Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
SustainabilitySustainability
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

31 December 2022

Scientometric Analysis of Brand Personality

,
,
and
1
Diego Portales University, Santiago 8370179, Chile
2
Faculty of Economics and Business, Andres Bello University, Santiago 7520404, Chile
3
Faculty of Psychology, Diego Portales University, Santiago 8370076, Chile
4
Facultad de Ingeniería y Empresa, Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez, Santiago 8330225, Chile
Sustainability2023, 15(1), 731;https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010731
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

The main focus of brand personality is the emotional bond that the consumer establishes with the product or service on offer and the strategies that are developed to strengthen such bond. This concept has received increasing attention and both its study and its applications have escaped the field where it initially originated: marketing. Despite the above, no studies have been carried out that analyze the scientific production trends associated with it. This prevents us from knowing what state of scientific development the concept is in and how you project its lines of development, both at the research and applied levels. The aim of this paper is a presentation of the literature on the subject of brand personality using a scientometric analysis based on the Web of Science database. The main results reveal that 531 papers were identified in the period between 1975 and 2019, with an exponential growth in terms of production and a constant growth in terms of number of quotations, with Aaker being the most cited author and Davies the most productive. An analysis was also carried out on the co-authorship clusters for scientific production, the institutions of affiliation, and the countries where the authors come from, as well as the main journals where this scientific production is disseminated. The conclusion is that brand personality has taken off in the past few decades in different areas of knowledge allowing to go beyond the marketing perspective in order to encompass the production of knowledge in different disciplines such as business, psychology, services, communication, education, and social sciences in general.

1. Introduction

Generally speaking, brand personality is a concept associated with marketing and is understood as the set of human characteristics or traits associated with a brand [1,2]. Authors such as Saravanan [3] have established the relationship between brand personality and consumer personality, while Hou et al. [4] highlighted the emotional connection that is generated between the consumer and the brand, based on the personality of the brand. These authors gave brand personality a symbolic value in the minds of consumers that explains their identification with the brand, their behaviour in relation to its products and/or services, and their loyalty [5,6].
Notwithstanding the above, brand personality is not limited to the firm’s relationship with customers but encompasses and/or has effects on other areas of the firm itself. For instance, several authors have stated that branding is a value signal which impacts on the firm’s growth and profitability [7,8,9]. Moreover, Keller and Richey [10] pointed out that brand personality reflects employees’ values and actions, highlighting brand management at company level. In addition, brand personality has also been studied in terms of corporate social responsibility, mainly with the aim of identifying communication attributes that consumers perceive as characteristics of a socially responsible brand personality [11,12,13,14,15,16]. This paper also identified studies that explore how firms can adapt their offer in order to build brands that are perceived as generating experiences (rather than simply delivering products and/or services) and personality [17,18].
In addition, brand personality has gone beyond the scope of traditional business and can be applied to all types of organisations, both profit and non-profit, such as townhalls [19], political parties [20,21]; pension systems [22]; fire brigades [23], higher education [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31], perception of services provided by robots [32,33], to name a few.
Furthermore, besides its impact on different areas and types of organisations, brand personality has also entered into the new contexts in which such organisations are operating. One emerging area of development is brand personality in the digital context [34]. This component analyses how social media and new forms of communication and product acquisition relate to brand personality, as well as the role that social media referents (e.g., influencers) play in how consumers identify with social media. This is rather relevant, considering that society’s sources of meaning are no longer just family or work, but are instead open to globalised and easily accessible content.
The above shows that brand personality is a theoretical construct with a practical use that goes beyond the marketing sphere, increasingly encompassing different areas within an organisation and different types of organisations and addressing the new contexts in which they are involved. Despite the obvious importance that this concept has acquired, only the study by Llanos-Herrera and Merigo [35] has analysed its scientific development from a bibliometric point of view. Previous work limited to a descriptive analysis, particularly with regard to the lack of dynamic analysis of the scientific production developed from the concept. Thus, information is available on the state of scientific production on brand personality (in descriptive terms), but nothing is known about its evolution and trends over time. In this sense, a knowledge gap is detected regarding the way in which the study of the concept of brand personality has evolved over time.
Taking this into consideration, the aim of this study is to analyse both descriptively and dynamically the scientific development of the concept of brand personality, in order to identify trends in terms of the number of published papers; most cited and productive authors, also considering authorship clusters; and most productive institutions, countries, and scientific journals on the subject. This will allow to understand how the study of brand personality has evolved and to plan future lines of research. This is particularly relevant considering that the theoretical development of the concept, together with the empirical evidence gathered on it, have a direct impact on different spheres and different types of organisations in the current environment.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is a scientometric analysis based on a search of scientific papers in Web of Science (WoS) and its Science Citation Index (SCI-E) indicators. WoS is a multidisciplinary database covering most of the important international journals in the field of pure, applied, and medical sciences [36]. In addition, the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) were also considered.
Bibliometric and/or scientometric analysis has been widely used by various authors as a way to simplify global trends in the area of marketing such as neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience [37,38] electronic services and the quality of electronic services [39], electronic marketing [40], online learning [41], mobile healthcare [42], neuromarketing and EEG [43], among several other topics, since this type of study allows the academic or professional to understand the current position of the theory and practices of electronic management for its dynamic use. A systematic bibliometric analysis can serve to provide a holistic view of the trend of publications and their trajectory in terms of various topics [44].
The analysis was carried out by applying the laws of bibliometrics to the analysis of citations and links and by measuring author productivity [45]. Structural aspects within the scientific community are also discussed, such as publishing collaboration and co-authorship (which makes it possible to detect the level of cooperation between countries, organisations and/or authors); common references, co-referencing or bibliographic coupling (by correlating authors or scientific groups); and common keywords or co-words (by identifying whether authors or scientific papers belong to a specific area of knowledge).
The search vector applied was based on keywords, logical conjunction connectors, and closeness constraints [46] on papers indexed between 1975 and 2019 in SCI-E, SSCI-as sources of certified knowledge [47], A&HCI and ESCI. From 2015 to 2018, the Citation Index has added more than 7500 new journals from different countries to its database [48]. To this end, the concept Brand Personality has been analysed in all languages, resulting in 531 papers.
The following bibliometric indicators were used for the analysis: papers, citations, journals, institutions, authors, and countries, in addition to an analysis of the bibliometric map on brand personality. A detailed map of key concepts was therefore designed based on frequency data and their respective clusters. The results were studied through a social network analysis based on graph theory using the VOSviewer software version 1.6.15.
The WoS database search, updated as of 22 May 2020, was as follows:
(TS = ((“Brand Personality”)) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (Paper) Indexes = SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Timespan = All years.

