Content uploaded by Diego Alvarado Karste
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Diego Alvarado Karste on Nov 22, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
and social influence on consumer-based
brand equity
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Brand identities have a dual nature that appeals to the head (rational appeal) and to the heart (emotional appeal) of their consumers.
Furthermore, consumers can process information in a predominately analytic or intuitive cognitive style (CS) manner. This study aims to analyze the
influence of brand identity-cognitive style (BI-CS) fit on the perceived value of a brand. It also analyzes how different forms of social influence affect
the perceived value of the brand.
Design/methodology/approach –Using a two-step experimental design, Step 1 examines the effect that BI-CS fit has on consumer-based brand
equity (CBBE); Step 2 evaluates the effect that the three elements of social influence–compliance, identification and internalization–have on CBBE.
Findings –Both the BI-CS fit, and the identification and internalization forms of social influence have a significant and positive effect over the
perceived value of the brand. A rational brand identity is given a higher perceived brand value by analytic CS consumers than intuitive CS
consumers. Conversely, an emotional brand identity is given a higher perceived brand value by intuitive CS consumers than analytic CS consumers.
However, whether the brand identity is more emotional or rational is less important than the values and beliefs that the brand communicates to
create social influence.
Research limitations/implications –This study contributes to the branding literature by introducing the CS concept to better understand the
influence of emotional and rational brand identities on consumers with either rational or intuitive cognitive thinking styles and reinforce the
importance of the brand duality concept.
Practical implications –The results demonstrate the importance of brand duality and show how firms could present emotional or rational brand
identities depending on their consumers’CS to increase the effectiveness of their messaging to build stronger brand images that increase the
perceived value of the brand. These findings could have important implications for market segmentation.
Originality/value –Brand identities can be emotional or rational, and this creates more or less value depending on the consumers’CS, but what is
more important is that consumers internalize the brand’s message or identify with what the brand represents. Although this has been discussed in
prior literature, the original contribution of this paper is tying all these concepts together.
Keywords Brand identity, Brand image, Cognitive style, Social influence, Consumer brand equity
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Understanding the key management issues and consumer
associations of a brand is critical to creating better and more
productive branding plans to increase a company’s revenue.
Brands not only serve to identify products, but they are also
concepts that develop connections with customers in the form
of images (Nandan, 2005), relationships (Fournier, 1998)and
experiences (Brakus et al., 2009). Past research has shown that
strong brands enjoy a vast array of benefits (Broniarczyk and
Alba, 1994;Buchanan et al.,1999;Glynn et al.,2012;Leone
et al.,2006;Roy and Banerjee, 2014) such as increased levels of
brand loyalty (Aurier and Gilles Séré, 2012;Oliver, 1999;
Pappu and Quester, 2016) and the ability to charge price
premiums (Steenkamp et al.,2010) and negotiate increased
shelf-space from retailers (Ailawadi and Harlam, 2004). In
other words, strong brands benefit from an increased marketing
effectiveness (Keller, 2009). Moreover, the power of a brand
relies on what customers think and feel about it (Keller, 2013),
which is what ultimately gives value to a brand (Keller and
Lehmann, 2006). What customers do in response to their
thoughts and feelings builds a brand’s reputation, which affects
brand equity (Baalbaki and Guzmán, 2016;Cowan and
Guzmán, 2018;Heinberg et al., 2018) and, ultimately, the
financial market (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). This provides
the business justification for branding and an explanation as to
why it is important for firms to build brands that are congruent
with what consumers want and need.
What consumers want and need varies from consumer to
consumer and evolves over time. Consumer insights and the
analysis of market trends have been a staple in developing
Thecurrentissueandfulltextarchiveofthisjournalisavailableon
Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2019-2419]
Received 12 June 2019
Revised 10 November 2019
16 January 2020
Accepted 21 January 2020
segmentation and positioning strategies to develop strong and
relevant brands. Nevertheless, beyond the identification of
these consumer needs and evolving consumer wants, some
consumer psychological characteristics are stable and can serve
to group people based on the way they think. Messick (1976)
introduced the concept of cognitive style (CS), which classifies
people into the following two broad groups based on their
type of thinking: right hemisphere predominant and left
hemisphere predominant (Allinson and Hayes, 1996).
Furthermore, another consumer constant is that, to a larger or
lesser degree, consumers are social creatures and use brands as
enablers to socially interact (Escalas and Bettman, 2003,
2005). Consumers self-identify with brands (Cui et al., 2018;
Dolich, 1969;Graeff, 1996;Grubb and Hupp, 1968;Guzmán
et al.,2017;Roy and Rabbanee, 2015), use them to portray
their social personas (Baalbaki and Guzmán, 2016) and build
social groups/communities around them (Bagozzi and
Dholakia, 2006;Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).
This paper explores the relationship between consumers’CS
and a brand’s identity to create a congruent brand image and
analyzes how social influence–namely consumers’compliance,
identification and internalization with a brand–affects
consumer attitudes and strengthens consumer perceived brand
equity. To the best of our knowledge, past research on CS and
branding is limited (Armstrong et al., 2012;Monga and John,
2010). Likewise, although widely used in the technology of
acceptance model–which deals with people’s behavior and
attitude toward technology change (Bock et al., 2005;Malhotra
and Galletta, 2005;Moon and Kim, 2001)–past research has
not explored the relationship of social influence theory–as in
Kelman’s (1958) psychological view–with the consumer
perceived value of a brand.
Emotional, more than informative, messages increase the
audience attention toward products and boost recall,
recognition and attitudes toward the brand (Hamelin et al.,
2017;Page et al.,1990;Poels and Dewitte, 2006).
Furthermore, consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) is as a
function of recall, recognition and attitudes (Baalbaki and
Guzmán, 2016). In other words, past research could imply that
emotional messages increase CBBE in comparison with
informative messages. In contrast to previous research, this
paper suggests that an emotional advertising message will help
create a stronger brand image, and therefore, increase CBBE,
in consumers who are highly intuitive, while a functional
advertising message will help create a stronger brand image,
and therefore, increase CBBE, with consumers who are highly
analytical. Furthermore, in the past few years brands such as
Procter & Gamble,Gillette, Nike, Chick-Fil-A, Ben & Jerrys and
Coca-Cola, among others, started taking ideological stances
around issues such as civil rights, gay rights, gun control or
racial minorities (Cheadle, 2019). Despite the controversies
around the politicalstances made by some of these brands, little
is known about the impact that such decisions have on the value
of brands. Relying on social influence theory, we explore this
relationship and suggest that regardless of the tone of the
message–emotional or rational–the ideological stance of a
brand will have a strong impact on CBBE.
Hence, the purpose of this article is twofold. First, to test
whether a brand identity-cognitive style fit (BI-CS fit) creates a
stronger brand image that increases the value of the
brand–measured as CBBE. Second, to explore the
relationship between social influence components–compliance,
identification and internalization–and CBBE. To achieve these
goals, first the literature on brand identity, brand image and
brand equity is examined. Second, a discussion on CS, brand
dimensions, and the social influence concept lead to the
development of the research hypotheses. Third, the method
section and results are presented. Finally, the findings,
implications and limitations of the study are discussed.
Background
Nandan (2005) claims that brand identity and brand image are
two different but related concepts. A “brand message is
‘packaged’or ‘wrapped’in terms of brand identity, and it is
‘unpackaged’or ‘unwrapped’by the consumer in the form of
brand image”(p. 268). In other words, brand identity relates to
companies’actions, whereas brand image relates to what
consumers think and feel about a brand. Furthermore, brand
identity and brand image are essential ingredients of strong
brands that must be “in harmony”to build and maintain brand
loyalty (Nandan, 2005). Furthermore, de Chernatony and
Dall’Olmo Riley (1998) posit that brands are
multidimensional, and their success requires matching
customers’performance and psychological needs with the
functional and emotional values of a brand. Brand performance
thus profoundly depends on the congruence between consumer
perceptions about the brand (i.e. brand image) and the firm’s
brand message (i.e. brand identity) (Park et al., 1986).
