دانلود ترجمه مقاله ارتباط خصوصیت شخصیتی مصرف کننده، شخصیت برند و وفاداری به نام تجاری – مجله امرالد

بخشی از ترجمه:

هدف: هدف این مقاله بررسی رابطه میان ویژگی های شخصیتی مصرف کننده، هویت نام تجاری و وفاداری به برند، می باشد.
طرح، روش ، رویکرد- از روش نمونه برداری راحت برای جمع آوری داده های مقدماتی استفاده شد. در مجموع از ۴٠٠ مصرف کننده بزرگسال که به دنبال خرید یا قصد خرید اسباب بازی یا بازی های ویدئویی در پاساژ های شهر تایپه بودند مصاحبه ای گرفته شد، و ٣٨٧ پرسش نامه گرداوری شد؛ نرخ پاسخ مفید ٩۶.٧۵ درصد بود. تحلیل رگرسیون منطبق با فرضیه های تست شده بود.
یافته ها- یافته های اصلی عبارتند از: ارتباط مثبت قابل توجه بین ویژگی شخصیت برونگرایی و برانگیختگی هویت برند؛ ارتباط مثبت قابل توجه بین ویژگی شخصیت مطلوب و و برانگیختگی هویت برند، صمیمیت هویت برند، و روح رقابت هویت برند؛ روح رقابت و اغواپذیری شخصیت برند، دارای تاثیر قابل توجه مثبتی بر روی وفاداری محرک بوده است؛ روح رقابت، راحتی و اغواپذیری شخصیت برند دارای تاثیر قابل توجه مثبتی بر روی وفاداری عمل بوده است؛ قابل قبول بودن و آزادی هویت برند دارای تاثیر قابل توجه مثبتی بر روی وفاداری عمل بوده است.
محدودیت ها یا الزامات تحقیق- محدودیت در زمینه انتخاب کشورها و برندها و محدودیت در پوشش نمونه برداری. این مقاله تایید می کند که مصرف کنندگانی با خصوصیات شخصی متفاوت دارای درک متفاوتی از هویت برند بوده اند، که همچنین می توان آن را به صنعت بازی های ویدئویی و اسباب بازی تعمیم داد. این مقاله اثبات می کند که هویت متمایز برند می تواند منتسب به وفاداری به برند باشد. این موارد نشان می دهد که قابل پذیرش بودن و آزادی خصوصیات شخصی دارای تاثیر مثبتی بر روی وفاداری به برند می باشد.
کاربرد های عملی- این مقاله ارزش هویت برند را که به شرکت سود می رساند نشان می دهد. این مقاله بر اهمیت وفاداری برند برای شرکت تاکید دارد. مصرف کنندگانی که با موافقت و آزادی عمل ثبت نام کردند به عنوان شرکت کنندگان هدف برای شرکت باندال می باشند.
اصالت/ ارزش: ارزش دیگر مقاله ارتباط دادن بین نظریه و عمل بوده، و به بررسی ارتباط ویژگی شخصی مصرف کننده ، هویت برند و وفاداری برند می پردازد.

