The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit

and social influence on consumer-based

brand equity
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán
University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Brand identities have a dual nature that appeals to the head (rational appeal) and to the heart (emotional appeal) of their consumers.
Furthermore, consumers can process information in a predominately analytic or intuitive cognitive style (CS) manner. This study aims to analyze the
influence of brand identity-cognitive style (BI-CS) fit on the perceived value of a brand. It also analyzes how different forms of social influence affect
the perceived value of the brand.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a two-step experimental design, Step 1 examines the effect that BI-CS fit has on consumer-based brand
equity (CBBE); Step 2 evaluates the effect that the three elements of social influence–compliance, identification and internalization–have on CBBE.
Findings – Both the BI-CS fit, and the identification and internalization forms of social influence have a significant and positive effect over the
perceived value of the brand. A rational brand identity is given a higher perceived brand value by analytic CS consumers than intuitive CS
consumers. Conversely, an emotional brand identity is given a higher perceived brand value by intuitive CS consumers than analytic CS consumers.
However, whether the brand identity is more emotional or rational is less important than the values and beliefs that the brand communicates to
create social influence.
Research limitations/implications – This study contributes to the branding literature by introducing the CS concept to better understand the
influence of emotional and rational brand identities on consumers with either rational or intuitive cognitive thinking styles and reinforce the
importance of the brand duality concept.
Practical implications – The results demonstrate the importance of brand duality and show how firms could present emotional or rational brand
identities depending on their consumers’ CS to increase the effectiveness of their messaging to build stronger brand images that increase the
perceived value of the brand. These findings could have important implications for market segmentation.
Originality/value – Brand identities can be emotional or rational, and this creates more or less value depending on the consumers’ CS, but what is
more important is that consumers internalize the brand’s message or identify with what the brand represents. Although this has been discussed in
prior literature, the original contribution of this paper is tying all these concepts together.
Keywords Brand identity, Brand image, Cognitive style, Social influence, Consumer brand equity
Paper type Research paper

Introduction premiums (Steenkamp et al., 2010) and negotiate increased

shelf-space from retailers (Ailawadi and Harlam, 2004). In
Understanding the key management issues and consumer other words, strong brands benefit from an increased marketing
associations of a brand is critical to creating better and more effectiveness (Keller, 2009). Moreover, the power of a brand
productive branding plans to increase a company’s revenue. relies on what customers think and feel about it (Keller, 2013),
Brands not only serve to identify products, but they are also which is what ultimately gives value to a brand (Keller and
concepts that develop connections with customers in the form Lehmann, 2006). What customers do in response to their
of images (Nandan, 2005), relationships (Fournier, 1998) and thoughts and feelings builds a brand’s reputation, which affects
experiences (Brakus et al., 2009). Past research has shown that brand equity (Baalbaki and Guzmán, 2016; Cowan and
strong brands enjoy a vast array of benefits (Broniarczyk and Guzmán, 2018; Heinberg et al., 2018) and, ultimately, the
Alba, 1994; Buchanan et al., 1999; Glynn et al., 2012; Leone financial market (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). This provides
et al., 2006; Roy and Banerjee, 2014) such as increased levels of the business justification for branding and an explanation as to
brand loyalty (Aurier and Gilles Séré, 2012; Oliver, 1999; why it is important for firms to build brands that are congruent
Pappu and Quester, 2016) and the ability to charge price with what consumers want and need.
What consumers want and need varies from consumer to
consumer and evolves over time. Consumer insights and the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on analysis of market trends have been a staple in developing
Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Received 12 June 2019
29/7 (2020) 971–984 Revised 10 November 2019
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 16 January 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2019-2419] Accepted 21 January 2020

971
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

segmentation and positioning strategies to develop strong and brand–measured as CBBE. Second, to explore the
relevant brands. Nevertheless, beyond the identification of relationship between social influence components–compliance,
these consumer needs and evolving consumer wants, some identification and internalization–and CBBE. To achieve these
consumer psychological characteristics are stable and can serve goals, first the literature on brand identity, brand image and
to group people based on the way they think. Messick (1976) brand equity is examined. Second, a discussion on CS, brand
introduced the concept of cognitive style (CS), which classifies dimensions, and the social influence concept lead to the
people into the following two broad groups based on their development of the research hypotheses. Third, the method
type of thinking: right hemisphere predominant and left section and results are presented. Finally, the findings,
hemisphere predominant (Allinson and Hayes, 1996). implications and limitations of the study are discussed.
Furthermore, another consumer constant is that, to a larger or
lesser degree, consumers are social creatures and use brands as Background
enablers to socially interact (Escalas and Bettman, 2003,
2005). Consumers self-identify with brands (Cui et al., 2018; Nandan (2005) claims that brand identity and brand image are
Dolich, 1969; Graeff, 1996; Grubb and Hupp, 1968; Guzmán two different but related concepts. A “brand message is
et al., 2017; Roy and Rabbanee, 2015), use them to portray ‘packaged’ or ‘wrapped’ in terms of brand identity, and it is
their social personas (Baalbaki and Guzmán, 2016) and build ‘unpackaged’ or ‘unwrapped’ by the consumer in the form of
social groups/communities around them (Bagozzi and brand image” (p. 268). In other words, brand identity relates to
Dholakia, 2006; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). companies’ actions, whereas brand image relates to what
This paper explores the relationship between consumers’ CS consumers think and feel about a brand. Furthermore, brand
and a brand’s identity to create a congruent brand image and identity and brand image are essential ingredients of strong
analyzes how social influence–namely consumers’ compliance, brands that must be “in harmony” to build and maintain brand
identification and internalization with a brand–affects loyalty (Nandan, 2005). Furthermore, de Chernatony and
consumer attitudes and strengthens consumer perceived brand Dall’Olmo Riley (1998) posit that brands are
equity. To the best of our knowledge, past research on CS and multidimensional, and their success requires matching
branding is limited (Armstrong et al., 2012; Monga and John, customers’ performance and psychological needs with the
2010). Likewise, although widely used in the technology of functional and emotional values of a brand. Brand performance
acceptance model–which deals with people’s behavior and thus profoundly depends on the congruence between consumer
attitude toward technology change (Bock et al., 2005; Malhotra perceptions about the brand (i.e. brand image) and the firm’s
and Galletta, 2005; Moon and Kim, 2001)–past research has brand message (i.e. brand identity) (Park et al., 1986).
not explored the relationship of social influence theory–as in
Kelman’s (1958) psychological view–with the consumer Brand identity
perceived value of a brand. Brands serve the basic function of identifying and Thành
Emotional, more than informative, messages increase the differentiating a product or service offering according to a công của
audience attention toward products and boost recall, firm’s values (Kapferer, 1992). In other words, firms craft a brand dựa
recognition and attitudes toward the brand (Hamelin et al., brand identity as a way to identify and differentiate themselves vào chiến
2017; Page et al., 1990; Poels and Dewitte, 2006). dịch
in a manner that is congruent to their values and relevant to
Furthermore, consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) is as a branding
consumers (Margulies, 1977). Brand identity represents a -> truyền
function of recall, recognition and attitudes (Baalbaki and
company’s internal intended image and promise to consumers tải brand
Guzmán, 2016). In other words, past research could imply that
using a unique set of brand associations (Ghodeswar, 2008). identity và
emotional messages increase CBBE in comparison with
Therefore, a company’s branding strategy used to giá trị của
informative messages. In contrast to previous research, this nó tới BÊN
communicate its brand identity and values both externally–to
paper suggests that an emotional advertising message will help NGOÀI và
consumers and other stakeholders (Gehani, 2001) – and
create a stronger brand image, and therefore, increase CBBE, BÊN
in consumers who are highly intuitive, while a functional internally–to managers and employees (Harris and de
TRONG
advertising message will help create a stronger brand image, Chernatony (2001)–is critical to the success of brands (Aaker,
and therefore, increase CBBE, with consumers who are highly 1991; Kapferer, 1992).
analytical. Furthermore, in the past few years brands such as
Procter & Gamble, Gillette, Nike, Chick-Fil-A, Ben & Jerrys and Brand image
Coca-Cola, among others, started taking ideological stances While brand identity is related to a firm’s strategies, brand
around issues such as civil rights, gay rights, gun control or image is analogous to the consumers’ perceptions created by
racial minorities (Cheadle, 2019). Despite the controversies those strategies (Nandan, 2005). It is constituted by the
around the political stances made by some of these brands, little consumer beliefs and impressions about a particular brand
is known about the impact that such decisions have on the value (Dichter, 1985). Brand image is “the understanding consumers
of brands. Relying on social influence theory, we explore this derive from the total set of brand-related activities engaged by
relationship and suggest that regardless of the tone of the the firm” (Park et al., 1986, p. 135). It is defined as the
message–emotional or rational–the ideological stance of a “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand
brand will have a strong impact on CBBE. associations held in consumer memory” (Nandan, 2005, p. 2);
Hence, the purpose of this article is twofold. First, to test it is initiated by companies’ actions but depends on the
whether a brand identity-cognitive style fit (BI-CS fit) creates a perceptions, associations, and beliefs of consumers toward the
stronger brand image that increases the value of the brand (Yuan et al., 2016).

