Personality Traits and Their Effect.... Srivastava and Owens

PERSONALITY TRAITS AND THEIR EFFECT ON BRANDCOMMITMENT: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

PRASHANT SRIVASTAVA, The University of AkronDEBORAH L OWENS, The University of Akron

The proliferation of new brands, increased use of sales promotions, the explosion of alternativeforms of distribution and a reduction in advertising impact, make maintaining brand commitment,increasingly difficult. This study empirically examines the roles of personality traits on brandcommitment. More specifically, this study investigates the effects of personality traits of preferencefor consistency (PFC), resistance to change, agreeableness, introversion, openness to experience,and conscientiousness on consumers ' brand commitment. Based on our study, the elemental trait ofconscientiousness was found to be positively related to preference for consistency but no significantrelationship was found between preference for consistency and resistance to change, however asignificant relationship was found between resistance to change and brand commitment. Hence, it issuggested that in order to maximize returns, it is necessary to have brand-committed customers.

INTRODUCTION

Customer loyalty can give an importantcompetitive advantage to companies (Dick andBasu 1994). In markets, which are becomingincreasingly competitive, building loyalty inconstimers is becoming a key factor in wirmingmarket share (Lowensteinl997; Heere andDickson 2008), and the key to long term,sustainable competitive advantage (Aaker 1996;Chakraborty, Srivastava and Marshall 2007).Loyal customers lower a firm's acquisitioncosts, as the cost of acquiring a new customer ismuch higher than the cost of retaining an oldcustomer (Kotier 2000). In addition, highlyloyal customers account for a significantlyhigher percentage of a firm's revenues. Forexample, in one study of paint purchasers,highly loyal customers accounted for 26 percentof the firm's customers, but 43 percent of thefirm's revenues, while the low loyalty groupaccounted for 23 percent of the firm'scustomers, but only 4.5 percent of revenues(Owens, Hardman and Keillor 2001).

In spite of the said advantage, the dynamics andpsychology behind the development ofcustomer loyalty is not well understood, withThe Marketing Management JournalVolume 20. Issue 2. Pages 15-27Copyright C 2010. The Marketing Management AssociationAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved

potentially multiple conditions or cognitions atwork within the loyalty construct (Jacoby andKyner 1973; Shapiro 1990; Owens, Hardmanand Keillor 2001; Hill and Alexander 2006).Loyalty measures, based on repeated purchasedecisions, do not distinguish between true orspurious loyalty to one brand because of manyreasons such as there might be no other brandreadily available, a brand offers a long series ofdeals, has a better shelf or display location, etc.(Day 1969). These spuriously brand loyalbuyers may lack any attachment to the brandand they can be easily attracted to anotherbrand that offers a better deal, a coupon, orenhanced point of purchase visibility (Day1969). For example, one comprehensive studyacross 27 brands found that after a year only 53percent of "high loyalty" users remained highlyloyal to the brand (Baldinger and Rubinson1996). I

LITRATURE REVIEWAND HYPOTHESES

Brand Commitment

A brand loyal consumer nearly alwayspurchases the same brand, while a non-loyalconsumer typically switches brands based onavailability, convenience, price, or a brandpromotion. Acknowledging the realities of the

IS Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010

Personality Traits and Their Effect Srivastava and Owens

marketplace, Totten and Block (1994) note thatit is rare for a consumer to purchase only onebrand, and tberefore defme brand loyalconstimers as those wbo ustially purchase aparticular brand. Also, it is possible to buy abrand again and again, but not be committed toit. Hence, the concept of commitment providesan essential basis for distinguishing betweenbrand loyalty and other forms of repeatptircbasing behavior (Jacoby and Cbestnut1978). Jacoby and Cbestnut (1978) suggest tbatbrand loyalty bas been viewed and meastired asan attitudinal concept, a bebavioral concept,and simultaneously as a bebavioral andattitudinal concept. To distinguisb betweentbese different brand loyalty constructs, tbeconstruct of brand commitment will be usedwithin tbis study. Brand commitment is anattitudinal construct (Dick and Basu 1994).

Wben individtials are more concerned abouttbeir purcbases witbin a product category, tbeyare inclined to establisb strong preferences anddevelop brand loyalties more readily.Empirical evidence for tbis linkage comes iromtbe positive linkage between perceived risk andbrand loyalty (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978).Also, Beatty, Kable and Homer (1988)proposed that ego involvement is a prectirsor ofproduct involvement, wbicb in turn precedesbrand cotnmitment. On the otber band,Warrington and Shim (2000) found negligiblecorrelation between product involvement andbrand commitment.

