Validation of a Fashion Brand Image Scale Capturing Cognitive, Sensory, and Affective Associations: Testing Its Role in an Extended Brand Equity Model

Abstract

This research validated a new 16-item brand image scale that captures cognitive, sensory, and affective dimensions (i.e., mystery, sensuality, intimacy) of tangible and intangible attributes of fashion brands. Three studies were conducted to develop a holistic, yet parsimonious, fashion brand image measure. The initial subthemes of brand image and representative items were based on a review of scholarly literature and industry-based information and on interview findings. Reliability and validity of the new scale were confirmed using data from 218 college students and a national sample of 2,373 respondents. Convergent and discriminant validity were supported through confirmatory factor analysis. Nomological validity was supported through testing a structural model containing the three brand image dimensions, Roberts’ (2005) lovemarks experience, and brand equity variables. The new brand image scale is different from existing scales because it incorporates Roberts’ industry-based perspective, including more comprehensive sensory and affective dimensions than found in past brand image scales. This study provides support for Roberts' lovemarks model and the contributors to brand equity, which has implications for theory and for marketing firms that endeavor to build an effective fashion brand image.

Full text

Validation of a Fashion Brand Image
Scale Capturing Cognitive, Sensory,
and Affective Associations: Testing Its
Role in an Extended Brand Equity
Model
Eunjoo Cho
University of Arkansas
Ann Marie Fiore and Daniel W. Russell
Iowa State University
ABSTRACT
This research validated a new 16-item brand image scale that captures cognitive, sensory, and
affective dimensions (i.e., mystery, sensuality, intimacy) of tangible and intangible attributes of
fashion brands. Three studies were conducted to develop a holistic, yet parsimonious, fashion brand
image measure. The initial subthemes of brand image and representative items were based on a
review of scholarly literature and industry-based information and on interview findings. Reliability
and validity of the new scale were confirmed using data from 218 college students and a national
sample of 2,373 respondents. Convergent and discriminant validity were supported through
confirmatory factor analysis. Nomological validity was supported through testing a structural model
containing the three brand image dimensions, Roberts’ (2005) lovemarks experience, and brand
equity variables. The new brand image scale is different from existing scales because it incorporates
Roberts’ industry-based perspective, including more comprehensive sensory and affective
dimensions than found in past brand image scales. This study provides support for Roberts’
lovemarks model and the contributors to brand equity, which has implications for theory and for
marketing firms that endeavor to build an effective fashion brand image. ©2014 Wiley Periodicals,
Inc.
Past marketing research has identified brand image,
a consumer’s perceptions and feelings toward a brand,
as an important concept because consumers’ brand and
product choices are determined based on their assess-
ment of brand image (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; Gardner
& Levy, 1955; Keller, 2001). In addition, a favorable
brand image leads to brand loyalty, which consequently
creates brand equity (Esch, Langer, Schmitt, & Geus,
2006; Keller, 1993). As a result, creating a favorable
brand image continues to be a top priority for many
firms in successful brand management.
Marketing researchers have conceptualized brand
image in various ways, including the representation
of tangible and intangible attributes and benefits of
a brand. These researchers have focused mainly on
cognitive dimensions (e.g., Esch et al., 2006; Ismail &
Spinelli, 2012; Kim, Kim, & An, 2003; Lassar, Mittal,
& Sharma, 1995; Park & Rabolt, 2009) and, to a lesser
extent, affective dimensions of brand image (e.g., Esch
et al., 2006). Consequently, existing brand image scales
have focused on cognitive dimensions. Only a few brand
image scales have tapped an affective and/or sensory
dimension (e.g., Chang & Chieng, 2006; Low & Lamb,
2000).
Marketing scholars and practitioners (e.g., Gob´
e,
2001; Landwehr, McGill, & Herrmann, 2011;
Landwehr, Wentzel, & Herrmann, 2012; Roberts,
2005; Schmitt & Simonson, 1997) have illustrated
the importance of these two additional dimensions
to shaping consumer responses to various products,
including fashion goods. Sensory aspects, such as
color and texture, are particularly important in the
assessment of fashion brands (De Klerk & Lubbe,
2008; Okonkwo, 2007), and the international brand
equity possessed by fashion-related firms is evidenced
by the fact that 15 luxury fashion, cosmetic, and
sportswear brands (e.g., Burberry, Gap, Gucci, L’Oreal,
Louis Vuitton, Nike, Zara) were listed among the
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 32(1): 28–48 (January 2015)
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar
©2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20762
28

top 100 (Interbrand.com, 2013). This suggests that
the addition of sensory and affective dimensions to a
brand image measure is essential to fully assess many
fashion brands, including those that have a global
impact. However, based on a review of literature, a
fashion brand image scale has yet to be disseminated.
To develop a holistic brand image measure of tan-
gible and intangible attributes and benefits, it appears
that cognitive, sensory, and affective dimensions should
be captured. To do this, the present researchers drew
on scholarly literature along with relevant industry-
based information. In particular, the present authors
drew on the three dimensions of brand associations
(i.e., mystery, sensuality, and intimacy) proposed by
Kevin Roberts (2005), the CEO of the global brand-
ing/advertising firm, Worldwide Saatchi and Saatchi.
Mystery, the cognitive dimension of brand image,
reflects thoughts, product attributes, service, perfor-
mance, and symbolic or psychological meaning of a
brand (Chang & Chieng, 2006; Keller, 1993; Lassar
et al., 1995; Low & Lamb, 2000; Roberts, 2005). Sen-
suality, the sensory dimension of brand image, refers
to a consumer’s associations related to multisensory as-
pects of the brand, such as its visual look, scent, or tex-
ture (Roberts, 2005). Intimacy, the affective dimension
of brand image, involves sensing the firm’s empathy,
consumer commitment, and enjoyment from owning or
interacting with a brand (Keller, 1993, 2001; Roberts,
2005). Roberts posited that these three dimensions con-
tribute to a strong relationship, consisting of brand love
and respect between consumers and a brand, which he
termed a lovemark experience.
However, existing brand image scales have not mea-
sured comprehensively all three of these dimensions
applicable across a range of product categories, includ-
ing fashion products, nor has Roberts provided a scale
to measure these three dimensions. To fill this gap,
the present study conceptualized and tested a fash-
ion brand image measure with cognitive, sensory, and
affective dimensions, creating a holistic brand image
measure of tangible and intangible attributes and ben-
efits.
The purpose of this research was to develop a re-
liable and valid measure of these three fashion brand
image dimensions following established scale develop-
ment processes (i.e., Churchill, 1979; Vazquez, del Rio,
& Iglesias, 2002). These processes included assessing
reliability as well as testing content and construct va-
lidity (i.e., convergent, discriminant, and nomological
validity) of the fashion brand image scale using inter-
view and survey responses from students, and survey
responses from a U.S. national sample. It entailed em-
pirically testing the role of the brand image dimensions
as antecedents to a lovemark experience (i.e., brand
love and respect) with a focus on fashion brands, and
extending Keller’s (1993) academic, consumer-based
brand equity model (i.e., brand awareness→brand
image→loyalty→equity) by incorporating the new
fashion brand image constructs along with the love-
mark experience variables (i.e., brand love and respect).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conceptualizations of Brand Image
Brand image has been discussed as an important con-
cept in marketing since the 1950s; however, there
is a lack of consensus regarding the conceptualiza-
tion of brand image and its measurement (Dobni &
Zinkhan, 1990; Keller, 1993; Park & Rabolt, 2009;
Stern, Zinkhan, & Jaju, 2001). As noted, marketing
research has emphasized the cognitive dimension of
brand image. Brand image has been explained as mes-
sages and meanings associated with the brand, prod-
uct, and service (Durgee & Stuart, 1987; Levy & Glick,
1973). A number of researchers (Dichter, 1985; New-
man, 1957; Snyder & DeBono, 1985) have conceptual-
ized brand image as the total impression of a brand,
including thoughts related to product attributes, the
use of the product, and advertisements. Brand im-
age has also been described as the personification of a
brand that reflects a consumer’s own self-image (Hen-
don & Williams, 1985; Sirgy, 1985). Other researchers
(Frazer, 1983; Gardner & Levy, 1955; Pohlman &
Mudd, 1973) have emphasized its symbolic benefits,
such as enhanced self-esteem and social status, that
come from brand ownership.
More recent marketing literature has emphasized
the incorporation of an emotional dimension with the
cognitive dimension of brand image (Dobni & Zinkhan,
1990; Esch et al., 2006; Keller, 1993, 2001; Low & Lamb,
2000). For instance, Dobni and Zinkhan (1990) defined
brand image as reasoned or emotional interpretations
of a brand, which are influenced by marketing activities
and consumer characteristics.
Few have conceptualized brand image as also includ-
ing a sensory dimension. Keller (1993) incorporated a
sensory element with cognitive and emotional elements
of brand image. In Keller’s framework, the cognitive
dimension includes associations related to nonproduct-
related attributes (e.g., price, user imagery), functional
benefits (e.g., problem solving, safety), and symbolic
benefits (e.g., fashionability, prestige, social approval).
Keller’s experiential benefits capture the emotional
and sensory pleasure associated with a brand, and
product-related attributes capture associations regard-
ing the physical, sensory composition of a product. In
support, Korchia’s (1999) qualitative research using
French consumers illustrated that brand images for
fashion brands contained cognitive, sensory, and affec-
tive associations.
Branding literature supports the influence of cog-
nitive associations on behavioral responses toward a
brand (Albert, Merunka, & Valette-Florence, 2008;
Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012; Keller, 2001). Prac-
titioners and researchers (Babin, Hardesty, & Suter,
2003; Bone & Jantrania, 1992; Gob´
e, 2001; Roberts,
2005; Schmitt & Simonson, 1997) have come to the
same conclusion about sensory associations; fostering
positive sensory associations is essential to consumer
preference for a brand. Positive emotional associations
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 29
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

in the form of a firm’s continuous support of its customer
increase intense feelings toward a brand and positive
perceptions of the brand (Albert et al., 2008; Shimp &
Madden, 1988). Batra et al. (2012) found that a positive
emotional connection and a passionate desire to use a
brand are strongly associated with feelings of love for a
brand. Thus, incorporating cognitive, sensory, and af-
fective dimensions in a brand image measure may make
it a more useful tool for predicting consumer responses.
Incorporating academic and industry literature, the
present research conceptualized brand image as an
encapsulation of a consumer’s cognitive, sensory, and
emotional associations related to tangible and intangi-
ble attributes and benefits resulting from direct or in-
direct (e.g., through advertising messages) experiences
with a brand. Moreover, the present study proposed
that mystery, sensuality, and intimacy represent facets
of the cognitive, sensory, and affective dimensions of
brand image. According to Roberts (2005), these three
dimensions of brand image positively contribute to cre-
ating a lovemark experience that leads consumers to
become avid fans of a brand.
Relationships between Brand Image and
Other Brand Constructs
Although various conceptualizations of brand image
overlap with other brand constructs, brand image is
seen as conceptually distinct from constructs, such as
brand associations, brand experience, brand involve-
ment, and brand personality (e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, &
Zarantonello, 2009; Keller, 1993; Low & Lamb, 2000).