972
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

To create a strong brand image, companies must develop a communication model that identifies the role of consumer
congruent brand identity and consistently communicate it emotions in brand messaging, as well as the rational and
through its different channels and brand touchpoints. Brand emotional content of the message, to build an attitude toward
image is an important component of brand equity (Keller and the brand. Brand messages, as a vehicle to communicate a
Lehmann, 2006), and strong brand associations translate into a brand’s identity, serve as one of the most essential tools to build
higher CBBE. Nevertheless, because brand image depends on brand equity. Brand messages try to elicit both rational and
consumer perceptions, even consistent communication emotional associations given their importance for building
strategies can originate multiple perceptual outcomes, strong brands (Keller, 2001). Effective brand messaging leads
generating methodological issues when it comes to measuring to consumers developing a brand image consistent with the
it. Given that different consumers may develop different firm’s brand identity.
interpretations of the same brand narrative, this allows defining Although Keller’s (1993) CBBE model discusses the rational
brands as a portfolio of meanings (Guzmán et al., 2006; Iglesias and emotional associations necessary to build the brand image
and Bonet, 2012). Given these potential different and knowledge that leads to strong brands, no discussion is
interpretations, segmentation strategies are critical to develop provided on how rational or emotional associations might have
positive brand image and associations, though the successful a different degree of influence depending on consumers’
implementation of the marketing mix and brand activation
preferences, market types or the type of products and services.
programs (Keller, 1993), which lead to stronger CBBE in each
Furthermore, there may be consumers that depending on their
of these different consumer groups. Ultimately, the creation of
CS (Messick, 1984), might be more attracted to brands given
brand equity is one of the primary goals of brand managers
the elicited emotional or rational associations. This paper posits
(Aaker, 1991; Gehani, 2001; Keller, 2001, 2009; Keller and
that a higher level of BI-CS fit leads to stronger brand image,
Lehmann, 2003; Roy and Banerjee, 2014; Shepherd et al.,
which leads to stronger brand equity.
2015).

Consumer-based brand equity Consumers’ cognitive style

Brand equity has been analyzed from multiple perspectives and CS was first defined as the individual and consistent
approaches (Davcik et al., 2015). The most common have been differences among people in their preferences on how to
from the consumer, product-market and financial-market organize and process information (Messick, 1984). It is a
perspectives (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). This paper analyzes natural and automatic way to respond to information and
brand equity from a consumer’s perspective and adopts situations, which is very dominant and present from birth or
Keller’s (1993, p. 2) definition of CBBE as “the differential at least very early in life (Riding and Rayner, 2013). For the
effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the purpose of this research, this paper adopts Armstrong and
marketing of the brand.” According to this definition, both Qi’s (2016, p. 240) recent definition of CS: the “individual
“consumer response” and “brand knowledge” are the pillars of differences in how people perceive, think, process
brand equity. information, solve problems, make decisions, learn and
Furthermore, Keller (1993) suggests that “brand relate to others.” This paper also adopts Allinson and Hayes
knowledge” depends on both “brand awareness” and “brand (1996) cognitive style index, a 38-item instrument drawn up
image”, linking brand image to CBBE. Recent research, to assess people’s place on a unitary model consisting of two
however, posits that it is necessary to estimate the strength or
dimensions–analytic or intuitive. The authors cite evidence
value of a brand with dynamic and forward-looking brand
of the value of the CS for its use as a measure in
equity systems (Veloutsou and Guzmán, 2017). Thus,
organizational research.
considering that Keller (2001) argues that strong brands have
There are profound differences between subjects with
to appeal to both consumers’ heads and hearts, this paper posits
intuitive cognitive predominance and those with analytic
that the brand duality concept serves as a link between
cognitive predominance (Allinson and Hayes, 1996; Hayes and
consumers’ CS (Messick, 1976) and CBBE–measured using
Allinson, 1994). Intuitivists (right-brain dominant):
Baalbaki and Guzmán’s (2016) consumer-perceived CBBE
scale. Left predominant–analytic–thinking style relates to the [. . .] tend to be relatively nonconformist, prefer an open-ended approach to
problem-solving, rely on random methods of exploration, remember spatial
head, whereas right predominant–intuitive–thinking style images most easily, and work best with ideas requiring overall assessment
relates to the heart. Moreover, this paper suggests that to more (Allinson and Hayes, 1996, p. 122).
effectively create brand value, brand messaging should
whereas analysts (left-brain dominant):
emphasize rational versus emotional associations depending on
the predominant CS of the consumer. [. . .] tend to be more compliant, favor a structured approach to problem-
solving, depend on systematic methods of investigation, recall verbal
material most readily and are especially comfortable with ideas requiring
Hypotheses development step by step analysis (Allinson and Hayes, 1996, p. 122).

Past research has identified attitude toward the message or ad Despite the resemblance between CS and the dual nature of
to mediate the relationship between brand messages and brands, previous literature has not linked these two concepts.
attitude toward the brand (Batra and Ray, 1986; Gardner, Moreover, the idea of brand duality is only addressed to explain
1985; Holbrook and Batra, 1987; Lutz et al., 1983; MacKenzie the two components of a strong brand, but not viewed
et al., 1986; Park and Young, 1986; Shimp, 1981). Based on independently or in a way, which explains the dimensions that
these studies, Holbrook and Batra (1987) developed a an intuitive and/or an analytic brand should have.

