How the Personality Traits of Sincerity, Excitement, and Competence Help to Build Equity

Transcription

1 Spokescharacters How the Personality Traits of Sincerity, Excitement, and Competence Help to Build Equity Judith Anne Garretson Folse, Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton Abstract: The effects of spokescharacter personality characteristics on key elements of brand equity are hypothesized and tested in two studies. More specifically, two studies assess the role of the spokescharacter personality characteristics of excitement, sincerity, and competence in affecting brand trust, brand attitude, and willingness to pay a price premium (WPPP). Study 1 results show that excitement and sincerity directly and indirectly affect brand attitude, brand trust, and WPPP. Furthermore, sincerity is more positively linked to brand trust than is excitement. Study 2 results show that a spokescharacter designed in a manner to evoke greater perceived sincerity has a stronger positive impact on trust, brand attitude, and WPPP than a spokescharacter designed to evoke greater competence. Overall, these findings demonstrate that personality-laden spokescharacters featured in advertising campaigns can strengthen these equity-related constructs found important in enhancing consumer brand relationships. Implications for brand and advertising managers are offered. Advertisers have long been involved with developing spokescharacters, considering them as creative elements that promote brand differentiation and avoid brand parity. Here, spokes-characters are defined as humanlike visual images that can symbolically convey a brand s attributes, benefits, or personality (Garretson and Burton 2005). Some examples include Tony the Tiger, the Keebler Elves, and the Aflac Duck. Originally, characters were developed for brand identification and differentiation (Phillips 1996). However, over the past few decades, scholars have begun to discover additional spokescharacter benefits. Recent work has advanced knowledge concerning the influence of spokescharacters on memory and attitudes (Garretson and Niedrich 2004; Neeley and Schumann 2004; Phillips and Lee 2005). However, few, if any, empirical studies have considered the role of spokescharacter characteristics in brandbuilding strategies. Yet there is speculation that specific personality characteristics offer consumers reasons to establish relationships with brands (Aaker 1997; Fournier 1998; Macklin 1996). For instance, Fournier (1998) suggests that spokescharacters enhance consumers perceived relationships Judith Anne Garretson Folse (Ph.D., University of Arkansas) is an associate professor and the V. Price LeBlanc Professor of Marketing, E. J. Ourso College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Richard G. Netemeyer (Ph.D., University of South Carolina) is the Ralph A. Beaton Professor of Free Enterprise, McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Scot Burton (Ph.D., University of Houston) is a professor and holds the Wal-Mart Chair in Marketing, Department of Marketing, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. with brands because their observable humanlike characteristics such as their personalities enhance brand equity. The purpose of this research is to examine the role of personality traits evoked by the appearance of a spokescharacter on brand trust, brand attitude, and willingness to pay price premiums (WPPP), all of which are indicators of the strength of consumer brand relationships. In Study 1, we develop and test a conceptual model assessing the effects of sincere and exciting personality traits associated with newly introduced (fictitious) spokescharacters on these relationship measures for an existing brand. Study 2 extends Study 1 by considering a third personality trait of competence, along with the sincerity dimension examined in Study 1. In this second study, the relative levels of two personality traits, sincerity and competency (Aaker 1997), are manipulated through the appearance of the spokescharacter to test predictions pertaining to their effects on these equity-related measures of brand trust, brand attitude, and WPPP for a different product category and different characters. Our work extends existing spokescharacter and brand personality related literature in three specific ways. First, we consider the influence of the three spokescharacter traits of sincerity, excitement, and competence on brand evaluations. With the exception of Garretson and Niedrich (2004) and Callcott and Phillips (1996), few studies have examined spokescharacter traits, yet it is these traits that are suggested to be instrumental in promoting favorable brand impressions (Fournier 1998). Second, in Study 1, we simultaneously consider these two personality traits in a hierarchical regressionmodeling framework to focus on the separate effects of these personality traits on these brand specific outcome measures. Third, we also show how the appearance of the character may be manipulated to evoke certain personality characteristics Journal of Advertising, vol. 41, no. 1 (Spring 2012), pp American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved. ISSN / 2012 $ DOI /JOA

2 18 The Journal of Advertising more strongly than others and test the character manipulation on brand equity related outcomes. We assess effects using differing fictitious spokescharacters paired with an existing brand (Study 1) and a fictitious brand (Study 2) across several personality characteristics to strengthen the generalizability of the findings regarding effects of personified characters on brand equity measures. STUDY 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL, THEORY, AND HYPOTHESES Model Overview This overall conceptual model is largely guided by the theoretical relationship marketing frameworks offered by Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) and Fournier (1998). According to Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995), consumers benefit from strong relationships with brands. For instance, consumers actually seek relationships to simplify the decision-making process with reduced information search and cognitive dissonance. In her work on consumer brand relationships, Fournier (1998) demonstrated that brands can be reciprocating relational partners. In fact, it is suggested that spokescharacters might function as a linkage for relationships between brands and consumers. They are viable brand representatives because they are identifiable and possess observable humanlike qualities and personalities (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004). Fournier (1998) contends that the observable nature of the spokescharacter is key to its potential success as a legitimate partner. That is, personality characteristics of spokescharacters can be inferred and assessed by consumers, and these characteristics appear to potentially transform the brand from mere associations to psychological partners. In addition, unlike human spokespeople, characters embody personality characteristics that can be manipulated to project desirable brand qualities to consumers that may affect consumer brand evaluations (Callcott and Lee 1994). In our model, we consider the impact of sincerity and excitement 1 on the relationship outcomes of brand trust, brand attitude, and willingness to pay price premiums. Relationship marketing has long considered brand trust to be a key driver of successful relationships (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Defined as the perceived reliability of the target of trust, which, in this case, is the brand (Garbarino and Johnson 1999), it concerns the expectations that perceived obligations will be fulfilled by the brand. We expect spokescharacter personality characteristics will directly contribute to brand trust, and ultimately promote willingness to pay price premiums. We also expect personified characters to influence brand attitude, both directly and through brand trust. More specifically, and as shown in Figure 1, we expect the spokescharacter personalities of sincerity and excitement to directly affect both brand trust and brand attitude, which reflects the general evaluation of the brand (H1 and H3). We also predict that the relationship between spokescharacter sincerity and brand trust is stronger than the relationship between excitement and brand trust (H2). Brand trust and brand attitude are hypothesized to affect willingness to pay a price premium (H5a and H5b), and brand trust will favorably impact brand attitude as well (H4). Lastly, we predict that the spokescharacter personalities of sincerity and excitement will indirectly influence WPPP through brand trust and brand attitude (H6a and H6b). Rationale and specific hypotheses are offered below. Though not shown in Figure 1 or formally hypothesized, we also test for potential interaction effects between sincerity and excitement on brand trust, brand attitude, and WPPP. Effects on Brand Trust We expect the spokescharacter personality characteristics of sincerity and excitement to directly affect brand trust. A sincere character is considered that who is honest and genuine, and an exciting character represents the energy or extroversion dimension (Aaker 1997). While research regarding the direct impact of personality traits on brand evaluations is only recently emerging (see Batra, Lenk, and Wedel 2010), relationship marketing theorists speculate that character personality characteristics promote a deeper connection between consumers and brands (Fournier 1998). These observable humanlike characteristics help humanize and give meaning to brands. This proposition is largely influenced by McCracken s (1986, 1989) transfer of meaning, which represents additional rationale supporting a proposed relationship between character traits and brand trust. According to this theory, brands featuring personified characters are metaphorically conveying that the brand itself possesses those characteristics. The meaning of spokescharacters their sincerity, for instance is transferred from the spokescharacter to the brand. As a result, this meaningful information ascribed to the brand can then be useful in forming brand judgments, such as perceptions of trust. In their research specific to spokescharacters, Garretson and Niedrich (2004) found a spokescharacter trait can yield favorable brand outcomes. Specifically, they demonstrated a positive effect of spokescharacter expertise on character trust. Similarly and more recently, Sung and Kim (2010) reported a link between brand personality traits, including sincerity and excitement in particular, and brand trust. Findings from these studies parallel those from studies in marketing and the sister disciplines of management and psychology where positive traits like sincere concern for others and agreeableness has been linked to trustworthiness perceptions (e.g., Mishra 1996; Strutton, Pelton, and Tanner 1996). Thus, while both favorable traits of excitement and sincerity should be positively related to trust, prior work on trust (Mishra 1996; Sung and Kim 2010) suggests that sincerity is superior to excitement