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty. Design/methodology/approach – The convenience sampling method was used to collect primary data. A total of 400 adult consumers were interviewed who looked round or bought toys and video games in Taipei City Mall, and 387 effective questionnaires were collected; the effective response rate was 96.75 per cent. Regression analysis was adopted to test hypotheses. Findings – The major findings were: a significantly positive relationship between extroversion personality trait and excitement brand personality; a significantly positive relationship between agreeableness personality trait and excitement brand personality, sincerity brand personality and competence brand personality; competence and sophistication brand personality have a significantly positive influence on affective loyalty; competence, peacefulness and sophistication brand personality have a significantly positive influence on action loyalty; agreeableness and openness personality trait have a significantly positive influence on affective loyalty; agreeableness and openness personality trait have a significantly positive influence on action loyalty. Research limitations/implications – The restriction on selecting countries and brands, and the restraint of the sampling coverage present limitations. The paper verifies that consumers with different personality traits will have different cognizance towards brand personality, which can also be applied to the toy and video game industries. The paper proves that a distinct brand personality can appeal to more brand loyalty. It shows that agreeableness and openness of personality traits have a positive influence on brand loyalty. Practical implications – The paper highlights the value of brand personality that benefits a company. It emphasizes the importance of brand loyalty for a company. Consumers who register in agreeableness and openness are the target audience for BANDAI. Originality/value – The extra value of the paper is to link the theory and practice, and explore the relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty. Keywords Personality, Brand identity, Brand loyalty Paper type Research paper An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article. Introduction Nowadays in the trend towards fewer children and population aging, the ages of the customer group who play with toys are going to expand upward and downward from 0-100. Many outstanding stylish toys have been designed to attract office workers aged from 30-40, even to the more affluent 50 þ age group. It seems that the toy industry will not be able to survive if they do not include these adults as their core targets consumers. Therefore, the toy industry has to keep digging out what adults want then satisfy their innermost desires. The situation is the same as in the video game industry. According to the video game player population distribution in the USA in 2006, the consumer group aged between 18 and 49 was still the majority, taking up to 44 per cent of total sales. Nevertheless, the players aged below 18 and over 49 have also been increasingly emphasized recently. Toy and video game industries are intimately interrelated. Many toys and video games are the extension from cartoon animation or movies, and Japan is the main representative. Japan exports its toy and video game products in great numbers to Taiwan and the total sales ranked the number two among Taiwan’s toy importers in 2006. Distinct brand personality plays a key role in the success of a brand. It leads customers to perceive the brand personality and develop a strong connection to the brand (Doyle, 1990). A brand personality should be shaped to be long-lasting and consistent. Besides, it should also be different from other brands and meet consumer’s demands (Kumar et al., 2006).

Hence, the consumers of those toys and video games are like the brand spokespersons and become the basis for suppliers to build brand personality. With the specific brand personality, consumers of varying personality traits will be attracted and their brand preference will then be further developed. In addition, a company can maintain a good relationship with customers through its brand personality (Aaker and Biel, 1993). Because brands have their own particular personalities, consumers may treat brands as real human beings. In this case, consumers will expect the people’s words, attitudes, behavior or thoughts and so on to meet their respective personality traits (Aaker, 1996). Consumers may likely use the brand and products in line with their own personality traits, in other words, all the marketing activities are aimed at having consumers believe and recognize a brand personality, and reinforcing the communication between the brand and the consumer (Govers and Schoormans, 2005), in order to enhance the brand’s loyalty and equity. Brand personality has become a widely discussed issue in recent years. It has been emphasized in many brands and products, including durables goods, consumables goods, entertainment and luxury goods, and so on (Kumar et al., 2006; Govers and Schoormans, 2005; Mengxia, 2007). However, only a few toy and video game brands are used as the marketing researches target of brand personality. Thus, try to cover the gap of the literature is the first motivation of this study. Consumers may have their own preference for the brand and product in compliance with their brand personality and personality traits or their own concepts (Govers and Schoormans, 2005). However, in fact, brand preference only involves in the affection in brand loyalty, it may not develop any purchase behavior (Dyson et al., 1996). Only a few researchers have simultaneously combined affective loyalty and behavior loyalty into their investigation on the relationship of personality traits and brand personality with brand loyalty. Therefore, the second motivation of the study is formed to fill this gap as well. This study has three major objectives: 1 Explore the relationship of personality traits and brand personality. 2 Study the influence of brand personality on brand loyalty. 3 Examine the impact of personality traits on brand loyalty. Literature review Personality trait The Trait Theory is the most influential school of thought in personality psychology, many researchers derived similar conclusions in their studies of personalities (Chen and Chang, 1989). Allport is considered the founder of personality psychology. He described the personality as “a real person.” He also provided the more specific and well-know definitions of personality. Personality is the dynamic organization of psycho physiological systems that creates a person’s characteristic pattern of behavior, thoughts, and feeling (Allport, 1961). A personal disposition is defined as “a generalized neuropsychic structure (peculiar to the individual), with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adoptive and stylistic behavior” (Allport, 1937). Some personality trait researchers believe that, for the most part, personality traits are generated by nature and are stable, but some other researchers indicate personality traits will continue to evolve and may even change, even though the natural-born temperament may never change (Sternberg, 2000).