3. Results

3.1. Papers and Citations in the Study Area

After searching for papers on “Brand Personality” published between 1975 and 2019, 531 papers were identified between 1995 and 2019, the first one by Aaker and Fournier [49]. This implies that papers related to this concept written before this date were not published in WoS indexed journals. Of the published papers, there were 15,239 citations as a whole, with a linear growth of ART(YEAR) = 3.1734(YEAR)-6347.8 with an R2 = 77.13%. This means that the production of knowledge is accelerating exponentially, confirming the existence of a critical mass in this area of study (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Growth of scientific production. Source: Clarivate Web of Science.
Figure 1 shows a steady growth until 2013; in 2014 there is a small decline, which is overshadowed by a strong increase in 2015, before declining again until 2017 and then picking up again up to 2019.
Figure 2 shows the number of citations per year in the literature on brand personality. As opposed to the number of publications, the number of citations does not show any inflection points (the growth has been steady). Between 1995 and 2005 citations per year were fewer than 100, between 2006 and 2013 they were over 100 but fewer than 1000, between 2014 and 2017 over 1000 but fewer than 2000, and it was in 2019 when they reached their peak with 2674 citations.
Figure 2. Number of citations per year. Source: Clarivate Web of Science.
In terms of paper citation rate (Table 1) 15,239 citations in this subject were counted. 96 papers have not been cited (18% of the total), 373 papers have fewer than 50 citations in WoS (70.24% of the studies performed), 59 papers have more than 50 and fewer than 500 citations (11.11% of the studies performed), and only three papers have more than 500 citations (0.56% of the studies performed).
Table 1. General citation structure. Source: Compiled by the authors based on Clarivate Web of Science.
As for the top papers, out of the 531 declared by WoS (2020), their Hirsch index or h-Index was considered as a criterion [50]. As a general rule, the index favours established authors who publish a steady stream of papers with a lasting and above-average impact. Of the papers found, 57 have more than 57 citations and are therefore the publications with the highest impact in the group under study (see Table 2).
Table 2. Most cited papers within the scientific productions. Source: Compiled by the authors based on Clarivate Web of Science.
Among these papers, it is worth highlighting the one written by Jennifer Aaker [1], which accounts for 15% of the total number of citations on the subject with 2209 citations, published in the Journal of Marketing Research (Q1) by the publishing house SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC. This paper develops a theoretical framework of the construction of brand personality by determining the number and nature of the dimensions that account for this concept, namely: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and robustness.
The second most-cited paper is by Brakus et al. [51], published in the Journal of Marketing Research (Q1) by the publishing house SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC., with 1073 citations accounting for 7% of the total amount. Here, the authors identify several dimensions of experience and construct a brand experience scale that affects consumer satisfaction and loyalty, directly or indirectly, through brand personality associations. Its scale includes four dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioural.