3 Spring FIGURE 1 Study 1: Proposed Relationships Tested in trust development, and we expect a stronger relationship will be found for the trait of sincerity. Hypothesis 1: The spokescharacter characteristics of (a) sincerity and (b) excitement are positively related to brand trust. Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between spokescharacter sincerity and brand trust is stronger than the relationship between excitement and brand trust. Effects on Brand Attitude We expect the personality characteristic dimensions of excitement and sincerity to positively influence brand attitude as well. Brand attitude is commonly conceptualized as an overall evaluation based on favorable or unfavorable reactions to brand-related stimuli or beliefs (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Murphy and Zajonc 1993) and is cited as a central consideration element of consumer brand equity and relational exchanges (Lane and Jacobson 1995; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Multiattribute attitude models (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) posit that the overall evaluation of the brand is a function of the beliefs about specific attributes of the brand. Brand personality dimensions are among the domain of relevant attributes, and although not specifically linked to spokescharacters, recent work demonstrates the link between the excitement personality attribute and brand attitude (Chang and Chieng 2006). Furthermore, existing work suggests favorable brand personality traits can be used as heuristic cues and influence overall brand attitude (Aaker 1997; Garretson and Niedrich 2004). We extend theory regarding this link between specific spokescharacter personality traits and brand attitude by predicting the following: Hypothesis 3: The spokescharacter characteristics of (a) sincerity and (b) excitement are positively related to brand attitude. We also predict favorable effects of brand trust on the overall brand attitude evaluation. Again, consistent with multiattribute models, overall attitude is a function of beliefs about the brand (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). As noted by Chaudhuri and Ligas (2006), beliefs are associations between two concepts; in this case, the belief is the association between the brand and its trustworthiness. Thus, the formation of the general evaluative brand attitude should be influenced by the perceived trustworthiness of the brand. In addition to the theoretical link, empirical research also suggests a relationship between brand trust and brand attitude (Li and Miniard 2006). Consistent with such prior findings, we posit the following: Hypothesis4: Brand trust is positively related to brand attitude. Effects on Willingness to Pay a Price Premium As shown in Figure 1, we contend that both brand trust and brand attitudes are key variables in favorably influencing WPPP. Willingness to pay a price premium is considered an amount above the functional value of the brand that consumers are willing to pay (Netemeyer et al. 2004). With regard to brand trust, there is wide support that brand trust is a predictor of favorable brand-related outcomes (Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Moore, Wilkie, and Lutz 2002). In addition, it has been shown that higher levels of brand trust are enjoyed by those high-equity brands (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). When consumers trust a brand (i.e., they see the brand as reliable and consistently meeting expectations), they should be willing to pay more relative to competing brands (Aaker 1996). With regard to brand attitude, earlier work points to its positive relationship to equity. As one example drawing from a big picture perspective, Lane and Jacobson (1995) found that investors holding favorable attitudes toward a brand responded more positively toward announcements of brand extensions. Well-liked brands are expected to be successful more experienced in generating revenues and reducing marketing cost. An attitude is considered a key component of brand equity that impacts consumers beliefs about the value of the brand (Aaker and Jacobson 2001), and in their work on attitudinal