The Trait Theory can be divided into two schools. The first school believes that people have the same set of traits, and why every one is different is because the level of each trait is shown differently. Thus, traits commonly exist in every one of us. However, the other school believes that individual variance comes from the trait combination, which varies from one person to another, so that everyone has his/her own set of specific traits (Sternberg, 2000). Allport (1961) categorized traits into three types: cardinal trait, central trait and secondary trait. Basically, Cattell (1943) divided traits into two categories: surface trait and source trait. Eysenck (1975) claimed that personality has only three major traits: extroversion, neuroticism and the psychotic. McCrae et al. (1986) classified personality traits into five factors: 1 extroversion; 2 agreeableness; 3 conscientiousness; 4 neuroticism; and 5 openness. The five factors are generally referred to as the Big Five Model, which is extensively used nowadays. Based on the history of Big Five Model, Galton (1884) first started to use various Lexical Hypotheses to describe and differentiate personality traits according to Roget’s Thesaurus (synonym dictionary). As estimated, more than 1,000 vocabulary words were found relating to traits. Allport and Odbert (1936) extended Galton’s research and theory and collected 17,953 adjective words from Webster’s New International Dictionary. Cattell (1943) reduced the 17,953 adjective words describing personality traits to 171. By examining many studies conducted by trait theory researchers, Norman (1963) found five basic factors through factor analysis of the personality traits measured in peers. The five basic factors are: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and culture. Afterwards, Goldberg (1990) elicited five major traits from a new variable table to support the Big Five Model. There is a slight difference between the Big Five Model at present and the one proposed by Norman. McCrae et al. (1986) modified the factor “culture” propounded by Norman to be “openness”, because they thought that culture only carried small factor loading in the field of wisdom and culture while originality, creativity, independence and confidence contributed more factor loading.

Even if the name is different, the five factors kept emerging in the subsequent studies (Liebert and Liebert, 1994). McCrae et al. (1986) used the “Big Five Model” scale to measure personality traits and the nine-point Likert scale was also applied in measurement. Chow (1993) followed the method used by McCrae et al. (1986) to measure personality traits, deleting items with factor loading lower than 0.5 in the original scale, and applied a five-point Likert scale in measurement. Brand personality Aaker (1997) defines brand personality as “a set of human characteristics associated to a brand.” Brand personality mainly comes from three sources: the first one is the association consumers have with a brand, secondly, the image a company tries hard to create, for example using an advertising spokesperson to create a corporate image, and the third is about the product attributes, for example product categories and distribution channels. Personality is a useful variable in the consumer’s choices of brands. The brands selected by consumers are usually in compliance with their own personalities. Hence, brand personality offers the functions of self-symbolization and self-expression (Keller, 1993). Levy (1959) indicates that brand personality contains demographic features, such as gender, age and social class, and they may be directly influenced by the image of the brand users, personnel and product spokespersons, and indirectly affected by product attributes as well. For instance, Marlboro is a cigarette brand more likely to be smoked by males because “macho cowboys” are the brand image built up by Marlboro, Mercedes cars tend to be driven by those in higher social classes because Mercedes shows an image of high quality and high efficiency. Kotler and Keller (2005) note that consumers usually select brands having self-concept congruence. However, sometimes, consumers will select a brand according to their ideal self-concept or the social selfconcept. Thus, brand personality may have the function of demonstrating and expressing your own personality at the same time. Karande et al. (1997) believed that product designers and marketing personnel may benefit from the features of brand personality, because they may develop their marketing plans according to the features. In addition, with brand personality, a product can be differentiated from other brands. Furthermore, brand affection can also be developed by brand personality, which can in turn reinforce consumer’s brand personality.