3.2. Main Authors

Of the 531 papers in WoS (2020) on the concept of brand personality, 1170 authors were found to be single author and co-authors, with a high dispersion. This is demonstrated with Jennifer Aaker of Stanford University, who is the author with the most citations on the subject (3400), corresponding to 22.3% of the total, with an h-index of 33 and who has four papers within the 30 most influential, followed by Bernd Schmitt with 1085 citations, representing 7.1%, well below Aaker.
Table 3 lists the 10 most influential authors, according to the number of citations of their papers on brand personality, the university of affiliation, the h-index, the total number of papers and citations of their papers, and how many of these papers rank in the top 30 most influential in relation to the topic of brand personality.
Table 3. Most influential authors on brand personality. Source: Compiled by the authors based on Clarivate Web of Science.
Although not always recognised among the most influential, there are other authors who, through the writing and publication of papers, have contributed the most to the generation of knowledge on the subject under analysis; Table 4 lists those who have written at least six papers related to brand personality.
Table 4. The most productive authors on brand personality. Source: Compiled by the authors based on Clarivate Web of Science.
Table 4 shows that the author Gary Davies of the University of Chester (England) has published the most papers (7) related to brand personality, which have received 174 citations in total, followed by four other authors who have produced six papers, of which the most cited is Yongjun Sung of the University of Korea with 351 citations. None of these authors are among the 10 most influential.
In relation to the above, Figure 1 provides an analysis of co-authorship between authors on the subject under study. Using the VOSviewer software, the authors are grouped into two clusters, detailed in Table 5.
Table 5. Clusters on co-authorship for scientific production. Source: Clarivate Web of Science performed with VOSviewer Software.
Each cluster represents authors who have teamed up to produce some of the scientific papers. These 2 clusters are illustrated in the graph in Figure 3 highlighted with a specific colour (red or green) with two authors connecting both clusters, Herrmann, A. and Sirgy, M. who have three and four papers respectively. The rest of the authors, who do not appear in the graph, have published one or two papers, but do not form a cluster, as they did not co-operate in a second paper, or they have simply published alone.
Figure 3. Graph on joint bibliography for most cited scientific production. Source: Compiled by the authors with VOSviewer Software.

3.3. Main Journals

As for the main sources of publication, the 531 papers studied have been published in 226 journals indexed in WoS, with a high degree of dispersion, among which the Journal of Business Research, published by Elsevier Science Inc. stands out with the highest number of papers (30), as well as the highest number of citations per paper, the highest number of total citations and the highest h-index on brand personality. But it is the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sc. and the journal Tourism Management that have the highest impact factor for 2018, with 9360 and 6012 respectively, the average of the 10 journals being 3453. This factor is a measure of the quality of these journals. Table 6 shows the breakdown of the 10 journals with at least eight entries which account for 26.74% of the total number of publications on the subject.
Table 6. Web of Science journals in which scientific production is disseminated. Source: Compiled by the authors based on Web of Science data (2020).