Brand image and brand associations are the most in-
tertwined. According to Keller (1993), brand image
is the amalgam of brand associations, including at-
tributes (product-related and nonproduct-related), ben-
efits (functional, symbolic, experiential), and attitudes.
Conversely, Low and Lamb (2000) theorized that brand
associations contain brand image, perceived quality,
and brand attitude. They empirically tested the mul-
tidimensionality of brand associations and found a hi-
erarchical structure for brand associations that con-
tained three dimensions (brand image, perceived qual-
ity, and brand attitude). Low and Lamb explained that
their research did not include all possible dimensions of
brand associations, but the proposed three dimensions
are fundamental elements of brand associations. How-
ever, the three construct structure outperformed the
one latent variable structure for brand associations,
suggesting that Low and Lamb’s brand association is
not a higher order construct. Keller’s brand image tax-
onomy appears to be a more logical and comprehensive
structure and will be used to compare past brand image
scales.
Brand experience captures information related to
the presence of cognitions, sensations, and feelings and
behavioral responses. These experiences are shaped
by a consumer’s interactions with the product/service,
a store’s physical environment, and sales staff, and
by postpurchase consumption (Brakus et al., 2009).
Brakus et al.’s intellectual, sensory, and affective ele-
ments are similar to the three brand image dimensions
to be discussed below, but Brakus et al.’s measure only
captures the presence of these experiences (e.g., “The
brand results in bodily experiences.”) instead of more
specific information about the brand’s benefits and at-
tributes.
Brand image differs from brand involvement.
Zaichkowsky (1985, p. 342) defined brand involvement
as, “ . . . a person’s perceived relevance of the object,
based on inherent needs, values, and interests.” Brand
involvement reflects a state of motivation, arousal, or
interest toward the brand triggered by a person, stim-
ulus (a product or brand), and situation (Zaichkowsky,
1985). Brand image does not capture the motivational
state, values, or interests of the consumer. Instead, the
focus of brand image is on a consumer’s beliefs, percep-
tions, and feelings related to tangible and intangible
elements of a brand (Keller, 2001).
Brand personality is a subcategory of brand im-
age, and it is described as the human personality
traits linked to a brand, reflecting a symbolic or self-
expressive benefit for consumers (Aaker, 1997; Malik
& Naeem, 2012). Although brand personality captures
a cognitive dimension of brand image, such as the
brand’s sincerity, competence, or ruggedness (Aaker,
1996; Hendon & Williams, 1985; Sirgy, 1985), it is too
detailed for the proposed scale.1
Existing Measures of Brand Image
Table 1 contains the items of the eight existing
brand image measures and categorizes each item us-
ing Keller’s (1993) types of associations and the three
dimensions of the proposed scale. Although the exist-
ing brand image measures have all captured cognitive
dimension of brand image, only four have captured af-
fective and sensory dimensions as well (i.e., Chang &
Chieng, 2006; Esch et al., 2006; Faircloth, Capella, &
Alford, 2001; Low & Lamb, 2000). The four-item scales
used by Chang and Chieng (2006) and by Faircloth et al.
(2001) only contained one item each for the sensory and
affective dimensions. Low and Lamb (2000) developed
semantic differential items capturing all three dimen-
sions for nine product categories, including shampoo,
soft drink, watches, cereal, and golf clubs. However,
Low and Lamb’s (2000) sensory scale items mainly
capture sensory elements relevant to food and sham-
poo products (e.g., creamy/not creamy, moist/dry); thus,
their items are not useful for fashion brands or a wide
range of other product categories.
Past scale items that have captured cognitive dimen-
sions frequently focus on Keller’s product attributes
and symbolic benefits. Items that have tapped sensory
1Lee’s (2013) expanded conceptualization of brand personality was
not used here because of concerns with the method of her study.
She asked respondents to describe a brand “as a person,” which is
different from asking about its personality.
30 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Table 1. Existing Measures of Brand Image and Their Relationships to Keller’s Types of Associations and the
Three Brand Image Dimensions.
Authors Existing Scale Items
Keller’s (1993)
Dimensions
Three Brand
Image
Dimensions
Chang and Chieng (2006) (1) This store focuses on product quality Attributes Cognitive
(2) This store offers me a sense of group belonging Symbolic Cognitive
(3) This store meets my sensory enjoyment Experiential Sensory
(4) This store satisfies my desire Experiential Affective
Esch et al. (2006) (1) The perceived quality of the brand Attributes Cognitive
(2) Overall attitude toward the brand Attitude Cognitive
(3) The brand’s overall affect Experiential Affective
Faircloth et al. (2001) (1) Dominating–submissive Attributes Cognitive
(2) Modest–vain / Thrifty–indulgent
(3) Colorless–colorful Experiential Sensory
(4) Excitable—calm Experiential Affective
Ismail and Spinelli (2012) (1) Elegant/sophisticated Attributes Cognitive
(2) Reputation for quality
(3) Fashionable and trendy
(4) Well known and prestigious
Kim et al. (2003) (1) It is big and spacious Attributes Cognitive
(2) It offers high level of service
(3) Service is sometimes excessive to me
(4) The staff is very kind
(5) It is expensive
(6) It has a long history
(7) It has a very clean image
(8) It has a differentiated image from others
(9) It is a suitable place for high class
(10) It is luxurious
(11) It is comfortable
(12) I become special Symbolic Cognitive
(13) It is familiar to mea
Lassar et al. (1995) (1) This brand fits my personality Symbolic Cognitive
(2) In its status and style, this brand matches my
personality
(3) I would be proud to own this brand
(4) This brand will be well regarded
Low and Lamb (2000)b(1) High quality/low quality Attributes Cognitive
(2) Reliable/unreliable
(3) Attractive/unattractive package
(4) Useful/not useful
(5) Not challenging/challenging
(6) Good performance/poor performance
(7) Durable/not durable
(8) Good style/bad style
(9) Artificial/natural
(10) Modern/outdated
(11) Friendly/unfriendly
(12) Good reputation/bad reputation
(13) Popular/unpopular
(14) Comfortable/uncomfortable
(15) Good color/bad color Experiential Sensory
(16) Creamy/not creamy
(17) Gentle/harsh, Soft/hard
(18) Fresh/stale
(19) Moist/dry
(20) Appetizing/unappetizing
(21) Exciting/boring Experiential Affective
(22) Fun/not fun
(Continued)
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 31
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Table 1. Continued.
Authors Existing Scale Items
Keller’s (1993)
Dimensions
Three Brand
Image
Dimensions
Park and Rabolt (2009) (1) Positive/negative Attitude Cognitive
(2) Romantic/practical Attributes Cognitive
(3) Elegant/inelegant
(4) Sexy/unappealing
(5) Trendy/outdated
aIt does not fall clearly into Keller’s brand associations, but fits with Keller’s (1993) brand recognition element.
bLow and Lamb’s (2000) brand image scale items relate to product, service, and advertising elements.
and affective dimensions align with Keller’s experien-
tial benefits. For instance, sensory items include sen-
sory enjoyment, colorfulness, and freshness. Affective
items have captured satisfaction of desire (Chang &
Chieng, 2006), overall affect (Esch et al., 2006), and ex-
citement and fun (Faircloth et al., 2001; Low & Lamb,
2000).
Brand image scales used in studies of fash-
ion products have solely contained a cognitive di-
mension. Ismail and Spinelli (2012) measured the
brand’s social reputation and a brand’s presti-
gious image. Lassar et al. (1995) gauged con-
gruity with the respondent’s personality. Park and
Rabolt (2009) assessed a brand’s product-related at-
tributes (e.g., trendy/outdated, sexy/unappealing, ro-
mantic/practical).
Convergent validity (Park & Rabolt, 2009); discrim-
inant validity (Lassar et al., 1995; Low & Lamb, 2000);
and convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity
(Ismail & Spinelli, 2012) have been evaluated for four
of the eight scales. Relationships among variables have
only been tested for the remaining four scales (Chang
& Chieng, 2006; Esch et al., 2006, Faircloth et al., 2001;
Kim et al., 2003). Each scale was found to have an ac-
ceptable level of internal consistency (>0.55). Thus, a
more rigorously tested brand image scale that captures
all three dimensions for fashion brands is needed. Spe-
cific facets of cognitive, sensory, and affective associa-
tions will be discussed in detail below.
Dimensions of Brand Image Emphasized in
the Proposed Scale
Cognitive Associations: Mystery. Mystery captures
cognitive associations shaped by great stories, past and
present interactions with a brand, as well as future
dreams and aspirations reflecting a certain lifestyle
(Roberts, 2005). Roberts noted that great stories tap
into a culture’s myths, iconic characters, and dreams.
They instill inspiration and capture the past, present,
and future. Roberts noted that positive associations
with the brand result from the personal dreams, aspi-
rations, or inspirational spirit expressed by the brand
story. Consumers’ past experiences with a brand influ-
ence their present and future thoughts about a brand.
Sensory Associations: Sensuality. Sensuality con-
sists of pleasant multisensory (visual, scent, sound,
touch, and taste) associations shaped through a con-
sumer’s brand experiences, such as the sensations from
the product, retail environment, or ads (Roberts, 2005).
Roberts proposed that visual sensations from elements,
such as a display, logo design, and packaging, as well as
music, olfactory stimulation, and a variety of textures,
foster pleasurable associations.
Affective Associations: Intimacy. Intimacy reflects
feelings derived from interacting with a brand. Inti-
macy captures the affective and connective associations
between the consumer and the brand (Roberts, 2005)
that shape responses toward a brand. For example,
a firm’s understanding of a consumer’s opinions and
preferences, a consumer’s long-term commitment, and
a consumer’s enjoyable interactions with a brand may
foster positive emotions and perceptions toward it.
STUDY 1: ITEM GENERATION AND
CONTENT VALIDITY ASSESSMENT
The objectives of Study 1 were to (1) identify major
themes and subthemes around the cognitive, sensory,
and affective dimensions of brand image; (2) generate
scale items for these three dimensions; and (3) test the
content validity of the items. A review of the scholarly
literature from marketing and industry-based market-
ing literature as outlined above was conducted to build
a comprehensive conceptualization of the three dimen-
sions of brand image. In addition, consumers’ opinions
from the www.lovemarks.com site were reviewed to
identify critical facets associated with mystery, sensu-
ality, and intimacy. To obtain a deeper understanding
of these three dimensions from the consumer’s perspec-
tive, qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted,
asking about associations with the participant’s fa-
vorite brands.
Method
A convenience sample of graduate students over 18
years of age at a major Midwestern U.S. University was
used for the individual interviews. Eleven interviewees
32 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

who reported having favorite brands in various product
categories were recruited from diverse college majors.
Each of these 11 interviewees was contacted by e-mail
to schedule a one-time individual interview that lasted
between 60 and 90 minutes. Redundancy of information
suggested this sample size was sufficient to capture the
range of responses.
Drawing on the aforementioned literature, 17 ques-
tions were developed for use in the in-depth individ-
ual interviews (see Appendix A). For example, open-
ended questions included, “Why do you like or love these
brands?” And “Please describe your emotional feelings
about these brands or how you feel when you think
about or use the brand.” These open-ended questions
captured respondents’ cognitive, sensory, and affective
associations with their favorite brands in various prod-
uct categories.
