Review of literature

At first, three research hypotheses relating to the links between brand personality and the three
major relational consequences of this construct, i.e. trust, attachment, and commitment, will be
proposed. Second, the interdependence links amongst those relational consequences will be
examined. Lastly, the conceptual framework integrating the set of those various research
hypotheses will be presented.

Influence of brand personality on three key relational concepts

Amongst the various relational concepts mentioned in the literature, three main constructs will be
considered in this research: trust, attachment and commitment to the brand. They help
characterise the links that exist between a company and its clients and better understand their
loyalty behaviours (Darpy and Volle, 2007).

Consumer trust to the brand

Brand trust is a key concept in the field of relational marketing as without trust there is no stable
and lasting relationship (Guibert, 1999; Gurviez and Korchia, 2002). Nonetheless, the nature of
trust is debated in the literature. It can be seen as a belief (Sirieix and Dubois, 1999; Frisou,
2000), a will (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) or a presumption (Gurviez, 1999; Aurier et al.
2001; Gurviez and Korchia, 2002). Gurviez and Korchia (2002) thus indicate that the authors
mobilise cognitive, affective or conative dimensions to define trust in the brand. There is also the
issue of the number of dimensions to be used: is it a unidimensional or multidimensional
construct?

In this research, the definition of trust proposed by Gurviez and Korchia (2002) will be used as it
considers trust, as do most marketing studies, as a multidimensional construct and more
specifically, three-dimensional: trust in the brand, from the consumers point of view, is a
psychological variable that reflects a set of aggregated presumptions relating to the credibility,
integrity and benevolence that the consumer ascribes to the brand. According to this definition,
the brand will be credible if it can meet the performance expected by the consumer. The brand
will be of integrity if it keeps its promises regarding the terms of the exchange and if its
discourse, in a broad meaning, is perceived as being honest. Lastly, the brand will be benevolent
if it is lastingly perceived as taking into account consumers interests. Gurviez and Korchia
(2002)indicate that it is the combination of those three dimensions that determines consumers
level of trust.

Considering the studies conducted by Gouteron (2006, 2008) and Hess et al. (2007), who showed
a positive and significant influence of brand personality traits on trust in the brand. Trust in the
brand was measured using the scale developed byGurviez and Korchia (2002), composed of
three dimensions: credibility, integrity, and benevolence, comprising eight items The three
dimensions have good internal consistency reliabilities. The convergent and discriminant
validities have also been shown. Gurviez and Korchia indeed demonstrated that the three
dimensions of trust are empirically distinct and that they also differ from commitment. Lastly,
these authors showed that trust influences significantly commitment to the brand. The predictive
validity of this measurement scale has thus been tested.

Consumer attachment to the brand

Attachment to the brand corresponds to the emotional link between a consumer and a brand
(Bozzo et al., 2003). Various definitions and measures of that construct have been suggested (for
instance, in French literature, Lacoeuilhe, 1997, 2000; Cristau, 2001; Heilbrunn, 2001;
Lacoeuilhe and elad, 2007). The definition of attachment put forward by Lacoeuilhe (2000),
which is generally considered in the studies conducted in this area, will be used in this research:
attachment to the brand is a psychological variable that reveals a lasting and inalterable
affective relationship (separation is painful) to the brand and expresses a relation of
psychological closeness to it. Based on the studies conducted by Sung et al. (2005), Ambroise
(2005, 2006) and Gouteron (2006, 2008), who showed the explanatory power of brand
personality on attachment to the brand.

The four items used to measure attachment to the brand are derived from the research of
Lacoeuilhe (2000). The reliability (internal consistency type) of the unidimensional measurement
scale developed by this author is satisfactory (Lacoeuilhe, 2000; Lacoeuilhe and Belad, 2007).
The trait (convergent and discriminant validities) and predictive validities (through the study of
the attachment-commitment link) of that measurement tool have also been established
(Lacoeuilhe, 2000; Lacoeuilhe and Belad, 2007).