3.4. Wos Categories

In terms the main WoS categories, the 531 papers studied were published in journals belonging to 67 WoS categories (some of these in parallel), with the largest contribution coming from the categories Business (56.3%), followed by Management (20.2%). The category Business also has the highest h-index, the highest average number of citations per paper, the highest number of citations in total and the highest number of papers citing brand personality related papers, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Web of Science categories associated with scientific production. Source: Clarivate Web of Science.

3.5. Institutions

In terms of affiliation, the authors of the 531 papers produced this knowledge with a low institutional concentration. The papers are affiliated to 706 organisations, of which only nine contributed at least seven papers on this subject. Table 8 shows the breakdown of these institutions, ranked by their influence on the topic, measured by the number of papers, their h-index, average number of citations and total citations on brand personality.
Table 8. Institutions associated scientific production, by author affiliation. Source Clarivate Web of Science.
Table 8 shows that the institution with the most published papers is the University System of Georgia, with 14 papers. However, the most influential is Virginia Polytechnic Institute State University, as it has the highest number of citations per paper, the highest number of total citations and the highest number of journals citing the university. Finally, the United States are clearly predominant, with nine of the six most relevant institutions in the production of knowledge in this field belonging to this country.
From the bibliometric analysis of citations related to these institutions, 6 clusters are established with a minimum of four documents per organisation, which leaves 41 of the 694 organisations cited. Table 9 shows the breakdown of the six clusters and Figure 4 graph shows the connections between them.
Table 9. Clusters of citations on institutions that publish on the subject. Source: Web of Science data (2020) with VOSviewer Software.
Figure 4. Graph of the most cited institutions. Source: Compiled by the authors with VOSviewer Software.

3.6. Countries

In relation to the main countries of affiliation, of the 531 papers analysed, 90% of the papers originate from 10 countries out of a total of 38 countries registering scientific publications in brand personality, a situation detailed in Table 10.
Table 10. Countries/regions associated scientific production, by author affiliation. Source: Web of Science data (2020).
The data in Table 10 demonstrate that the United States is the most influential country with 36% of the total number of published papers on brand personality, with the highest h-index, the highest number of citations per paper, the highest number of citations in total and the highest number of papers citing them, followed by China and England with 8% of published papers.
Table 11 shows the breakdown of the nine clusters and Figure 5 graph shows the connections between the 46 countries and regions, which are grouped by: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, India, Chile, Indonesia, and South Korea.
Table 11. Clusters of co-authorship between countries. Source: Compiled by the authors based on VOSviewer.
Figure 5. Co-authorship between countries. Source: Compiled by the authors with VOSviewer Software.

3.7. Bibliometric Analysis of Keywords

Of the 2127 words included in the papers published in Web of Science, 166 appear more than five times, and are used concurrently as shown in Figure 6 which comprises nine clusters, as detailed in Table 12 below:
Figure 6. Bibliometric map of the research on brand personality. Source: Compiled by the authors with VOSviewer Software.
Table 12. Co-occurrence clusters in the use of keywords. Source: Web of Science data (2020).
The graph in Figure 6 shows a high degree of connections between the different words used by the authors. However, in Table 12 they are grouped at the cluster level, reflecting the different approaches on which the works under study are based, which is graphed in Figure 6, in which the size of the circumference is established by the number of occurrences of the word.
From the above we can establish that from cluster 1 (red), the word “brand personality” is the one that participates in the largest number of groups of words and that in turn has a greater number of occurrences 342. Likewise, in cluster 2 the most predominant word is “model” with 74 occurrences, while in cluster 3 the most predominant word is “antecedents” with 47 occurrences. In cluster 4 the predominant word is “destination image” with 30 occurrences, in cluster 5 the predominant word is “identity” with 25 occurrences, in cluster 6 the most predominant word is “consumers” with 69 occurrences, and finally, in cluster 7 the most predominant word is “impact” with 89 occurrences. Finally, we have made a summary table with the 10 words with the highest occurrence (Table 13).
Table 13. Co-occurrence clusters in the use of keywords.
In terms of conceptual grouping, cluster 1 and cluster 2 are the ones with the clearest homogeneity. Cluster 1 mainly addresses the association between concepts relating to brand in general terms (brand attitude, brand equity, brand extensions, brand management, brand personality, branding) and cognitive psychological aspects of the consumer (memory, choice, cognition, consistency, consumer research, consumer-behavior, decision-making, perception, judgments, 5-factor model, personality persuasion, processing fluency). On the other hand, cluster 2 mainly addresses the association between brand concepts and affective or emotional psychological aspects of the consumer (attachment, brand love, brand loyalty, brand trust, commitment, company identification, consumers experience, intentions, loyalty, satisfaction, trust). Clusters 3, 4 and 5 are smaller and more heterogeneous, making it more difficult to identify a defined theoretical field that addresses all the concepts they contain.
It should be noted that in Table 12, it can be seen that the concept that has the most occurrences (with a great advantage over the second), is that of brand personality, which, despite being classified in cluster 1, corresponds to the concept more transversal to all the clusters (hence, the central position it has in the graph.).