973
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

Brand dimensions aspects of things (Allinson and Hayes, 1996). Based on these
According to Keller (1993), brand associations can be characteristics, we propose that analytic CS consumers will
categorized into three categories, namely, attributes, benefits create a more congruent brand image with a “highly rational
and attitudes. Attributes reflect descriptive features of what the brand identity”. Furthermore, analytic CS consumers will
consumer thinks the product or service is or has. Attributes can create a less congruent brand image with a “highly emotional
be specific (e.g. size, color, weight, etc.) or abstract (e.g. brand identity.” Founded on the corresponding physiognomies
youthful, durable, glamorous, etc.) (Nandan, 2005; Plummer, of the intuitive-cognitive-predominant individuals, we propose
1985). Attributes can also be product-related (or service- that intuitive CS consumers will create a more congruent brand
related) and non-product-related. While product-related image with a “highly emotional brand identity.” Furthermore,
attributes are related to the particular function and intuitive CS consumers will create a less congruent brand
performance of the product or service, non-product-related image with a “highly rational brand identity”. Figure 1 depicts
attributes resemble external aspects or the product or service, this relationship, which is formally hypothesized as follows:
such as price information, packaging, user imagery and usage
imagery (Keller, 1993). Benefits are more related to the
consumers’ perceptions of the needs the product intends to H1. Higher BI-CS fit leads to a more congruent brand image,
satisfy (Nandan, 2005) and can be placed in the following three which translates into higher CBBE
categories according to their motivations (Park et al., 1986):
functional needs that are more associated with the product-
Social influence and consumer-based brand equity
related attributes, and therefore, solve consumption-related
Brands have the potential to represent various ideologies or
problems; experiential needs that are related to the search for
values (Holt, 2004, 2006). For instance, Shepherd et al.
sensory pleasure, variety and the feeling when the product or
(2015), demonstrate that the value and preference for a brand
service is used, therefore also corresponding to product-related
depend on consumers’ support or rejection of society’s
attributes; and symbolic benefits that offer more extrinsic
dominant ideology, based on the 10 universal values defined by
benefits related to the fulfillment of self-enhancement needs,
Schwartz and his colleagues (Schwartz, 1994, 1999; Schwartz
such as identification, social status or group membership, and
and Bardi, 2001; Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004; Schwartz et al.,
are, therefore, associated with non-product-related attributes.
2000). Shepherd et al. (2015, p. 78) hypothesize that and
Attitudes, defined as the consumers’ comprehensive evaluation
provide supporting evidence of, consumers that have high
of the brand (Wilkie, 1986), frequently become the basis for
confidence in the system will “[. . .] positively evaluate brands
consumer actions (Keller, 1993). The tri-component attitude
that reflect power compared to those low in system
model (Lutz, 1980; Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000) divides
confidence.” Moreover, Torelli et al. (2012) suggest that in the
attitudes into three categories, namely, cognitive, related to the
context of corporate social responsibility (CSR), activities have
consumers’ knowledge about the brand; affective, linked to the
a better (or worse) effect depending on the values of the
emotions and feelings toward the brand; and conative, which
consumers who are attracted by the brand, and the values that
refers to the extent to which the consumer will engage in a
are offered by the CSR activity. Likewise, Muniz et al. (2019)
distinct action with respect to the brand.
show that CSR messages that appeal to the consumers’ sense of
The three dimensions of brand associations are related
identification with the brand have a positive immediate effect
concepts and build on the dual nature of brands previously
on brand loyalty, which leads to higher perceived brand equity.
discussed. These dimensions could be used to potentially Furthermore, some studies relate consumer’s social identity
understand the perceived value of a brand by classifying brand with their buying behavior (Chan et al., 2012; Watkins, 2014;
identities high in rational content (and low in emotional White and Dahl, 2007). These studies are based on social
content) versus brand identities high in emotional content (and identification theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), which suggests
low in rational content). A proposed example of this that people who belong to a group tend to find negative aspects
classification is presented in Table I. on individuals who do not fall into the group, as well as positive
Strong brands undoubtedly possess both rational and perspectives of people inside the group. In other words, social
emotional components. Therefore, this research proposes that
consumers’ CS could determine the success of a brand identity
in building CBBE. As previously discussed, analytic-cognitive- Figure 1 Brand identity – cognitive style fit framework
predominant individuals, lean toward a structured approach to
Highly Highly
problem-solving, have better verbal memory, are more Emotional BI Rational BI
investigative on their decisions, and rely more on the tangible
Intuitive BI-CS No
Table I Characteristics of rational and emotional brand identities Cognitive Style
Fit Fit
Highly rational brand Highly emotional brand
identity identity
Attributes Specific and product-related Abstract and non-product-
related Analytic
No BI-CS
Cognitive Style
Benefits Functional and experiential Symbolic and experiential Fit Fit
Attitudes Reason-oriented Affective-oriented

974
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

identity theory states that people within a group discriminate hire these services to comply with management policies.
against people outside the group to enhance their self-image Similarly, consumers may purchase insurance just to comply
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979). with their company’s policies or state or federal laws. In other
Thus far, the importance of the relationship between BI-CS words, sometimes consumers buy products or services
fit and CBBE has been discussed. Nevertheless, based on influenced by a pressure that we suggest, will be
previous research, this paper also posits that BI-CS fit is not counterproductive to the value of the brand. This paper, thus,
sufficient to build strong brands. In line with Baalbaki and posits that when consumers feel a form of compliance toward a
Guzmán’s (2016) brand equity dimension of social influence– brand identity, they will perceive a lower brand value:
which establishes that consumers value brands according to
how they believe a brand improves the way they are perceived H2. Consumers’ compliance over a brand identity will create
by others, make a good impression on other people, gives them a weaker brand image that will translate into lower
social approval, and helps them feel socially accepted–and CBBE.
drawing on Kelman’s (1958) social influence theory, this paper Furthermore, when consumers shape a brand image that is
proposes a relationship between internalization, identification highly congruent with a firm’s proposed brand identity, the
and compliance and CBBE. It is important to note that when level of perceived brand equity amongst consumers is going to
referring to identification, this research considers identification differ. For instance, two consumers may have a clear brand
with the messenger–i.e. the brand–as described in Kelman’s image of Apple, congruent with the brand identity proposed by
(1958) social influence theory, and not identification with a the company, but one consumer may perceive Apple as more
group as in Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) identification theory. valuable than the other because he or she may feel more
Kelman (1958) describes influence as attitude change identified with the personality of the brand. Building upon this
produced by external messages. In similar words, Venkatesh idea, and in congruence with Kelman’s identification form of
et al. (2002) define social influence as “the degree to which a influence, this research posits that consumers will perceive
person believes that people who are important to him or her higher brand equity when they feel identified with the brand
want that person to perform a particular behavior.” Individuals identity of the firm:
are induced into an attitude change (i.e. influence) depending
on the intensity of the message, and this intensity can be higher H3. Consumers’ identification with a brand identity will
or lower depending on three forms of influence: compliance, create a stronger brand image that will translate into a
identification and internalization. higher CBBE.
The most rudimentary form of influence is compliance, which
occurs when people accept influence to create a promising Retaking the Apple example, and having two consumers that
reaction from another person or group (Kelman, 1958). This have a congruent brand image with the firm’s proposed
form of social influence could occur, for example, when a brand brand identity, a consumer may perceive Apple as more
lowers its prices or uses promotions to get a single buying valuable than the other because he or she may share the
response from consumers’ compliance. The second level of values associated with the brand. Building upon this idea,
social influence is identification, which occurs when a subject and in congruence with Kelman’s internalization form of
accepts influence to create a positive impression or relationship influence, this research posits that consumers will perceive
with another person or group (Kelman, 1958). In this case, the higher brand equity when the brand identity is congruent
subject recognizes the influence, not because of the content of with the consumer’s values:
the message, but because he or she feels attracted to the H4. Consumers’ internalization of a brand identity will create
influencer–in this case, the brand. A consumer, for instance, a stronger brand image that will translate into a higher
may accept a brand because he or she feels identified with (or CBBE.
attracted to) its logo design, people in its advertising, friends
who use the brand, the colors on its package or the appearance The research model that summarizes the four proposed
of the company’s owner or spokesperson. The third level of hypotheses is presented in Figure 2.
social influence is internalization, which occurs when the subject
accepts the influence because of the ideas, actions and values
proposed within the message (Kelman, 1958). According to
Kelman, internalization is the deepest level of influence, which
Figure 2 Brand identity – CBBE framework
leads to a change in attitude that is intrinsically rewarding
because the message–in this case, the brand and its advertising–
Compliance Idenficaon
is congruent with the subject’s value system. For example, a towards the with the
consumer may accept a brand because he or she values the way Brand Brand
the company treats its employees, the essence of innovation
that the brand is based on, or even the cultural values of the H2–
H3+
country in which the corporation has its headquarters.
Internalizaon
Sometimes consumers may buy products because they want BI – CS Fit H1+ with the
to comply with the seller or with a third party. This is the Brand
“compliance” form of social influence. For instance, some
apartment complexes mandate that consumers use only one
CBBE H4+

