A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework

By J. Austin, Judy A. Siguaw, Anna S. Mattila. 2003

321 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2046c61a62ed16eb238eae9c9ef1e6c8233361ef

How researchers see this paper

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

In Marketing

In Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management

Citations in the corpus

Consumers' perceptions of the dimensions of brand personality (2011, background): “developing and refining scales (e.g. Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2001; Austin et al., 2003) and studying the effects of”
Brand Personality Factor Based Models: A Critical Review (2012, background): “For example, Austin et al. (2003) found that the meanings of trait terms for brands shifted across different categories, whilst Caprara et al. (2001) found evidence of concept-scale interaction with the same adjectives locating against different factors both between brands and human personality,…”
Are Consumer and Brand Personalities the Same (2012, background): “…2004) with most researchers overlooking the potential risks of the scale lacking theoretical and empirical underpinnings from the literature on personality in psychology and other criticisms (Austin et al., 2003; Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Capelli & Jolibert, 2009; Sweeney & Brandon, 2006).”
Charity Brand Personality: The Relationship With Giving Behavior (2008, result): “This is not an easy task as a number of the traits delineated in this study could be interpreted rather differently in different contexts (e.g., Austin et al., 2003; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999).”
Brand Personality in Sport: Dimension Analysis and General Scale Development (2010, unknown): “Agreeing that a measurement study was necessary to fully understand the concept of brand personality, Austin et al. (2003) reexamined Aaker’s BP scale to determine the validity of those findings.”
A new measure of brand personality (2009, background): “For practitioners it is very important that the scale can be used on an industry (for between-brand within-category comparisons) and individual brand level (for between respondent analyses) because this type of studies are most frequently carried out by practitioners (Austin et al., 2003).”
Responsible brands vs active brands? An examination of brand personality on brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty (2017, background): “subject of several critiques: first, researchers argue that Aaker’s scale measures brand identity rather than brand personality (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003); second, the scale is often viewed as too general and simplistic (Austin et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2006); third, the scale does not include n”
Brand personality and human personality: Findings from ratings of familiar Croatian brands (2007, methodology): “Hence, obtaining results by using Aaker's method may have inherent serious limitations regarding the generalizability of the framework (Austin et al., 2003).”
Brand personality: theory and dimensionality (2018, background): “…Management Volume 27 · Number 2 · 2018 · 115–127 Brand personality scales have been criticised for a perceived lack of a clear theoretical underpinning (Austin et al., 2003; Berens and van Riel, 2004; Clardy, 2012) and because many measurement items (such as masculine and feminine) do not…”
A mixed method approach to understanding brand personality (2009, methodology): “While accepting the importance of Aaker's work, Austin et al. (2003)”
The Personality of Luxury Fashion Brands (2010, background): “While the framework claims general applicability across product categories, the dimensions might not be very descriptive for other cultures or specific categories (Austin et al., 2003).”