4. Discussion

The literature on brand personality reveals the existence of a critical mass generated in the period covered by the study. 531 papers were identified, with an exponential growth in terms of production and a steady growth in terms of number of quotations, with Aaker being the most cited author and Davies the most productive. This reveals that the field of knowledge is expanding, both in terms of the amount of knowledge generated and the amount of knowledge referenced, which implies a solidification of such knowledge.
The foregoing follows the line of what was evidenced by Saeed and his collaborators in 2021 [52], who highlight the importance that the concept of brand personality has had in the field of research in the last two decades. These same authors, through a systematic review of the concept of brand personality, come to the conclusion that the field, in addition to being expanding, has relevant practical implications for the professional world (even providing useful information for professionals who work in this field).
The main papers are by long-standing authors who are constantly publishing and have a lasting and above-average impact, which makes them the publications with the highest impact in the group under study. Thus, the papers by the 10 most influential authors are among the 30 most influential. There are other authors who show high productivity, but none of them are among the 10 most influential. This shows that the field is not exclusively nourished by scattered authors who casually publish in the area, but rather by authors who have dedicated their research careers to the field.
Clusters on co-authorship for scientific production were also identified. Each cluster represents authors who have teamed up to produce some of the papers. Two authors connect both clusters, Herrmann, A. and Sirgy, M. who have three and four papers respectively. The rest of the authors have published one or two papers, but do not form a cluster as they did not co-operate in a second paper, or they have simply published alone. This highlights the fact that, although some authors have developed their careers in this area, there is still a lack of research groups that pool their efforts to produce scientific work on the subject.
Cluster 1 and cluster 2, which were the ones that presented the greatest number of concepts and the greatest internal homogeneity between them, are directly related and reaffirm the conceptual developments mentioned in the Section 1 of the article by various authors. The conceptual grouping of cluster 1 referred to the association between the brand personality and the cognitive psychological aspects of the consumer, while the conceptual grouping of cluster 2 referred to the association of the brand personality with the affective or emotional psychological aspects of the consumer. Both clusters reflect the importance of human traits associated with a brand, which have been previously highlighted [1,2]. In the case of cluster 1, which highlights the importance of the cognitive psychological aspects of the consumer, it has been previously surveyed regarding the importance of brand personality with respect to decision-making processes and how these influence behavior [5,6]. On the other hand, regarding cluster 2, which highlights the importance of the affective or emotional psychological aspects of the consumer, it has been previously surveyed regarding the importance of the constitution of the brand personality from elements associated with the connection emotion generated by the brand in the consumer [4] and the experiences that generate loyalty to the brand [5,6,17,18].
As for the main sources of publication, the papers under study have been published in 226 journals indexed in WoS, with a high degree of dispersion. This study is based on 10 journals with at least eight entries which account for 26.74% of the total number of publications on the subject. In terms the main WoS categories, the papers studied were published in journals belonging to 67 WoS categories, with the largest contribution coming from the categories Business with 56.3%, followed by Management with 20.2%. This could be interpreted as a tendency for brand personality to move out of its area of origin (i.e., marketing, within the business area), and be used in management or even other areas.
In terms of affiliation, scientists have produced this knowledge with a low institutional concentration and are affiliated to 706 organisations, mainly in the United States, the country with the highest productivity. Likewise, the main journals disseminating this scientific production are from the U.S.A., making it the most influential country. From the bibliometric analysis of citations related to the institutions, 6 clusters were established with a minimum of four documents per organisation, which leaves 41 of the 694 organisations cited. In relation to the main countries of affiliation, 90% of the papers originate from 10 countries out of a total of 38 countries with the United States being the most influential with 36% of the total publications.
In terms of co-authorship between countries, 46 countries or regions are grouped into nine clusters centralised in Australia, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, India, Chile, Indonesia, and South Korea. In relation to the bibliometric analysis of keywords, 166 appear more than five times, and are used concurrently, accounting for nine clusters, thus confirming the various focuses used for the development of the papers under study.
Although we do not entirely agree with what was mentioned by Llanos-Herrera and Merigo in 2019 [35], who consider that the study of brand personality is a field in an early stage of development (we rather, from the results presented, we consider that it is a consolidated field), we fully agree with these authors in the fact that there is an important development of the field ahead, which will bring not only theoretical contributions, but also practical ones.

