun ve Spencer F. Tinkham. (2005). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea:
Common and Culture-Specific Factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 334–350.
Tabak Akif, H. N. Basım, İ. Tatar ve F. Çetin. (2010). İzlenim Yönetimi Taktiklerinde Beş Faktör Kişilik
Özelliklerinin Rolü: Savunma Sanayinde Bir Araştırma. (The Role of Five-Factor Personality Traits in Impression
Management Tactics), Ege Akademik Bakış, 10 (2): 539-557.
Thomas B. J. ve P. C. Sekar. (2008). Measurment and Validity of Jnenifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale for
Colgate Brand. Vikalpa, Vol 33, No. 3, Jully – September, 49 -61.
Uztug, Ferruh. (2003). Markan Kadar Konus: Marka İletisimi Stratejileri. (Speak as much as Your Brand:
Strategies for Brand Comunication), İstanbul, MediaCat Yayınları.
Unlu Sezen. (2001). PSİKOLOJİ. (Psychology), Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayın No:1288, Açıköğretim Fakültesi
Yayın No:710.
Xue Ke, M. YU ve C. Liu. (2007). An Influencing Research on Brand Personality to Perceived Quality.
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol.2, No. 4, 10 – 14.
Yelboga Atilla. (2006). Kişilik Özellikleri ve İş Performansı Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. (A Study on
Relationship Between Personality Traits and Work Performance), İş,Güç Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları
Dergisi Cilt:8 Sayı:2, Haziran 2006, ISSN: 1303-2860.
Yener Dursun. (2007). Marka Çağrışım Unsurlarının Marka Kişiliği Üzerine Etkisi: Sütaş Markası Üzerine Bir
Uygulama. (The Effects of Brand Associations Factors on Brand Personality: An Application on Sütaş
Brandname), Marmara Üniversitesi, Soysal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek
Lisans Tezi.
Yilmaz Mesut. (2007). Marka Kişiliği Boyutları ve IKEA Uygulaması. (Brand Personality Dimensions and IKEA
Application), Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Yurur Senay. (2009). Yöneticilerin Çatışma Yönetim Tarzları ve Kişilik Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizine
Yönelik Bir Araştırma. (A Study on Analysis of Relationship Between Personality Traits and Conflict
Management Methods of Managers), C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 10, Sayı 1, 23 – 42.
http://esincolak.blogcu.com/freud-un-psikanaliz-kurami/251049, 22/03/2010
http://www.tegim.com/egitim/dosyalar/k-r-bolumler/psikoloji/1977-kisilik.html, 22/03/2010
www.ekonometrik.com.tr, 24/05/2009
www.vikipedi.com, 03/02/2010
www.donusumkonagi.net, 26/02/2010
www.msxlabs.org, 02/03/2010
http://www.bilgininadresi.net/Madde/33235, 20/03/2010
http://www.botav.org/henry-alexander-murray, 22/03/2010
http://markakimlik.blogspot.com, 23/03/2010

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
204
http://markakimlik.blogspot.com, 23/03/2010
Table 1. Dimensions Forming Brand Personality in Turkey
Competency Excitement Traditionalism Androgen
Quality
Professional
Successful
Skilled
Trustable
Prestigious
Self-confident
Assertive
Known
Reliable
Global
Stable
Good
Original
Entertaining
Funny
Cheerful
Rattling
Lively
Sympathetic
Liberal
Swift
Younglike
Robust
Young
Passionate
Sporty
Tempting
Economical
Modest
Traditional
Saving
Classical
Conservative
Family-focused
Masculine
Rebellious
Feminine
Ostentatious
Source: Aksoy ve Özsomer, 2007: 13.

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 205
Table 2. Factor Matrix
Competency Excitement Traditionalism Androgenic
Quality ,908
Good ,879
Successful ,871
Original ,866
Global ,850
Reliable ,836
Known ,829
Prestigious ,828
Trustable ,825
Assertive ,821
Stable ,817
Self-confident ,810
Skilled ,809
Professional ,770
Tempting ,923
Cheerful ,915
Sympathetic ,892
Robust ,880
Passionate ,876
Liberal ,846
Entertaining ,846
Funny ,840
Young ,836
Lively ,831
Younglike ,802
Sporty ,775
Rattling ,681
Swift ,601
Economical ,859
Classical ,853
Family-focused ,803
Modest ,778
Traditional ,767
Saving ,736
Conservative ,698
Faminine ,659
Ostentatious ,653
Rebellious ,560
Masculine ,532

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 6; June 2011
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
206
Table 3. Regression Model
Model R Determination
Coefficient
Corrected
Determination
Coefficient
Standard Error
of Estimate
1 ,816a ,667 ,664 ,58074674
a. Estimators: (Invariant), Competency, Excitement, Traditionalism, Androgenic
Tab l e 4. ANOVA Table
Model Sum of Squares Degrees of
Freedom Mean Square F Meaningfulness
1 Regression 326,967 481,742 242,365 ,000a
Remains 163,574 485 ,337
Total 490,542 489
a. Estimators: (Invariant), Competency, Excitement, Traditionalism, Androgenic
b. Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intention
Table 5. Coefficient
Model Not Standardized Standardized t Meaningfulness
Coefficients Standard Error Beta Coefficient
(Sabit) ,032 ,026 1,215 ,225
Competency ,758 ,026 ,757 28,859 ,000
Excitement ,283 ,026 ,283 10,776 ,000
Traditionalism ,061 ,026 ,061 2,317 ,021
Androgenic ,102 ,026 ,102 3,891 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intention
Figure 1. Research Model
Behavioral Intention of
Consumer
H1
Brand Personality
Competency, Excitement
Traditionalism, Androgen