internet or cable service provider. Therefore, consumers must

975
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

Research method in Table II. The scale items for the dimensions of social
influence and all items of CBBE were next studied for internal
An experiment comprised of two steps was developed to test
consistency (using alpha scores) and convergent and
the hypotheses. Step 1 examined the effect that brand identity–
discriminant validity using inter-item correlation scores
CS fit has on CBBE. Step 2 evaluated the effect that the three
(Tables III and IV). All inter-factor correlations within factors
elements of social influence–compliance, identification
were higher than the correlations across factors, satisfying the
and internalization–have on CBBE. Following the
essential criteria for discriminant validity (Churchill, 1979).
recommendations of Good and Hardin (2012), and with the
Additionally, most of the alpha scores were above 0.75,
objective of avoiding confounding variables, an international
demonstrating acceptable levels of internal consistency
brand unknown to the US market–Nutri-milk–was used to
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1978).
create the stimuli and conditions: an emotional brand identity
Estimates for all constructs were obtained by averaging
and a rational brand identity. The use of a milk brand was
answers to the items related to each construct. The
considered appropriate given that it is a mass-consumed
hypothesized relationships were tested using ANOVA on
commodity and, as such, more difficult to create brand
SPSS. A 2 (CS: analytical vs intuitive)  2 (brand identity:
differentiation, loyalty and value (Punniyamoorthy et al.,
2011), enhancing the value of this experiment. Two similar rational vs emotional) between-subjects experimental design
advertisements and press releases that included either was used, with CBBE as the dependent variable. First, H1 was
emotional elements of the brand or rational elements of a brand tested and checked for significance using brand identity and CS
were created to manipulate brand identity. Given the as factors, and CBBE as the dependent variable. The results
experimental nature of this study, a student sample was used indicate that the interaction between BI-CS fit has a significant
with the objective of increasing its internal validity (Brinberg positive relationship with CBBE (p < 0.01, R2 = 0.042)
and McGrath, 1985; Hanel and Vione, 2016). supporting H1. Planned contrasts revealed that analytical
In total, 252 students (50 per cent female, Mage = 28.7, SD = cognitive-style participants reported significantly higher CBBE
3.19), selected from a large public university located in the south- when they were exposed to a rational brand identity (M = 3.3,
central USA, participated in the two-step experimental study in SD = 0.048) in comparison to an emotional brand identity
exchange for extra credit. After checking for incomplete (M = 3.13, SD = 0.05, 95 per cent CI [0.027, 0.301], p <
responses, those that followed a pattern or that took less than 0.05). Conversely, intuitive cognitive-style participants
5 min, 241 responses were deemed usable. Participants were reported higher CBBE when they were exposed to an
randomly selected to either the emotional or the rational emotional brand identity (M = 3.29, SD = 0.05) in comparison
condition and then exposed to the manipulation. A manipulation to a rational brand identity (M = 3.14, SD = 0.05, 95 per cent
check, using six questions on a five-point Likert scale agree vs CI [0.00, 0.29], p < 0.05).
disagree that this ad for Nutri-milk is rational or emotional, Next, the relationship was tested again using internalization,
confirmed that the brand identities were either rational or identification and compliance as covariates in the ANOVA with
emotional. A t-test found significant differences between both brand identity and CS as factors and CBBE as the dependent
brand identities’ level of reason (MRational = 3.83, variable (Table V). Correlations between CS and the three
MEmotional = 3.57, p = 0.01) and emotion (MRational = 2.87, components of social influence were measured finding no
MEmotional = 3.55, p < 0.01). Following, participants answered correlation (p > 0.10). Furthermore, the results show that the
questions regarding their CS using Allinson and Hayes (1996) relationship between compliance and BI-CS fit is not
CS index. On step two of this experiment, participants were significant (p = 0.382), not supporting H2. However, the
exposed to another stimulus–one of two press releases, presented relationships between internalization and identification and BI-
in the appendices–assigned randomly to improve internal CS fit are significant at a less than 0.001 level, supporting H3
validity. One press release included innovative and liberal values and H4. The complete model’s R2 is 56.2 per cent. Table VI
and the other traditional and conservative values. Respondents provides a summary of the results of all the tested hypotheses
then answered questions that gathered information about the and Figure 3 presents the interactions between CS and brand
level of compliance, identification and internalization with the identity.
brand identities they were exposed to, based on previous studies
by Kang and Schuett (2013). To assure construct validity, a Q- Discussion
test was performed on three doctoral students who related the
This paper aimed to empirically test the effect of BI-CS fit on
questions to the groups that were intended. Finally, the survey
creating a stronger brand image to increase the perceived value
measured the perceived value of the brand using Baalbaki and
of a brand, and to understand the effect of social influence on
Guzmán’s (2016) CBBE scale dimensions–quality, preference,
the perceived value of a brand. The study contributes to the
sustainability and social influence–on a five-point Likert scale for
branding literature by introducing the CS concept to better
each item.
understand the influence of emotional and rational brand
identities on consumers with either rational or intuitive
Results cognitive thinking styles, and reinforce the importance of the
Before testing the hypotheses, all scale items measuring social brand duality concept (Keller, 2001).
influence dimensions and perceived CBBE were first subjected The study finds that, as expected, a rational brand identity is
to exploratory factor analysis (EFA). All factors were examined given a higher perceived brand value by analytic CS consumers
for internal consistency. The results of the EFA (factor than intuitive CS consumers. Conversely, an emotional brand
structure with varimax rotation) of the final items are presented identity is given a higher perceived brand value by intuitive CS

976
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

Table II Rotated factor structure

Rotated component matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I believe that Nutri-milk would perform consistently 0.837
I believe that Nutri-milk would have a consistent quality 0.816
I believe that Nutri-milk would have an acceptable standard of quality 0.804
It seems that Nutri-milk would be consistent in the quality it offers 0.779
I believe that Nutri-milk would be well made 0.779
It seems that the quality of Nutri-milk is extremely high 0.623 0.587
It seems that Nutri-milk has very high reliability 0.618
I would not buy other brand if Nutri-milk was available at the store 0.778
I see myself becoming loyal to nutri-milk 0.769
Nutri-milk would become my first choice of milk 0.733
I see myself committed to buy Nutri-milk 0.730
By buying Nutri-milk I would feel a sense of “ownership” of the brand 0.711
I would talk about Nutri-milk with my colleagues as being an amazing brand 0.701
By buying Nutri-milk I feel a sense of belonging to the brand’s community 0.669
Nutri-milk would improve the way I am perceived by others 0.827
Nutri-milk would make a good impression on other people 0.802
Nutri-milk would give its owner social approval 0.800
Nutri-milk would help me feel accepted 0.526 0.678
Nutri-milk is an environmentally responsible brand 0.823
Nutri-milk is an environmentally safe brand 0.799
Nutri-milk is a sustainable brand 0.726
Nutri-milk is a healthy brand 0.621
It seems like Nutri-milk and I have similar believes 0.885
I believe that nutri-milk and I have similar values 0.847
I like what nutri-milk stands for 0.640
Unless nutri-milk is cheaper than other milk brands, I see no reason to buy it 0.772
Unless I am rewarded for buying Nutri-milk, I see no reason to change from my current milk 0.741
brand
I would buy Nutri-milk only if I feel pressured to buy it 0.683
It seems that the functionality of nutri-milk is extremely high 0.749
I believe that the performance of Nutri-milk would be very high 0.523 0.595
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization; aRotation converged in seven iterations