4 20 The Journal of Advertising loyalty, Chaudhuri and Ligas (2006) found it to promote consumers willingness to pay premium prices. Therefore, we expect brand attitude to positively affect WPPP. Lastly, we also predict that the relationship between these personality traits (sincerity, excitement, and WPPP) are mediated by both brand trust and brand attitude. While the specific personified traits are not expected to directly influence WPPP, relationship theory (Fournier 1998; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995) and multiattribute models (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) suggest their influence should directly affect WPPP through brand trust and brand attitude. Therefore, we propose the following predictions related to WPPP: Hypothesis 5: The brand outcomes of (a) brand trust and (b) brand attitude are positively related to willingness to pay a price premium. Hypothesis 6: The influence of the spokescharacter personality traits of (a) sincerity and (b) excitement on WPPP is mediated by brand trust and brand attitude. Method Design and Procedures STUDY 1 We were interested in testing the proposed relationships in Figure 1 across spokescharacters that were conceptually similar, but that varied across the personality characteristics of interest. Specifically, we were interested in tests across two characters that ranged from the intermediate to higher levels of sincerity and excitement to assess whether relationships between the personality characteristics and dependent variables of interest remained consistent across characters as these characteristic levels changed. This provides a test of the generalizability of the pattern of relationships under conditions of differences in personality attribute levels. Thus, prior to the main study, two similar, fictitious characters were developed and pretested with 25 student participants to assess perceived differences using four items each drawn directly from Aaker s (1997) brand personality measures for character excitement (e.g., spirited, daring) and sincerity (e.g., honest, genuine). 2 Following procedures used to develop sincere and exciting personalities (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004), both body position/actions and facial features were considered. For example, the character designed to elicit higher levels of sincerity and excitement was a baby chick leaping in the air with alert, childlike eyes. The pretest coefficient αs for the personality measures exceeded.70, which is above the widely accepted value for adequate reliability. Item scores were summed and averaged to create a seven-point scale. The character designed to be perceived as more exciting had an exciting rating (M = 3.78, SD = 1.15) that exceeded the less exciting character (M = 2.54, SD = 1.13, t = 4.80, p <.001). For sincerity, the exciting character designed to also elicit higher levels of sincerity was rated as more sincere than the other character (M = 4.81, SD = 1.34; M = 4.27, SD = 1.74, t = 2.40, p <.025). A second pretest (n = 44) indicated that, as desired, the characters did not differ in terms of product relevancy or overall affect ( p >.10). Thus, these characters were deemed acceptable for use in the main study. For the main study, mail surveys were delivered to 570 members of a statewide panel in the southern United States. Panel respondents were entered into a drawing for the opportunity to win gift cards. For these surveys, 283 full responses were returned for a response rate of about 49%. The first page of the survey included instructions that the survey was to be completed by the primary shopper in the household for products purchased in grocery stores. These participants were then exposed to an advertisement for Northern bathroom tissue on the next page, where the ad prominently displayed one of the two pretested fictitious characters. (See the ad stimulus example in Appendix 1.) About half the participants were randomly exposed to the character designed to be higher in excitement and sincerity (n = 136), and the other half were exposed to the character designed to be lower on these characteristics (n = 147). After exposure to the ad, the participants responded to the study s focal measures while being allowed to look back at the ad as many times as they wanted. We used the same character excitement and sincerity measures as those used in the pretest. Data checks with our main study sample showed that the character designed to be more exciting and sincere (high group) showed higher mean scores on these characteristics than did the character designed to be of lesser excitement and sincerity (low group). The mean for excitement in the high group (M = 4.13, SD = 1.61) was higher than the excitement mean in the low group (M = 3.00, SD = 1.35, t = 6.54, p <.01), and the mean for sincerity in the high group (M = 4.61, SD = 1.08) was higher than the sincerity mean in the low group (M = 4.28, SD = 1.59, t = 2.08, p <.05). Dependent Measures, Covariates, and Manipulation Checks All dependent measures were multi-item scales drawn from prior measures in the literature. Brand trust was assessed with three items: This brand always meets my expectations, I can always trust this brand to be good, and This brand is reliable, with a coefficient α of.90 (Garbarino and Johnson 1999). Attitude toward the brand was assessed with four semantic differential scales: My attitude toward the advertised brands is... / bad/good, negative/positive, favorable/ unfavorable, and like it/dislike it (coefficient α =.94). Willingness to pay a price premium was a three-item, sevenpoint scale drawn from Netemeyer et al. (2004). The first two

5 Spring items were: The price of this brand would have to go up quite a bit before I would switch to another brand of and I am willing to pay a higher price for this brand of than for other brands of. The last item was I am willing to pay % more for this brand over other brands of, anchored by a seven-point scale of 0% to 30% or more (with 5% increments in between). Coefficient α for WPPP was.87. The prior usage control (covariate) variable was assessed with three, seven-point semantic differential items (e.g., rarely used/always used, never chosen/always chosen ) in response to the question How often do you use this advertised brand? (coefficient α =.96). The top portion of Table 1 shows means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for each construct, as well as the correlations among constructs, and estimates of internal consistency (coefficient α and average variance extracted [AVE]). Results Initial confirmatory factor analyses revealed that there were no differences in measurement properties or relationships among constructs across the two characters used in the ad stimuli. As such, we pooled the data across the two characters for our analyses. 3 Given that the independent variables were continuous, we used hierarchical regression to test our hypotheses (Aiken and West 1991; Fitzsimons 2008). Recall that we also wanted to test for possible interaction effects of sincerity and excitement on brand trust, brand attitude, and WPPP. Thus, we meancentered the summed-item character sincerity and character excitement scores and created a character sincerity character excitement interaction (product) term by multiplying these two mean-centered scores together. We also mean-centered all other variables when they were used as predictors of a given dependent variable. Table 1 shows results for the three dependent variables of interest (brand trust, brand attitude, and WPPP). Brand Trust Results We first regressed prior use, character sincerity, and character excitement on brand trust. As Model 1 in Table 1 shows, both sincerity (b =.22, t = 3.34, p <.01) and excitement (b =.08, t = 1.50, p <.10) were positively related to brand trust while controlling for the effect of prior use, supporting H1a and H1b. Collectively, these predictors explained 39% of the variance in brand trust. Using Cohen and Cohen s (1983) procedure for testing the difference in strength between two partial regression coefficients in the same equation, we found that the effect of sincerity on brand trust was greater than the effect of excitement on brand trust (t = 2.33, p <.05). This result supports H2. Model 2 hierarchically added the sincerity excitement interaction term to Model 1, and this interaction was not significant (b =.03, t = 1.10, p >.10). Brand Attitude Results Model 1 first regressed prior use, sincerity, and excitement on brand attitude. Table 1 shows that the hypothesized effects were both significant (again while controlling for prior use): character sincerity (b =.16, t = 2.52, p <.01) and character excitement (b =.15, t = 2.60, p <.01), supporting H3a and H3b. Model 2 then hierarchically added the sincerity excitement interaction term to the direct effects in Model 1. This interaction was significant (b =.09, t = 2.95, p <.01) and explained an additional 2% of the variance in brand attitude. Given this interaction, we used the procedures suggested by Aiken and West (1991) and Fitzsimons (2008) for plotting regression-based interaction effects with control variables. The graphical display is shown in Figure 2. The plot shows that when excitement is one standard deviation above the mean, the effect of sincerity is positive and significant ( p <.05). However, when excitement is one standard deviation below the mean, the effect of sincerity is nonsignificant, and the differences between the coefficients associated with sincerity in the two regressions are significant ( p <.05). Model 3 hierarchically added brand trust to the regression model, and its effect was positive and significant (b =.43, t = 7.78, p <.01), providing support for H4. This set of predictors explained 44% of the variance in brand attitude. 4 WPPP Results The bottom portion of Table 1 shows the results for WPPP. Model 1 indicates that there is little support for the direct effect of the personality variables on WPPP, but as shown in Model 2 in which the interaction is hierarchically added, its effect is positive and significant ( p <.01). This positive coefficient suggests that when these two character personality traits are jointly at high levels, WPPP is favorably affected. Consistent with the pattern of results for brand attitude, the predicted mean score for WPPP is highest (M = 3.39) under conditions of high sincerity and high excitement, relative to the predicted scores for the other trait-level combinations. Recall that we also hypothesized that both brand trust (H5a) and brand attitude (H5b) would be positively related to WPPP. Model 3 hierarchically adds these construct measures. After, controlling for prior use, the personality variables and their interaction, Model 3 shows that both brand trust (b =.48, t = 4.12, p <.01) and brand attitude (b =.22, t = 1.96, p <.05) were significant, supporting H5a and H5b.