Brand identity
Brands serve the basic function of identifying and
differentiating a product or service offering according to a
firm’s values (Kapferer, 1992). In other words, firms craft a
brand identity as a way to identify and differentiate themselves
in a manner that is congruent to their values and relevant to
consumers (Margulies, 1977). Brand identity represents a
company’s internal intended image and promise to consumers
using a unique set of brand associations (Ghodeswar, 2008).
Therefore, a company’s branding strategy used to
communicate its brand identity and values both externally–to
consumers and other stakeholders (Gehani, 2001)–and
internally–to managers and employees (Harris and de
Chernatony (2001)–is critical to the success of brands (Aaker,
1991;Kapferer, 1992).
Brand image
While brand identity is related to a firm’s strategies, brand
image is analogous to the consumers’perceptions created by
those strategies (Nandan, 2005). It is constituted by the
consumer beliefs and impressions about a particular brand
(Dichter, 1985). Brand image is “the understanding consumers
derive from the total set of brand-related activities engaged by
the firm”(Park et al., 1986, p. 135). It is defined as the
“perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory”(Nandan, 2005, p. 2);
it is initiated by companies’actions but depends on the
perceptions, associations, and beliefs of consumers toward the
brand (Yuan et al., 2016).
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
To create a strong brand image, companies must develop a
congruent brand identity and consistently communicate it
through its different channels and brand touchpoints. Brand
image is an important component of brand equity (Keller and
Lehmann, 2006), and strong brand associations translate into a
higher CBBE. Nevertheless, because brand image depends on
consumer perceptions, even consistent communication
strategies can originate multiple perceptual outcomes,
generating methodological issues when it comes to measuring
it. Given that different consumers may develop different
interpretations of the same brand narrative, this allows defining
brands as a portfolio of meanings (Guzmán et al., 2006;Iglesias
and Bonet, 2012). Given these potential different
interpretations, segmentation strategies are critical to develop
positive brand image and associations, though the successful
implementation of the marketing mix and brand activation
programs (Keller, 1993), which lead to stronger CBBE in each
of these different consumer groups. Ultimately, the creation of
brand equity is one of the primary goals of brand managers
(Aaker, 1991;Gehani, 2001;Keller,2001, 2009;Keller and
Lehmann, 2003;Roy and Banerjee, 2014;Shepherd et al.,
2015).
Consumer-based brand equity
Brand equity has been analyzed from multiple perspectives and
approaches (Davcik et al., 2015). The most common have been
from the consumer, product-market and financial-market
perspectives (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). This paper analyzes
brand equity from a consumer’s perspective and adopts
Keller’s (1993,p.2)definition of CBBE as “the differential
effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the
marketing of the brand.”According to this definition, both
“consumer response”and “brand knowledge”are the pillars of
brand equity.
Furthermore, Keller (1993) suggests that “brand
knowledge”depends on both “brand awareness”and “brand
image”, linking brand image to CBBE. Recent research,
however, posits that it is necessary to estimate the strength or
value of a brand with dynamic and forward-looking brand
equity systems (Veloutsou and Guzmán, 2017). Thus,
considering that Keller (2001) argues that strong brands have
to appeal to both consumers’heads and hearts, this paper posits
that the brand duality concept serves as a link between
consumers’CS (Messick, 1976) and CBBE–measured using
Baalbaki and Guzmán’s (2016) consumer-perceived CBBE
scale. Left predominant–analytic–thinking style relates to the
head, whereas right predominant–intuitive–thinking style
relates to the heart. Moreover, this paper suggests that to more
effectively create brand value, brand messaging should
emphasize rational versus emotional associations depending on
the predominant CS of the consumer.
Hypotheses development
Past research has identified attitude toward the message or ad
to mediate the relationship between brand messages and
attitude toward the brand (Batra and Ray, 1986;Gardner,
1985;Holbrook and Batra, 1987;Lutz et al., 1983;MacKenzie
et al., 1986;Park and Young, 1986;Shimp, 1981). Based on
these studies, Holbrook and Batra (1987) developed a
communication model that identifies the role of consumer
emotions in brand messaging, as well as the rational and
emotional content of the message, to build an attitude toward
the brand. Brand messages, as a vehicle to communicate a
brand’s identity, serve as one of the most essential tools to build
brand equity. Brand messages try to elicit both rational and
emotional associations given their importance for building
strong brands (Keller, 2001). Effective brand messaging leads
to consumers developing a brand image consistent with the
firm’s brand identity.
Although Keller’s (1993) CBBE model discusses the rational
and emotional associations necessary to build the brand image
and knowledge that leads to strong brands, no discussion is
provided on how rational or emotional associations might have
a different degree of influence depending on consumers’
preferences, market types or the type of products and services.
Furthermore, there may be consumers that depending on their
CS (Messick, 1984), might be more attracted to brands given
the elicited emotional or rational associations. This paper posits
that a higher level of BI-CS fit leads to stronger brand image,
which leads to stronger brand equity.
Consumers’cognitive style
CS was first defined as the individual and consistent
differences among people in their preferences on how to
organize and process information (Messick, 1984). It is a
natural and automatic way to respond to information and
situations, which is very dominant and present from birth or
at least very early in life (Riding and Rayner, 2013). For the
purpose of this research, this paper adopts Armstrong and
Qi’s (2016, p. 240) recent definition of CS: the “individual
differences in how people perceive, think, process
information, solve problems, make decisions, learn and
relate to others.”This paper also adopts Allinson and Hayes
(1996) cognitive style index, a 38-item instrument drawn up
to assess people’s place on a unitary model consisting of two
dimensions–analytic or intuitive. The authors cite evidence
of the value of the CS for its use as a measure in
organizational research.
There are profound differences between subjects with
intuitive cognitive predominance and those with analytic
cognitive predominance (Allinson and Hayes, 1996;Hayes and
Allinson, 1994). Intuitivists (right-brain dominant):
[...] tend to be relatively nonconformist, prefer an open-ended approach to
problem-solving, rely on random methods of exploration, remember spatial
images most easily, and work best with ideas requiring overall assessment
(Allinson and Hayes, 1996, p. 122).
whereas analysts (left-brain dominant):
[...] tend to be more compliant, favor a structured approach to problem-
solving, depend on systematic methods of investigation, recall verbal
material most readily and are especially comfortable with ideas requiring
step by step analysis (Allinson and Hayes, 1996, p. 122).
Despite the resemblance between CS and the dual nature of
brands, previous literature has not linked these two concepts.
Moreover, the idea of brand duality is only addressed to explain
the two components of a strong brand, but not viewed
independently or in a way, which explains the dimensions that
an intuitive and/or an analytic brand should have.
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Brand dimensions
According to Keller (1993), brand associations can be
categorized into three categories, namely, attributes, benefits
and attitudes. Attributes reflect descriptive features of what the
consumer thinks the product or service is or has. Attributes can
be specific (e.g. size, color, weight, etc.) or abstract (e.g.
youthful, durable, glamorous, etc.) (Nandan, 2005;Plummer,
1985). Attributes can also be product-related (or service-
related) and non-product-related. While product-related
attributes are related to the particular function and
performance of the product or service, non-product-related
attributes resemble external aspects or the product or service,
such as price information, packaging, user imagery and usage
imagery (Keller, 1993). Benefits are more related to the
consumers’perceptions of the needs the product intends to
satisfy (Nandan, 2005) and can be placed in the following three
categories according to their motivations (Park et al.,1986):
functional needs that are more associated with the product-
related attributes, and therefore, solve consumption-related
problems; experiential needs that are related to the search for
sensory pleasure, variety and the feeling when the product or
service is used, therefore also corresponding to product-related
attributes; and symbolic benefits that offer more extrinsic
benefits related to the fulfillment of self-enhancement needs,
such as identification, social status or group membership, and
are, therefore, associated with non-product-related attributes.