All individual interviews were recorded and tran-
scribed. The transcribed data were interpreted us-
ing the qualitative, analytical techniques suggested by
Miles and Huberman (1994), which involved three ana-
lytic steps: data reduction, data display, and conclusion
drawing/verification. First, one of the authors’ content
analyzed the transcripts line-by-line to identify and
compare phrases and to identify general themes and
patterns. Second, the identified themes were grouped
around the three concepts derived from the literature
review, based on the commonality of the content. Third,
for the verification of conclusions the second author
confirmed the categorization of data into the identified
themes and subthemes around the three concepts. Any
discrepancies in coding of the data were negotiated be-
tween the coders. The intercoder reliability was approx-
imately 85% and the authors came to a final consensus.
Interview Findings
The interview sample consisted of eight female and
three male students ranging in age from 21 to 54 years
of age (M=33). Nine of the 11 students were Caucasian
and two students were Asian. The 11 interviewees
reported a variety of product categories in discussion of
deeply liked or loved brands, including apparel (Anthro-
pologie, Chanel, and Kenneth Cole), cosmetics (Bobbi
Brown and Kiehl’s), active sportswear (Adidas, Cham-
pion, and Nike), cars (Honda and Toyota), retailers
(Menard’s and Target), electronics (Apple, Samsung,
and Sony), and food (Godiva Chocolate, Starbucks, and
Teavana). Many of these may be categorized as fashion
brands. Others, such as Godiva Chocolate, Starbucks,
and Teavana, have compelling designs, supporting the
focus on a fashion or style-conscious brand category.
Most of the interviewees really liked or loved a brand
for a long time because the brand fostered positive cog-
nitive, sensory, and affective associations. The content
analysis revealed that most of the major themes were
consistent with the mystery, sensuality, and intimacy
subthemes proposed by Roberts (2005). However, one
of the mystery themes, self-congruity, was new. A
sample of the interview quotations can be found in
Appendix B.
Cognitive Associations: Mystery. Four primary
themes emerged for the participants’ cognitive associa-
tions with the brand: (1) positive present experiences,
(2) positive memories from past experiences, (3) fu-
ture aspirations, and (4) self-congruity. Positive present
experiences were more frequently discussed than the
other three themes. This theme reflected personal sto-
ries related to experiences with a product/brand and
perceived high quality of a brand (e.g., appropriate
size and comfortable fit). Positive memories from past
experiences referred to positive memories from either
personal or family members’ experiences. Future as-
pirations represented dreams about owning a brand,
which reflected an ideal image and future desires. Self-
congruity referred to the brand’s ability to reflect one’s
self-image.
Sensory Associations: Sensuality. Four major
themes emerged from the interview data: (1) visual,
(2) olfactory, (3) auditory, and (4) tactile sensations. Vi-
sual sensation was more frequently discussed than the
other three sensations. This theme represented sen-
sual pleasure evoked by visual cues from branding ele-
ments, such as the store environment, Web site design,
product color, packaging, and advertisements. Olfac-
tory sensation reflected sensual pleasure evoked by ap-
pealing scented products and environments. Auditory
sensation reflected appealing music in a store. Finally,
tactile sensation referred to sensual pleasure evoked by
soft textures.
Affective Associations: Intimacy. Most of the partic-
ipants noted that there was a deep emotional connec-
tion with the brands. Three primary themes emerged
from the interview data: (1) the firm’s empathy, (2)
consumer commitment, and (3) consumer enjoyment.
The firm’s empathy reflected its understanding of con-
sumer preferences (e.g., design, color, and packaging)
and remembering personal events (e.g., a customer’s
birthday). Consumer commitment is similar to a long-
term friendship. Finally, consumer enjoyment referred
to emotional pleasure from owning a brand and from
interacting with the brand.
Initial Item Generation and Content
Validity Assessment for the Fashion Brand
Image Scale
The authors of the present study created 140 initial
items that reflected the 21 subthemes of the three di-
mensions (80 mystery, 25 sensuality, and 35 intimacy
items). To assess content validity and the wording clar-
ity of the initial scale items, two graduate students
knowledgeable about branding concepts were asked to
determine if each item was representative of the appro-
priate construct domain. The definitions of the three
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 33
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

constructs were given to the judges, and they were
asked to indicate items that were not worded clearly or
did not represent the construct well. Two of the authors
and two graduate students agreed on most items; the
percentage agreement was approximately 92%. Some
items were reworded and three mystery items were
deleted due to their unclear representation of the con-
ceptual definition. With content validity confirmed, re-
liability and validity testing processes were conducted
using the 137 remaining items.
STUDY 2: PRELIMINARY TEST OF
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
The objective of the preliminary quantitative study
was to confirm reliability as well as convergent and
nomological validity for the three dimensions of brand
image (mystery, sensuality, and intimacy) focusing
on fashion brands. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
was conducted to reduce the number of scale items.
The reliability of each measure was assessed based
on Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent validity was deter-
mined by measurement model testing using confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA). Nomological validity was
assessed through structural equation modeling (SEM),
testing a structural model, including variables reflect-
ing Roberts’ (2005) framework. That is, the effect of the
three fashion brand image dimensions on the two love-
mark elements (brand love and respect) was tested (see
Figure 1).
The Lovemarks Model
Roberts (2005) suggested that a company must go be-
yond developing a brand to creating a lovemark in order
to build customer loyalty. In Roberts’ view, a lovemark
is defined as a combination of high brand love and re-
spect that generates “loyalty beyond reason” (Roberts,
2005, p. 66). Pawle and Cooper (2006) confirmed that
both highly loved and respected brands lead to loyalty.
Roberts (2005) differentiated between products,
fads, brands, and lovemarks based on the level of love
and respect experienced by a consumer. Products were
noted as having low levels of love and respect, fads have
a high level of love but a low level of respect, brands
have a low level of love but high level of respect, and
lovemarks have high levels of both love and respect.
For example, Dell may represent a brand because it is
considered to have a low level of love but a high level
of respect. Apple may be considered a lovemark, be-
cause of the high levels of love and respect consumers
have. Long waiting lines for new Apple products (e.g.,
iPhone 5), not seen for Dell’s new products, illustrate
consumers’ high love and respect for Apple. Jacob and
Co. watches with five watch faces may be an example
of a fad (Bass, 2011).
Based on his extensive consulting experience as a
leading industry expert, Roberts (2005) proposed that
mystery, sensuality, and intimacy are antecedents
to a lovemark. The present research posited that
these three antecedents should be viewed as three
dimensions of fashion brand image, because both
lovemark antecedents and the brand image concept
tap into consumers’ rational and emotional perceptions
of and associations with a particular brand.
Three Fashion Brand Image Dimensions as
Antecedents to Brand Love
Brand love is defined as a strong affection or deep emo-
tional attachment consumers have for a certain brand
(Albert et al., 2008; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). These deep
emotions are associated with thoughts/beliefs (Cross,
Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
1996). As such, brand love is associated with positive
evaluations of a brand (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006), con-
gruity between the self-image of a consumer and brand
image (Albert et al., 2008; Batra et al., 2012; Maxian,
Bradley, Wise, & Toulouse, 2013), positive memories
or personal history associated with a brand, and fulfill-
ment of aspirations through consumption of a brand
(Albert et al., 2008). This supports Roberts’ (2005)
proposition of a positive relationship between mystery,
which is the cognitive aspect of brand image, and brand
love.
Sensory elements of the retail environment used
to create brand image have been found to influence
both emotional pleasure and arousal (e.g., Alpert &
Alpert, 1989; Chebat & Michon, 2003; Valdez & Mehra-
bian, 1994), which align with the emotional experi-
ence of love. For instance, several empirical studies
have shown that pleasant color (Valdez & Mehra-
bian, 1994), pleasurable music (Alpert & Alpert, 1989;
Dube, Chebat, & Morin, 1995; Yalch & Spangenberg,
2000), pleasant ambient scent (Bone & Ellen, 1999;
Chebat & Michon, 2003; Ellen & Bone, 1999), and pleas-
ingly scented products (Bone & Jantrania, 1992; Miller,
1991) instill a feeling of love within a consumer, which
supports the positive relationship between sensuality
(i.e., the sensory aspect of brand image) and brand love
as proposed by Roberts (2005).
Research findings in psychology have indicated that
intimacy is an important general factor in shaping
feelings of love (Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Grajek,
1984). Similarly, research in marketing (Albert et al.,
2008; Batra et al., 2012; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Shimp
& Madden, 1988) has suggested that a positive emo-
tional connection is a key component in building a re-
lationship between consumers and an object or brand.
In support of this emotional connection, there is recent
empirical evidence of expected subconscious physiologi-
cal responses in brand love relationships (Maxian et al.,
2013).
Shimp and Madden (1988) argued that a consumer’s
emotional support (i.e., intimacy) toward a product
leads to strong positive feelings (i.e., love). More-
over, marketing researchers have found an empirical
34 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Figure 1. The structural model for Study 2 showing path coefficients between the three brand image dimensions and the
lovemark constructs of brand love and respect.
association between consumer commitment and brand
love, and consumer enjoyment and brand love (Albert
et al., 2008; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Thus, there is
support for Roberts’ proposition—the significant rela-
tionship between intimacy and brand love.
Three Fashion Brand Image Dimensions as
Antecedents to Brand Respect
Brand respect signifies the positive perceptions con-
sumers have toward a particular brand based on
their evaluation of brand performance, trust, and
reputation (Roberts, 2005). A brand creates respect
through good performance (e.g., quality of its product,
and knowledgeable and experienced brand represen-
tatives), which creates a sense of trust. In addition,
brand messages delivered through great stories may
build respect through an emphasis on the brand’s
performance, trust, and reputation (Roberts, 2005).
Cognitive aspects of brand image have been proposed
to enhance brand trust by reducing risk and enhancing
performance expectations (Hsu & Cai, 2009). This
trust may consequently foster brand respect.
In terms of sensuality, academic and industry
literature has described the importance of sensory
experience in augmenting perceptions of a product’s
performance, trust, and reputation. For instance,
environmental psychology literature has found that
pleasant colors (Babin et al., 2003), pleasingly scented
products (Bone & Jantrania, 1992), and in-store music
(Yalch & Spangenberg, 2000) enhance product perfor-
mance judgment. Marketing researchers (Sahin, Zehir,
&Kitapc¸i, 2011) have found that brand experience,
including sensations, affects trust. Postrel (2003) noted
that brands have turned to aesthetic design to differen-
tiate themselves, because functional quality and price
are no longer effective differentiators; there are many
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 35
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

brands within a price range that offer good functional
quality. Good design thus enhances reputation that
may increase brand respect. For instance, Apple’s
(Gob´
e, 2001; Postrel, 2003) and Nike’s reputations are
built on their continued technology innovation and
attention to design.
Psychological studies have suggested that the con-
cept of respect includes an emotional dimension
(Gottman, 1996; Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006). Gottman
(1996) described respect as being attentive, empathic,
sympathetic, kind, and supportive. Therefore, intimacy
and respect appear to have an overlapping element
of empathy. Marketing literature (Shimp & Madden,
1988) supports the influence of intimacy on perceptions
of brand performance. Strong positive feelings lead con-
sumers to perceive that the brand provides high qual-
ity and value that can enhance perceptions of brand
respect.