6 22 The Journal of Advertising TABLE 1 Study 1 Results Summary statistics, correlations among constructs, and internal consistency M SD α AVE Character sincerity Character excitement Brand attitude Brand trust WPPP Prior use Dependent variable: Brand trust Hierarchical regression results Model 1 Model 2 Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value Prior use.41 (.52) 10.97***.41 (.51) 10.64*** Sincerity.22 (.19) 3.34***.22 (.20) 3.51*** Excitement.08 (.08) 1.50*.07 (.07) 1.37* Sincere excitement.03 (.05) 1.10 R ΔR 2.00 Dependent variable: Brand attitude Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value Prior use.30 (.40) 2.83***.28 (.37) 7.13***.11 (.14) 2.56** Sincerity.16 (.15) 2.52***.22 (.21) 3.33***.12 (.12) 2.04** Excitement.15 (.16) 2.60***.12 (.13) 2.10**.09 (.09) 1.66** Sincere excitement.09 (.15) 2.95***.07 (.13) 2.66** Brand trust.43 (.45) 7.78*** R ΔR 2.02***.13*** Dependent variable: WPPP Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value Prior use.88 (.59) 12.28***.85 (.57) 11.75***.59 (.40) 7.27*** Sincerity.04 (.02) (.07) (.00).14 Excitement.16 (.09) 1.55*.11 (.06) (.03).51 Sincerity excitement.16 (.14) 2.85***.12 (.10) 2.17** Brand trust.48 (.25) 4.12*** Brand attitude.22 (.11) 1.96** R ΔR 2.02***.06*** Notes: AVE = average variance extracted; WPPP = willingness to pay a price premium. All correlations are disattenuated φ estimates from an initial measurement model; α = coefficient alpha; unstandardized coefficients are not parenthesized and standardized coefficients are in parentheses. * p <.10. ** p <.05. *** p <.01.

7 Spring FIGURE 2 The Effect of the Interaction of Sincerity and Excitement on Brand Attitude H6 hypothesized mediating roles of brand trust and attitude. Consistent with writings on mediation in correlational models with multiple independent variables, we tested for mediated effects (Baron and Kenny 1986; Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger 1998; James, Mulaik, and Brett 2006). For partial mediation to occur, the following conditions must hold: (1) an independent variable must be related to the mediator(s) with other independent variables in the model as predictors of the mediator(s); (2) an independent variable must be related to a dependent variable with other independent variables in the model, but without the mediator(s) in the model; and (3) the effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable will remain significant, but attenuated, in a model that includes the mediator(s) as a predictor of the dependent variable. Because the direct effects of sincerity and excitement are both nonsignificant in Model 2, mediation of the direct effects is not possible. However, the sincerity excitement interaction in the final model remained significant but attenuated, suggesting that its effect on WPPP is not fully mediated by the effects of brand trust or brand attitude (while still controlling for prior use). That is, its effect from Model 2 to Model 3 was reduced, suggesting partial mediation. The first condition is satisfied just for brand attitude as a mediator, as the effect of the sincerity excitement interaction was only significant for brand attitude (b =.07, t = 2.66, p <.01; Model 3 for brand attitude in Table 1), but not significant for brand trust (b =.03, t = 1.10, p >.10; Model 2 for brand trust in Table 1). For the second condition, we estimated a model in which the sincerity excitement interaction was used as a predictor of WPPP (the dependent variable) along with sincerity, excitement, and prior use as predictors, but without brand trust and brand attitude (mediators) as predictors of WPPP (see Model 2 for WPPP in Table 1). In this model, the sincerity excitement interaction was significant (b =.16, t = 2.85, p <.01), satisfying the second condition. The third condition is satisfied by estimating Model 3 in Table 1 for WPPP, and comparing the sincerity excitement interaction coefficient in that model with the sincerity excitement interaction coefficient of Model 2. A Sobel (1982) test confirmed that the effect of the sincerity excitement interaction on WPPP was partially mediated by brand attitude (z = 2.01, p <.05). In sum, the overall pattern of results suggests that there is no mediation for the direct effects of sincerity and excitement, but the sincerity excitement interaction is partially mediated by brand attitude. 5 Discussion Study 1 findings demonstrate that personified spokescharacter characteristics both directly and indirectly influence brand trust, brand attitude, and WPPP. While relationship marketing theorists proposed observable humanlike characteristics should yield favorable brand outcomes (Fournier 1998), this research represents one of the first to empirically demonstrate these effects. Positive characteristics of sincerity as well as excitement contributed to brand trust and brand attitude, and although not hypothesized, the interaction ( p <.05) between the personality characteristics on brand attitude and WPPP offers additional insight, suggesting an enhanced effect of multiple favorable traits. A combination of positive traits offers significant favorable outcomes on attitude and WPPP beyond the individual direct effects of the traits. In general, the pattern of the coefficients suggested that there was a relatively strong effect of sincerity, as compared to excitement, on brand trust, consistent with prior results and theory (Mishra 1996). Given this stronger direct effect of