Table III Social influence inter-item correlation

Q7_1 Q7_3 Q7_4 Q7_6 Q7_7 Q7_8 Q7_9 Q7_10 Q7_11
     
Q7_1 1 0.612 0.579 0.412 0.339 0.246 0.184 0.083 0.226
Q7_3 0.612 1 0.853 0.297 0.349 0.301 0.165 0.099 0.129
Q7_4 0.579 0.853 1 0.345 0.410 0.337 0.118 0.155 0.100
Q7_6 0.412 0.297 0.345 1 0.676 0.562 0.316 0.193 0.055
Q7_7 0.339 0.349 0.410 0.676 1 0.661 0.316 0.199 0.075
Q7_8 0.246 0.301 0.337 0.562 0.661 1 0.251 0.189 0.010
Q7_9 0.184 0.165 0.118 0.316 0.316 0.251 1 0.534 0.334
Q7_10 0.083 0.099 0.155 0.193 0.199 0.189 0.534 1 0.263
Q7_11 0.226 0.129 0.100 0.055 0.075 0.010 0.334 0.263 1
Notes:  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed);  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

consumers than analytic CS consumers. This finding is Indeed, predominantly analytic thinkers find a brand identity
relatively intuitive and simply serves to test the basic more appealing when built on rational rather than emotional
assumption of this study. Not surprisingly, the R2 for this associations. Analytic CS individuals tend to have a logical
relationship without social influence as a covariate is low processing of information (Allinson and Hayes, 1996), which
(0.058). This result was expected and previously discussed. explains why they prefer functional associations on a brand

977
 Table IV CBBE Inter-item correlation

Q9_1 Q9_2 Q9_3 Q9_4 Q9_5 Q9_6 Q9_7 Q9_8 Q9_9 Q9_10 Q9_11 Q9_12 Q9_13 Q9_14 Q9_15 Q9_16 Q9_17 Q9_18 Q9_19 Q9_20 Q9_21
       
Q9_1 1 0.752 0.580 0.572 0.534 0.516 0.506 0.568 0.546 0.276 0.289 0.251 0.291 0.307 0.289 0.335 0.352 0.139 0.182 0.154 0.139
Q9_2 0.752 1 0.616 0.650 0.518 0.649 0.670 0.654 0.647 0.230 0.225 0.156 0.200 0.332 0.343 0.371 0.413 0.101 0.131 0.167 0.089
Q9_3 0.580 0.616 1 0.682 0.628 0.517 0.452 0.555 0.585 0.322 0.322 0.214 0.274 0.361 0.370 0.399 0.354 0.143 0.168 0.179 0.246
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán

Q9_4 0.572 0.650 0.682 1 0.634 0.574 0.473 0.599 0.641 0.249 0.226 0.143 0.157 0.325 0.329 0.260 0.309 0.030 0.091 0.154 0.137
The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit

Q9_5 0.534 0.518 0.628 0.634 1 0.390 0.381 0.452 0.406 0.238 0.272 0.161 0.201 0.327 0.311 0.380 0.274 0.074 0.055 0.068 0.123
Q9_6 0.516 0.649 0.517 0.574 0.390 1 0.763 0.581 0.613 0.225 0.144 0.131 0.137 0.317 0.289 0.347 0.406 0.047 0.083 0.062 0.099
Q9_7 0.506 0.670 0.452 0.473 0.381 0.763 1 0.652 0.565 0.259 0.208 0.209 0.203 0.234 0.288 0.309 0.376 0.140 0.148 0.149 0.116
Q9_8 0.568 0.654 0.555 0.599 0.452 0.581 0.652 1 0.728 0.249 0.186 0.117 0.198 0.286 0.339 0.379 0.396 0.075 0.091 0.077 0.084
Q9_9 0.546 0.647 0.585 0.641 0.406 0.613 0.565 0.728 1 0.329 0.222 0.176 0.213 0.342 0.315 0.405 0.427 0.075 0.084 0.128 0.077

978
Q9_10 0.276 0.230 0.322 0.249 0.238 0.225 0.259 0.249 0.329 1 0.731 0.624 0.626 0.246 0.193 0.185 0.195 0.382 0.387 0.455 0.509
Q9_11 0.289 0.225 0.322 0.226 0.272 0.144 0.208 0.186 0.222 0.731 1 0.714 0.744 0.336 0.275 0.254 0.208 0.482 0.492 0.544 0.589
Q9_12 0.251 0.156 0.214 0.143 0.161 0.131 0.209 0.117 0.176 0.624 0.714 1 0.678 0.230 0.241 0.189 0.120 0.429 0.407 0.454 0.564
Q9_13 0.291 0.200 0.274 0.157 0.201 0.137 0.203 0.198 0.213 0.626 0.744 0.678 1 0.359 0.325 0.283 0.187 0.554 0.498 0.539 0.599
Q9_14 0.307 0.332 0.361 0.325 0.327 0.317 0.234 0.286 0.342 0.246 0.336 0.230 0.359 1 0.813 0.551 0.429 0.237 0.233 0.249 0.241
Q9_15 0.289 0.343 0.370 0.329 0.311 0.289 0.288 0.339 0.315 0.193 0.275 0.241 0.325 0.813 1 0.546 0.474 0.193 0.193 0.173 0.208
Q9_16 0.335 0.371 0.399 0.260 0.380 0.347 0.309 0.379 0.405 0.185 0.254 0.189 0.283 0.551 0.546 1 0.612 0.218 0.161 0.176 0.180
Q9_17 0.352 0.413 0.354 0.309 0.274 0.406 0.376 0.396 0.427 0.195 0.208 0.120 0.187 0.429 0.474 0.612 1 0.186 0.115 0.154 0.122
Q9_18 0.139 0.101 0.143 0.030 0.074 0.047 0.140 0.075 0.075 0.382 0.482 0.429 0.554 0.237 0.193 0.218 0.186 1 0.694 0.712 0.712
Q9_19 0.182 0.131 0.168 0.091 0.055 0.083 0.148 0.091 0.084 0.387 0.492 0.407 0.498 0.233 0.193 0.161 0.115 0.694 1 0.770 0.626
Q9_20 0.154 0.167 0.179 0.154 0.068 0.062 0.149 0.077 0.128 0.455 0.544 0.454 0.539 0.249 0.173 0.176 0.154 0.712 0.770 1 0.722
Q9_21 0.139 0.089 0.246 0.137 0.123 0.099 0.116 0.084 0.077 0.509 0.589 0.564 0.599 0.241 0.208 0.180 0.122 0.712 0.626 0.722 1
Notes:  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984
Journal of Product & Brand Management
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