Method
A total of 224 college students from various academic
programs at a Midwestern U.S. University participated
in the study. The respondents were recruited through
an announcement soliciting voluntary participants in a
course fulfilling a university requirement. As an incen-
tive, student participants received extra credit points
added to his or her course grade. Of the 224 surveys
received, 218 were usable (i.e., there were no missing
data).
At the beginning of the survey, respondents were
asked to identify their favorite fashion brands, in-
cluding clothing, accessories, footwear, and cosmetics
brand. In addition, they were asked how much they
loved the brand, ranging from “I like this brand some-
what” (1) to “I really love this brand” (5). This was to
ensure the respondents reflected on a fashion brand and
liked the brand. Then, respondents completed the 137-
item brand image scale to tap the cognitive, sensory,
and affective associations related to their favorite fash-
ion brands. The present study adapted a 10-item brand
love scale (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Cronbach’s α=0.91)
and a 20-item brand respect scale (Frei & Shaver, 2002;
Cronbach’s α=0.97). One respect item was replaced.
“I am a member of a respect-worthy social category
(e.g., experts, authorities, and successful people)” was
replaced with “This brand leads fashion trends season
to season.” Frei and Shaver’s (2002) scale measured
interpersonal respect, whereas the present study ex-
amined brand respect for fashion products. Five-point
Likert-type scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5) were used for all items. Data related
to age, gender, and ethnicity were also collected.
Results
Participants. A majority of the 218 respondent sam-
ple was female (198 females and 20 males), which was
Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of College
Student Respondents for Study 2.
Demographic
Characteristics
Frequency
(N=218) Percent (%)
Gender
Female 198 91
Male 20 9
Age
18–22 201 92
23–27 13 6
28–32 1 0.6
>33 3 1.4
Ethnicity
African American 6 3
Asian American 7 3
Asian 2 1
Caucasian American 190 87
Hispanic American 5 2
Two or more races 8 4
a consequence of the composition of the students in the
class (to validate the instrument, a more balanced na-
tional sample was used in Study 3). The respondents
ranged in age from 18 to 54 years of age (M=21).
Caucasian American students represented 87% of the
sample. Demographic characteristics of the sample are
presented in Table 2.
An investigation of the participants’ favorite fashion
brands revealed that Express was the favorite brand.
The top 10 fashion brands were casualwear brands
(i.e., Express, Forever 21, J. Crew, Gap, Juicy Cou-
ture, American Eagle, Banana Republic, Abercrombie
& Fitch, Urban Outfitters, and Guess) that target young
adult consumers. The majority of respondents (95%) in-
dicated that they liked (4-point) or really loved (5-point)
their selected fashion brand.
EFA and Reliability. EFA was performed using prin-
cipal axis factoring with oblique rotation to facilitate
data reduction. Factor rotation allows transformation
of initial factor loadings of the items to present a clear
and simple structure (Nunnally, 1978). Oblique rota-
tion (i.e., promax) allows correlations among the fac-
tors, which maximizes the loading on one factor for each
item (i.e., simple structure; Nunnally, 1978). Oblique
rotation is useful when a theory suggests correlated fac-
tors (Brown, 2006; DeVellis, 1991). Thus, the present
research used oblique rotation due to expected corre-
lations between measures of the three dimensions of
brand image.
One factor resulted for each of the three dimensions
based on the eigenvalue greater than 1 criterion. Items
were retained if they loaded above 0.50 on one factor
and below 0.30 on the other factors following rotation
(Kline, 1998). Each measure had a high level of internal
consistency based on Cronbach’s αvalues above 0.92,
well above the minimum acceptable reliability level of
0.70 (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003).
36 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Nine of the original 77 items for the mystery fac-
tor were retained, based on the factor loadings. Re-
tained items captured the cognitive associations shaped
by positive present interactions and positive memories
from past interactions with a brand, but it did not cap-
ture aspirations for future interactions. The nine-item
mystery factor had an eigenvalue of 5.98 and explained
nearly 66% of the variance for the items. The Cron-
bach’s αfor this factor was 0.94.
Ten of the original 25 items were retained for the
sensuality factor. Retained items captured the sensory
associations from visual, olfactory, and tactile sensa-
tions, but it did not capture auditory sensations. This
factor had an eigenvalue of 5.84 and explained 58% of
the variance for these items. The factor had a Cron-
bach’s αof 0.92.
Sixteen of the 35 original intimacy items were re-
tained. The retained items captured affective associa-
tions shaped by the intimacy themes (i.e., the firm’s
empathy, consumer commitment, and consumer enjoy-
ment). Two items (I like looking at the products of this
brand and I see this brand as cool) that were designed
to measure sensuality loaded highly on the intimacy
factor that may reflect consumer’s enjoyment from in-
teracting with a brand. This factor had an eigenvalue
of 10.39 and explained 65% of the variance for these
items. The 16 items had a Cronbach’s αcoefficient of
0.96.
Seven of the 10 brand love items were retained based
on the factor loadings. The factor had an eigenvalue of
4.87 and explained 70% of the variance for the seven
items. The Cronbach’s αwas 0.93 for the seven items.
The brand respect factor retained 11 out of the original
20 items. This factor had an eigenvalue of 6.37 and
explained 53% of the variance. The Cronbach’s αwas
0.91 for these 11 respect items.
Scale Item Finalization and Factor Structure
Testing. Using Mplus 5.21 (Muth´
en & Muth´
en, 2007),
CFA was conducted on the scale items extracted
through EFA. CFA was performed to finalize scale
items for each variable and to assess the factor struc-
tures for all variables (i.e., mystery, sensuality, inti-
macy, brand love, and respect). The present study ex-
amined the modification indices (MIs); if the random
error terms for two measures were highly correlated
with one another, then the item with the lowest factor
loading on the construct was removed to improve model
fit (Brown, 2006).
Three items were removed from the mystery factor
on the basis of the MI of the residual matrix. For in-
stance, the error term for “This brand has changed my
life for the better” was highly correlated with the error
term for “This brand is a part of my life.” The MI indi-
cated a 25.75 decrease in chi-square if these two error
terms were allowed to correlate. Therefore, “This brand
has changed my life for the better” was removed due to
its lower factor loading (0.73) than that of the other item
(0.82). The results of the CFA revealed a better model
fit when the three mystery items were removed using
this data reduction process. Thus, the mystery scale
retained six items. Three sensuality, seven intimacy,
two brand love, and three respect items were removed
based on the MI. All retained items loaded above 0.50
on one factor and below 0.30 on others.
A number of indices were employed to evaluate the
goodness of model fit through CFA: comparative fit
index (CFI; ࣙ0.95 =good fit), root mean square er-
ror of approximation (RMSEA; ࣘ0.08 =good fit), and
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) val-
ues (ࣘ0.08 =good fit; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Slightly
higher RMSEA or SRMR cutoff points (0.08) are rec-
ommended when analyzing data from a small sample
(ࣘ400; Chen, Curran, Bollen, Kirby, & Paxton, 2008).
CFA indicated that a one-factor model for each dimen-
sion fit the data well (CFI: 0.96–0.99; RMSEA: 0.05–
0.10; SRMR: 0.02–0.04). RMSEA values were slightly
above the cutoff point indicating an adequate fit to the
data, but other indices had good fit (see Table 4). Thus,
these factor structures were acceptable for use in the
present study. Each of the three brand image dimen-
sions, brand love, and respect had acceptable internal
consistency. Cronbach’s αvalues were well above 0.70
(mystery α=0.92, sensuality α=0.90, intimacy α=
0.95, brand love α=0.92, brand respect α=0.88). The
overall Cronbach’s αvalue was 0.95 for the three brand
image dimensions.
Measurement Model Testing and Convergent
Validity. To begin measurement model testing, three
parcels were developed for each of the latent variables:
mystery, sensuality, intimacy, brand love, and respect.
Parcels were created by combining scores for a set of
items in a factor. To balance the average loadings of
each parcel for the factor, the extracted items were as-
signed to parcels based on their item loadings from the
CFA (Russell, Kahn, Spoth, & Altmaier, 1998). The par-
cel values were then used in the latent variable analy-
sis (Russell et al., 1998). Using item parcels rather than
individual items results in a better fit for the measure-
ment model, because the results are not influenced by
characteristics of the individual items (Russell et al.,
1998). Next, the maximum-likelihood estimation proce-
dure, which minimizes residuals between the observed
and implied matrix, was used to test the measurement
model. The correlations among the factors were freely
estimated, but all error terms for the measured vari-
ables (i.e., item parcels) were not allowed to correlate.
The results indicated that the measurement model fit
the data well (χ2(80, N=218) =167.02, p<0.001, CFI
=0.97, RMSEA =0.07, and SRMR =0.03).
Convergent validity assesses the degree to which
items from a measure are similar to those of other mea-
sures of the same or similar constructs (Pedhazur &
Schmelkin, 1991). Convergent validity can be tested in
two ways: (1) significant factor loadings (above 0.50)
in the measurement model (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Hair,
Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006) and (2) ex-
amining the correlation between two scales that were
hypothesized to measure similar or the same constructs
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 37
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Figure 2. The structural model for Study 3 assessing the nomological validity of the fashion brand image scale in an extended
brand equity model.
(DeVellis, 1991). The present study tested convergent
validity based on factor loadings from the measurement
model. All factor loadings were greater than 0.79 with
highly significant tvalues ranging from 24.75 to 124.56,
which supported the convergent validity of the mea-
sures (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
Structural Model Testing and Nomological Valid-
ity. To establish the nomological validity of the brand
image scale, a structural equation model was estimated
with Mplus 5.21, using the maximum-likelihood esti-
mation procedure. The fit indices for the model showed
an adequate fit to the data (χ2(80, N=218) =167.02,
p<0.001, CFI =0.97, RMSEA =0.07, and SRMR =
0.03), which supports the nomological validity of the
brand image scale (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
The relationships among the three brand image
dimensions (i.e., mystery, sensuality, and intimacy),
brand love, and respect are shown in Figure 1. There
were significant results for all relationships except the
effect of sensuality on brand love. The standardized
path coefficient (β) between mystery and brand love was
0.22 (t=2.94, pࣘ0.01), but a positive effect of sensual-
ity on brand love was not supported (β=0.09, t=1.07).
All other relationships were supported: a positive effect
of intimacy on brand love (β=0.50, t=5.19, pࣘ0.001),
a positive effect of mystery on brand respect (β=0.27,
t=3.02, pࣘ0.01), a positive effect of sensuality on
brand respect (β=0.38, t=5.02, pࣘ0.001), and a
positive effect of intimacy on brand respect (β=0.29, t
=3.04, pࣘ0.01). Consequently, the findings provided
support for Roberts’ (2005) lovemarks model and sug-
gested the appropriateness of testing the brand image
scale using a larger sample and an expanded nomolog-
ical network.