8 24 The Journal of Advertising sincerity on trust, the interaction with excitement was nonsignificant; a strong level of sincerity is sufficient to impact brand trust favorably without concern about excitement. However, the direct impact of sincerity on brand attitude and WPPP was weaker, and for both of these brand outcomes, the interaction between the two personality traits was significant. Thus, a higher level of excitement may do little to enhance the effect of sincerity on trust, but a combination of higher levels of these traits offers positive benefits for WPPP and brand attitude. While the first study shows that traits indeed promote favorable relationship outcomes, it does not experimentally compare the superiority of one positive trait relative to another positive trait. The purpose of Study 2 is to consider such a comparison directly using a controlled between-subjects experiment. We extend Study 1 findings in three ways. First, we assess a third personality characteristic of competency (Aaker 1997) along with the sincerity trait examined in Study 1. As shown in Aaker s (1997) research, after accounting for the variance explained by sincerity and excitement, competency was the factor that explained the third greatest amount of variance. Second, and most important, we manipulate the strength of the personality traits evoked through the visual depiction of the spokescharacter and effects of this manipulation on the same key relationship measures gathered in Study 1. Lastly, we address the impact of the evoked spokescharacter personality trait profile using a different product category, advertisement, sample, and type of spokescharacter. Theory and Hypotheses STUDY 2 We predict that the levels of specific personality traits evoked based on the appearance of a character will differentially influence brand-related evaluations. More specifically, spokescharacters designed to evoke greater sincerity will produce more favorable brand trust, brand attitude, and WPPP than spokescharacters designed to evoke greater competency. In general, most favorable personality characteristics should enhance brand outcomes. Yet in specific contexts, one trait might be superior to another trait, and only recently have studies begun to explore this trait superiority issue ( Jin and Sung 2009; Sung and Kim 2010). Considering how personality traits that can be evoked through the appearance of a spokescharacter may differentially enhance brand-related outcomes represents a new extension to scholarly research on brand personality. For instance, academic researchers are now addressing whether specific personality traits impact the success of brand extensions and other brand-related outcomes (Batra, Lenk, and Wedel 2010; Sung and Kim 2010). According to this brand extension research (see Batra, Lenk, and Wedel 2010), both brands and product categories have personalities, and brand extensions are perceived to be superior in terms of fit when consumers perceive the personality of the brand to fit the personality of the new product category. While this current research is not concerned with brand and category fit, such prior research establishes that some personality attributes may result in more favorable outcomes than will others. This research is generally consistent with other brand personality research that suggests the important role of sincerity as a personality trait. In their recently published research using nonexperimental survey data across three product categories, Sung and Kim (2010) found that brand personality characteristics differ in their influence on brand-related outcomes, with sincerity appearing to have a stronger influence on brand trust than did competence. A similar finding concerning the superiority of sincerity was reported in a retail store personality study in which of five personality traits measured, sincerity elicited the strongest effect on attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty (Zentes, Morschett, and Schramm-Klein 2008). A stream of research concerning the five-factor model of personality (Costa and McCrae 1992; Digman 1990) from psychology offers insight regarding why spokescharacter sincerity rather than competency is expected to produce more favorable relationship outcomes. While both sincerity and competency were among the three traits found by Aaker (1997), to explain the greatest variance in brand personality, sincerity is more closely related to the Big Five trait of agreeableness in that it is based on the notion that a brand is warm and accepting. Researchers in social psychology have long known that agreeableness produces cooperation and positive interpersonal relationships (Costa and McCrae 1992). In fact, it reflects one s interpersonal orientation, and those with this trait are seen as trustworthy and less opportunistic (Zhao and Seibert 2006). For these reasons, we expect spokescharacters with appearances designed to evoke greater sincerity, as compared with those designed to evoke greater competency, to produce a more pronounced favorable influence on relationship outcomes. Furthermore, and consistent with predictions offered in Study 1, we also expect the effect on WPPP will be mediated by brand trust and brand attitude. Hypothesis 7: Brand attitude (7a), brand trust (7b), and WPPP (7c) will be more favorable for a spokescharacter designed to evoke greater sincerity than competency, as compared with a spokescharacter designed to evoke greater competency than sincerity. Hypothesis 8: Brand attitude and brand trust will mediate the effect of the evoked spokescharacter personality on WPPP. Method Stimuli Development and Pretest In contrast to Study 1, in which the personality traits evoked by the spokescharacters were not directly manipulated, the

9 Spring goal of this pretest was to create two characters that differed in evoked sincerity and competency. Consistent with prior research on manipulating personality (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Hess, Fuller, and Campbell 2009; Jin and Sung 2009; Swaminathan, Stilley, and Ahluwalia 2009), both character features and the copy attributed to the character were adjusted. A professional artist was contracted and created a single spokescharacter for a fictitious pizza company. This product category was chosen because it is both familiar to and frequently purchased by student subjects participating in the main study. Using this character as a base, the artist then created two versions of the character one character with a modified appearance designed to evoke greater sincerity and lesser competency and the other character designed to evoke lesser sincerity and greater competency. For Study 2, the posture of the characters remained the same and they primarily varied on their facial features (eyes, face/jaw shape, and mouth), given that the facial features literature emphasizes that those regions are often used to infer personalities (see Frischen, Eastwood, and Smilek 2008). These two characters were then assessed on these two personality dimensions. A pretest (n = 59) was conducted using participants from a subject pool at a major state university to assess these two characters on the two personality dimensions. The same sincerity measures from Study 1 were used, and the competency measures included five items (e.g., qualified, skilled) drawn from Aaker (1997). Coefficient α for the sincerity measure was.83; for the competency measure, α was.95. The results indicated that the characters designed by the professional artist evoked the desired levels of the two personality traits, differing in sincerity, F(1, 57) = 13.51, p <.01, and competency, F(1, 57) = 12.51, p <.01. More specifically, the character designed to be more sincere and less competent evoked greater levels of sincerity (M = 5.09) and lower levels of competency (M = 3.85); the second character was considered less sincere (M = 4.14) and more competent (M = 5.14). Further analyses indicated that while these spokescharacters differed on these two traits, they also did not differ in terms of other personality traits (sophistication, ruggedness, and excitement), product relevancy, or overall affect ( p >.10), as desired. Thus, these characters shown in Appendix 2 were deemed acceptable for use in the main study. Design, Procedures, Stimuli, and Measures The main experiment was a between-subjects, single-factor design where the personality profile manipulated through the spokescharacter appearance was presented within a professionally developed advertisement for a fictitious pizza company, Amore. 6 Participants from a subject pool at a state university were randomly assigned to one of two conditions an advertisement that contained either a spokescharacter designed to evoke greater sincerity/lesser competency or lesser sincerity/greater competency. After reviewing the advertisement, participants completed the same dependent measures gathered in Study 1, manipulation checks and demand characteristic checks. Results Manipulation Check Results The results revealed a main effect of the spokescharacter manipulation on sincerity, F(1, 70) = 8.54, p <.01, and competency, F(1, 70) = 4.69, p <.05. As desired, sincerity was higher for the more sincere/less competent character (M = 5.11) than for the less sincere/more competent character (4.19). Competency was higher for the more competent/less sincere character (M = 4.77) than for the less competent/more sincere character (M = 3.89). In addition, across characters, the means for the higher level of sincerity did not differ from the higher level of competency and the lesser level of competency did not differ significantly from the lesser level of sincerity ( p >.10). Further, consistent with the pretest, there were no other differences between the conditions on the confound check measures ( ps >.10). Tests of Hypotheses H7 predicted that the spokescharacter designed to evoke greater sincerity but lesser competency would produce greater brand attitude, brand trust, and WPPP. To test this prediction, three separate regression analyses were performed in which the more sincere/less competent spokescharacter was coded 0 and the less sincere/more competent spokescharacter was coded 1. These regression results indicate an effect associated with differences between the spokescharacter personality trait conditions on brand attitude, F(1, 70) = 4.53, p <.05; brand trust, F(1, 70) = 5.49, p <.05; and WPPP, F(1, 70) = 4.76, p <.05. Supporting H7a 7c, the more sincere/less competent spokescharacter had a positive effect on brand attitude (β = +.27, p <.025), brand trust (β = +.31, p <.05), and WPPP (β = +.33, p <.05), compared with the less sincere/ more competent spokescharacter. 7 In H8, we predicted that the effect of spokescharacter personality type on WPPP was mediated by brand trust and brand attitude. To test this hypothesis, we followed procedures similar to those outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) and others (Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger 1998; James, Mulaik, and Brett 2006), and used in Study 1. The regression results shown above indicate that the effect on the outcome of WPPP is significant, as are the relationships between the spokescharacter personality manipulation on the hypothesized mediators, brand trust and brand attitude ( p <.05 or better for all). Thus, in the final step of the mediation analysis, we assessed whether the regression