Attitudes,defined as the consumers’comprehensive evaluation
of the brand (Wilkie, 1986), frequently become the basis for
consumer actions (Keller, 1993). The tri-component attitude
model (Lutz, 1980;Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000) divides
attitudes into three categories, namely, cognitive, related to the
consumers’knowledge about the brand; affective, linked to the
emotions and feelings toward the brand; and conative, which
refers to the extent to which the consumer will engage in a
distinct action with respect to the brand.
The three dimensions of brand associations are related
concepts and build on the dual nature of brands previously
discussed. These dimensions could be used to potentially
understand the perceived value of a brand by classifying brand
identities high in rational content (and low in emotional
content) versus brand identities high in emotional content (and
low in rational content). A proposed example of this
classification is presented in Table I.
Strong brands undoubtedly possess both rational and
emotional components. Therefore, this research proposes that
consumers’CS could determine the success of a brand identity
in building CBBE. As previously discussed, analytic-cognitive-
predominant individuals, lean toward a structured approach to
problem-solving, have better verbal memory, are more
investigative on their decisions, and rely more on the tangible
aspects of things (Allinson and Hayes, 1996). Based on these
characteristics, we propose that analytic CS consumers will
create a more congruent brand image with a “highly rational
brand identity”. Furthermore, analytic CS consumers will
create a less congruent brand image with a “highly emotional
brand identity.”Founded on the corresponding physiognomies
of the intuitive-cognitive-predominant individuals, we propose
that intuitive CS consumers will create a more congruent brand
image with a “highly emotional brand identity.”Furthermore,
intuitive CS consumers will create a less congruent brand
image with a “highly rational brand identity”.Figure 1 depicts
this relationship, which is formally hypothesized as follows:
H1. Higher BI-CS fit leads to a more congruent brand image,
which translates into higher CBBE
Social influence and consumer-based brand equity
Brands have the potential to represent various ideologies or
values (Holt,2004, 2006). For instance, Shepherd et al.
(2015), demonstrate that the value and preference for a brand
depend on consumers’support or rejection of society’s
dominant ideology, based on the 10 universal values defined by
Schwartz and his colleagues (Schwartz,1994, 1999;Schwartz
and Bardi, 2001;Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004;Schwartz et al.,
2000). Shepherd et al. (2015, p. 78) hypothesize that and
provide supporting evidence of, consumers that have high
confidence in the system will “[...] positively evaluate brands
that reflect power compared to those low in system
confidence.”Moreover, Torelli et al. (2012) suggest that in the
context of corporate social responsibility (CSR), activities have
a better (or worse) effect depending on the values of the
consumers who are attracted by the brand, and the values that
are offered by the CSR activity. Likewise, Muniz et al. (2019)
show that CSR messages that appeal to the consumers’sense of
identification with the brand have a positive immediate effect
on brand loyalty, which leads to higher perceived brand equity.
Furthermore, some studies relate consumer’s social identity
with their buying behavior (Chan et al., 2012;Watkins, 2014;
White and Dahl, 2007). These studies are based on social
identification theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), which suggests
that people who belong to a group tend to find negative aspects
on individuals who do not fall into the group, as well as positive
perspectives of people inside the group. In other words, social
Table I Characteristics of rational and emotional brand identities
Highly rational brand
identity
Highly emotional brand
identity
Attributes Specific and product-related Abstract and non-product-
related
Benefits Functional and experiential Symbolic and experiential
Attitudes Reason-oriented Affective-oriented
Figure 1 Brand identity –cognitive style fit framework
BI-CS
Fit
No
Fit
No
Fit
BI-CS
Fit
Highly
Emotional BI
Highly
Rational BI
Intuitive
Cognitive Style
Analytic
Cognitive Style
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
identity theory states that people within a group discriminate
against people outside the group to enhance their self-image
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979).
Thus far, the importance of the relationship between BI-CS
fit and CBBE has been discussed. Nevertheless, based on
previous research, this paper also posits that BI-CS fitisnot
sufficient to build strong brands. In line with Baalbaki and
Guzmán’s (2016) brand equity dimension of social influence–
which establishes that consumers value brands according to
how they believe a brand improves the way they are perceived
by others, make a good impression on other people, gives them
social approval, and helps them feel socially accepted–and
drawing on Kelman’s (1958) social influence theory, this paper
proposes a relationship between internalization, identification
and compliance and CBBE. It is important to note that when
referring to identification, this research considers identification
with the messenger–i.e. the brand–as described in Kelman’s
(1958) social influence theory, and not identification with a
group as in Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) identification theory.
Kelman (1958) describes influence as attitude change
produced by external messages. In similar words, Venkatesh
et al. (2002) define social influence as “the degree to which a
person believes that people who are important to him or her
want that person to perform a particular behavior.”Individuals
are induced into an attitude change (i.e. influence) depending
on the intensity of the message, and this intensity can be higher
or lower depending on three forms of influence: compliance,
identification and internalization.
The most rudimentary form of influence is compliance, which
occurs when people accept influence to create a promising
reaction from another person or group (Kelman, 1958). This
form of social influence could occur, for example, when a brand
lowers its prices or uses promotions to get a single buying
response from consumers’compliance. The second level of
social influence is identification, which occurs when a subject
accepts influence to create a positive impression or relationship
with another person or group (Kelman, 1958). In this case, the
subject recognizes the influence, not because of the content of
the message, but because he or she feels attracted to the
influencer–in this case, the brand. A consumer, for instance,
may accept a brand because he or she feels identified with (or
attracted to) its logo design, people in its advertising, friends
who use the brand, the colors on its package or the appearance
of the company’s owner or spokesperson. The third level of
social influence is internalization, which occurs when the subject
accepts the influence because of the ideas, actions and values
proposed within the message (Kelman, 1958). According to
Kelman, internalization is the deepest level of influence, which
leads to a change in attitude that is intrinsically rewarding
because the message–in this case, the brand and its advertising–
is congruent with the subject’s value system. For example, a
consumer may accept a brand because he or she values the way
the company treats its employees, the essence of innovation
that the brand is based on, or even the cultural values of the
country in which the corporation has its headquarters.
Sometimes consumers may buy products because they want
to comply with the seller or with a third party. This is the
“compliance”form of social influence. For instance, some
apartment complexes mandate that consumers use only one
internet or cable service provider. Therefore, consumers must
hire these services to comply with management policies.
Similarly, consumers may purchase insurance just to comply
with their company’s policies or state or federal laws. In other
words, sometimes consumers buy products or services
influenced by a pressure that we suggest, will be
counterproductive to the value of the brand. This paper, thus,
posits that when consumers feel a form of compliance toward a
brand identity, they will perceive a lower brand value:
H2. Consumers’compliance over a brand identity will create
a weaker brand image that will translate into lower
CBBE.
Furthermore, when consumers shape a brand image that is
highly congruent with a firm’s proposed brand identity, the
level of perceived brand equity amongst consumers is going to
differ. For instance, two consumers may have a clear brand
image of Apple, congruent with the brand identity proposed by
the company, but one consumer may perceive Apple as more
valuable than the other because he or she may feel more
identified with the personality of the brand. Building upon this
idea, and in congruence with Kelman’s identification form of
influence, this research posits that consumers will perceive
higher brand equity when they feel identified with the brand
identity of the firm:
H3. Consumers’identification with a brand identity will
create a stronger brand image that will translate into a
higher CBBE.
Retaking the Apple example, and having two consumers that
have a congruent brand image with the firm’sproposed
brand identity, a consumer may perceive Apple as more
valuable than the other because he or she may share the
values associated with the brand. Building upon this idea,
andincongruencewithKelman’s internalization form of
influence, this research posits that consumers will perceive
higher brand equity when the brand identity is congruent
with the consumer’s values:
H4. Consumers’internalization of a brand identity will create
a stronger brand image that will translate into a higher
CBBE.
The research model that summarizes the four proposed
hypotheses is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Brand identity –CBBE framework
CBBE
BI – CS Fit
Compliance
towards the
Brand
Idenficaon
with the
Brand
Internalizaon
with the
Brand
H1+
H2–
H3+
H4+
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Research method
An experiment comprised of two steps was developed to test
the hypotheses. Step 1 examined the effect that brand identity–
CS fit has on CBBE. Step 2 evaluated the effect that the three
elements of social influence–compliance, identification
and internalization–have on CBBE. Following the
recommendations of Good and Hardin (2012), and with the
objective of avoiding confounding variables, an international
brand unknown to the US market–Nutri-milk–was used to
create the stimuli and conditions: an emotional brand identity
and a rational brand identity. The use of a milk brand was
considered appropriate given that it is a mass-consumed
commodity and, as such, more difficult to create brand
differentiation, loyalty and value (Punniyamoorthy et al.,
2011), enhancing the value of this experiment. Two similar
advertisements and press releases that included either
emotional elements of the brand or rational elements of a brand
were created to manipulate brand identity. Given the
experimental nature of this study, a student sample was used
with the objective of increasing its internal validity (Brinberg
and McGrath, 1985;Hanel and Vione, 2016).
In total, 252 students (50 per cent female, M
age
=28.7,SD=
3.19), selected from a large public university located in the south-
central USA, participated in the two-step experimental study in
exchange for extra credit. After checking for incomplete
responses, those that followed a pattern or that took less than
5 min, 241 responses were deemed usable. Participants were
randomly selected to either the emotional or the rational
condition and then exposed to the manipulation. A manipulation
check, using six questions on a five-point Likert scale agree vs
disagree that this ad for Nutri-milk is rational or emotional,
confirmed that the brand identities were either rational or
emotional. A t-test found significant differences between both
brand identities’level of reason (MRational = 3.83,
MEmotional = 3.57, p = 0.01) and emotion (MRational = 2.87,
MEmotional = 3.55, p<0.01). Following, participants answered
questions regarding their CS using Allinson and Hayes (1996)
CS index. On step two of this experiment, participants were
exposed to another stimulus–one of two press releases, presented
in the appendices–assigned randomly to improve internal
validity. One press release included innovative and liberal values
and the other traditional and conservative values. Respondents
then answered questions that gathered information about the
level of compliance, identification and internalization with the
brand identities they were exposed to, based on previous studies
by Kang and Schuett (2013). To assure construct validity, a Q-
test was performed on three doctoral students who related the
questions to the groups that were intended. Finally, the survey
measured the perceived value of the brand using Baalbaki and
Guzmán’s (2016) CBBE scale dimensions–quality, preference,
sustainability and social influence–on a five-point Likert scale for
each item.
Results
Before testing the hypotheses, all scale items measuring social
influence dimensions and perceived CBBE were first subjected
to exploratory factor analysis (EFA). All factors were examined
for internal consistency. The results of the EFA (factor
structure with varimax rotation) of the final items are presented
in Table II. The scale items for the dimensions of social
influence and all items of CBBE were next studied for internal
consistency (using alpha scores) and convergent and
discriminant validity using inter-item correlation scores
(Tables III and IV). All inter-factor correlations within factors
were higher than the correlations across factors, satisfying the
essential criteria for discriminant validity (Churchill, 1979).
Additionally, most of the alpha scores were above 0.75,
demonstrating acceptable levels of internal consistency
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1978).
Estimates for all constructs were obtained by averaging
answers to the items related to each construct. The
hypothesized relationships were tested using ANOVA on
SPSS. A 2 (CS: analytical vs intuitive) 2 (brand identity:
rational vs emotional) between-subjects experimental design
was used, with CBBE as the dependent variable. First, H1 was
tested and checked for significance using brand identity and CS
as factors, and CBBE as the dependent variable. The results
indicate that the interaction between BI-CS fit has a significant
positive relationship with CBBE (p<0.01, R
2
= 0.042)
supporting H1. Planned contrasts revealed that analytical
cognitive-style participants reported significantly higher CBBE
when they were exposed to a rational brand identity (M = 3.3,
SD = 0.048) in comparison to an emotional brand identity
(M = 3.13, SD = 0.05, 95 per cent CI [0.027, 0.301], p<
0.05). Conversely, intuitive cognitive-style participants
reported higher CBBE when they were exposed to an
emotional brand identity (M = 3.29, SD = 0.05) in comparison
to a rational brand identity (M = 3.14, SD = 0.05, 95 per cent
CI [0.00, 0.29], p<0.05).
Next, the relationship was tested again using internalization,
identification and compliance as covariates in the ANOVA with
brand identity and CS as factors and CBBE as the dependent
variable (Table V). Correlations between CS and the three
components of social influence were measured finding no
correlation (p>0.10). Furthermore, the results show that the
relationship between compliance and BI-CS fit is not
significant (p= 0.382), not supporting H2. However, the
relationships between internalization and identification and BI-
CS fit are significant at a less than 0.001 level, supporting H3
and H4. The complete model’sR
2
is 56.2 per cent. Table VI
provides a summary of the results of all the tested hypotheses
and Figure 3 presents the interactions between CS and brand
identity.
Discussion
This paper aimed to empirically test the effect of BI-CS fiton
creating a stronger brand image to increase the perceived value
of a brand, and to understand the effect of social influence on
the perceived value of a brand. The study contributes to the
branding literature by introducing the CS concept to better
understand the influence of emotional and rational brand
identities on consumers with either rational or intuitive
cognitive thinking styles, and reinforce the importance of the
brand duality concept (Keller, 2001).
The study finds that, as expected, a rational brand identity is
given a higher perceived brand value by analytic CS consumers
than intuitive CS consumers. Conversely, an emotional brand
identity is given a higher perceived brand value by intuitive CS
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
consumers than analytic CS consumers. This finding is
relatively intuitive and simply serves to test the basic
assumption of this study. Not surprisingly, the R
2
for this
relationship without social influence as a covariate is low
(0.058). This result was expected and previously discussed.
Indeed, predominantly analytic thinkers find a brand identity
more appealing when built on rational rather than emotional
associations. Analytic CS individuals tend to have a logical
processing of information (Allinson and Hayes, 1996), which
explains why they prefer functional associations on a brand
Table II Rotated factor structure
Rotated component matrix
a
Component
1234567
I believe that Nutri-milk would perform consistently 0.837
I believe that Nutri-milk would have a consistent quality 0.816
I believe that Nutri-milk would have an acceptable standard of quality 0.804
It seems that Nutri-milk would be consistent in the quality it offers 0.779
I believe that Nutri-milk would be well made 0.779
It seems that the quality of Nutri-milk is extremely high 0.623 0.587
It seems that Nutri-milk has very high reliability 0.618
I would not buy other brand if Nutri-milk was available at the store 0.778
I see myself becoming loyal to nutri-milk 0.769
Nutri-milk would become my first choice of milk 0.733
I see myself committed to buy Nutri-milk 0.730
By buying Nutri-milk I would feel a sense of “ownership”of the brand 0.711
I would talk about Nutri-milk with my colleagues as being an amazing brand 0.701
By buying Nutri-milk I feel a sense of belonging to the brand’s community 0.669
Nutri-milk would improve the way I am perceived by others 0.827
Nutri-milk would make a good impression on other people 0.802
Nutri-milk would give its owner social approval 0.800
Nutri-milk would help me feel accepted 0.526 0.678
Nutri-milk is an environmentally responsible brand 0.823
Nutri-milk is an environmentally safe brand 0.799
Nutri-milk is a sustainable brand 0.726
Nutri-milk is a healthy brand 0.621
It seems like Nutri-milk and I have similar believes 0.885
I believe that nutri-milk and I have similar values 0.847
I like what nutri-milk stands for 0.640
Unless nutri-milk is cheaper than other milk brands, I see no reason to buy it 0.772
Unless I am rewarded for buying Nutri-milk, I see no reason to change from my current milk
brand
0.741
I would buy Nutri-milk only if I feel pressured to buy it 0.683
It seems that the functionality of nutri-milk is extremely high 0.749
I believe that the performance of Nutri-milk would be very high 0.523 0.595
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization;
a
Rotation converged in seven iterations
Table III Social influence inter-item correlation
Q7_1 Q7_3 Q7_4 Q7_6 Q7_7 Q7_8 Q7_9 Q7_10 Q7_11
Q7_1 1 0.612 0.579 0.412 0.339 0.246 0.184 0.083 0.226
Q7_3 0.612 1 0.853 0.297 0.349 0.301 0.1650.099 0.129
Q7_4 0.579 0.853 1 0.345 0.410 0.337 0.118 0.1550.100
Q7_6 0.412 0.297 0.345 1 0.676 0.562 0.316 0.193 0.055
Q7_7 0.339 0.349 0.410 0.676 1 0.661 0.316 0.199 0.075
Q7_8 0.246 0.301 0.337 0.562 0.661 10.251 0.189 0.010
Q7_9 0.184 0.1650.118 0.316 0.316 0.251 1 0.534 0.334
Q7_10 0.083 0.099 0.1550.193 0.199 0.189 0.534 1 0.263
Q7_11 0.226 0.1290.100 0.055 0.075 0.010 0.334 0.263 1
Notes: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Table IV CBBE Inter-item correlation
Q9_1 Q9_2 Q9_3 Q9_4 Q9_5 Q9_6 Q9_7 Q9_8 Q9_9 Q9_10 Q9_11 Q9_12 Q9_13 Q9_14 Q9_15 Q9_16 Q9_17 Q9_18 Q9_19 Q9_20 Q9_21
Q9_1 1 0.752 0.580 0.572 0.534 0.516 0.506 0.568 0.546 0.276 0.289 0.251 0.291 0.307 0.289 0.335 0.352 0.1390.182 0.1540.139
Q9_2 0.752 1 0.616 0.650 0.518 0.649 0.670 0.654 0.647 0.230 0.225 0.1560.200 0.332 0.343 0.371 0.413 0.101 0.1310.167 0.089
Q9_3 0.580 0.616 1 0.682 0.628 0.517 0.452 0.555 0.585 0.322 0.322 0.214 0.274 0.361 0.370 0.399 0.354 0.1430.168 0.179 0.246
Q9_4 0.572 0.650 0.682 1 0.634 0.574 0.473 0.599 0.641 0.249 0.226 0.1430.1570.325 0.329 0.260 0.309 0.030 0.091 0.1540.137
Q9_5 0.534 0.518 0.628 0.634 1 0.390 0.381 0.452 0.406 0.238 0.272 0.1610.201 0.327 0.311 0.380 0.274 0.074 0.055 0.068 0.123
Q9_6 0.516 0.649 0.517 0.574 0.390 1 0.763 0.581 0.613 0.225 0.1440.1310.1370.317 0.289 0.347 0.406 0.047 0.083 0.062 0.099
Q9_7 0.506 0.670 0.452 0.473 0.381 0.763 1 0.652 0.565 0.259 0.208 0.209 0.203 0.234 0.288 0.309 0.376 0.1400.1480.1490.116
Q9_8 0.568 0.654 0.555 0.599 0.452 0.581 0.652 1 0.728 0.249 0.186 0.117 0.198 0.286 0.339 0.379 0.396 0.075 0.091 0.077 0.084
Q9_9 0.546 0.647 0.585 0.641 0.406 0.613 0.565 0.728 1 0.329 0.222 0.176 0.213 0.342 0.315 0.405 0.427 0.075 0.084 0.1280.077
Q9_10 0.276 0.230 0.322 0.249 0.238 0.225 0.259 0.249 0.329 1 0.731 0.624 0.626 0.246 0.193 0.185 0.195 0.382 0.387 0.455 0.509
Q9_11 0.289 0.225 0.322 0.226 0.272 0.1440.208 0.186 0.222 0.731 1 0.714 0.744 0.336 0.275 0.254 0.208 0.482 0.492 0.544 0.589
Q9_12 0.251 0.1560.214 0.1430.1610.1310.209 0.117 0.176 0.624 0.714 1 0.678 0.230 0.241 0.189 0.120 0.429 0.407 0.454 0.564
Q9_13 0.291 0.200 0.274 0.1570.201 0.1370.203 0.198 0.213 0.626 0.744 0.678 1 0.359 0.325 0.283 0.187 0.554 0.498 0.539 0.599
Q9_14 0.307 0.332 0.361 0.325 0.327 0.317 0.234 0.286 0.342 0.246 0.336 0.230 0.359 1 0.813 0.551 0.429 0.237 0.233 0.249 0.241
Q9_15 0.289 0.343 0.370 0.329 0.311 0.289 0.288 0.339 0.315 0.193 0.275 0.241 0.325 0.813 1 0.546 0.474 0.193 0.193 0.173 0.208
Q9_16 0.335 0.371 0.399 0.260 0.380 0.347 0.309 0.379 0.405 0.185 0.254 0.189 0.283 0.551 0.546 1 0.612 0.218 0.1610.176 0.180
Q9_17 0.352 0.413 0.354 0.309 0.274 0.406 0.376 0.396 0.427 0.195 0.208 0.120 0.187 0.429 0.474 0.612 1 0.186 0.115 0.1540.122
Q9_18 0.1390.101 0.1430.030 0.074 0.047 0.1400.075 0.075 0.382 0.482 0.429 0.554 0.237 0.193 0.218 0.186 1 0.694 0.712 0.712
Q9_19 0.182 0.1310.168 0.091 0.055 0.083 0.1480.091 0.084 0.387 0.492 0.407 0.498 0.233 0.193 0.1610.115 0.694 1 0.770 0.626
Q9_20 0.1540.167 0.179 0.1540.068 0.062 0.1490.077 0.1280.455 0.544 0.454 0.539 0.249 0.173 0.176 0.1540.712 0.770 1 0.722
Q9_21 0.1390.089 0.246 0.1370.123 0.099 0.116 0.084 0.077 0.509 0.589 0.564 0.599 0.241 0.208 0.180 0.122 0.712 0.626 0.722 1
Notes: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
identity. On the other hand, predominantly intuitive thinkers
process information at a macro level, guiding their decision on
hunches rather than logical explanations (Allinson and Hayes,
1996), which is why they would favor a brand identity when is
built on emotional rather than rational associations.
However, the more important contribution of this study is
identifying that whether the brand identity is more emotional or
rational is less important than the values and beliefs that the
brand communicates to create social influence. Introducing the
social influence dimensions (i.e. compliance, identification and
internalization) into the model increased the R
2
to 0.562.
Moreover, the findings show that to have a considerable effect,
the level of social influence of the message has to be medium to
high. As the lack of support of H2 shows, compliance is not
enough for the relationship to be significant either in a positive
or negative way. In other words, people feeling forced to
comply is not enough to influence the perceived brand image
neither positively or negatively, and therefore, does not reduce
perceived brand value, as originally expected. It is only when
social influence reaches the levels of identification and
internalization that it does. BI-CS fit creates a stronger brand
image leading to an increased perceived brand value, but only
when the consumer feels a certain level of identification with
the brand. In other words, when the brand actually represents
or stands for something the consumer cares about. These
results support Baalbaki and Guzmán’s (2016) finding that a
key dimension of perceived brand equity is a brand’s level of
social influence. They are also in line with Fournier’s (1998)
Table V ANOVA results
Tests of between-subjects effects
Dependent variable: perceived value of the brand
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean square FSig. Partial eta squared Noncent. parameter Observed power
b
Corrected model 45.568
a
6 7.595 49.972 0.000 0.562 299.832 1.000
Intercept 14.861 1 14.861 97.785 0.000 0.295 97.785 1.000
I_INT 5.160 1 5.160 33.953 0.000 0.127 33.953 1.000
I_ID 18.370 1 18.370 120.873 0.000 0.341 120.873 1.000
I_COMP 0.116 1 0.116 0.766 0.382 0.003 0.766 0.140
Cog.Style 0.003 1 0.003 0.018 0.894 0.000 0.018 0.052
BrandID 0.005 1 0.005 0.030 0.862 0.000 0.030 0.053
Cog.Style *BrandID 1.414 1 1.414 9.306 0.003 0.038 9.306 0.860
Error 35.563 234 0.152
Total 2580.624 241
Corrected total 81.131 240
Notes:
a
R
2
= 0.562 (adjusted R
2
= 0.550);
b
Computed using alpha = 0.05
Table VI Results
Hypothesis Result p-value
H1 Supported 0.003
H2 Not supported 0.382
H3 Supported 0.000
H4 Supported 0.000
Note: R
2
= 0.562 (Adjusted R
2
= 0.550)
Figure 3 Interactions
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
brand relationship theory and provide support and an
explanation as to why so many brands today are trying to
engage with consumers (Harmeling et al., 2017) by strongly
aligning with causes that consumers care about (Hoewe and
Hatemi, 2017;Schmidt et al.,2019;Shepherd et al., 2015)and
by getting them involved in the process of co-creating brand
identities (Iglesias et al., 2018;Ind et al.,2019;Kennedy and
Guzmán, 2016,2017;Merz et al.,2018).
Managerial implications
This paper answers Goller et al.’s (2002) call for research on
new and more strategic forms of segmentation. The results
demonstrate the importance of brand duality and show how
firms could present emotional or rational brand identities,
depending on their consumers’CS, to increase the
effectiveness of their messaging. By identifying their
consumers’predominant thinking style and tapping into
social influence factors that increase the levels of
identification with and internalization of the brand, their
brand identity messaging could lead to higher levels of
perceived value. In other words, the results of this study
show that brand managers need to be cognizant of the
potential of communicating brand identities that consumers
understand–based on consumers’CS, that consumers relate
to–basedonidentification form of social influence, and with
values in which consumers believe–basedonthe
internalization form of social influence. With the rise of
social media and the power of data technologies, brand
managers are now equipped with new marketing analytic
tools that can help them identify whether their target
consumers are more intuitive or analytical. By doing so, and
by engaging with consumers to more deeply understand how
they identify with the brand and what they truly care about,
managers can become more effective in their brand
communication to build a stronger brand image, which
translates into a better positioning, and ultimately, a higher
brand value.
Brands such as Nike, Chick-Fil-A, Netflix, Starbucks, Ben
and Jerry’s, Uber, Patagonia or P&G’s Gillette, among many
others, are currently “taking a stand”on certain values or
political ideologies (Schmidt et al., 2019), committing to their
customers deepest beliefs. According to the findings of this
study, this is not a coincidence. Although risking alienating a
certain segment of the market, this article demonstrates that it
might be worth taking that risk to generate a stronger bond with
those consumers that do align with the values the brand
supports. Brands that engage and create synergy with
consumers, by creating brand identities that consumers identify
with and ultimately internalize, create stronger brand images,
which will be reflected on higher values for their brands. In
other words, the most important managerial implication that
this study presents is that the way brand identities are
presented–more emotional or more rational–is not as important
as what brand identities communicate–the core beliefs and
values of a brand. Brand managers must be cognizant that
identities can be emotional or rational, and this creates more or
less value depending on the consumers’CS, but what is more
important is that consumers internalize the brand’s message or
identify with what the brand represents. Hence, a brand
identity that portrays reasons or emotions that the consumer
can identify with and, ultimately, internalize will most likely be
more effective in generating higher levels of perceived value (i.e.
becoming a strong brand). Although these concepts had been
discussed in prior literature, the contribution that this paper
makes is tying them all together which, to the best of our
knowledge, had not been done.
In sum, the findings of this article contribute to the branding
literature by demonstrating that intuitive consumers assign
more value to brands that communicate emotional messages,
while analytical consumers assign more value to brands that
communicate rational messages. Furthermore, this study also
finds that CBBE increases as long as consumers’values are
aligned with the overt values of the brand. In other words,
brands that openly express their values and beliefs could
experience an upsurge in the perceived value of the brand,
independently of how these brands communicate their values
and beliefs.
Limitations and future research
The framework presented in this paper was tested using a
student sample (Hanel and Vione, 2016). Although the
sampling is appropriate given the experimental nature of
the study, future research could further validate the model and
strengthen the theory-building by providing empirical evidence
that supports this framework using a more representative
sample. The nature of this study opens the door for more
research, especially in new ways to understand consumers’CS
and how brands can get consumers to engage to influence their
aspirations and beliefs so they can profoundly identify with and
internalize the values of the brand.
A second potential limitationof this study is that it relied on a
brand with which subjects had never interacted. Although this
was done intentionally to isolate the effects that were being
measured and to take care of the internal validity threat and any
potential biases that consumers could have had form past
exposure to the brand, in reality, the experience that consumers
have with brands can change its value for better or for worse.
For instance, if a product’s quality is bellow a consumer’s
expectations, the brand image may be affected despite the
branding efforts made by the firm to create a high-quality
identity.
A third limitation of this study is that it relies on cross-
sectional data. Future research could consider the use of
respondents’current brand knowledge and examine the
changes in CBBE (Muniz et al.,2019) to further understand
how the examined constructs shape brands. For instance,
researchers could examine CBBE in the event of variations in
brand campaigns.
Finally, for this study, the emotional and rational brand
identities were built from scratch. Even though subjects
categorized the emotional brand identity as emotional and the
rational brand identity as rational, there are different emotions
that could trigger different responses. For example, for this
study, the emotion of happiness was triggered by talking about
love to the subjects’families. Future research could explore if
different types of emotions have different levels of effect or how
triggering different types of emotions affects CBBE on
consumers with different CS.
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on
the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Ailawadi, K.L. and Harlam, B. (2004), “An empirical analysis
of the determinants of retail margins: the role of store-brand
share”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 147-165.
Allinson, C. and Hayes, J. (1996), “The cognitive style
index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational
research”,Journal of Management Studies,Vol.33No.1,
pp. 119-135.
Armstrong, S.J. and Qi, M. (2016), “A reassessment of the
factor structure of the Allinson-Hayes cognitive style index”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 101, pp. 240-242.
Armstrong, S.J., Cool, E. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2012), “Role
of cognitive styles in business and management: reviewing 40
years of research”,International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 238-262.
Aurier, P. and Gilles Séré, D.L. (2012), “Impacts of perceived
brand relationship orientation on attitudinal loyalty”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1602-1627.
Baalbaki, S. and Guzmán, F. (2016), “A consumer-perceived
consumer-based brand equity scale”,Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,pp. 229-251.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), “Antecedents and
purchase consequences of customer participation in small
group brand communities”,International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1,pp. 45-61.
Batra, R. and Ray, M.L. (1986), “Affective responses
mediating acceptance of advertising”,Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 234-249.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005),
“Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-
psychological forces, and organizational climate”,MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009),
“Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty?”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 52-68.
Brinberg, D. and McGrath, J.E. (1985), Validity and Research
Process, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), “The importance of
the brand in brand extension”,Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 214-228.
Buchanan, L., Simmons, C.J. and Bickart, B.A. (1999),
“Brand equity dilution: retailer display and context brand
effects”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 345-355.
Chan, C., Berger, J. and Van Boven, L. (2012), “Identifiable
but not identical: combining social identity and uniqueness
motives in choice”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 561-573.
Cheadle, H. (2019), “Companies are realizing that being
publicly conservative is really unpopular”, available at: www.
vice.com/en_us/article/7x5v9y/companies-are-realizing-that-
being-publicly-conservative-is-really-unpopular (accessed
11 November 2019).
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs”,Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Cowan, K. and Guzmán, F. (2018), “How CSR reputation,
sustainability signals, and country-of-origin sustainability
reputation contribute to corporate brand performance: an
exploratory study”,Journal of Business Research, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.017
Cui, C.C., Mrad, M. and Hogg, M.K. (2018), “Brand
addiction: exploring the concept and its definition through
an experiential lens”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 87,
pp. 118-127.
Davcik, N.S., da Silva, R.V. and Hair, J.F. (2015), “Towards a
unified theory of brand equity: conceptualizations, taxonomy
and avenues for future research”,Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1,pp. 3-17.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998), “Defining a
brand: beyond the literature with experts’interpretations”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 417-443.
Dichter, E. (1985), “What’s in an image”,Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 75-81.
Dolich, I.J. (1969), “Congruence relationships between self
images and product brands”,Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 80-84.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2003), “You are what they eat:
the influence of reference groups on consumers’connections
to brands”,Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 339-348.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal,
reference groups, and brand meaning”,Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Gardner, M.P. (1985), “Does attitude toward the ad affect
brand attitude under a brand evaluation set?”,Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 192-198.
Gehani, R. (2001), “Enhancing brand equity and reputational
capital with enterprise-wide complementary innovations”,
Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35-48.
Ghodeswar, B.M. (2008), “Building brand identity in
competitive markets: a conceptual model”,Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 4-12.
Glynn, M.S., Brodie, R.J. and Motion, J. (2012), “The benefits
of manufacturer brands to retailers”,European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1127-1149.
Goller, S., Hogg, A. and Kalafatis, S.P. (2002), “A new
research agenda for business segmentation”,European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, pp. 252-271.
Good, P.I. and Hardin, J.W. (2012), Common Errors in Statistics
(and How to Avoid Them), John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
Graeff, T.R. (1996), “Using promotional messages to manage
the effects of brand and self-image on brand evaluations”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 4-18.
Grubb, E.L. and Hupp, G. (1968), “Perception of self,
generalized stereotypes, and brand selection”,Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 58-63.
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Guzmán, F., Montaña, J. and Sierra, V. (2006), “Brand
building by associating to public services: a reference group
influence model”,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13
Nos 4/5, pp. 353-362. Nos
Guzmán, F., Paswan, A. and Fabrize, B. (2017), “Crossing the
border: changes in self and brands”,Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 306-318.
Hamelin, N., El Moujahid, O. and Thaichon, P. (2017),
“Emotion and advertising effectiveness: a novel facial
expression analysis approach”,Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp. 103-111.
Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding
and corporate brand performance”,European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-456.
Hanel, P.H. and Vione, K.C. (2016), “Do student samples
provide an accurate estimate of the general public?”,PloS
One, Vol. 11 No. 12, p. e0168354.
Harmeling, C.M., Moffett, J.W., Arnold, M.J. and Carlson,
B.D. (2017), “Toward a theory of customer engagement
marketing”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 312-335.
Hayes, J. and Allinson, C.W. (1994), “Cognitive style and its
relevance for management practice”,British Journal of
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp.53-71.
Heinberg, M., Ozkaya, H.E. and Taube, M. (2018), “Do
corporate image and reputation drive brand equity in India
and China? –Similarities and differences”,Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 86, pp. 259-268.
Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R. (1987), “Assessing the role of
emotions as mediators of consumer responses to
advertising”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 404-420.
Holt, D.B. (2004), How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of
Cultural Branding, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.
Holt, D.B. (2006), “Jack Daniel’s America iconic brands as
ideological parasites and proselytizers”,Journal of Consumer
Culture, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 355-377.
Hoewe, J. and Hatemi, P.K. (2017), “Brand loyalty is
influenced by the activation of political orientations”,Media
Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 428-449.
Iglesias, O. and Bonet, E. (2012), “Persuasive brand
management”,Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 251-264.
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Bagherzadeh, M. and Singh, J.J.
(2018), “Co-creation: a key link between corporate social
responsibility, customer trust, and customer loyalty”,Journal
of Business Ethics, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-018-4015-y
Ind, N., Coates, N. and Lerman, K. (2019), “The gift of co-
creation: what motivates customers to participate”,Journal of
Brand Management, available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41262-019-00173-7
Kang, M. and Schuett, M.A. (2013), “Determinants of sharing
travel experiences in social media”,Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2, pp. 93-107.
Kapferer, N.J. (1992), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan
Page, London.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity”,Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity: a
blueprint for creating strong brands”, MSI Report,
pp. 1-107.
Keller, K.L. (2009), “Building strong brands in a modern
marketing communications environment”,Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 139-155.
Keller, K.L. (2013), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Pearson Education,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2003), “How do brands
create value?”,Marketing Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 26-31.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and
branding: research findings and future priorities”,Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-759.
Kelman, H.C. (1958), “Compliance, identification, and
internalization: three processes of attitude change”,Journal
of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 51-60.
Kennedy, E. and Guzmán, F. (2016), “Co-creation of brand
identities: consumer and industry influence and
motivations”,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 313-323.
Kennedy, E. and Guzmán, F. (2017), “When perceived ability
to influence plays a role: brand co-creation in web 2.0”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management,Vol.26No.4,
pp. 342-350.
Leone, R.P., Rao, V.R., Kevin, L.K., Luo, A.M., McAlister, L.
and Srivastava, R. (2006), “Linking brand equity to
customer equity”,Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 125-138.
Lutz, R.J. (1980), The Role of Attitude Theory in Marketing,
Center for Marketing Studies, University of CA, Los
Angeles, CA.
Lutz, R.J., MacKenzie, S.B. and Belch, G.E. (1983), “Attitude
toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness:
Determinants and consequences”, in Bagozzi, R.P. and
Tybout, A.M. (Eds), NA-Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 10, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Abor,
MI, pp. 532-539.
MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. and Belch, G.E. (1986), “The role
of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising
effectiveness: a test of competing explanations”,Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-143.
Malhotra, Y. and Galletta, D. (2005), “A multidimensional
commitment model of volitional systems adoption and usage
behavior”,Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 117-151.
Margulies, W.P. (1977), “Make most of your corporate
identity”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 66-74.
Merz, M.A., Zarantonello, L. and Grappi, S. (2018), “How
valuable are your customers in the brand value co-creation
process? The development of a customer co-creation value
(CCCV) scale”,Journal of Business Research,Vol.82No.1,
pp. 79-89.
Messick, S. (1976), “Personality consistencies in cognition and
creativity”, in Messick, S. (Ed.), Individuality in Learning,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 4-22.
Messick, S. (1984), “The nature of cognitive styles: problems
and promise in educational practice”,Educational
Psychologist, Vol. 19No. 2, pp. 59-74.
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Monga, A.B. and John, D.R. (2010), “What makes brands
elastic? The influence of brand concept and styles of thinking
on brand extension evaluation”,Journal of Marketing,Vol.74
No. 3, pp. 80-92.
Moon, J.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2001), “Extending the TAM for a
world-wide-web context”,Information & Management,
Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 217-230.
Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand
community”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 412-432.
Muniz, F., Guzmán, F., Paswan, A. and Crawford, H. (2019),
“The immediate effect of corporate social responsibility on
consumer-based brand equity”,Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 28 No. 7,pp. 864-879.
Nandan, S. (2005), “An exploration of the brand identity–
brand image linkage: a communications perspective”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 264-278.
Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1978), Psychometric Theory,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”,Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44.
Page, T.J., Thorson, E. and Heide, M.P. (1990), “The
memory impact of commercials varying in emotional appeal
and product involvement”, in Agres, S.J., Edell, J.A. and
Dubitsky, T.M. (Eds), Emotion in Advertising, Quorum
Books, New York, NY, pp. 255-268.
Pappu, R. and Quester, P.G. (2016), “How does brand
innovativeness affect brand loyalty?”,European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50 Nos 1/2, pp. 2-28.
Park, C.W. and Young, S.M. (1986), “Consumer response to
television commercials: the impact of involvement and
background music on brand attitude formation”,Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 11-24.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Maclnnis, D.J. (1986),
“Strategic Brand concept-image management”,Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-145.
Plummer, J.T. (1985), “How personality makes a difference”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 27-31.
Poels, K. and Dewitte, S. (2006), “How to capture the heart?
Reviewing 20 years of emotion measurement in advertising”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 18-37.
Punniyamoorthy, M., Mahadevan, B. and Shetty, N. (2011),
“A framework for assessment of brand loyalty score for
commodities”,Journal of Targeting, Measurement and
Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 19Nos 3/4, pp. 243-260.
Riding, R. and Rayner, S. (2013), Cognitive Styles and Learning
Strategies: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and
Behavior, Routledge, Oxford.
Roy, D. and Banerjee, S. (2014), “Identification and
measurement of brand identity and image gap: a quantitative
approach”,Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 207-219.
Roy, R. and Rabbanee, F.K. (2015), “Antecedents and
consequences of self-congruity”,European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 3/4, pp. 444-466.
Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2000), Consumer Behavior,
7th ed., Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Schmidt, H., Ind, N. and Guzmán, F. (2019), “Politically
conscious brands: insights into consumer attitudes and
managerial perceptions”, in Baumgarth, C. and Boltz, D.M.
(Eds), Booklet of Abstracts from the 14th Global Brand
Conference of the AM’s Brand, Identity and Corporate
Reputation SIG, Academy of Marketing-Brand SIG, Berlin,
p. 54.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Are there universal aspects in the
structure and contents of human values?”,Journal of Social
Issues, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 19-45.
Schwartz, S.H. (1999), “A theory of cultural values and some
implications for work”,Applied Psychology,Vol.48No.1,
pp. 23-47.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001), “Value hierarchies across
cultures taking a similarities perspective”,Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 268-290.
Schwartz, S.H. and Boehnke, K. (2004), “Evaluating the
structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis”,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 230-255.
Schwartz, S.H., Sagiv, L. and Boehnke, K. (2000), “Worries
and values”,Journal of Personality, Vol. 68 No. 2,
pp. 309-346.
Shepherd, S., Chartrand, T.L. and Fitzsimons, G.J. (2015),
“When brands reflect our ideal world: the values and brand
preferences of consumers who support versus reject society’s
dominant ideology”,Journal of Consumer Research,Vol.42
No. 1, pp. 76-92.
Shimp, T.A. (1981), “Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of
consumer brand choice”,Journal of Advertising,Vol.10
No. 2, pp. 9-48.
Steenkamp, J.B.E., Van Heerde, H.J. and Geyskens, I. (2010),
“What makes consumers willing to pay a price premium for
national brands over private labels?”,Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1011-1024.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (Eds),
The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Wiley, New
York, NY, pp. 33-47.
Torelli, C.J., Monga, A.B. and Kaikati, A.M. (2012), “Doing
poorly by doing good: corporate social responsibility and
brand concepts”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38
No. 5, pp. 948-963.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C. and Morris, M.G. (2002), “User
acceptance enablers in individual decision making about
technology: toward an integrated model”,Decision Sciences,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Veloutsou, C. and Guzmán, F. (2017), “The evolution of
brand management thinking over the last 25 years as
recorded in the journal of product and brand management”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management,Vol.26No.1,
pp. 2-12.
Watkins, B.A. (2014), “Revisiting the social identity-brand
equity model: an application to professional sports”,Journal
of Sport Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 471-480.
White, K. and Dahl, D.W. (2007), “Are all out-groups created
equal? Consumer identity and dissociative influence”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 525-536.
Wilkie, W.L. (1986), Consumer Behavior, Wiley, New York,
NY.
Yuan, R., Liu, M.J., Luo, J. and Yen, D.A. (2016), “Reciprocal
transfer of brand identity and image associations arising from
higher education brand extensions”,Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3069-3076.
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Appendix
Conservative press release
Please take a couple of minutes to read the following press
release:
Nutri, the South American brand that wants to be part of the
tradition of American families
March 2017. After building and maintaining a strong
presence in South America for 40 years, Nutri is ready to be
part of the American families, beginning in fall of 2017.
The initiative to expand beyond the borders of South-
America comes after the brand has reached a point near
perfection in food security. Nutri’s products are expected to
be on the shelves of the main grocery retailers at the beginning
of September.
Nutri is a family-owned and family-operated company with
renowned prestige in the world of dairy products. The
traditional and perfectionist family behind the brand respects
the conservative values of the American society and fully
supports the decision to get into the American market.
American consumers demand high quality and food safety.
Therefore, Nutri relies on a permanent ally: Tetra Pak, a
Swedish multinational with a presence in over 170 countries,
which supports Nutri with the best packaging to reassure
American families with secure and high-quality products.
For Rigoberto Moncayo, CEO of Nutri, “It is a dream come
true to sell Nutri in the USA. We share the great traditional
values of the American families, and I am a true believer in the
American dream. I trust that this expansion will be beneficial
both for Nutri and American families”.
Nutri expects to become the leading dairy brand in
America in a few years by using a conservative marketing
campaign, but above all, by focusing on the highest safety
standards for dairy products. The brand’s food safety
recognitions, its corporate values, and above all, its hard-
working men and women, will be the fuel to become part of
American families.
Now, based on this press release, select how well do you
agree with the following statements. Please select based on the
number that closely matches your opinion.
Liberal press release
Please take a couple of minutes to read the following press
release:
Nutri, the South American brand that wants to be part of the
innovation of American people
March 2017. After innovating and building a strong
presence in South America for 40 years, Nutri is ready to be
part of the American families, beginning in fall of 2017.
The initiative to expand beyond the borders of South-
America comes because of the brand’s culture of innovation
and change. Nutri’s products are expected to be on the
shelves of the main grocery retailers at the beginning of
September.
Nutri is a family-owned and family-operated company with
renowned prestige in the world of dairy products. The non-
traditional and innovative family behind the brand respects
the liberal values of American society and fully supports the
decision to get into the American market.
American consumers demand high quality and innovative
products. Therefore, Nutri relies on a permanent ally: Tetra
Pak, a Swedish multinational with a presence in over 170
countries, which supports Nutri with the best packaging to
reassure Americans with creative and high-quality products.
For Rigoberto Moncayo, CEO of Nutri, “It is a dream come
true to sell Nutri in the USA. We share the great open-minded
values of the American people, and I am a true believer in the
American dream. I trust that this expansion will be beneficial
both for Nutri and the American people”.
Nutri expects to become the leading dairy brand in America
in a few years by using an aggressive marketing campaign and
focusing on the highest innovation procedures for dairy
products. The brand’s innovation recognitions, its corporate
values, and above all, its creative men and women, will be the
fuel to become part of American society.
Now, select how well do you agree with the following
statements. Please select based on the number that closely
matches your opinion.
Corresponding author
Francisco Guzmán can be contacted at: francisco.guzman@
unt.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
Journal of Product & Brand Management