STUDY 3: FINAL CONSTRUCT
VALIDATION OF THE FASHION BRAND
IMAGE SCALE
The objective of Study 3 was to further validate the
fashion brand image scale using a larger and more rep-
resentative sample. This study replicated the reliability
and convergent validity tests for the brand image scale
conducted in Study 2. To further validate the scale, CFA
was conducted to test discriminant validity of the new
scale. Nomological validity of the scale was evaluated
by testing the scale’s performance in an expanded brand
equity model, which included brand awareness, the
three fashion brand image dimensions, Roberts’ (2005)
lovemark construct, brand loyalty, and overall brand
equity (see Figure 2). In this final study, the present au-
thors combined brand love and respect into a lovemark
experience variable as proposed by Roberts (2005). This
combination was also supported because the lovemark
experience is a more comprehensive consumption expe-
rience reflecting both hedonic (brand love) and utilitar-
ian (brand respect) elements.
Brand Awareness and the Lovemark
Experience
Brand awareness refers to an ability to identify, rec-
ognize, or recall a brand in a certain category (Aaker,
38 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

1991; Keller, 1993). Tangible attributes of branding,
such as a brand name, logo, symbol, icon, and metaphor,
facilitate consumer awareness of a brand (Neumeier,
2006). Moreover, advertising and positive word-of-
mouth regarding a brand may enhance brand aware-
ness that plays an important role in consumer decision
making (Aaker, 1996; Pitta & Katsanis, 1995). Once
purchased, brand awareness may be enhanced through
consuming the brand, which may lead to a positive
emotional response to and enhanced reputation for the
brand due to repeated exposure. Zajonc’s (2001) em-
pirical research showed that repeated exposure to an
object leads to preference for the object and positive af-
fect or attachment to the object. Thus, a well-known
brand (i.e., high brand awareness) is likely to be associ-
ated with positive affect (i.e., brand love) and cognitions
(i.e., brand respect).
Brand Loyalty, the Lovemark Experience,
and Overall Brand Equity
Brand loyalty has both attitudinal and behavior com-
ponents (Dick & Basu, 1994). Attitudinal brand loyalty
reflects a deep commitment to and continued liking of
a preferred brand (Oliver, 1999). Similarly, Chaudhuri
and Holbrook (2001) and Fournier (1998) found that at-
titudinal brand loyalty taps into commitment, reflect-
ing willingness to keep or maintain a positive relation-
ship with a brand. It is evoked when consumers have
favorable beliefs about and attitudes toward a brand
(Keller, 1993). In terms of a behavioral perspective,
Aaker (1991) explained that brand loyalty should be
measured by the number of brands purchased, percent-
age of purchases, and future purchase intention. When
a consumer is loyal, he or she continuously purchases
the brand, even though the brand makes changes, such
as increasing its price or altering its product features
(Aaker, 1991).
Empirical research has supported a significant effect
of brand affect and brand trust on brand loyalty (Carroll
& Ahuvia, 2006; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Taylor,
Celuch, & Goodwin, 2004). Brand affect is regarded as
positive emotional responses toward a brand. Brand
trust consists of beliefs of reliability, quality, depen-
dence, trustworthiness, security, and honesty. Based
on these definitions of brand affect and trust, brand
affect is comparable to brand love and brand trust en-
compasses the concept of brand respect suggested by
Roberts (2005). Consumers who love and/or trust a
brand have a greater degree of commitment toward the
brand, leading to future purchase intentions (i.e., brand
loyalty). These findings from previous studies support
the prediction that the lovemark experience may lead
to brand loyalty.
Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) have stated that
brand loyalty is a key dimension in building brand eq-
uity. A loyal customer is willing to pay a price premium
and to purchase products from the brand frequently
(Aaker, 1996). Marketing researchers have found a
strong effect of brand loyalty on brand equity (Tay-
lor et al., 2004). These researchers suggested that a
brand increases its equity (i.e., strength) when loyalty
becomes stronger.
Method
Alumni from a Midwestern U.S. University were re-
cruited to complete the online survey. A follow-up re-
quest was sent to gather as many respondents as possi-
ble via e-mail. The sample represented a wide range of
ages and geographic locations that enhance the exter-
nal validity of the analyses. A total of 2923 individuals
participated in the online survey, representing a re-
sponse rate of 3.8%. In general, online surveys have a
lower response rate compared to other data collection
methods (Malhotra, 2007), and the response rate in the
present study is similar to response rates in previous
studies, involving questionnaires of this length (e.g.,
Sheehan, 2001). Also, outdated e-mail addresses of
alumni may have contributed to the low response rate.
Due to missing data only 2,373 surveys were usable.
The self-administered survey distributed online con-
sisted of the same scales for brand image (22-item scale)
and the lovemark experiences (13-item scale) that were
validated in Study 2. The brand awareness scale con-
sisted of a combination of five items from two measures
(Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2001), such as “I am well aware
of this brand” and “I have heard of this brand.” The
adopted seven-item brand loyalty scale (Keller, 2001)
tapped attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Items in-
cluded “I consider myself loyal to this brand” and “This
is the one brand I would prefer to buy or use.” The over-
all brand equity scale (Yoo & Donthu, 2001; Cronbach’s
αࣙ0.89) included items such as “It makes sense to buy
this brand instead of any other brand, even if they are
the same” and “Even if another brand has the same fea-
tures as this brand, I would prefer to buy this brand.”
It also included a brand experience scale (Brakus et al.,
2009; Cronbach’s αࣙ0.79) and brand involvement scale
(Zaichkowsky, 1985; Cronbach’s αࣙ0.95). Five-point
Likert-type scales, ranging from strongly disagree (1)
to strongly agree (5), were used for all items. Demo-
graphic characteristics were collected at the end of the
survey (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, and annual income).
Results
Participants. Almost 60% of the sample was female
for Study 3, which may be due to their greater inter-
est in the fashion brand topic of the study. Participants
(1002 males and 1371 females) were between the ages
of 27 and 76 (M=49 years). The majority of the partic-
ipants (67.2%) were adults between 27 and 54. Most
participants were Caucasian American (94.3%). Ap-
proximately half of the respondents (47.9%) indicated
that their annual income was in the range of $40,000–
$99,999, whereas 36% of the respondents had an
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 39
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of the National
Sample for Study 3.
Demographic
Characteristics
Frequency
(N=
2,373)
Percent
(%)
Gender
Male 1,002 42.2
Female 1,371 57.8
Age
27–34 430 18.1
35–39 214 9.0
40–44 260 11.0
45–49 327 13.8
50–54 364 15.3
55–59 345 14.5
60–64 266 11.2
65–69 128 5.4
70–76 39 1.6
Ethnicity
Asian 53 2.2
African American 28 1.2
Caucasian American or
European
2,237 94.3
Hispanic or Latino 17 0.7
Native American 5 0.2
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
20.1
Twoormoreraces 15 0.6
Other 16 0.7
Annual income
Less than $9999 or none 20 0.8
$10,000–19,999 32 1.3
$20,000–39,999 171 7.2
$40,000–59,999 400 16.9
$60,000–79,999 393 16.6
$80,000–99,999 341 14.4
More than $100,000 857 36.1
Do not know 159 6.7
annual income over $100,000. Most were highly edu-
cated individuals who had obtained a college or gradu-
ate degree (see Table 3).
Results from the investigation of the participants’ fa-
vorite fashion brands indicated that Nike was the most
frequently loved fashion brand. The top ten loved fash-
ion brands were Nike, Polo Ralph Lauren, Levi’s, Gap,
Eddie Bauer, Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, Land’s
End, Cold Water Creek, and Talbots.
Factor Structure Testing and Reliability Assess-
ment. EFA and CFA were performed for all variables
included in the hypothesized model. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients were determined for each of the measures.
The same data reduction technique used in Study 2 was
applied for all constructs in Study 3 (i.e., brand aware-
ness, mystery, sensuality, intimacy, brand love, brand
respect, loyalty, and brand equity). In the EFA, one fac-
tor for each construct was extracted with an Eigenvalue
greater than 1.0. Three of the five items loaded on the
brand awareness factor (α=0.70), all six items loaded
on the mystery factor (α=0.84), all seven items loaded
on the sensuality factor (α=0.86), eight of the nine
items loaded on the intimacy factor (α=0.89), all five
items loaded on the brand love factor (α=0.92), seven
of the eight items loaded on the brand respect factor
(α=0.89), five of the seven items loaded on the brand
loyalty factor (α=0.82), and three of the four items
loaded on the brand equity factor (α=0.86). Overall,
these factors explained 64% of total variance.
CFA was conducted to evaluate the factor structure
of each variable. Table 4 displays the finalized scale
items and model fit for mystery, sensuality, intimacy,
brand love, and brand respect. One mystery, two sen-
suality, three intimacy, and four brand respect items
were removed due to highly correlated random error
terms. All items loaded above 0.50 on one factor and
below 0.30 on the other factors. The CFA indicated that
a one-factor model for each construct fit the data well.
Each construct had an acceptable level of internal con-
sistency with Cronbach’s αvalues above 0.70 (brand
awareness α=0.70, mystery α=0.85, sensuality α=
0.81, intimacy α=0.88, brand love α=0.92, brand re-
spect α=0.83, brand loyalty α=0.82, brand equity α=
0.86). The overall Cronbach’s αvalue was 0.92 for the
three dimensions of fashion brand image.
Second-Order Factor Development to Test Conver-
gent and Discriminant Validity. The present study
posited that fashion brand image has a hierarchical
structure, which means that the first-order latent vari-
ables (mystery, sensuality, intimacy) represent indica-
tors of the second-order construct (fashion brand im-
age; Hair et al., 2006). A second-order construct for
brand image was developed to test it against concep-
tually similar scales, brand experience and brand in-
volvement, to determine convergent and discriminant
validity, respectively. To begin to examine the hier-
archical structure of brand image, three-item parcels
were created for mystery, sensuality, and intimacy as
explained in Study 2. The three-item parcels for each
construct were created by balancing the average load-
ings of each parcel on the factor, based on their stan-
dardized factor loadings from the CFA. The fit of the hi-
erarchical model of brand image was examined through
a CFA. Based on the approximation fit indices, the hi-
erarchical model resulted in a good fit to the data: (χ2
=260.77 [df =24], p<0.001), CFI =0.98, RMSEA
=0.07, and SRMR =0.02. All factor parcel loadings
for the first-order brand image constructs were above
0.50 (i.e., mystery ࣙ0.75, sensuality ࣙ0.66, intimacy
ࣙ0.84), which supported the hypothesized hierarchical
structure of fashion brand image.
Testing Convergent Validity of the Fashion
Brand Image Scale against Brand Experience.
The present study assessed convergent validity of the
brand image scale by examining the factor loadings
from the measurement model and correlations be-
tween the two measures (i.e., brand experience and
fashion brand image). Brand experience was selected
40 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Table 4. Results of CFA for the Three Dimensions of Fashion Brand Image, Brand Love, and Brand Respect.