10 26 The Journal of Advertising coefficient associated with the spokescharacter personality profile and WPPP relationship were reduced when we controlled for the effects of the mediators. The findings from this regression model indicate the inclusion of brand trust (β =.51, p <.05) and brand attitude (β =.31, p <.05) in the regression model results in a nonsignificant effect of the spokescharacter personality profile on WPPP, reducing the β weight from β =.33 ( p <.05) to β =.17 ( p >.05). Thus, the inclusion of both brand trust and attitude fully mediates the effect of the personality evoked by the character on WPPP. However, in follow-up tests assessing the proposed individual mediators, the Sobel test was significant for brand trust (z = 2.29, p <.025) but not brand attitude ( p >.05), indicating that brand trust plays the stronger mediating role for the impact of spokescharacter personality type on WPPP. These results partially support the mediation prediction made in H8. GENERAL DISCUSSION Summary of Findings and Contribution to Theory and Advertisers The overall purpose of this research is to examine the role of personality traits evoked by the appearance of a spokescharacter within a theoretical relationship marketing framework. While there is a limited stream of research that has begun to consider some specific spokescharacter elements that promote favorable brand evaluations (Garretson and Niedrich 2004; Neeley and Schumann 2004), no studies to our knowledge have directly considered the influence of spokescharacter personality traits on brand trust, brand attitude, and willingness to pay price premiums (WPPP), all of which are important constructs to both advertising practitioners and researchers (e.g., Aaker 1996; Keller 2003; Li and Miniard 2006; Soh, Reid, and King 2009). We believe that a key finding across these studies concerns the strong relationship between the sincerity trait and brand trust, which ultimately influences WPPP. First, in Study 1, we demonstrate that spokescharacter sincerity and excitement strengthen the equity-related constructs found important in enhancing consumer brand relationships (e.g., Batra, Lenk, and Wedel 2010; Chang and Chieng 2006; Strutton, Pelton, and Tanner 1996). However, sincerity was more positively linked to brand trust than was excitement. In Study 2, we extend these findings by comparing traits, specifically assessing whether one personality trait can be superior to another. We manipulate spokescharacter personality type by altering the character appearance and find that a sincere spokescharacter yields more favorable outcomes than does a competent character. The pattern of findings also appear consistent with Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel (2004), who found that a sincere personality resulted in stronger brand relationship effects than an exciting personality. Next, not only do these results indicate the influence of spokescharacters on important equity-related outcomes; they also reveal the importance of the role of a spokescharacter s personality in promoting brands as trusted partners. These results are consistent with arguments that advertising can influence trust, which is a critical element in brand-building strategies (Aaker 1996; Boyle 2003; Li and Miniard 2006). Furthermore, the relationship marketing literature has long emphasized the importance of trust, and these results demonstrate that these spokescharacters featured in advertisements build trust. It is important to note the power of the sincerity trait; compared with the other characteristics in these studies, sincerity was more strongly linked to trust. Across both studies, brand trust was a primary mediator of the effects of spokes character personality on WPPP. That is, to improve equity, advertisers should focus on building trust, and spokescharacters afford them with an opportunity to do so. We contend it is also important to note that these effects of spokescharacter personalities on trust emerged after a single exposure to an advertisement, and multiple exposures may further strengthen the relationships. In addition, the findings concerning WPPP demonstrate that spokescharacter personality traits both indirectly and directly yield favorable outcomes. In Study 1, we found that brand attitude partially mediated the interaction effect on WPPP; that is, the combination of higher sincerity and excitement continues to have a significant favorable effect (beyond the direct effects of the traits), even after the effects of trust and brand attitude are included. In addition to this interaction effect on WPPP that is only partially mediated in Study 1, Study 2 shows that a personality manipulated within a character can have a direct effect on WPPP. When considering this direct effect, however, findings show that the inclusion of brand trust and attitude in the model does mediate the direct effect of the personality evoked by the character on WPPP. When considered in combination with Study 1 mediation findings, this further suggests that the strength of the combination of favorable characteristics can benefit beyond the strength of a single trait. While these findings offer theoretical advances for researchers interested in the effects of brand personality and interacting traits, as well as how spokescharacters can impact equity-related outcomes, these findings also have implications for advertising practice. Specifically, we demonstrate how graphic artists can manipulate the appearance of characters to affect perceived personality levels, and how such visual character manipulations can significantly affect critical dependent variables of interest for advertisers and brand managers. Based on this research, facial maturity should be considered (Berry and Landry 1997). For instance, to emphasize sincerity, a spokescharacter will benefit from baby-face rather than mature-face features, with rounder faces/jaw, oval shaped