Table V ANOVA results

Tests of between-subjects effects
Dependent variable: perceived value of the brand
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial eta squared Noncent. parameter Observed powerb
Corrected model 45.568a 6 7.595 49.972 0.000 0.562 299.832 1.000
Intercept 14.861 1 14.861 97.785 0.000 0.295 97.785 1.000
I_INT 5.160 1 5.160 33.953 0.000 0.127 33.953 1.000
I_ID 18.370 1 18.370 120.873 0.000 0.341 120.873 1.000
I_COMP 0.116 1 0.116 0.766 0.382 0.003 0.766 0.140
Cog.Style 0.003 1 0.003 0.018 0.894 0.000 0.018 0.052
BrandID 0.005 1 0.005 0.030 0.862 0.000 0.030 0.053
Cog.Style * BrandID 1.414 1 1.414 9.306 0.003 0.038 9.306 0.860
Error 35.563 234 0.152
Total 2580.624 241
Corrected total 81.131 240
Notes: aR2 = 0.562 (adjusted R2 = 0.550); bComputed using alpha = 0.05

brand communicates to create social influence. Introducing the

Table VI Results social influence dimensions (i.e. compliance, identification and
Hypothesis Result p-value internalization) into the model increased the R2 to 0.562.
Moreover, the findings show that to have a considerable effect,
H1 Supported 0.003
the level of social influence of the message has to be medium to
H2 Not supported 0.382
high. As the lack of support of H2 shows, compliance is not
H3 Supported 0.000
enough for the relationship to be significant either in a positive
H4 Supported 0.000
or negative way. In other words, people feeling forced to
Note: R2 = 0.562 (Adjusted R2 = 0.550) comply is not enough to influence the perceived brand image
neither positively or negatively, and therefore, does not reduce
perceived brand value, as originally expected. It is only when
social influence reaches the levels of identification and
identity. On the other hand, predominantly intuitive thinkers internalization that it does. BI-CS fit creates a stronger brand
process information at a macro level, guiding their decision on image leading to an increased perceived brand value, but only
hunches rather than logical explanations (Allinson and Hayes, when the consumer feels a certain level of identification with
1996), which is why they would favor a brand identity when is the brand. In other words, when the brand actually represents
built on emotional rather than rational associations. or stands for something the consumer cares about. These
However, the more important contribution of this study is results support Baalbaki and Guzmán’s (2016) finding that a
identifying that whether the brand identity is more emotional or key dimension of perceived brand equity is a brand’s level of
rational is less important than the values and beliefs that the social influence. They are also in line with Fournier’s (1998)

Figure 3 Interactions

979
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

brand relationship theory and provide support and an can identify with and, ultimately, internalize will most likely be
explanation as to why so many brands today are trying to more effective in generating higher levels of perceived value (i.e.
engage with consumers (Harmeling et al., 2017) by strongly becoming a strong brand). Although these concepts had been
aligning with causes that consumers care about (Hoewe and discussed in prior literature, the contribution that this paper
Hatemi, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2019; Shepherd et al., 2015) and makes is tying them all together which, to the best of our
by getting them involved in the process of co-creating brand knowledge, had not been done.
identities (Iglesias et al., 2018; Ind et al., 2019; Kennedy and In sum, the findings of this article contribute to the branding
Guzmán, 2016, 2017; Merz et al., 2018). literature by demonstrating that intuitive consumers assign
more value to brands that communicate emotional messages,
Managerial implications while analytical consumers assign more value to brands that
This paper answers Goller et al.’s (2002) call for research on communicate rational messages. Furthermore, this study also
new and more strategic forms of segmentation. The results finds that CBBE increases as long as consumers’ values are
demonstrate the importance of brand duality and show how aligned with the overt values of the brand. In other words,
firms could present emotional or rational brand identities, brands that openly express their values and beliefs could
depending on their consumers’ CS, to increase the
experience an upsurge in the perceived value of the brand,
effectiveness of their messaging. By identifying their
independently of how these brands communicate their values
consumers’ predominant thinking style and tapping into
and beliefs.
social influence factors that increase the levels of
identification with and internalization of the brand, their
brand identity messaging could lead to higher levels of Limitations and future research
perceived value. In other words, the results of this study The framework presented in this paper was tested using a
show that brand managers need to be cognizant of the student sample (Hanel and Vione, 2016). Although the
potential of communicating brand identities that consumers sampling is appropriate given the experimental nature of
understand–based on consumers’ CS, that consumers relate the study, future research could further validate the model and
to–based on identification form of social influence, and with strengthen the theory-building by providing empirical evidence
values in which consumers believe–based on the that supports this framework using a more representative
internalization form of social influence. With the rise of sample. The nature of this study opens the door for more
social media and the power of data technologies, brand research, especially in new ways to understand consumers’ CS
managers are now equipped with new marketing analytic and how brands can get consumers to engage to influence their
tools that can help them identify whether their target aspirations and beliefs so they can profoundly identify with and
consumers are more intuitive or analytical. By doing so, and internalize the values of the brand.
by engaging with consumers to more deeply understand how A second potential limitation of this study is that it relied on a
they identify with the brand and what they truly care about, brand with which subjects had never interacted. Although this
managers can become more effective in their brand was done intentionally to isolate the effects that were being
communication to build a stronger brand image, which measured and to take care of the internal validity threat and any
translates into a better positioning, and ultimately, a higher potential biases that consumers could have had form past
brand value. exposure to the brand, in reality, the experience that consumers
Brands such as Nike, Chick-Fil-A, Netflix, Starbucks, Ben have with brands can change its value for better or for worse.
and Jerry’s, Uber, Patagonia or P&G’s Gillette, among many For instance, if a product’s quality is bellow a consumer’s
others, are currently “taking a stand” on certain values or expectations, the brand image may be affected despite the
political ideologies (Schmidt et al., 2019), committing to their
branding efforts made by the firm to create a high-quality
customers deepest beliefs. According to the findings of this
identity.
study, this is not a coincidence. Although risking alienating a
A third limitation of this study is that it relies on cross-
certain segment of the market, this article demonstrates that it
sectional data. Future research could consider the use of
might be worth taking that risk to generate a stronger bond with
respondents’ current brand knowledge and examine the
those consumers that do align with the values the brand
changes in CBBE (Muniz et al., 2019) to further understand
supports. Brands that engage and create synergy with
how the examined constructs shape brands. For instance,
consumers, by creating brand identities that consumers identify
with and ultimately internalize, create stronger brand images, researchers could examine CBBE in the event of variations in
which will be reflected on higher values for their brands. In brand campaigns.
other words, the most important managerial implication that Finally, for this study, the emotional and rational brand
this study presents is that the way brand identities are identities were built from scratch. Even though subjects
presented–more emotional or more rational–is not as important categorized the emotional brand identity as emotional and the
as what brand identities communicate–the core beliefs and rational brand identity as rational, there are different emotions
values of a brand. Brand managers must be cognizant that that could trigger different responses. For example, for this
identities can be emotional or rational, and this creates more or study, the emotion of happiness was triggered by talking about
less value depending on the consumers’ CS, but what is more love to the subjects’ families. Future research could explore if
important is that consumers internalize the brand’s message or different types of emotions have different levels of effect or how
identify with what the brand represents. Hence, a brand triggering different types of emotions affects CBBE on
identity that portrays reasons or emotions that the consumer consumers with different CS.