Study 2 (N=218) Study 3 (N=2,373)
Constructs Scale Items
Item
Loadings t-Value
Item
Loadings t-Value
Mystery (1) This brand awakens good memories for me 0.87 44.52∗∗∗ 0.78 77.51∗∗∗
(2) This brand captures a sense of my life 0.89 50.98∗∗∗ 0.81 88.98∗∗∗
(3) This brand comes to mind immediately 0.76 24.54∗∗∗ 0.69 54.38∗∗∗
when I want to purchase a fashion product 0.85 37.87∗∗∗ 0.85 102.82∗∗∗
(4) This brand captures the times 0.75 23.46∗∗∗ 0.50 28.36∗∗∗
(5) This brand is a part of my life 0.78 27.01∗∗∗
(6) This brand adds to the experience of my lifea
Fit indices Study 2—Model fit with six items (χ2=13.91 [df =9], p<0.001), CFI =0.99, RMSEA =0.05, SRMR =0.02
Study 3—Model fit with six items (χ2=564.42 [df =9], p<0.001), CFI =0.91, RMSEA =0.16, SRMR =0.06
Final model fit with five items (χ2=133.34 [df =5], p<0.001), CFI =0.98, RMSEA =0.10, SRMR =0.03
Sensuality (1) The design of this brand’s ads is really well done 0.77 23.65∗∗∗ 0.69 49.17∗∗∗
(2) The well-ordered store environment appeals to me 0.81 27.83∗∗∗ 0.67 46.13∗∗∗
(3) The Web site design for this brand is really well
done
0.66 15.36∗∗∗ 0.64 42.33∗∗∗
(4) The packaging of this brand is as pleasing as the
product
0.73 19.88∗∗∗ 0.77 61.25∗∗∗
(5) This brand has incredible displays 0.78 24.71∗∗∗ 0.58 35.02∗∗∗
(6) The store environment of this brand appeals to mea0.74 20.75∗∗∗
(7) This brand has a beautiful color schemea0.75 22.13∗∗∗
Fit indices Study 2—Model fit with seven items (χ2=45.69 [df =14], p<0.001], CFI =0.96, RMSEA =0.10, SRMR =
0.03
Study 3—Model fit with seven items (χ2=1,200.26 [df =14], p<0.001], CFI =0.84, RMSEA =0.19, SRMR
=0.07
Final model fit with five items (χ2=114.40 [df =5], p<0.001), CFI =0.97, RMSEA =0.10, SRMR =0.03
Intimacy (1) I feel happy when I wear this brand 0.85 41.12∗∗∗ 0.79 88.04∗∗∗
(2) I have fun with this brand 0.89 53.84∗∗∗ 0.69 59.66∗∗∗
(3) I feel satisfied with this brand 0.84 37.92∗∗∗ 0.81 81.70∗∗∗
(4) I really enjoy wearing this brand 0.82 33.31∗∗∗ 0.63 45.60∗∗∗
(5) I have solid support for this brand 0.90 58.66∗∗∗ 0.76 67.56∗∗∗
(6) I like looking at the products of this brand 0.77 25.66∗∗∗ 0.75 76.11∗∗∗
(7)Icanrelyonthisbrand
a0.79 28.68∗∗∗
(8) I feel connected to this branda0.77 26.06∗∗∗
(9) I would stay with this branda0.82 33.14∗∗∗
Fit indices Study 2—Model fit with nine items (χ2=85.04 [df =27], p<0.001), CFI =0.97, RMSEA =0.09, SRMR =
0.03
Study 3—Model fit with nine items (χ2=1,032.85 [df =27], p<0.001), CFI =0.90, RMSEA =0.13, SRMR
=0.05
Final model fit with six items (χ2=223.70 [df =9], p<0.001), CFI =0.97, RMSEA =0.10, SRMR =0.03
Brand love (1) I love this brand 0.77 24.44∗∗∗ 0.77 24.44∗∗∗
(2) This brand is a pure delight 0.81 30.66∗∗∗ 0.81 30.66∗∗∗
(3) This brand is totally awesome 0.88 44.17∗∗∗ 0.88 44.17∗∗∗
(4) This brand makes me feel good 0.80 29.21∗∗∗ 0.80 29.21∗∗∗
(5) This is a wonderful brand 0.81 29.73∗∗∗ 0.81 29.73∗∗∗
Fit indices Study 2—Model fit with five items (χ2=14.07 [df =5], p<0.001), CFI =0.99, RMSEA =0.09, SRMR =0.02
Study 3—Final model fit with five items (χ2=169.42 [df =5], p<0.001), CFI =0.98, RMSEA =0.12, SRMR
=0.02
Brand respect (1) I respect this brand 0.78 23.92∗∗∗ 0.54 33.19∗∗∗
(2) This brand is honest to me 0.79 26.10∗∗∗ 0.91 113.85∗∗∗
(3) This brand communicates well with me 0.54 10.40∗∗∗ 0.77 74.11∗∗∗
(4) This brand is very faithful 0.83 31.40∗∗∗ 0.75 67.79∗∗∗
(5) I approve of this brand’s performancea0.66 15.27∗∗∗
(6) I’m very committed to this branda0.63 13.87∗∗∗
(7) This brand leads fashion trend season to seasona0.60 12.61∗∗∗
(8) This brand is responsible to mea0.76 22.63∗∗∗
(Continued)
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 41
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Table 4. Continued.
Study 2 (N=218) Study 3 (N=2,373)
Constructs Scale Items
Item
Loadings t-Value
Item
Loadings t-Value
Fit indices Study 2—Model fit with eight items (χ2=53.61 [df =20], p<0.001), CFI =0.96, RMSEA =0.08, SRMR =
0.04
Study 3—Model fit with eight items (χ2=1,719.33 [df =20], p<0.001), CFI =0.84, RMSEA =0.19, SRMR
=0.08
Final model fit with four items (χ2=13.33 [df =2], p<0.001), CFI =0.99, RMSEA =0.05, SRMR =0.01
∗∗∗pࣘ0.001.
aScale items removed in Study 3 due to highly correlated random error terms with other scale item.
because it contains similar concepts: cognitive, sensory,
and affective brand associations. The fit of the mea-
surement model was examined using the maximum-
likelihood estimation procedure. The correlation be-
tween the second-order factor of brand image and the
brand experience was unconstrained, and all error
terms for the measured variables (i.e., item parcels)
were not allowed to correlate. The same fit indices (CFI,
RMSEA, and SRMR) and cut-off values explained above
were used here.
Internal consistency for the first-order fashion brand
image constructs was confirmed by Cronbach’s αval-
ues above 0.81 for the three brand image dimensions
(i.e., mystery [0.85], sensuality [0.81], intimacy [0.88]).
All standardized factor loadings of the first-order fash-
ion brand image constructs were higher than 0.50
with highly significant tvalues ranging from 46.84
to 132.31. The significant standardized factor loadings
(above 0.50) of mystery, sensuality, and intimacy on
fashion brand image supported the convergent valid-
ity of the measures (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). In addition,
convergent validity for the fashion brand image scale
was supported by the significant correlation between
the second-order fashion brand image factor and brand
experience (r=0.68). The results also indicated that
the measurement model of fashion brand image and
brand experience fits the data well: (χ2=595.29 [df =
50], p<0.001), CFI =0.97, RMSEA =0.07, and SRMR
=0.03.
Testing Discriminant Validity of the Fashion
Brand Image Scale against Brand Involvement.
The goal of a discriminant validity analysis is to demon-
strate that a measure differs from measures of re-
lated constructs (Netemeyer et al., 2003; Pedhazur &
Schmelkin, 1991). For the discriminant validation pro-
cess, the brand image scale was tested against a brand
involvement scale adapted from Zaichkowsky’s (1985)
Personal Involvement Inventory (PII). A chi-square dif-
ference test between two models of the brand image
scale and brand involvement scale (constrained model
[one-factor] and unconstrained model [two-factor]) was
employed to establish discriminant validity of the
brand image scale. In Model 1 (unconstrained model),
the correlation between the two measures and all of the
other variables was freely estimated. In Model 2 (con-
strained model), the correlation between brand image
and brand involvement was fixed at 1.0, and the corre-
lations of these two latent variables with the other vari-
ables were constrained to be equal. The chi-square test
indicated that Model 1 provided a significantly better
fit to the data compared to Model 2, which supports the
discriminant validity of the brand image scale. The chi-
square value for Model 1 was 848.35 (df =50), whereas
the chi-square for Model 2 was 1,523.35 (df =52). These
results indicate that the fit of Model 1 was significantly
better than the fit of Model 2 to the data (χ2=678,
df =2) at pࣘ0.001, providing support for the dis-
criminant validity of the brand image scale.
Correlations between the Variables. Correlations
between the variables are reported in Table 5. The cor-
relations ranged from 0.24 to 0.73. Brand awareness
was moderately correlated (below 0.50) with all other
variables. The three dimensions of brand image were
highly correlated (above 0.50) with the lovemark expe-
rience. The lovemark experience was highly correlated
with brand loyalty (0.54), and brand loyalty was highly
correlated with overall brand equity (0.56).
Further Testing of Nomological Validity
through Structural Modeling The present study
again employed structural modeling using Mplus 5.21
to examine the nomological validity of the brand im-
age scale. Results in Figure 2 showed the model fits
the data well, χ2(238, N=2,373) =2,161.70, p<
0.001, CFI =0.95, RMSEA =0.06, and SRMR =
0.06. All six of the causal paths included in the struc-
tural model were positive and statistically significant
(pࣘ0.001). The results indicated that brand awareness
was modestly associated with the lovemark experience;
the standardized path coefficient (β) was 0.07 (t=3.86,
pࣘ0.001). Of the three brand image dimensions, inti-
macy (β=0.62, t=16.47, pࣘ0.001) had the strongest
association with the lovemark experience, followed by
mystery (β=0.25, t=6.52, pࣘ0.001) and sensuality
(β=0.11, t=4.85, pࣘ0.001). As expected, the lovemark
experience was significantly associated with brand loy-
alty (β=0.69, t=47.62, pࣘ0.001), and brand loyalty
42 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Table 5. Correlations between the Variables in the Proposed Structural Model for Study 3 (N=2,373).
Constructs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(1) Awareness 1
(2) Mystery 0.32∗∗ 1
(3) Sensuality 0.30∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 1
(4) Intimacy 0.39∗∗ 0.71∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 1
(5) Lovemark 0.42∗∗ 0.71∗∗ 0.60∗∗ 0.73∗∗ 1
(6) Brand loyalty 0.31∗∗ 0.52∗∗ 0.32∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 1
(7) Brand equity 0.24∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.24∗∗ 0.39∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.56∗∗ 1
Mean 13.79 10.43 10.42 11.54 22.07 10.10 10.32
SD 1.41 2.45 2.22 2.20 4.35 2.42 2.69
∗∗pࣘ0.01.
significantly influenced overall brand equity (β=0.65,
t=41.25, pࣘ0.001).
Brand awareness, mystery, sensuality, and intimacy
significantly predicted the lovemark experience and, in
turn, the lovemark experience strongly predicted brand
loyalty. These results suggest that the lovemark expe-
rience may mediate the relationships between each of
four antecedent variables and brand loyalty. Employing
bootstrap sampling (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), the au-
thors tested the significance of the indirect effect of
the following antecedent variables (brand awareness,
mystery, sensuality, and intimacy) on brand loyalty
through the lovemark experience. The statistical sig-
nificance of the indirect effect was based on the 95%
confidence interval that was derived from 1,000 boot-
strap samples. The confidence interval for the indirect
effect of: (1) brand awareness on loyalty ranged from
0.01 to 0.08, (2) mystery on loyalty ranged from 0.16 to
0.23, (3) sensuality on loyalty ranged from 0.04 to 0.11,
and (4) intimacy on loyalty ranged from 0.36 to 0.49.