5. Conclusions

The contribution of the study carried out focuses on the identification of the development and trends associated with the scientific production referred to the concept of brand personality. The conclusion is that brand personality is a subject that many authors have been interested in, especially in the past few decades and in several areas of knowledge. This means that brand personality goes beyond the marketing perspective and encompass the production of knowledge in different disciplines such as business, psychology, services, communication, education, and social sciences in general. Furthermore, the literature on brand personality should be systematised; the negative aspects of the anthropomorphic association between brand personality and human personality should be studied in depths; and issues of social interest, such as the relationship between brand personality and social responsibility and brand personality in the digital context and the new ways in which consumers acquire products and information should also be delved into.
The limitations of this study are mainly associated with its methodological aspect. Although the inclusion of scientific articles that had the WoS indexation was used as a criterion, other quality control filters of the articles were not considered. By including only articles from the WoS databases, only limited access to knowledge generation was possible in languages such as Spanish and French. Likewise, it was not possible to exercise a more specific control over the contents of the articles analyzed, although this is related to the fact that this is an initial article that seeks to outline a general overview of the scientific production associated with the concept of brand personality. In this research, only the scientific production associated with scientific articles was considered, excluding review articles, proceedings, books and other scientific products. This was done in this way to have a more stable comparison standard over time, taking into account that the production of scientific articles has been the most stable and formal source of knowledge production in the scientific field. Future research should consider the limitations of this study in order to make an additional contribution to this field.
The practical implications of this study are related to the fact that the concept of brand personality escapes the field of marketing, both in research and professional terms. In this way, future lines of research, as well as the practical development of the work carried out in organizations must consider this, in the sense of taking advantage of the value of the brand personality in its fullness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.V.-R. and L.A.-C.; methodology, A.R. and H.M.-F.; validation, L.A.-C. and G.V.-R.; formal analysis, G.V.-R., L.A.-C., A.R. and H.M.-F.; investigation, H.M.-F.; resources, L.A.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.; writing—review and editing, H.M.-F.; visualization, G.V.-R.; supervision, G.V.-R.; project administration, L.A.-C.; funding acquisition, A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by SCIA ANID CIE160009 and FONDECYT 3210780.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aaker, J. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Keller, K. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity; Prentice Hall: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  3. Saravanan, S. A Study on Relationship between Students Personality and Brand Personality. ITIHAS J. Indian Manag. 2018, 2249-7803, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hou, J.; Zhao, X.; Zheng, J. The impact of consistency between the emotional feature of advertising music and brand personality on brand experience. J. Manag. Anal. 2019, 6, 250–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rutter, R.; Chalvatzis, K.; Roper, S.; Lettice, F. Branding Instead of Product Innovation: A Study on the Brand Personalities of the UK’s Electricity Market. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2018, 15, 255–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gouteron, J. De l’attachement à la perte d’attachement: La personnalité de la marque, un levier efficace pour gérer l’attachement à la marque. Revue Sciences Gestion Direction Gestion 2019, 295, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rio-Cortina, J.; Cardona-Arbelaez, D.; Guacari-Villalba, A. Responsabilidad social corporativa y branding: Una nueva mirada a las estrategias de gestión. Revista Investig. Desarro. Innov. 2017, 8, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lara, E.; Saltos, J.; Mayorga, M.; Carvajal, R.; Moreno, K. La Gestión de Marca, un Factor Estratégico de Competitividad en PYMES. CienciAmérica 2017, 6, 64–84. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ruiz-Aguilar, M.A.; Avalos-Pelayo, R. Contenido generado por los usuarios, su relación con la personalidad de marca y el valor de marca. Index Comunicación 2020, 10, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Keller, K.L.; Richey, K. The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a successful 21st century business. J. Brand Manag. 2006, 14, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hoeffler, S.; Keller, K.L. Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing. J. Public Policy Mark. 2002, 21, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Becker-Olsen, K.L.; Cudmore, B.A.; Hill, R.P. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behaviour. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2007, 24, 224–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Madden, T.J.; Roth, M.S.; Dillon, W.R. Global Product Quality and Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions: A Cross-National Study of Halo Effects. J. Int. Mark. 2012, 20, 42–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hildebrand, D.; Demotta, Y.; Sen, S.; Valenzuela, A. Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) contribution type. J. Consum. Res. 2017, 44, 738–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mayorga Gordillo, J.; Añaños Carrasco, E. Atributos de la personalidad de marca socialmente responsable. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 2020, 75, 97–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bairrada, C.M.; Coelho, A.; Lizanets, V. The impact of brand personality on consumer behavior: The role of brand love. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2019, 23, 30–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Coelho, F.; Bairrada, C. Functional brand qualities and perceived value: The mediating role of brand experience and brand personality. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 37, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Glinska, E.; Wawrzyniec, R. City Brand Personality Projected by Municipalities from Central and Eastern Europe Countries—A Comparison of Facebook Usage. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Araya-Castillo, L.; Etchebarne, S. Personalidad de marca de partidos políticos: Una mirada desde la comunidad estudiantil universitaria. Rev. Latinoam. Cienc. Soc. Niñez Juv. 2014, 12, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Uribe, R.; Buzeta, C.; Reyes, J. Personalidad de marca de los partidos políticos en Chile: Una mirada desde los ciudadanos más jóvenes. Cuadernos.info 2017, 41, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Escobar-Farfán, M.; Gallardo, R.; Flores, J. Rasgos de personalidad de marca. El caso de las AFP en Chile. RAN Rev. Acad. Neg. 2017, 3, 67–80. [Google Scholar]
  23. Araya-Castillo, L.; Etchebarne, S.; Campos-Andaur, P.; Ríos, G. Firefighters brand personality: A model proposal. Dimens. Empresarial 2019, 17, 90–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Denegri, M.; Cabezas, D.; Herrera, V.; Páez, A.; Vargas, M. Personalidad de marca de carreras de psicología de universidades estatales en Chile: Un estudio descriptivo. Rev. Investig. Psicol. 2009, 12, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Denegri, M.; Cabezas, D.; Novoa, M.; Peralta, J.; Estrada, C. Personalidad de marca en carreras de psicología de zonas territoriales extremas: Arica y Punta arenas. Magallanía 2013, 41, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cabezas, D.; Orellana, L. (Eds.) Estudios de Personalidad de Marca en Educación Superior y Sectores no Tradicionales; Universidad de la Frontera: Temuco, Chile, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  27. García, L.; Denegri, M.; Orellana, O.; Yanac, E.; Herrera, E.; Campos, M. Personalidad de marca de carreras pertenecientes a tres áreas académicas de la UNMSM. Rev. Investig. Psicol. 2014, 17, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  28. Araya-Castillo, L.; Escobar, M. Personalidad de marca de las escuelas de negocios en Chile propuesta de modelo. AD-minister 2015, 27, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Améstica-Rivas, L.; King-Domínguez, A. Importancia y valor económico de la marca en el sistema universitario. Opción 2017, 83, 545–571. [Google Scholar]