11 Spring eyes with oval pupils, and an open-lipped smile. This finding offers opportunities for future research, as noted below. Limitations and Future Research We wish to acknowledge several limitations of these studies. In Study 1, we examined two personality characteristics that capture the majority of variance in personality ratings and are critical to personal intimate relationships (Aaker 1997; Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004), and in Study 2, we extended this to a different characteristic (competence) that explained the third greatest amount of variance in Aaker s (1997) brand personality study. However, we acknowledge that other spokescharacter characteristics or trait constellations remain of potential interest. While not predicted, the interaction of sincerity and excitement on brand attitude and WPPP in Study 1 suggests advantages of creating a character evoking multiple positive personality characteristics that would amplify favorable brand perception effects. Thus, both practitioners and researchers should further consider examining both direct effects and higher-order interactions across multiple characteristics. For a graphic artist who manipulates traits only through the visual aspects of a character, this is an extremely challenging task. However, through manipulations in other promotional contexts (e.g., television ads, Web sites) that could include spokescharacter mannerisms and verbal copy, it may be possible to examine a broader array of character personality constellations. Such research may also explore relationships and level of fit between consumer personalities and the personification of traits evoked by the character (Batra, Lenk, and Wedel 2010). In both studies, we examined relationships between constructs from single data collections at one point in time, thus precluding consideration of effects across multiple exposures. Although we assessed the impact of characters for two different product categories for existing and fictitious brands, the studies were in the context of print advertisements, and as suggested above, additional research should consider alternative contexts. Also, traits such as sincerity may have a stronger effect on trust (and other equity-related outcomes) for some product categories than others, and extensions that would test such boundary conditions are of interest. Closely related to these ideas is extending our Study 2 manipulation to further address specific types of character design features that might engender the personified traits of sincerity, competence, excitement, or other critical traits to advertisers and brand marketers. Based on work in the facial features literature, such specific character features (e.g., eyes, head shape, lips, cheeks) might influence the degree to which more crucial personality traits are inferred (Zebrowitz et al. 2002). In sum, future studies that include longer-term longitudinal designs that could replicate and extend this work would further enhance current knowledge of the conditions in which spokescharacters can bridge the relationship between consumers and brands and promote brand equity. Furthermore, given the importance of brand trust in advertising and in the tested model, additional research examining trust-related constructs would extend these findings. Recently, Soh, Reid, and King (2009) developed the ADTRUST scale, a multidimensional construct with affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Future research might examine the dimension(s) of trust that each spokescharacter personality trait elicits to identify the type of trust that mediates the character traits on WPPP. Finally, the theory of anthropomorphism (Epley, Waytz, and Cacioppo 2007) proposes that the degree to which one anthropomorphizes a nonhuman agent (e.g., a brand) is determined by three types of motivation (Sociality, Effectance, and Elicited agent Knowledge SEEK). A logical extension is to identify whether personality-laden spokescharacters can strengthen consumer brand relationships among those with each type of motivation. Despite such limitations and opportunities for further study, the pattern of findings across studies suggests direct and some potential moderating benefits from the inclusion of spokescharacters with certain personality attributes in promotion campaigns. Results suggest that characters in ads can help develop brand attitude and brand trust and favorably impact WPPP. In a highly competitive consumer packaged goods marketplace often void of significant functional product differences, using such creative communication tactics to enhance brand trust, brand attitude, and WPPP can prove to provide a valuable competitive advantage. Notes 1. Sincerity and excitement were chosen based on the seminal work on brand personality measurement by Aaker (1997). In her work, five primary brand personality traits were identified. A factor analysis revealed that the dimensions of sincerity and excitement explained the greatest amount of variance among the five dimensions, accounting for more than 50% of the total variance. 2. Given that this brand did not use spokescharacters in its promotion, this study is consistent with an existing brand introducing a new character in its advertising. 3. To assess whether pooling was appropriate, we estimated several multigroup models using structural equation modeling (SEM). We estimated a two-group (high sincerity/excitement and low sincerity/excitement) measurement model to determine whether there were differences in measurement properties that could affect regression path estimates. This baseline measurement model, where all items to their respective constructs (factors) were freely estimated, fit the data adequately in each group (CFI [comparative fit index] =.94, NNFI [non-normed fit index] =.93, RMSEA [root mean square error of approximation] =.07), suggesting a similar pattern of item-to-factor

12 28 The Journal of Advertising loadings across groups. We next estimated a model in which all item loadings to their respective constructs were constrained to be equal across groups a metric invariance model (CFI =.93, NNFI =.92, RMSEA =.08). The difference between this model and the baseline measurement model was significant ( p <.05), suggesting that some item loadings may not be invariant across groups. An inspection of the modification indices (MIs) revealed that one sincerity and one excitement item likely differed in factor loading strength across groups. The equality constraints on these items were relaxed and a partial metric invariance model was estimated (CFI =.94, NNFI =.93, RMSEA =.07). This model did not differ in fit from the baseline measurement model ( p >.10), suggesting that only 2 of 21 measurement parameters differed across groups. Given partial metric invariance, we next estimated a multigroup model in which all factor variances and covariances were constrained to be equal. This model fit the data adequately (CFI =.94, NNFI =.93, RMSEA =.07) and did not differ in fit from the baseline measurement model, suggesting that all variances and covariances (relationships among constructs) are invariant across group. Given these findings, we pooled the data across characters in Study 1. Before testing our hypotheses, we also examined the psychometric properties of our pooled measures by estimating a 6 factor, 21 item confirmatory measurement model. This model fit the data well (CFI =.95, NNFI =.94, RMSEA =.07) (Hu and Bentler 1995), and as shown in Table 1, the internal consistency estimates of coefficient α and average variance extracted (AVE) were strong. We assessed discriminant validity among constructs by comparing the average AVE of two constructs to the square of the f estimate (or shared variance) between the two constructs. If average AVE exceeds f 2, evidence of discriminant validity exists (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Evidence of discriminant validity was found across all possible pairs of constructs in Table Note that these results comparing Models 2 and 3 suggest that the effects of character sincerity, excitement, and their interaction term on brand attitude are not fully mediated by the effects of brand trust (continuing to control for prior use). Using the Baron and Kenny (1986) regression-based procedures, we formally tested for both partial and full mediation. Using Sobel s (1982) test, we compared the corresponding coefficients for Model 2 and Model 3 (which included brand trust as a predictor). This test showed that the effects of sincerity and excitement on brand attitude were partially mediated by brand trust ( p <.05), and the effect of the sincerity excitement interaction was neither fully nor partially mediated by brand trust. 5. We extended these findings by conducting another study (n = 136) using a different product category, advertisement, and sample for an existing spokescharacter where a specific brand is not identified. In totality, the findings from both studies are consistent, despite differences in spokescharacters (fictitious versus real), ads, product categories (bathroom tissue versus cereal), and sample (adult consumers versus students). These consistent findings offer evidence of the generalizability of the causal relationships identified in the conceptual model. 6. We carefully considered research on physiognomy, which is the art of reading personality traits from faces, when working with the professionally contracted artist who developed the stimuli. According to Hassin and Trope (2000), there are two sides of physiognomy: reading from faces and reading into faces. Reading from faces concerns inferences of personalities from facial cues, and reading into faces is where information about the personality influences the interpretation of facial features. Both are to be considered. Thus, consistent with prior work (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Hess, Fuller, and Campbell 2009), the ads were also slightly modified through the copy attributed to the characters to support each personality type. 7. We also tested these relationships using the manipulation check variables, and the results for tests of hypotheses mirrored the effects using the dummy variable coding reported in the text. References Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press., and Robert Jacobson (2001), The Value Relevance of Brand Attitude in High-Technology Markets, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (4), Aaker, Jennifer (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, 34 ( July), , Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel (2004), When Good Brands Do Bad, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 ( June), Aiken, Leona S., and Steven G. West (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baron, Rueben M., and David A. Kenny (1986), The Moderator- Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), Batra, Rajeev, Peter Lenk, and Michel Wedel (2010), Brand Extension Strategy Planning: Empirical Estimation of Brand-Category Personality Fit and Atypicality, Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (April), Berry, Diane S., and Julie C. Landry (1997), Facial Maturity and Daily Social Interaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (3), Boyle, Matthew (2003), Brand Killers, Fortune (August 11), Callcott, Margaret F., and Wei-Na Lee (1994), A Content Analysis of Animation and Animated Spokes-Characters in Television Commercials, Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 1 12., and Barbara J. Phillips (1996), Observations: Elves Make Good Cookies: Creating Likable Spokes-Character Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (September/ October), Chang, Pao-Long, and Ming-Hua Chieng (2006), Building Consumer Brand Relationship: A Cross-Cultural Experiential View, Psychology and Marketing, 23 (11), Chaudhuri, Arjun, and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Per-