Because these confidence intervals did not include zero,
the indirect effects of these four antecedent variables on
brand loyalty were significant at the p<0.05 level. The
indirect effect was modest between (1) brand aware-
ness and loyalty (β=0.05 [pࣘ0.001]), (2) mystery and
loyalty (β=0.17 [pࣘ0.001]), and (3) sensuality and
loyalty (β=0.08 [pࣘ0.001]). This indirect effect was
moderate between intimacy and loyalty (β=0.43 [p
ࣘ0.001]). These results indicate that awareness of a
brand and brand image dimensions lead to a lovemark
experience that in turn leads to brand loyalty.
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND
IMPLICATIONS
The primary contribution of the present study is the
development of a reliable and valid scale for measuring
fashion brand image based on an integration of schol-
arly and industry-based literature. This scale captures
three dimensions of fashion brand image—mystery,
sensuality, and intimacy—which reflect cognitive, sen-
sory, and affective dimensions of fashion brand image,
respectively. Results of the present study confirm that
the new brand image scale is reliable and has content,
convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. In
line with previous scales assessing brand image (see
Table 1), this new measure captures cognitive, sensory,
and affective dimensions. Additionally, the sensory and
affective dimensions are elaborated in the new fashion
brand image measure.
Although the new scale captures Keller’s (1993) ex-
periential and symbolic benefits, it also more fully cap-
tures nonproduct- and product-related attributes. For
instance, the mystery dimension reflects nonproduct-
related usage imagery (e.g., item: “This brand awakens
good memories for me”). The sensuality dimension re-
flects a broad range of nonproduct-related (packaging,
advertising, displays) and product-related attributes
(e.g., item: “The packaging of this brand is as pleasing
as the product”). The intimacy dimension encapsulates
experiential aspects (e.g., item: “I have fun with this
brand”) and symbolic benefits through a sense of con-
nection with the brand (e.g., item: “I have solid sup-
port for this brand”). The new scale also addresses
Keller’s (1993) strength of association, as reflected by
the mystery item, “This brand comes to mind imme-
diately when I want to purchase a fashion product.”
Hence, the present scale captures a wider range of as-
sociation elements proposed by Keller (1993).
The second contribution of the present study is em-
pirical support for Roberts’ (2005) lovemarks model;
a positive relationship between the new brand im-
age measure and both brand love and respect was
found. That is, positive cognitive, sensory, and affec-
tive facets of fashion brand image contributed to the
lovemark experience, which is a combination of brand
love and respect. Only one relationship was not em-
pirically supported—the relationship between sensual-
ity and brand love. Although research has supported
the effect of sensory qualities on emotional pleasure
and arousal (Alpert & Alpert, 1989; Chebat & Michon,
2003; Valdez & Mehrabian, 1994), acquiring the depth
of these experiences to reach a state of brand love did
not appear to materialize.
The third contribution relates to expanding brand
equity research (e.g., Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993; Kim,
Knight, & Pelton, 2009; Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey,
2005; Yoo & Donthu, 2001, 2002). The present study
provides empirical support for an expansion of Keller’s
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 43
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

(1993) consumer-based brand equity model by includ-
ing the lovemark experience in explaining the relation-
ship between brand image and brand loyalty, which
then influences brand equity. The newly developed
fashion brand image scale was effective in the empiri-
cal model that predicted brand equity. As such, a con-
sumer’s cognitive, sensory, and affective brand associ-
ations should be captured in building consumer-based
brand equity. Moreover, the impact of three dimensions
of brand image (i.e., mystery, sensuality, and intimacy)
was much stronger than that of brand awareness on
the lovemark experience. Furthermore, the mediation
effect of the lovemark experience between the three di-
mensions of brand image and brand loyalty was sta-
tistically significant. This illustrates that academic re-
searchers could benefit from including industry-based
literature when developing theory.
Managerial Implications
The present investigation appears to be the first em-
pirical study that has combined Roberts’ (2005) love-
marks model with consumer-based brand equity theory
to develop a conceptual model that explains the rela-
tionships among brand awareness, image, love, respect,
and loyalty. Roberts’ Saatchi and Saatchi company has
earned more than US$430 million in profits by apply-
ing the lovemarks model to JCPenney’s advertising in
2006 alone (Creamer & Parekh, 2009; McArthur, 2008).
The empirical evidence provided here gives credence to
their lovemark approach.
The current research encourages marketing prac-
titioners to build all three dimensions—positive mys-
tery, sensuality, and intimacy associations—to ensure
an effective fashion brand image. For instance, brand
development should not only emphasize product–use
associations and attractive Web site and store de-
signs to foster cognitive and sensory associations, but
also emotional associations through customer relation-
ship management techniques and interactive market-
ing practices (e.g., loyalty programs and crowdsourc-
ing). These findings support present experiential mar-
keting trends that emphasize the role of all three in
affecting consumer perceptions, preferences, attitudes,
choices, and consumption behavior (Fenko, Schiffer-
stein, & Hekkert, 2010; Fiore, 2007; Fiore, Yah, & Yoh,
2000). For instance, Anthropologie, owned by Urban
Outfitters, Inc., sells a variety of merchandise—from
women’s apparel to home furniture—through retail
stores, catalogs, and online. These channels foster rich
cognitive, sensory, and affective associations through
home-like display vignettes, exotic location backdrops,
and personal shopping services, respectively.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The present study focused on U.S. consumers’ associa-
tions with fashion brands. Although the scale may be
applicable for a broader style-conscious brand category
(e.g., Teavana, Apple) as well, it is obvious from the
unique dimensions (e.g., athletic performance) of the
Athlete Brand Image Scale (Arai, Ko, & Kaplanidou,
2013) that it lacks applicability across all categories.
Future research could identify the limits of the scale’s
applicability.
A convenience sample of college students, which was
predominantly female, was used in Studies 1 and 2.
This may have limited the initial conceptualization and
retained items of the fashion brand image dimensions.
A national sample, more representative of the age, in-
come, and gender profile of the U.S. population, was
employed in Study 3, but it did not represent the ethnic
and educational profile of the U.S. population, which
affects generalizability.
Also, in line with Malik and Naeem’s (2012) criti-
cism of brand personality dimensions, generalization
of these findings to non-U.S. consumers is cautioned
against as cultural and psychographic characteristics
may have moderating effects on conceptualization on
the three brand image dimensions and relationships
within the consumer-based brand equity model. For in-
stance, Kim et al.’s (2009) research examined young
Korean consumers’ brand perceptions of U.S. apparel
brands and found prestigious image and high quality
to be important. Similarly, Yoo and Donthu’s (2002) re-
search found that Korean consumers consider perceived
quality to be more important in their purchase decisions
than do U.S. consumers. Therefore, future research ex-
amining Asian consumers should include items reflect-
ing prestige as part of the cognitive dimension. Such
cross-cultural research may reveal differences in con-
tributors to brand love and respect and their impact
on brand loyalty, which would be helpful in develop-
ing effective brand strategies for global brands sold in
various markets.
Further research should also examine other conse-
quences of brand image using the new scale. Brand im-
age may directly influence perceived value, satisfaction,
willingness to pay a premium price, recommendation of
the brand, and patronage intentions. Therefore, these
relationships should be empirically tested in the future
research.
In addition, future research should focus on the rela-
tive performance of the various brand image and brand
experience scales in predicting loyalty and brand eq-
uity. For instance, Brakus et al.’s (2009) brand expe-
rience scale measures general brand experiences, cap-
turing consumers’ intellectual, sensory, affective, and
behavioral responses, whereas the fashion brand image
scale used in the present study measures more specific
brand associations in terms of cognitive, sensory, and
affective aspects. Future research should compare the
effects of brand experience and brand image on brand
loyalty. Such studies would indicate the relative useful-
ness of brand image or brand experience scales in pre-
dicting brand loyalty. Finally, future research should
test the scales’ ability to predict actual purchase be-
havior.
44 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free
Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products
and markets. California Management Review, 38, 102–120.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal
of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.
Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). When
consumers love their brands: Exploring the concept and its
dimensions. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1062–1075.
Alpert, J. I., & Alpert, M. I. (1989). Background music as an
influence in consumer mood and advertising responses. Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, 16, 485–491.
Arai, A., Ko, Y. J., & Kaplanidou, K. (2013). Athlete brand
image: Scale development and model test. European Sports
Management Quarterly, 13, 383–403.
Babin, B. J., Hardesty, D. M., & Suter, T. A. (2003). Color
and shopping intentions: The intervening effect of price
fairness and perceived affect. Journal of Business Research,
56, 541–551.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 16, 74–94.
Bass, D. D. (2011). Time to carve up the worst fashion fads.
Retrieved December 13, 2011, from http://www.stltoday.
com/lifestyles/fashion-and-style/debra-bass/time-to-carve-
up-the-worst-fashion-fads/article_57523a07-aadf-5216-
9cb9-f954a85f3ad0.html.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, P. R. (2012). Brand love.
Journal of Marketing, 76, 1–16.
Bone, P. F., & Ellen, P. S. (1999). Scents in the marketplace:
Explaining a fraction of olfaction. Journal of Retailing, 75,
243–262.
Bone, P. F., & Jantrania, S. (1992). Olfaction as a cue for
product quality. Marketing Letters, 3, 289–296.
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, 52–68.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied
research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and
outcomes of brand love. Market Letter, 17, 79–89.
Chang, P.-L., & Chieng, M.-H. (2006). Building consumer–
brand relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 23, 927–959.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of ef-
fects from brand trust and brand affect to brand perfor-
mance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65,
81–93.
Chebat, J.-C., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on
mall shoppers’ emotions, cognition, and spending: A test of
competitive causal theories. Journal of Business Research,
56, 529–539.
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton,
P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cut-
off points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation
models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 462–494.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better mea-
sures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 16, 64–73.
Creamer, M., & Parekh, R. (2009). Book of the tens:
Ideas of the decade. Retrieved December 14, 2010, from
http://adage.com/article?article_id=141058.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000).
The relational-interdependent self-construal and relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
791–808.
De Klerk, H. M., & Lubbe, S. (2008). Female consumers’ eval-
uation of apparel quality: Exploring the importance of aes-
thetics. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
12, 36–50.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and appli-
cations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dichter, E. (1985). What is in an image? Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 2, 75–81.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an
integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 22, 99–113.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image:
A foundation analysis. Advances in Consumer Research,
17, 110–119.
Dube, L., Chebat, J.-C., & Morin, S. (1995). The effects of back-
ground music on consumers’ desire to affiliate in buyer-
seller interactions. Psychology & Marketing, 12, 305–319.
Durgee, J. F., & Stuart, R. W. (1987). Advertising symbols and
brand names: That best represent key product meanings.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4, 15–24.