Model dimensions literature Attitude towards the alliance A brand producing a positive attitude
is more likely to be chosen than one generating less positive attitudes (Aaker and Keller, 1990;
Keller, 1993; Bottomley and Doyle, 1996). In a brand alliance, a consumers combination of two
sets of brand attributes forms them into a composite concept (Park and Jun, 1996). The attitude a
consumer holds towards the individual brands will influence their future attitudes towards
the same brands in the alliance (Park and Jun, 1996; Simonin and Ruth, 1998; Ruth and Simonin,
2003). Attitude towards the alliance, att, is measured by combining a consumers evaluations of
quality of the new product when made by the brands in the alliance, q, and the chances that they
will buy the resulting new product, lp. Thus, In the alliance model, we determine the effects that
the personality variable has on att.

A central premise underlying extension and alliance research is that brands demonstrating high
levels of perceived quality perform better when leveraged into a new product situation (Aaker
and Keller, 1990: Rao and Ruekert, 1994; Rao et al., 1999). Quality and perceived quality are
powerful cues for consumers as signals of reputation and for reducing risk in the purchase
process (Wernerfeldt, 1988; Lane and Jacobson, 1995; Erdem and Swait, 1998). They are
especially important if the quality of the brand is not directly observable as is often the case in a
new product introduction or leverage situation (Farquhar, 1989; Sullivan, 1990).

Aaker and Keller (1990) found that the perceived quality of the brand in its non-extension
context proved to be a major predictor of how the consumer would evaluate the brand extension.
In brand alliance research, perceived quality, reputation and signalled quality are addressed (Rao
and Ruekert, 1994; Rao et al., 1999).

Commitment to the brand

To measure the affective commitment and continuance commitment, the two measurement scales
proposed by Fullerton (2005) were used. These two unidimensional scales, each comprising
three items, have satisfactory internal consistency reliabilities. The convergent and discriminant
validities of those two measurement tools have also been established. The 348 young consumers
surveyed in this research had to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the items
of those four constructs (trust, attachment, affective commitment, and continuance commitment),
using a fivepoint Likert scale.

Brand personality

Research into brand extensions has consistently highlighted the significance of fit in dictating
extension success (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Park et al., 1991; Dacin and Smith, 1994; Keller and
Sood, 2003) and in new product success (Ansoff, 1965; Smith and Park, 1992). Fits function in
brand alliances is noteworthy because it has been found that the transfer of perceived quality is
enhanced when the brands fit together (Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Rao and Ruekert, 1994).We
use fit in this study to mean the fit between the brand personalities of the brands in the
alliances.

The concept of brand personality has been researched in some depth (Aaker, 1997; Phau and
Lau, 2000; Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003; Austin et al., 2003; Diamantopoulos et al., 2005). A
brands image and identity communicated through its personality is important in leverage
strategy (Biel, 1993; Elliot and Wattanasuwan, 1997) and forms part of a wider concept of brand
image (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003). This provides a strong point of differentiation and has a
powerful impact on a consumers brand attitudes and beliefs (Biel, 1997). Consistency between
attitudes, beliefs and product category images enhance the potential for brands to transfer these
images and personality to a new product (Mizerski et al., 1979; Batra et al., 1993).

A non-product, abstract dimension such as brand personality allows an examination of the role of
user imagery in brand alliance evaluations (Dolich, 1969; Guilford, 1973; Plummer, 1985, 2000;
Park et al., 1986; Smothers, 1993; Biel, 1997) and identifies associations between the two brands
(Folkes, 1988; Simonin and Ruth, 1998). Brand personality measures derive from psychology
(Caprara and Barbaranelli, 2001), and brand personality is an important measure to include as
consumers form relationships and attachments with brands that can be communicated through
human personality descriptors (Aaker, 1997; Caprara and Barbaranelli, 1998, 2001; Fournier,
1998; Wee, 2004).