980
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

References Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better

measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York,
Cowan, K. and Guzmán, F. (2018), “How CSR reputation,
NY.
sustainability signals, and country-of-origin sustainability
Ailawadi, K.L. and Harlam, B. (2004), “An empirical analysis
reputation contribute to corporate brand performance: an
of the determinants of retail margins: the role of store-brand
exploratory study”, Journal of Business Research, available at:
share”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 147-165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.017
Allinson, C. and Hayes, J. (1996), “The cognitive style
Cui, C.C., Mrad, M. and Hogg, M.K. (2018), “Brand
index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational
addiction: exploring the concept and its definition through
research”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1,
an experiential lens”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 87,
pp. 119-135.
pp. 118-127.
Armstrong, S.J. and Qi, M. (2016), “A reassessment of the
Davcik, N.S., da Silva, R.V. and Hair, J.F. (2015), “Towards a
factor structure of the Allinson-Hayes cognitive style index”,
unified theory of brand equity: conceptualizations, taxonomy
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 101, pp. 240-242.
and avenues for future research”, Journal of Product & Brand
Armstrong, S.J., Cool, E. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2012), “Role
of cognitive styles in business and management: reviewing 40 Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998), “Defining a
years of research”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 238-262. brand: beyond the literature with experts’ interpretations”,
Aurier, P. and Gilles Séré, D.L. (2012), “Impacts of perceived Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 5,
brand relationship orientation on attitudinal loyalty”, pp. 417-443.
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 11/12, Dichter, E. (1985), “What’s in an image”, Journal of Consumer
pp. 1602-1627. Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 75-81.
Baalbaki, S. and Guzmán, F. (2016), “A consumer-perceived Dolich, I.J. (1969), “Congruence relationships between self
consumer-based brand equity scale”, Journal of Brand images and product brands”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 229-251. Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 80-84.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), “Antecedents and Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2003), “You are what they eat:
purchase consequences of customer participation in small the influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections
group brand communities”, International Journal of Research to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3,
in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 45-61. pp. 339-348.
Batra, R. and Ray, M.L. (1986), “Affective responses Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal,
mediating acceptance of advertising”, Journal of Consumer reference groups, and brand meaning”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 234-249. Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
“Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social- Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
psychological forces, and organizational climate”, MIS Gardner, M.P. (1985), “Does attitude toward the ad affect
Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111. brand attitude under a brand evaluation set?”, Journal of
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 192-198.
“Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it Gehani, R. (2001), “Enhancing brand equity and reputational
affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, capital with enterprise-wide complementary innovations”,
pp. 52-68. Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35-48.
Brinberg, D. and McGrath, J.E. (1985), Validity and Research Ghodeswar, B.M. (2008), “Building brand identity in
Process, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. competitive markets: a conceptual model”, Journal of Product
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), “The importance of & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 4-12.
the brand in brand extension”, Journal of Marketing Research, Glynn, M.S., Brodie, R.J. and Motion, J. (2012), “The benefits
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 214-228. of manufacturer brands to retailers”, European Journal of
Buchanan, L., Simmons, C.J. and Bickart, B.A. (1999), Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1127-1149.
“Brand equity dilution: retailer display and context brand Goller, S., Hogg, A. and Kalafatis, S.P. (2002), “A new
effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, research agenda for business segmentation”, European
pp. 345-355. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, pp. 252-271.
Chan, C., Berger, J. and Van Boven, L. (2012), “Identifiable Good, P.I. and Hardin, J.W. (2012), Common Errors in Statistics
but not identical: combining social identity and uniqueness (and How to Avoid Them), John Wiley & Sons, New York,
motives in choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39 NY.
No. 3, pp. 561-573. Graeff, T.R. (1996), “Using promotional messages to manage
Cheadle, H. (2019), “Companies are realizing that being the effects of brand and self-image on brand evaluations”,
publicly conservative is really unpopular”, available at: www. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 4-18.
vice.com/en_us/article/7x5v9y/companies-are-realizing-that- Grubb, E.L. and Hupp, G. (1968), “Perception of self,
being-publicly-conservative-is-really-unpopular (accessed generalized stereotypes, and brand selection”, Journal of
11 November 2019). Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 58-63.

981
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

Guzmán, F., Montaña, J. and Sierra, V. (2006), “Brand Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity: a
building by associating to public services: a reference group blueprint for creating strong brands”, MSI Report,
influence model”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 pp. 1-107.
Nos 4/5, pp. 353-362. Nos Keller, K.L. (2009), “Building strong brands in a modern
Guzmán, F., Paswan, A. and Fabrize, B. (2017), “Crossing the marketing communications environment”, Journal of
border: changes in self and brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 139-155.
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 306-318. Keller, K.L. (2013), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Hamelin, N., El Moujahid, O. and Thaichon, P. (2017), Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Pearson Education,
“Emotion and advertising effectiveness: a novel facial Upper Saddle River, NJ.
expression analysis approach”, Journal of Retailing and Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2003), “How do brands
Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp. 103-111. create value?”, Marketing Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding pp. 26-31.
and corporate brand performance”, European Journal of Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and
Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-456. branding: research findings and future priorities”, Marketing
Hanel, P.H. and Vione, K.C. (2016), “Do student samples Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-759.
provide an accurate estimate of the general public?”, PloS Kelman, H.C. (1958), “Compliance, identification, and
One, Vol. 11 No. 12, p. e0168354. internalization: three processes of attitude change”, Journal
Harmeling, C.M., Moffett, J.W., Arnold, M.J. and Carlson, of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 51-60.
B.D. (2017), “Toward a theory of customer engagement Kennedy, E. and Guzmán, F. (2016), “Co-creation of brand
marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, identities: consumer and industry influence and
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 312-335. motivations”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 5,
Hayes, J. and Allinson, C.W. (1994), “Cognitive style and its pp. 313-323.
relevance for management practice”, British Journal of Kennedy, E. and Guzmán, F. (2017), “When perceived ability
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 53-71. to influence plays a role: brand co-creation in web 2.0”,
Heinberg, M., Ozkaya, H.E. and Taube, M. (2018), “Do Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 4,
corporate image and reputation drive brand equity in India pp. 342-350.
and China? – Similarities and differences”, Journal of Business Leone, R.P., Rao, V.R., Kevin, L.K., Luo, A.M., McAlister, L.
Research, Vol. 86, pp. 259-268. and Srivastava, R. (2006), “Linking brand equity to
Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R. (1987), “Assessing the role of customer equity”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 2,
emotions as mediators of consumer responses to pp. 125-138.
advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, Lutz, R.J. (1980), The Role of Attitude Theory in Marketing,
pp. 404-420. Center for Marketing Studies, University of CA, Los
Holt, D.B. (2004), How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Angeles, CA.
Cultural Branding, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA. Lutz, R.J., MacKenzie, S.B. and Belch, G.E. (1983), “Attitude
Holt, D.B. (2006), “Jack Daniel’s America iconic brands as toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness:
ideological parasites and proselytizers”, Journal of Consumer Determinants and consequences”, in Bagozzi, R.P. and
Culture, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 355-377. Tybout, A.M. (Eds), NA-Advances in Consumer Research
Hoewe, J. and Hatemi, P.K. (2017), “Brand loyalty is Volume 10, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Abor,
influenced by the activation of political orientations”, Media MI, pp. 532-539.
Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 428-449. MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. and Belch, G.E. (1986), “The role
Iglesias, O. and Bonet, E. (2012), “Persuasive brand of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising
management”, Journal of Organizational Change effectiveness: a test of competing explanations”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 251-264. Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-143.
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Bagherzadeh, M. and Singh, J.J. Malhotra, Y. and Galletta, D. (2005), “A multidimensional
(2018), “Co-creation: a key link between corporate social commitment model of volitional systems adoption and usage
responsibility, customer trust, and customer loyalty”, Journal behavior”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
of Business Ethics, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 117-151.
s10551-018-4015-y Margulies, W.P. (1977), “Make most of your corporate
Ind, N., Coates, N. and Lerman, K. (2019), “The gift of co- identity”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 66-74.
creation: what motivates customers to participate”, Journal of Merz, M.A., Zarantonello, L. and Grappi, S. (2018), “How
Brand Management, available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/ valuable are your customers in the brand value co-creation
s41262-019-00173-7 process? The development of a customer co-creation value
Kang, M. and Schuett, M.A. (2013), “Determinants of sharing (CCCV) scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 82 No. 1,
travel experiences in social media”, Journal of Travel & pp. 79-89.
Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2, pp. 93-107. Messick, S. (1976), “Personality consistencies in cognition and
Kapferer, N.J. (1992), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan creativity”, in Messick, S. (Ed.), Individuality in Learning,
Page, London. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 4-22.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and Messick, S. (1984), “The nature of cognitive styles: problems
managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of and promise in educational practice”, Educational
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Psychologist, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 59-74.