13 Spring formance: The Role of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, 65 (April), , and Mark Ligas (2006), The Role of Emotion and Reason in Brand Attitude Formation, in American Marketing Association Winter Educator s Conference Proceedings, Jean L. Johnson and John Hulland, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Costa, Paul T., Jr., and Robert R. McCrae (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) Manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Digman, John M. (1990), Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model, Annual Review of Psychology, 41, Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo (2007), On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphization, Psychological Review, 114 (4), Fishbein Martin, and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fitzsimons, Gavan J. (2008), Death to Dichotomizing, Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 912. Fornell, Claes, and David Larcker (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), Fournier, Susan (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), Frischen, Alexandra, John D. Eastwood, and Daniel Smilek (2008), Visual Search for Faces with Emotional Expressions, Psychological Bulletin, 134 (5), Garbarino, Ellen, and Mark S. Johnson (1999), The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 63 (April), Garretson, Judith A., and Scot Burton (2005), The Role of Spokescharacters as Advertisement and Package Cues in Integrated Marketing Communications, Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), , and Ronald W. Niedrich (2004), Spokes-Characters: Creating Character Trust and Positive Brand Attitudes, Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), Hassin, Ran, and Yaacov Trope (2000), Facing Faces: Studies on the Cognitive Aspects of Physiognomy, Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 78 (5), Hess, Traci, Mark Fuller, and Damon Campbell (2009), Designing Interfaces with Social Presence: Using Vividness and Extraversion to Create Social Recommendation Agents, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19 (12), Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler (1995), Evaluating Model Fit, in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, R. Hoyle, ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, James, Lawrence R., Stanley A. Mulaik, and Jeane M. Brett (2006), A Tale of Two Methods, Organizational Research Methods, 9 (2), Jin, Seung-A, and Yongjun Sung (2009), The Effects of Spoke- Avatars Personalities on Source Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness in the 3D Virtual Environment, in Advances in Consumer Research: North American Conference Proceedings, vol. 36, Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, eds., Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, Keller, Kevin Lane (2003), Strategic Branding Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kenny, David A., Deborah A. Kashy, and Niall Bolger (1998), Data Analysis in Social Psychology, in Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 1, Daniel Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, eds., New York: McGraw-Hill, Lane, Vicki, and Robert Jacobson (1995), Stock Market Reactions to Brand Extension Announcements: The Effects of Brand Attitude and Familiarity, Journal of Marketing, 59 ( January), Li, Fuan, and Paul W. Miniard (2006), On the Potential for Advertising to Facilitate Trust in the Advertised Brand, Journal of Advertising, 35 (4), Macklin, M. Carole (1996), Preschoolers Learning of Brand Names from Visual Cues, Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), McCracken, Grant (1986), Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods, Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), (1989), Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), Mishra, Aneil K. (1996), Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust, in Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Roderick M. Kramer and Tom R. Tyler, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Moore, Elizabeth S., William L. Wilkie, and Richard J. Lutz (2002), Passing the Torch: Intergenerational Influences as a Source of Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, 66 (2), Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58 ( July), Murphy, Sheila T., and R.B. Zajonc (1993), Affect, Cognition and Awareness: Affective Priming with Optimal and Suboptimal Stimulus Exposures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (5), Neeley, Sabrina M., and David W. Schumann (2004), Using Animated Spokes-Characters in Advertising Toward Young Children: Does Increasing Attention to Advertising Necessarily Lead to Product Preferences? Journal of Advertising, 33 (3), Netemeyer, Richard G., Balaji Krishnan, Chris Pullig, Guangping Wang, Mehmet Yagci, Dwane Dean, Joe Ricks, and

14 30 The Journal of Advertising Ferdinand Wirth (2004), Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Business Research, 57 (2), Phillips, Barbara J. (1996), Defining Trade Characters and Their Role in American Popular Culture, Journal of Popular Culture, 29 (4), , and Wei-Na Lee (2005), Interactive Animation: Exploring Spokes-Characters on the Internet, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27 (1), Sheth, Jagdish, and Atul Parvatiyar (1995), Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), Sobel, Michael E. (1982), Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models, in Sociological Methodology, Samuel Leinhardt, ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Soh, Hyeonjin, Leonard N. Reid, and Karen Whitehill King (2009), Measuring Trust in Advertising: Development and Validation of the ADTRUST Scale, Journal of Advertising, 38 (2), Strutton, David, Lou E. Pelton, and John F. Tanner, Jr. (1996), Shall We Gather in the Garden: The Effect of Ingratiatory Behaviors on Buyer Trust in Salespeople, Industrial Marketing Management, 25 (2), Sung, Yongjun, and Jooyoung Kim (2010), Effects of Brand Personality on Brand Trust and Brand Affect, Psychology and Marketing, 27 (7), Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen M. Stilley, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2009), When Brand Personality Matters: The Moderating Role of Attachment Styles, Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (April), Zebrowitz, Leslie A., Judith A. Hall, Nora A. Murphy, and Gillian Rhodes (2002), Looking Smart and Looking Good: Facial Cues to Intelligence and Their Origins, Personality and Social Psychology, 28 (2), Zentes, Joachim, Dirk Morschett, and Hanna Schramm-Klein (2008), Brand Personality of Retailers: An Analysis of Its Applicability and Its Effect on Store Loyalty, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18 (2), Zhao, Hao, and Scott E. Seibert (2006), The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurial Status: A Meta-Analytical Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2),

15 Spring APPENDIX 1 Study 1: Stimulus

16 32 The Journal of Advertising Appendix 2 Study 2: Stimuli More competent/less sincere More sincere/less competent