Day (1969) noted that consistency in a person'sptirchase bebavior does not necessarily meantbat be/sbe is brand loyal. Brand attitudesbould to be assessed as well as brand behavior.Day (1969) viewed brand loyalty as consistingof repeated purcbases prompted by a stronginternal disposition. Individual's dispositionalbasis for repeat purchase and appraisal of tbetarget is seen as inseparable fi-om the notion ofloyalty (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). As repeatptircbase is premised on choice within the set ofalternatives, a consumer's relative appraisal oftargets witbin tbe relevant set is likely toassume significance. Attitude serves as anobject appraisal fiinction. Attitudes bave been

related to bebaviors, but one may bold afavorable attitude toward a brand but notptirchase it becatise of greater attitudinalextremity toward another brand. Hence tbenature of relative attitude is likely to provide astronger indication of repeat patronage than tbeattitude toward a brand determined in isolation(Dick and Basu 1994). Two dimensions, tbedegree of attitudinal strengtb and the degree ofattitudinal differentiation, seem to underlie anindividtial's relative attitude toward a brand.Relative attitude will be bigbest for strongattitude strengtb and clearly differentiatedattitude toward brand and will be lowest forweak attitude strength and no perceiveddifferentiation. Customer loyalty is defined astbe relationsbip between relative attitude andrepeat patronage (Dick and Basu 1994; Heereand Dickson 2008). Evidence in differentresearcb domains shows tbat holding strongcommitment to specific objects/events/issuesdemonstrates enhanced resistance to perstiasionattempts (cbange). Many in the marketing fieldbave also defined loyalty as a composite blendof brand attitude and bebavior, witb indexestbat measure tbe degree to wbicb one favorsand buys a brand repeatedly (e.g.. Day 1969;Pritcbard et al. 1999). Commitment differs fromtbis composite defmition as it is generallyconsidered in purely cognitive terms tbat assessconsumer attitudes of attachment to a brand.Morgan and Hunt (1994) describe commitmentas an enduring desire to continue an attacbment.

Psycbologists defined commitment as decisionsor cognitions tbat fix or bind an individtial to abebavioral disposition (Kiesler 1971). Crosbyand Taylor (1983) provided a definition ofcotnmitment as a stable preference tbat wasbound by an attitude of resistance to cbange.Tbey argue tbat tbe need to maintain aconsistent informational structure helpsmaximize one's resistance to change(informational process). Tbis is related tomaintaining cognitive consistency regardingbrand knowledge and information and tbeconfidence in tbe brand's consistentperformance. Anotber process deals withpersonal attacbment and wbetber peopleidentified witb important values and self-image

Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010 16

Personality Traits and Their Effect.... Srivastava and Owens

linked to a preference (identification process).The more strongly consumers identified withthe values and images embodied by a particularbrand, the greater their sense of resistance tochange that preference (Pritchard et al. 1999).The identification of values and imagesassociated with a brand, may assume anincreasingly important role in developingcommitment, given that products in today'smarketplace are often differentiated more ontheir symbolic values than on their physicalattributes and functions. The third processrefers to people's perception that theirpreferences are free (volitional process). Whenpeople sense that their choices are unhindered,the resulting commitment is likely to bestronger and more deeply held (Salancik 1977).This perspective specifies information,identification, and volition as antecedentprocesses of commitment that facilitateresistance to change.

Commitment to a relationship is a relativelystable, strong, and intense psychological stateor attitude towards maintaining the relationship(Allen and Meyer 1993; Chakraborty,Srivastava and Marshall 2007). States ofcommitment may arise from differentmotivations (Geyskens et al. 1996). Affectivecommitment exists when one has the desire tomaintain the relationship based on a generalizedsense of positive regard for, a liking of, and anenjoyment of the relationship (Matilla 2006;Evanschitzky et al. 2006). Calculativecommitment, on the other hand, occurs whenone needs to maintain a relationship due to thesignificant anticipated costs associated wdthleaving the relationship (Matilla 2006). In theconsumer market, since both the buyer and theseller often have numerous alternatives at theindividual level, the market relationship isgenerally characterized by low buyer-sellerinterdependence and low costs associated withleaving the relationship for either party. As aresult, consumers' commitment to the brandtends to be more affective than calculative(Matilla 2006; Evanschitzky et al. 2006).Crosby and Taylor (1983) provided a definitionof commitment as a stable preference that was

bound by an attitude of resistance to change. Inthis paper, brand commitment is defined as thedegree to which the consumer is attitudinallyloyal to a particular brand in a product class. Itis the strength of the individual's belief systemtoward a brand, and is different fromcalculative commitment often observed in otherrelationship domains (Matilla 2006;Evanschitzky et al. 2006). As per thedefinition, preference for consistency shouldhave positive impact on resistance to changeand brand commitment. I

Preference for Consistency (PFC)

Preference for consistency (PFC) of a person isthe desire to be consistent within his/her ownresponses termed as "internal consistency," thedesire to appear consistent to others, "publicconsistency," and the desire that others beconsistent, "others' consistency" (Cialdini et al.1995; Bator and Cialdini 2006). Individualswith high PFC decide how to respond toincoming information by taking into account itsrelationship with already establishedinformation and factors; they are likely to bereceptive and responsive to the new informationto the degree that it fits with the implications ofexisting variables. PFC measures a tendency tobe consistent with existing information, not theinformation of any sort. Cialdini et al. (1995)found a positive correlation between low-PFCand the personality trait of openness. Also theyfound evidence of the relatively greaterextraversion of low-PFC participants. Low-PFC individuals may like people, especiallystrangers, more than high-PFC individuals.Cialdini et al. (1995) found a positiverelationship between consistency-based effects,such as foot-in-the-door effect and cognitivedissonance, to high-PFC scores. PFC is thetendency to respond to incoming stimuli in away that integrates these stimuli with existingvariables. High-PFC individuals weight theseprior entry variables (e.g., commitments,choices, previous expectations) to aconsiderable degree, adjusting their subsequentresponding accordingly (Cialdini et al. 1995;Bator and Cialdini 2006). Low-PFC

17 Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010

Personality Traits and Their Effect Srivastava and Owens

individuals on the other hand, do not weight theimplications of such variables so heavily intheir response decisions.

There are several possible meanings ofconsistency like uniformity, which impliesinvariance, or regularity, which implieslawfulness. But the most frequent meaningused by social psychologists is coherence,which implies a high degree of agreement or afit between a particular element and otherrelevant elements. Cialdini et al. (1995) arguedthat individuals who identify themselves asconsistent choose to make their attitudes fitwith the implications of the established ratherthan the new. Consistency motivation may bestbe defined as an inclination toward adherence -adherence to the implications of what hashappened before.

Other Personality Traits

The elemental trait of introversion is thetendency to reveal feelings of bashfulness andshyness (Mowen 2000). This should relatepositively with PFC as PFC is a tendency to beconsistent with existing information. Hence anindividual high on introversion should showindication of maintaining consistency. The traitof openness to experience is defined as the needto find novel solution (Mowen 2000), shouldrelate negatively with PFC as people with highneed for experience wiU always look for newthings. The trait of agreeability is the need toexpress kindness and sympathy to others(Mowen 2000) and should relate negativelywith preference for consistency as an individualhigh on agreeability will tend to agree withothers and will not remain consistent in his/herresponses. The elemental trait ofconscientiousness, which is defined as the needto be organized, orderly, and efficient incarrying out task (Mowen 2000) should relatepositively with PFC. A person who isorganized and efficient should make theirattitudes fit with the implications of theestablished rather than new information andhence should be high on PFC. Finally, theelemental trait of need for arousal should benegatively related to PFC because a person with

high need for arousal is drawn toward risktaking and new experiences with risks.

As mentioned earlier, brand commitment isdefined as the degree to which the consumer isattitudinally loyal to a particular brand in aproduct class. It is the strength of theindividual's belief system toward a brand, andis different from calculative commitment oftenobserved in other relationship domains (Matilla2006; Evanschitzky et al. 2006). This affectivecommitment can often be manifested throughan enduring preference for a particular brandover other brands, continuing to use the brand,recommending the brand to friends, andresistance to competing brand's switchinginducement (Aaker 1991; Bettencourt 1997;Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman 1996). Manyauthors contend that commitment differentiatestrue brand loyalty from other repeat purchasebehaviors that have been termed habit, inertia,or spurious loyalty (Beatty and Kahle 1988;Dick and Basu 1994). Based on the abovediscussion, the following hypotheses areproposed (Please see Figure 1 for the model):

Hypotheses

Hi: Agreeableness will be negatively relatedto preference for consistency.

H2: Conscientiousness will be positivelyrelated to preference for consistency.

H3: Introversion 'will be positively related topreference for consistency.

H4: Openness to experience will benegatively related to preference forconsistency.

Hs: Need for arousal will be negativelyrelated to preference for consistency.

Hé.* Preference for consistency will bepositively related to resistance to change.

H7: Resistance to change will be positivelyrelated to brand commitment.

Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010 18

Personality Traits and Their Effect.... Srivastava and Owens

FIGURE 1Brand Commitment Model

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Introversion

Openness toExperience

Need forArousal

METHODS

Sample

This study was conducted at a large mid-westem university in the USA. The study dealtwith soft drink consumption. The primarytarget market for soft drinks is people under 35years of age. According to the National SoftDrink Association (NSDA), consumption ofsoft drinks is now over 600, 12-ounce servingsper person per year. Since the late 1970s thesoft drink consumption in the United States hasdoubled for females and tripled for males. Thehighest consumption is in the males betweenthe ages of 12 - 29; they average 1/2 gallon aday or 160 gallons a year. Thus collegeundergraduates are appropriate match for thetopic area under study. Students who wereenrolled in undergraduate business courses at alarge mid-westem university participated in thisstudy. Data were collected by distributingquestionnaires randomly. The personalify traitswere measured approximately two weeksbefore measuring brand commitment andresistance to change. The participants

responded to brand commitment and resistanceto change measures in reference to the mostfavorite brand of soft drink. The total samplesize consisted of 125 participants including 54males (43 percent) and 71 females (57 percent).Average age of males was 21.3 years and offemales 21.8 years wdth overall average age of21.6 years.

Measures

All measures for the study have been used inprevious studies and have been well establishedfor their reliabilify and validity. Items forp e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s a g r e e a b l e n e s s ,conscientiousness, introversion, openness toexperience, and need for arousal, were takenfi-om scales developed by Mowen (2000).These scales were employed because of theirhigh reliability and validify. In addition, thescales are short and averaged four items inlength. The use of short scales is supported byBurisch (1997), who found in a series of studiesthat carefully developed scales of two to fouritems can outperform longer scales. To assessthe traits, respondents were presented with

19 Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010

Personality Traits and Their Effect.... Srivastava and Owens

short phrases and asked, "How often do you, feel/act this way." Responses were taken on a

nine-point Likert scale anchored by "never-always." Items for brand commitment were

1 taken from scales developed by Beatty and'; Kahle (1988) and Muncy (1983). It consisted

of five items. The four items resistance tochange scale was adopted from scale developedby Pritchard et al. (1999). The seven itemsbrief scale of Preference for Consistency(PFCB) was adapted from Cialdini et al.(1995). Respondents provided answers to nine-point Likert-type statements anchored by

' "strongly disagree-strongly agree." Appendix 1contains the measures employed in the study.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Measurement Model

Before performing the hypotheses testing, weconducted a series of analyses to evaluate theproperties of the measurement scales. Asrecommended by Gerbing and Anderson (1988)examining the scales of a study for compositereliability and convergent and discriminantvalidity is of utmost importance. We firstperformed an exploratory factor analysis on thescale items, taking one scale at a time to see ifthe items for a construct share a singleunderlying factor (i.e., unidimensionality). Inevery case, only one factor was extracted, usingan eigen value of 1.0 as the cut-off point. Next,consistent with the approach advocated byAnderson and Gerbing (1988), we estimated ameasurement model to examine model fit andunidimensionality (confirmatory factoranalysis). We used AMOS 18.0 (Arbuckle2009) to estimate the models. We divided thevariables of the model into two subsets:independent variable group (Agreeableness,Conscientiousness, Introversion, Openness toexperience. Need for arousal) and dependentvariable group (PFC, Resistance to change.Brand commitment), and then performed ameasurement model estimation for each ofthese groups. We expected the variables withineach of these groups to correlate with oneanother. Considering our sample size and thenumber of constructs in the current study, we

Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010

took this approach following Bentler and Chou(1987) and Moorman and Miner (1997).

Given the sensitivity of chi-square and itsunreliability in the case of assessing the modelfit in SEM, we relied on a variety of other fitindices and standards to assess model fit. Theestimation results of the measurement modelprovided a reasonable model fit to the data: thefive personality trait independent variables(exogenous) (c (i60) = 299.1, p < .01, CFI =0.92, IFI= 0.93, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA=0.08) andthe three dependent (endogenous) variables(cV) = 201.8, p < .01, CFI = 0.91, IFI=0.91,TLI = 0.89, RMSEA=0.10). Takencollectively, the values of fit indices (CFI, IFI,TLI) exceeded or were close to the standard of0.90 for model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999;Kelley, Longfellow and Malehom 1996), whichalso confirmed the unidimensionality of eachconstruct in the model (Gerbing and Anderson,1988; Kohli, Shervani and Challagalla 1998).

We next assessed the convergent anddiscriminant validities of our constructs.Convergent validity is established if eachloading is greater than twice its standard error(Anderson and Gerbing 1988), which alsosuggests that each loading is significant at / =0.01 level (Gefen et al. 2000). Table 1 showsthat all ratios of loading to standard error wereexceeding this minimum criterion. All loadingswere significant at t = 0.01 level. We alsocalculated composite reliability (CR) for eachof the constructs. Analogous to coefficientalpha, CR assesses the internal consistency of ameasure. We calculated CR using thefollowing equation (Fomell and Larcker 1981,p. 45):

The numerator in the above equation is thesquare of the sum of standardized factorloadings, whereas the denominator is numeratorplus the sum of the variance due to randommeasurement error for each loading. Variance

20

\

Personality Traits and Their Effect Srivastava and Owens

due to random meastirement error is computedas I minus tbe sqtiare of eacb loading. Asshown in Table 1, tbe CR values range from0.847 to 0.933. Tbese findings give robustsupport for convergent validity of the items ineacb scale.

Next, we assessed tbe discriminant validity.We calctilated average variance extracted(AVE), which measures the amotint of variancecapttired by a construct in relation to tbevariance due to random meastirement error,using tbe following equation (Fomell andLarcker 1981, p. 46):

Tbe ntunerator in tbe above eqtiation is tbe stimof tbe sqtiare of tbe standardized factorloadings, whereas tbe denominator is tbentimber of items. Table 1 presents tbe AVEvalues for different constructs. All AVE valueswere more tban tbe 0.50 limit (ranged from0.530 to 0.777) suggested by Fomell andLarcker (1981). Also, performing aconfirmatory factor analysis using MaximumLikelihood (ML) estimation in AMOS 18.0, wenoted tbat all items loaded significantly on tbeircorresponding latent constmct, witb tbe lowesti-value being 6.08 {p < .01), thereby providingevidence of convergent and discriminantvalidity.

Hypotheses Testing

After checking tbe measurement model, wetested our bypotheses by investigating tberelationship of five personality traits witb thetrait of preference for consistency, as well asrelationsbips between PFC and resistance tocbange, and between resistance to cbange andbrand commitment, using multivariateregression. We also used structtiral eqtiationmodeling for testing our bypotbeses to comparedifferences between regression and structtiralequation model.

Hierarchical regression analyses wereconducted to confirm the relationships betweendifferent constructs. The elemental trait ofagreeableness was fotind to be positivelyrelated witb PFC {t = 1.79, p = 0.07), wbicbwas in tbe opposite direction of Hypothesis Hiwben analyzed as otily independent variable butwas not significant wben all elemental traitswere entered as independent variables, rejectingH]. Tbe elemental trait of conscientiousnesswas positively related witb PFC (/ = 2.07, p <0.05), supporting H2 significantly. Nosignificant relationsbip was fotind between thetrait of introversion and PFC, tbe trait ofopetmess to experience and PFC, and tbe traitof need for arousal and PFC. Hence H3, H4 andH5 were not supported. Also, no significantrelationsbip was fotind between PFC andresistance to cbange. Hence Wf, was notsupported as well. A significant negativerelationsbip was found between introversionand resistance to cbange (/ = -3.392, p <0.01).Resistance to cbange and brand commitmentwere significantly related (/ = 9.812, p <0.01).Tberefore, H7 was significantly supported.Table 2A provides standardized estimates and t-values.

We also ran a structtiral equation model usingAMOS 18.0 to cbeck if results differ. Tbeoverall model was satisfactory and similarrelationsbips were fotind significant. Therelationship between elemental trait ofagreeableness and PFC was found to be notsignificant {ß= .144, t = 1.37, p = 0.17), notsupporting Hypothesis Hi. Tbe elemental traitof conscientiousness was positively related witbPFC {ß= .222, t = 2.07, p = 0.038), supportingH2 significantly. No significant relationsbipwas found between tbe trait of introversion andPFC (^=-0.05l,t = -0.52,p = 0.604), the trait ofopenness to experience and PFC (ß= -.160, / = -1.37, p = 0.171), and tbe trait of need forarousal and PFC (ß= -.040, / = -0.34, p =0.734). Hence H3, H», and H5 were notsupported. Also, no significant relationsbipwas found between PFC and resistance tocbange (ß= -0.027, t = -0.29, p = 0.774). HenceHé was not supported. Resistance to cbangeand brand commitment were significantly

21 Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010

Personality Traits and Their Effect... Srivastava and Owens

TABLE 1Measurement Properties

Construct

Introversion

Conscientiousness

Openness to Experi-ence

Agreeableness

Need for Arousal

Preference for Con-sistency

Resistance toChange

Brand Commitment

Items

Intro 1Intro 2Intro 3Intro 4Consc 1Consc 2Consc 3Consc 4OpenlOpen 2Open 3Open 4Agree 1Agree 2Agree 3Agree 4Arous 1Arous 2Arous 3Arous 4PFC 1PFC 2PFC 3PFC 4PFC 5PFC 6Resist 1Resist 2Resist 3Resist 4BConmi 1BComm 2BComm 3BComm 4BComm 5

Std.Loading

0.9110.9240.7940.8330.9240.9350.7090.4900.8300.8100.9240.8690.8100.7300.5730.9100.9130.8020.9080.8990.5700.7020.7190.7160.8950.9330.7940.9630.8340.8280.6760.6660.6990.8340.751

S.E.

-0.0600.0730.062

—0.0720.0640.076

-0.0700.0770.085

--0.0810.1020.103

--0.0640.0630.067

—0.2150.2010.1960.2340.231

—0.0980.1000.102

—0.1510.1760.1770.162

CompositeReliability

0.924

0.859

0.918

0.847

0.933

0.892

0.917

0.848

CronbachAlpha

0.92

0.86

0.91

0.84

0.93

0.90

0.91

0.85

AVE

0.752

0.618

0.738

0.586

0.777

0.586

0.735

0.530

Marketing Management Journal, Fail 2010 22

Personality Traits and Their Effect Srivastava and Owens

TABLE 2AResults of Hypotheses Testing

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Independent Variables

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Introversion

Openness to Experience

Need for Arousal

PFC

Resistance toChange

R̂

Model F

P-Value

Dependent Variables

Model 1

PFC

ß (S.E.)

.137(.1O)

.186 (.07)

-.025 (.06)

-.074 (.08)

-.109 (.06)

.08

1.98

.08

t-value

1.436

2.07"

-.272

-.788

-1.175

Model 2

Resistance to Change

ß (S.E.)

.046 (.20)

-.106 (.14)

-.308 (.12)

.087 (.17)

.079 (.11)

.005 (.18)

.132

2.98

.009

t-value

.491

-1.189

-3.392"

.947

.863

.055

Model 3

Brand Commitment

ß (S.E.)

.005 (.15)

- .002 ( .11)

.016 (.10)

-.033 (.13)

-.113 009)

.069 (.14)

.703 (.07)

0.48

15.34

.000

t-value

.073

-.024

.217

-.463

-1.586

.989

9.812*

Note: a - Significant at p<.05 level

TABLE 2BResults of Hypotheses Testing

Structural Equation Model

AgreeablenessàPFC

ConscientiousnessàPFC

introversionàPFC

Openness to ExperienceàPFC

Need for ArousalàPFC

PFCàResistance to Change

Resistance to Change àBrand Commitment

Hypothesis

Hi

H2

H3

H4

H5

Ha

H7

Std. Estimate

0.144

0.222

-0.051

-0.160

-0.040

-0.027

0.834

S. E.

0.077

0.126

0.460

0.059

0.052

0.221

0.096

t-value

1.37ns

2.07

-0.52ns

-1.37ns

-0.34ns

-0.29ns

6.97

(Goodness-of-Fit Statistics: x'(543)= 916.4, p < 0.01; RMSEA = .074; CFI = 0.882; IFI = 0.885; TLl=0.863).

23 Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010

Personality Traits and Their Effect Srivastava and Owens

positively related (y?=0.834, t=6.97, p=0.000).H7 was supported. Table 2B provides pathcoefficients and t-values.

Since no significant relationship was foundbetween PFC and resistance to change and PFCand brand commitment, as an exploratorypurpose, a moderation analysis was conductedto examine if PFC moderates the relationshipbetween resistance to change and brandcommitment. But, no significant moderationeffect was found.

DISCUSSION

The model received strong support for thehypothesized path from resistance to change tobrand commitment. The lack of anyrelationship between PFC and resistance tochange is interesting. Perhaps this relationshipis moderated by other variables. Also as morethan half of the respondents scored below themidpoint of the scale, the data suggest thatcollege students do not seem to care forconsistency. It is also possible that most of thenon-significant relations between personalitytraits and PFC were due to the small samplesize. Another possibilify is that the scale usedto measure PFC which was a brief scaleconsisting of only seven items and these sevenitems might not have been able to capture thewhole constmct of PFC.

Tme loyalty is commitment based, and must bedistinguished from non-commitment basedspiudous loyalty. Loyalty measures such asrepeat purchase can be misleading because theyoverlook factors such as inertia and habit.Hence measure for a brand's loyal consumerbase should take brand commitment intoconsideration. We can distinguish betweenthose who buy products strictly fîom habit orconvenience and those who make repeatpurchases based on genuine attachment.

Brand commitment should be viewed as a long-run end pursued to achieve long-runcompetitive advantage. It is a good predictor ofloyal consumers and positively influences thecustomer retention rate. Promotional efforts

should be used as a strategic tool to improvecustomers' commitment to the brand andenhance their retention over time (Martin andGoodell 1991). Lowenstein (1997) has alsoplaced commitment based loyalty in the top tierof the "Customer Loyalty Pyramid^"^". As perHofmeyr and Rice (2000) "Committedcustomers are the backbone of the value of abrand." Brand-committed consumers will stickwith the brand even when the brand changes itsattributes within certain limits (Aaker 1991). Ina given product category, they are expected touse and purchase the particular brandexclusively, whenever possible.

LIMITATIONS ANDFUTURE RESEARCH

Generalization of these results beyond theproduct category of soft drink should proceedwith caution. The product category utilizedhere was selected because it represented afrequently purchased product. Limitation liesin the nature of the data because of the productcategory and sample profile. The studentsample, though representing an importantconsumer group, is a limitation due to potentialdifferences between students and nonstudentsas consumers. Future research should examinethe relationships in other product categoriesusing more representative samples and throughmultiple studies. Also the model presented hereconsists only of a small set of preference forconsistency, resistance to change, and brandcommitment correlates. Future research shoulddevelop a more comprehensive model with alarger set of antecedent and consequences.Non-significant relationship between PFC andresistance to change was interesting and may bemoderated by other variables. Future researchshould try to investigate these variables. Also,instead of brief scale of only seven items, thefull scale of PFC should be used to measure theconstmct. Finally, importance of this researchlies in a better understanding of how increasedbrand commitment could stem the growth of amore promiscuous customer base.

Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010 24

1

Personality Traits and Their Effect Srivastava and Owens

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing BrandEquity: Capitalizing on the Value of aBrand Name, New York, The Free Press.

Aaker, David A. (1996), Building StrongBrands, New York: The Free Press.

Allen, N. and J. Meyer (1993), "OrganizationalCommitment: Evidence of Career StageEffect," Journal of Business Research, 26(1), 49-61.

Arbuckle, James L. (2009), Amos Users ' GuideVersion 18.0, Chicago, IL: SPSS hic.

Baldinger, Allan L. and Joel Rubinson (1996),"Brand Loyalty: The Link BetweenAttitude and Behavior," Journal ofAdvertising Research, 36 (November/December), 22-34.

Bator Renée J. and Robert B. Cialdini (2006),"The Nature of Consistency motivation:Consistency, Aconsistency, andAnticonsistency in a DissonanceParadigm," Social Influence, 1 (3),208-233.

Beatty, Sharon E. and Lynn R. Kahle (1988),"The Alternative Hierarchies of theAttitude-Behavior Relationship: TheImpact of Brand Commitment and Habit,"Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (2),I-IO.

Beatty, Sharon E., Lynn R. Kahle and PamelaHomer (1988), "The Involvement-Commitment Model: Theory andImplications," Journal of BusinessResearch, 16 (2), 149-167.

Bettencourt, Lance (1997), "CustomerVoluntary Performance: Customer asPartner in Service Delivery," Journal ofRetailing, 73 (3), 383-406

Burisch, M. (1997), "Test Length and ValidityRevisited," European Journal ofPersonality, 11,303-315.

Chakraborty, Gautam, Prashant Srivastava andFred Marshall (2007), "Are Drivers ofCustomer Satisfaction Different forBuyers/Users from Different FunctionalAreas?" Journal of Business and IndustrialMarketing, 22 (1), 20-28.

Cialdini, Robert B., Melanie R. Trost and JasonT. Newsom (1995), "Preference forConsistency: The Development of a ValidMeasure and the Discovery of SurprisingBehavioral Implications," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 69 (2),318-328.

Crosby, Lawrence A. and James R. Taylor(1983), "Psychological Commitment andIts Effects on Post-Decision Evaluation andPreference Stability among Voters,"Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (March),413-431.

Day, George S. (1969), "A Two-DimensionalConcept of Brand Loyalty," Journal ofAdvertising Research, 9 (2), 29-35.

Dick, Alan S. and Kunal Basu (1994),"Customer Loyalty: Toward an IntegratedConceptual Framework," Journal ofAcademy of Marketing Science, 22 (2),99-113.

Evanschitzky, Heiner, Gopalkrishnan R. Iyer,Hilke Plassmann, Joerg Niessing andHeribert Meffert (2006), "The RelativeStrength of Affective Commitment inSecuring Loyalty in Service Relationships,"Journal of Business Research, 59 (12),1207-1213.

Fomell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981),"Evaluating Structural Equation Modelswith Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Error," Journal of MarketingResearch, \S (I), 39-50.

Gefen, D., Sträub, D. and M. Boudreau (2000),"Structural Equation Modeling andRegression: Guidelines for ResearchPractice," Communications of AIS, 4 (7),1-78.

Gerbing, D. W. and J.C. Anderson (1988). "AnUpdated Paradigm for Scale DevelopmentIncorporating Unidimensionality and ItsAssessment", Journal of MarketingResearch, 25(May), 186-192.

Geyskens, 1. J., B. Steenkamp, L. Scheer and N.Kumar (1996), "The Effect of Trust andInterdependence on RelationshipCommitment: A Trans-Atlantic Study,"International Journal of Research inMarketing, 13 (4), 303-317.

25 Marketing Management Journal, Fail 2010

Personality Traits and Their Effect Srivastava and Owens

Heere, Bob and Geoff Dickson (2008),"Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty: Separatingtbe Terms of Affective Cotnmitment andAttitudinal Loyalty," Journal of SportManagement, 22, 227-239.

Hill, Nigel and Jim Alexander (2006),Handbook of Customer Satisfaction andLoyalty Measurement, Hampsbire,England: Gower Technical Press.

Hofrneyr, Jan and Butch Rice (2000),Commitment-Led Marketing: The Key toBrand Profits is in the Customer's Mind,New York: Jobn Wiley & Sons.

Hu, L. and P. M. Bentler (1999), "CutoffCriteria for Fit Indices in CovarianceStructure Analysis: Conventional Criteriaversus New Alternatives," StructuralEquation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Jacoby, Jacob and Robert Cbestnut (1978),Brand Loyalty Measurement andManagement, New York: Jobn Wiley &Sons.

Jacoby, Jacob and David B. Kyner (1973),"Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat PurchasingBebavior," Journal of Marketing Research,10 (February), 1-9.

Kelly, S.W., T. Longfellow and J. Malehom(1996), "Organizational Determinants ofService Employees' Exercise of Routine,Creative, and Deviant Discretion", Journalof Retailing, 72 (2), 135-157.

Kiesler, Cbarles A. (1971), The Psychology ofCommitment: Experiments LinkingBehavior to Belief, San Diego, CA:Acadetnic Press.

Kobli, Ajay K., Tasadduq A. Shervani andGoutam N. Challagalla (1998), "Learningand Performance Orientation ofSalespeople: The Role of Supervisors,"Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (2),263-274.

Lowenstein, Micbael W. (1997), The CustomerLoyalty Pyramid, Westport, CT: QuorumBooks.

Martin, Cbarles L. and Pbillips W. Goodell(1991), "Historical, Descriptive andStrategic Perspectives on tbe Construct ofProduct Commitment," European Journalof Marketing, 25 (1), 53-60.

Matilla, Anna S. (2006), "How AffectiveCotnmitment Boosts Guest Loyalty (andPromotes Frequent-guest Programs),"Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, 47 (2), 174-181

Morgan, Robert B. and Sbelby D. Hunt (1994),"The Commitment-Trust Theory ofRelationsbip Marketing," Journal ofMarketing, 58 (July), 20-38.

Mowen, Jobn C. (2000), The 3M Model ofPersonality and Motivation: Theory andEmpirical Application to ConsumerBehavior, Boston, MA: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Owens, Deborah L., Micbael Hardman andBruce Keillor (2001), "The DifferentialImpact of Price-Related ConsumerPromotions on Loyal versus Non-loyalUsers of the Brand: A Field StudyInvestigation", Journal of PromotionManagement, 6 (1), 113-131.

Pritcbard, Mark P., Mark E. Havitz and DetmisR. Howard (1999), "Analyzing tbeCommitment-Loyalty Link in ServiceContexts," Journal of Academy ofMarketing Science, 27 (3), 333-348.

Salancik, G. R. (1977), "Commitment and theControl of Organizational Bebavior andBelief," In New Directions inOrganizational Behavior. Eds. B. M. Stawand G. R. Salancik. Cbicago: St. Clair,1-54.

Sbapiro, Artbur (1990), "Advertising versusPromotion: Which is Which?", Journal ofAdvertising Research, 30, Jtine. 13-18.

Totten, John C. and Block, Martin (1994),Analyzing Sales Promotions, 2"^ Edition,Chicago: Tbe Dartnell Corporation.

Warrington, Patti and Soyeon Shim (2000),"An Empirical Investigation of tbeRelationsbip between Product Involvementand Brand Commitment," Psychology andMarketing 17 (9), 761-782.

Zeitbaml, V., L. Berry and A. Parastiraman(1996), "The Bebavioral Consequences ofService Quality," Journal of Marketing, 60(AprU), 31-46

Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2010 26

Personality Traits and Their Effect Srivastava and Owens

APPENDIX

Measurement Scales of the Study

Brand Commitmeni (9 pt Likert type"strongly disagree/strongly agree")1. If my preferred brand or type of soft drink

were not available at the store, it wouldmake little difference to me if I had tochoose another brand, (r)

2. I consider myself to be highly loyal to onebrand of soft drink.

3. When another brand is on sale, I wdllgenerally purchase it rather than my usualbrand, (r)

4. To me, XYZ is the same as other soft drinks.(r)

5. I try to use XYZ soft drink because it is thebest choice for me.

Resistance to Change (9 pt. Likert type"strongly disagree/strongly agree")L My preference to use XYZ brand of soft

drink would not willingly change.2. It would be difficult to change my beliefs

about XYZ brand of soft drink.3. Even if close friends recommend another

brand of soft drink, I would not change mypreference for XYZ soft drink.

4. To change my preference from the XYZ softdrink would require major rethinking.

Preference for Consistency (9 pt. Likert type"strongly disagree/strongly agree")1. It is important to me that those who know

me can predict what I will do.2. I want to be described by others as a stable,

predictable person.3. The appearance of consistency is an

important part of the image I present to theworld.

4. I typically prefer to do things the same way.5. It is important to me that others view me as

a stable person.

6. I make an effort to appear consistent toothers.

7. It doesn't bother me much if my actions areinconsistent, (r)

Elemental Traits (9 pt. "never/always")

Introversion '

1. Feel bashful more than others.2. Introverted.3. Quite when with people.4. Shy.

Openness to Experience

1. Frequently feel highly creative.2. Imaginative.3. Find novel solutions.4. More original than others.

Agreeableness

1. Tender hearted with others.2. Agreeable with others.3. Kind to others.4. Softhearted.

Conscientiousness

1. Precise.2. Efficient.3. Organized.4. Orderly.

Need for Arousal

1. Drawn to experiences with an element ofdanger. j

2. Seek an adrenaline rush.3. Actively seek out new experiences.4. Enjoy taking more risks than others.

27 Marketing Management Journal, Fail 2010

Copyright of Marketing Management Journal is the property of Marketing Management Journal and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.