982
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

Monga, A.B. and John, D.R. (2010), “What makes brands (Eds), Booklet of Abstracts from the 14th Global Brand
elastic? The influence of brand concept and styles of thinking Conference of the AM’s Brand, Identity and Corporate
on brand extension evaluation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 Reputation SIG, Academy of Marketing-Brand SIG, Berlin,
No. 3, pp. 80-92. p. 54.
Moon, J.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2001), “Extending the TAM for a Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Are there universal aspects in the
world-wide-web context”, Information & Management, structure and contents of human values?”, Journal of Social
Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 217-230. Issues, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 19-45.
Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand Schwartz, S.H. (1999), “A theory of cultural values and some
community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, implications for work”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 412-432. pp. 23-47.
Muniz, F., Guzmán, F., Paswan, A. and Crawford, H. (2019), Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001), “Value hierarchies across
“The immediate effect of corporate social responsibility on cultures taking a similarities perspective”, Journal of Cross-
consumer-based brand equity”, Journal of Product & Brand Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 268-290.
Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 864-879. Schwartz, S.H. and Boehnke, K. (2004), “Evaluating the
Nandan, S. (2005), “An exploration of the brand identity– structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis”,
brand image linkage: a communications perspective”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 230-255.
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 264-278. Schwartz, S.H., Sagiv, L. and Boehnke, K. (2000), “Worries
Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1978), Psychometric Theory, and values”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 68 No. 2,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. pp. 309-346.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Shepherd, S., Chartrand, T.L. and Fitzsimons, G.J. (2015),
Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44. “When brands reflect our ideal world: the values and brand
Page, T.J., Thorson, E. and Heide, M.P. (1990), “The preferences of consumers who support versus reject society’s
memory impact of commercials varying in emotional appeal dominant ideology”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 42
and product involvement”, in Agres, S.J., Edell, J.A. and No. 1, pp. 76-92.
Dubitsky, T.M. (Eds), Emotion in Advertising, Quorum Shimp, T.A. (1981), “Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of
Books, New York, NY, pp. 255-268. consumer brand choice”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 10
Pappu, R. and Quester, P.G. (2016), “How does brand No. 2, pp. 9-48.
innovativeness affect brand loyalty?”, European Journal of Steenkamp, J.B.E., Van Heerde, H.J. and Geyskens, I. (2010),
Marketing, Vol. 50 Nos 1/2, pp. 2-28. “What makes consumers willing to pay a price premium for
Park, C.W. and Young, S.M. (1986), “Consumer response to national brands over private labels?”, Journal of Marketing
television commercials: the impact of involvement and Research, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1011-1024.
background music on brand attitude formation”, Journal of Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 11-24. intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (Eds),
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Maclnnis, D.J. (1986), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Wiley, New
“Strategic Brand concept-image management”, Journal of York, NY, pp. 33-47.
Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-145. Torelli, C.J., Monga, A.B. and Kaikati, A.M. (2012), “Doing
Plummer, J.T. (1985), “How personality makes a difference”, poorly by doing good: corporate social responsibility and
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 27-31. brand concepts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38
Poels, K. and Dewitte, S. (2006), “How to capture the heart? No. 5, pp. 948-963.
Reviewing 20 years of emotion measurement in advertising”, Venkatesh, V., Speier, C. and Morris, M.G. (2002), “User
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 18-37. acceptance enablers in individual decision making about
Punniyamoorthy, M., Mahadevan, B. and Shetty, N. (2011), technology: toward an integrated model”, Decision Sciences,
“A framework for assessment of brand loyalty score for Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
commodities”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Veloutsou, C. and Guzmán, F. (2017), “The evolution of
Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 19 Nos 3/4, pp. 243-260. brand management thinking over the last 25 years as
Riding, R. and Rayner, S. (2013), Cognitive Styles and Learning recorded in the journal of product and brand management”,
Strategies: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
Behavior, Routledge, Oxford. pp. 2-12.
Roy, D. and Banerjee, S. (2014), “Identification and Watkins, B.A. (2014), “Revisiting the social identity-brand
measurement of brand identity and image gap: a quantitative equity model: an application to professional sports”, Journal
approach”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 of Sport Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 471-480.
No. 3, pp. 207-219. White, K. and Dahl, D.W. (2007), “Are all out-groups created
Roy, R. and Rabbanee, F.K. (2015), “Antecedents and equal? Consumer identity and dissociative influence”,
consequences of self-congruity”, European Journal of Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 525-536.
Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 3/4, pp. 444-466. Wilkie, W.L. (1986), Consumer Behavior, Wiley, New York,
Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2000), Consumer Behavior, NY.
7th ed., Prentice-Hall, New York, NY. Yuan, R., Liu, M.J., Luo, J. and Yen, D.A. (2016), “Reciprocal
Schmidt, H., Ind, N. and Guzmán, F. (2019), “Politically transfer of brand identity and image associations arising from
conscious brands: insights into consumer attitudes and higher education brand extensions”, Journal of Business
managerial perceptions”, in Baumgarth, C. and Boltz, D.M. Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3069-3076.

983
 The effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit Journal of Product & Brand Management
Diego Alvarado-Karste and Francisco Guzmán Volume 29 · Number 7 · 2020 · 971–984

Appendix Liberal press release

Please take a couple of minutes to read the following press
Conservative press release release:
Nutri, the South American brand that wants to be part of the
Please take a couple of minutes to read the following press innovation of American people
release: March 2017. After innovating and building a strong
Nutri, the South American brand that wants to be part of the presence in South America for 40 years, Nutri is ready to be
tradition of American families part of the American families, beginning in fall of 2017.
March 2017. After building and maintaining a strong The initiative to expand beyond the borders of South-
presence in South America for 40 years, Nutri is ready to be America comes because of the brand’s culture of innovation
part of the American families, beginning in fall of 2017. and change. Nutri’s products are expected to be on the
The initiative to expand beyond the borders of South- shelves of the main grocery retailers at the beginning of
America comes after the brand has reached a point near September.
perfection in food security. Nutri’s products are expected to Nutri is a family-owned and family-operated company with
be on the shelves of the main grocery retailers at the beginning renowned prestige in the world of dairy products. The non-
of September. traditional and innovative family behind the brand respects
Nutri is a family-owned and family-operated company with the liberal values of American society and fully supports the
renowned prestige in the world of dairy products. The decision to get into the American market.
traditional and perfectionist family behind the brand respects American consumers demand high quality and innovative
the conservative values of the American society and fully products. Therefore, Nutri relies on a permanent ally: Tetra
supports the decision to get into the American market. Pak, a Swedish multinational with a presence in over 170
American consumers demand high quality and food safety. countries, which supports Nutri with the best packaging to
Therefore, Nutri relies on a permanent ally: Tetra Pak, a reassure Americans with creative and high-quality products.
Swedish multinational with a presence in over 170 countries, For Rigoberto Moncayo, CEO of Nutri, “It is a dream come
which supports Nutri with the best packaging to reassure true to sell Nutri in the USA. We share the great open-minded
American families with secure and high-quality products. values of the American people, and I am a true believer in the
For Rigoberto Moncayo, CEO of Nutri, “It is a dream come American dream. I trust that this expansion will be beneficial
true to sell Nutri in the USA. We share the great traditional both for Nutri and the American people”.
values of the American families, and I am a true believer in the Nutri expects to become the leading dairy brand in America
American dream. I trust that this expansion will be beneficial in a few years by using an aggressive marketing campaign and
both for Nutri and American families”. focusing on the highest innovation procedures for dairy
Nutri expects to become the leading dairy brand in products. The brand’s innovation recognitions, its corporate
America in a few years by using a conservative marketing values, and above all, its creative men and women, will be the
campaign, but above all, by focusing on the highest safety fuel to become part of American society.
standards for dairy products. The brand’s food safety Now, select how well do you agree with the following
recognitions, its corporate values, and above all, its hard- statements. Please select based on the number that closely
working men and women, will be the fuel to become part of matches your opinion.
American families.
Now, based on this press release, select how well do you Corresponding author
agree with the following statements. Please select based on the Francisco Guzmán can be contacted at: francisco.guzman@
number that closely matches your opinion. unt.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

984
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.