  30. León, M.; Améstica-Rivas, L.; King-Domínguez, A.; Gurrola, C. Efectos de las buenas prácticas en el valor de marca de las universidades chilenas. Rev. Esc. Adm. Neg. 2019, 86, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jiménez-Bucarey, C.; Araya-Castillo, L.; Rojas-Vallejos, J. Personalidad de marca como área de investigación en Educación Superior. Rev. Cienc. Soc. 2020, 26, 394–418. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hermann, E. Anthropomorphized artificial intelligence, attachment, and consumer behaviour. Mark. Lett. 2022, 33, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Choi, S.; Liu, S.; Choi, C. Robot-Brand fit the influence of brand personality on consumer reactions to service robot adoption. Mark. Lett. 2020, 33, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ghorbani, M.; Karampela, A.; Tonner, A. Consumer’s brand personality perceptions in a digital world: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2022, 46, 1960–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Llanos-Herrera, G.R.; Merigo, J.M. Overview of brand personality research with bibliometric indicators. Kybernetes 2018, 48, 0368–0492X. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vanti, N. Métodos cuantitativos de evaluación de la ciencia: Bibliometría, cienciometría e informetría. Investig. Bibl. Arch. Bibl. Inf. 2000, 14, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  37. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.; Baharun, R.; Abuhassna, H.; Hashem, E.; Alharthi, R. Tendencias globales de investigación en neuromarketing: 2015–2020. Rev. Comun. 2022, 21, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.; Baharun, R.; Rami Hashem, E. Neuromarketing research in the last five years: A bibliometric analysis. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1978620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ali, J.; Jusoh, A.; Idris, N.; Abbas, A.F.; Alsharif, A.H. Everything is Going Electronic, so do Services and Service Quality: Bibliometric Analysis of E-Services and E-Service Quality. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2021, 15, 148–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gao, P.; Meng, F.; Mata, M.N.; Martins, J.M.; Iqbal, S.; Correia, A.B.; Dantas, R.M.; Waheed, A.; Xavier Rita, J.; Farrukh, M. Trends and future research in electronic marketing: A bibliometric analysis of twenty years. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1667–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abuhassna, H.; Awae, F.; Bayoumi, K.; Alzitawi, D.U.; Alsharif, A.H.; Yahaya, N. Understanding Online Learning Readiness among University Students: A Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol 2022, 16, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ali, J.; Jusoh, A.; Idris, N.; Abbas, A.F.; Alsharif, A.H. Nine Years of Mobile Healthcare Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. 2021, 17, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Alsharif, A.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Pilelienė, L.; Abbas, A.F.; Ali, J. Current Trends in the Application of EEG in Neuromarketing: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sci. Ann. Econ. Bus. 2022, 69, 393–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Araya-Castillo, L.; Hernández-Perlines, F.; Moraga, H.; Ariza-Montes, A. Scientometric analysis of research on socioemotional wealth. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ardanuy, J.; Rey Vázquez, L. Breve Introducción a la Bibliometría; Universitat de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Vega-Muñoz, A.; Arjona-Fuentes, J.M.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Han, H.; Law, R. In search of ‘a research front’ in cruise tourism studies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 85, 102353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Paul, J.; Rosado-Serrano, A. Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/International new venture models. Int. Mark. Rev. 2019, 36, 830–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ruiz-Pérez, R.; Jiménez-Contreras, E. The emerging sources citation index and the internationalization of spanish scientifi c journals, with special reference to psychology journals. Psicothema 2019, 31, 376–383. [Google Scholar]
  49. Aaker, J.; Fournier, S. A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three perspectives on the question of brand personality. ACR North Am. Adv. 1995, 22, 391–395. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bornmann, L.; Hans-Dieter, D. Full-Text Citation Analysis: A New Method to Enhance. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 64, 1852–1863. [Google Scholar]
  51. Brakus, J.; Schmitt, B.; Zarantonello, L. Brand Experiencie: What it is? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? J. Mark. 2009, 73, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Saeed, M.R.; Burki, U.; Ali, R.; Dahlstrom, R.; Zameer, H. The antecedents and consequences of brand personality: A systematic review. EuroMed J. Bus. 2021, 17, 447–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Deliverable Wellhead Temperature—A Feasibility Study of Converting Abandoned Oil/Gas Wells to Geothermal Energy Wells
Previous
From Farmers’ Entrepreneurial Motivation to Performance—The Chain Mediating Effect of Entrepreneurial Learning and Entrepreneurial Ability
Next