Ellen, P. S., & Bone, P. F. (1999). Olfactory stimuli as adver-
tising executional cues. Journal of Advertising, 27, 29–39.
Esch, F-R., Langer, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are
brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships
affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 15, 98–105.
Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001). The
effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9, 61–75.
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts
in sensory dominance between various stages of user–
product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34–40.
Fiore, A. M. (2007). The shopping experience. In H. N. J. Schif-
ferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 629–
648). New York: Elsevier Press.
Fiore, A. M., Yah, X., & Yoh, E. (2000). Effects of a product dis-
play and environmental fragrancing on approach responses
and pleasurable experiences. Psychology & Marketing, 17,
27–54.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing
relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 24, 343–373.
Frazer, C. F. (1983). Creative strategy: A management per-
spective. Journal of Advertising, 12, 36–41.
Frei, J. R., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Respect in close relation-
ships: Prototype definition, self-report assessment, and ini-
tial correlates. Personal Relationships, 9, 121–139.
Gardner, B. G., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the
brand. Harvard Business Review, March–April, 33–39.
Gob´
e, M. (2001). Emotional branding: The paradigm for con-
necting brands to people. New York: Allworth Press.
Gottman, J. M. (1996). The heart of parenting: How to raise an
emotionally intelligent child. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,
R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hendon, D. W., & Williams, E. L. (1985). Winning the battle for
your customer. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2, 65–75.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in
close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 23, 881–899.
Hsu, C., & Cai, L. A. (2009). Brand knowledge, trust and loy-
alty: A conceptual model of destination branding. Interna-
tional CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track, 12, 1–9.
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 45
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1–55.
Interbrand.com. (2013). Best global brands 2013. Retrieved
Apr 20, 2014, from http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-
global-brands/2013/Best-Global-Brands-2013.aspx.
Ismail, A. R., & Spinelli, G. (2012). Effects of brand love, per-
sonality and image on word of mouth: The case of fashion
brands among young consumers. Journal of Fashion Mar-
keting and Management, 16, 386–398.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and man-
aging customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing,
57, 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A
blueprint for creating strong brands. Marketing Manage-
ment, 10, 15–19.
Kim, H., Kim, W. G., & An, J. A. (2003). The effect of consumer-
based brand equity on firms’ financial performance. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 20, 335–351.
Kim, E. Y., Knight, D. K., & Pelton, L. E. (2009). Modeling
brand equity of a U.S. apparel brand as perceived by Gener-
ation Y consumers in the emerging Korean market. Cloth-
ing and Textiles Research Journal, 27, 247–258.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equa-
tion modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Korchia, M. (1999). A new typology of brand image. European
Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 147–154.
Landwehr, J. R. McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It’s
got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial”
expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Market-
ing, 75, 132–146.
Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2012). The
tipping point of design: How product design and brands in-
teract to affect consumers’ preferences. Psychology & Mar-
keting, 29, 422–433.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Mar-
keting, 12, 11–19.
Lee, E.-J. (2013). A prototype of multicomponent brand person-
ality structure: A consumption symbolism approach. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 30, 173–186.
Levy, S. J., & Glick, L. O. (1973). Imagery and symbolism. In
S. H. Britt (Eds.), The Dartnell marketing manager’s hand-
book (pp. 961–969). Durham, NC: Dartnell Corporation.
Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and di-
mensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 9, 350–368.
Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Marketing research: An applied orien-
tation (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Malik, M. E., & Naeem, B. (2012). Aaker’s brand personality
framework: A critical commentary. Journal of Basic and
Applied Scientific Research, 2, 11992–11996.
Maxian, W., Bradley, S. D., Wise, W., & Toulouse, E. N.
(2013). Brand love is in the heart: Physiological responding
to advertised brands. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 469–
478.
McArthur, R. (2008). Business 24/7: Why “love” is the new
black. Retrieved December 14, 2010, from www.saatchike
vin.com/download/pdf/1161_business_24_7.pdf.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data anal-
ysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, C. (1991). Research reveals how marketer’s can win by
a nose. Marketing News, 25, 1–2.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The ben-
efits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction
of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98.
Muth´
en, L., & Muth´
en, B. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. Los
Angeles, CA: Muth´
en and Muth´
en.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scal-
ing procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Neumeier, M. (2006). The brand gap: How to bridge the dis-
tance between business strategy and design. Berkeley, CA:
New Riders.
Newman, J. W. (1957). New insight, new progress, for mar-
keting. Harvard Business Review, November–December,
95–102.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Okonkwo, U. (2007). Luxury fashion branding: Trends, tactics,
techniques. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Mar-
keting, 63, 33–44.
Pappu, R., Quester, P., & Cooksey, R.W. (2005). Consumer-
based brand equity: Improving the measurement-empirical
evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14,
143–154.
Park, H-J., & Rabolt, N. J. (2009). Cultural value, consump-
tion value, and global brand image: A cross-national study.
Psychology & Marketing, 26, 714–735.
Pawle, J., & Cooper, P. (2006). Measuring emotion: Love-
marks, the future beyond brands. Journal of Advertising
Research, 46, 38–48.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement,
design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Pitta, D. A., & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding brand
equity for successful brand extension. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 12, 51–64.
Pohlman, A., & Mudd, S. (1973). Market image as a function of
group and product type: A quantitative approach. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 57, 167–71.
Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style. New York: Harper
Collins.
Roberts, K. (2005). Lovemarks: The future beyond brands (2nd
ed.). New York: Powerhouse Books.
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M.
(1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent
variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapc¸i, H. (2011). The effects of brand
experiences, trust and satisfaction on building brand loy-
alty: An empirical research on global brands. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1288–1301.
Schmitt, B., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The
strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New
York: The Free Press.
Sheehan, K. B. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A re-
view. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6.
Retrieved November 1, 2012, from http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x/full.
Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T. J. (1988). Consumer-object rela-
tions: A conceptual framework based analogously on Stern-
berg’s triangular theory of love. Advances in Consumer
Research, 15, 163–168.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental
and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recom-
mendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
46 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self congruity and ideal congruity to
predict purchase motivation. Journal of Business Research,
13, 195–206.
Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and
claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of ad-
vertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
586–597.
Stern, B., Zinkhan, G. M., & Jaju, A. (2001). Marketing im-
ages: Construct definition, measurement issues, and theory
development. Marketing Theory, 1, 201–224.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular
love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–
335.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 312–329.
Taylor, S. A., Celuch, K., & Goodwin, S. (2004). The importance
of brand equity to consumer loyalty. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 13, 217–227.
Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on
emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 123, 394–
409.
Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A. B., & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-
based brand equity: Development and validation of a mea-
surement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management,
18, 27–28.
Yalch, R. F., & Spangenberg, E. (2000). The effects of music
in a retail setting on real and perceived shopping times.
Journal of Business Research, 49, 139–147.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating
a multi-dimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.
Journal of Business Research, 52, 1–14.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2002). Testing cross-cultural invariance
of the brand equity creation process. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 11, 380–398.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement con-
struct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.
Zajonc, R. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224–228.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable support
and contributions of the anonymous reviewers of this
manuscript.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to:
Eunjoo Cho, Assistant Professor, School of Human Environ-
mental Sciences, 205B HOEC, University of Arkansas, Fayet-
teville, AR 72701 (ejcho@uark.edu).
APPENDIX A
Qualitative Interview Questionnaire
1. What are some of your favorite brands?
2. Would you say you really like or love these
brands?
3. Why do you like or love these brands?
4. Could you tell me what it means to really like
or love these brands (such as your behaviors,
thoughts, or feelings toward the brand)?
5. How would you describe the relationship you
have with these brands?
6. Do these brands enhance your life in anyway?
7. Have these brands become an integral part of
your life?
8. Would you have a hard time living without or feel
your lifestyle would be negatively affected if you
could not buy these brands?
9. Have you had a positive long-term relationship
with these brands? If so, tell me about what these
brands have done to help build this relationship.
10. Do you feel that these brands understand you or
your lifestyle?
11. How do these brands show it understands you
(e.g., messages in the ads, features of the product,
design of the store, and brand representatives in
the store or corporate)?
12. Please describe your emotional feelings about
these brands or how you feel when you think
about or use the brand?
13. How do these brands communicate with you?
14. In which ways do these brands communicate
well (e.g., commercials/ads, e-mailing, or a Web
site)?
15. Sensuality is appealing to your five senses (e.g.,
sound, sight, smell, touch, and taste). Based on
this definition, please tell me if these brands build
good sensual experiences through the product,
store environment, ads, etc.
16. Have these brands changed with you and your
lifestyle? If yes, how does it change?
17. Do you think you will remain loyal to these
brands? Why or Why not?
FASHION BRAND IMAGE SCALE 47
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

APPENDIX B
A Sample of Qualitative Interview
Quotations
Constructs Themes Interview Quotations
Mystery Positive present
experiences
“The reasons of why I like certain brands are their high quality and decent value.
I’m looking for consistency and something that’s going to be a long-term value.
I like to buy a pair of Levi’s jean because they are pretty consistent in their
sizes and fit. Their jeans are consistently comfortable”
Positive memories
from past
experiences
“I was extremely good at tennis and had scholarship offers to play when I was in
high school. My parents gave me a Rod Laver poster when we went to the U.S.
Open. It was of him hitting an overhead shot, wearing Adidas shoes. So, I had
wristbands and shoes that matched Rod Laver. I have made this connection
with the Adidas logo”
Future aspirations “I can’t afford always Anthropologie, but I really want to get it. I tend to work
harder so that I can afford the brand”
Self-congruity “My favorite brands are integral to me because they are physically on me. What
I’m wearing says to people about myself and makes me feel in a certain way”
Sensuality Visual sensations “I love Kiehl’s store environment because I love the way the entire [display] looks
together. I also love Kiehl’s packaging, which looks like a white
pharmaceutical case. I keep purchasing a lot of products because I am very
happy with their products and packaging”
Olfactory sensations “I like Anthropologie’s perfumed smell going through different sections, which
have seasonally different scents. Sometimes, I just go there and do not buy
anything. Shopping for me is a kind of experience”
Auditory sensations “Music in an Express store catches my ears. It makes me feel that I can be the
person in that store. Music is definitely a part for a lot of the modern brands”
Tactile sensations “I really like Champion [because] their T-shirts are soft. What I like about
Champion is their T-shirts do not change to hard after washing many times. I
like the soft texture. I feel the soft texture for a long time”
Intimacy The firm’s empathy “Bobbi Brown understands me because they understand what women like. Marc
Jacobs understands me because they show always new and fresh design I
desire”
Consumer’s
commitment
“I have a long-term commitment. I would say that it is most like a friend
relationship. I’ve been buying Nike and Adidas over 15 years”
“I wouldn’t change any clothing brand even if I would have ten times more
money. I would change my electronics but not clothing. If my money less 10
times, then I would be sacrificed”
Consumer’s enjoyment “My Kenneth Cole bag is designed exactly as I wanted. I feel happy with this
brand. I always find good design from this brand. I like to carry my Kenneth
Cole bag anywhere. I have been with this brand for 10 years”
48 CHO, FIORE, AND RUSSELL
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar