Brand personality: Exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models

By J. Sweeney, Carol Brandon. 2006

174 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/17aa624dc8029ae791ae142d5dcc64c02c90a372

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Marketing

Citations in the corpus

Are Consumer and Brand Personalities the Same (2012, methodology): “This challenge is supported by other definitions of brand personality, which suggest that it is “the set of human personality traits that correspond to the interpersonal domain of human personality and are relevant to describing the brand as a relationship partner” (Sweeney & Brandon, 2006: 645).”
Assessing university brand personality through logos: an analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding (2013, background): “Knowing how the consumer perceives the brand’s personality, a brand manager can be more strategic in the way they plan and promote their brand (Sweeney & Brandon, 2006).”
Projected and Perceived Destination Brand Personalities (2013, background): “Given that brand impression or evaluation is determined not only by functional facets of the brand but also by symbolic criteria (Sirgy 1982), the personality approach can be useful and is often necessary for marketers to develop a sustainable uniqueness in a marketplace (Sweeny and Brandon 2006).”
Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me (2017, background): “Whereas the above-cited studies focus on positive traits and build on Aaker's work, Sweeney and Brandon (2006) developed a circumplex model that includes negative as well as positive personality characteristics.”
Brand Personality Factor Based Models: A Critical Review (2012, methodology): “Since Aaker’s (1997) article, BP research has been dominated by Aaker’s methodology (Freling et al., 2010), with all but one measurement scale (Sweeney and Brandon, 2006) using factor methods, and new scale development broadly following methods based on those used by Aaker (e.g. Ambroise et al.,…”