Innocence versus Coolness: the influence of brand personality on consumers’ preferences

Wenting Feng (Department of Gemstone, Gemmological Institute, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan, China)
Yuanping Xu (Department of Marketing, School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China)
Lijia Wang (Research Center for Psychological and Health Sciences, Institute of Education, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China)

Journal of Product & Brand Management

ISSN: 1061-0421

Article publication date: 13 September 2023

Issue publication date: 15 January 2024

4510

Abstract

Purpose

Building on the theory of brand psychological ownership, this paper aims to explore the mediating role of brand psychological ownership in the relationship between brand personality (innocence/coolness) and consumers’ preferences, as well as identify the boundary conditions of this relationship.

Design/methodology/approach

To test the hypotheses, a series of four experiments were conducted in Wuhan, a city in southern China, using questionnaires administered at two universities and two supermarkets. Hypotheses were tested using PLS-SEM in SmartPLS 4.

Findings

The results indicate that brand personality, specifically the dimensions of innocence and coolness, has a significant impact on consumers’ brand preferences. Brands with a cool personality are preferred over those with an innocent personality. Moreover, the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ brand preferences is moderated by power motivation and identity centrality.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the literature by differentiating between brand personality of innocence and coolness as two separate constructs and proposing brand psychological ownership as a mechanism through which brand personality affects brand preferences. The study’s samples were drawn from universities and supermarkets in southern China, providing evidence for the significant moderating effects of power motivation and identity centrality on consumers’ brand preferences.

Keywords

Citation

Feng, W., Xu, Y. and Wang, L. (2024), "Innocence versus Coolness: the influence of brand personality on consumers’ preferences", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 14-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-10-2022-4177

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Wenting Feng, Yuanping Xu and Lijia Wang.

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

Brands hold significant symbolic and expressive value for individuals as a consumption symbol of self-expression. Consumers often choose brands that are compatible with their personality traits, making it essential for brand marketers to build a distinctive brand personality to attract consumer attention and strengthen consumer–brand interaction (Barcelos et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2018). Innocence and coolness personalities, representing different stages of self-development, are the most commonly used brand personalities in the current marketing environment (Warren et al., 2019; Zhang and Zhou, 2020).

Innocence is commonly associated with childlike traits such as obedience, naivety and dependence (Kramarae and Treichler, 1985) and is often linked to an individual’s childhood and immaturity (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Monden, 2022). The innocent brand personality represents the stage of self-immaturity and attracts great attention from the market through verbal expression (who is not a child yet) and ideological communication (pursuing a simple life like a child) (Li, 2018). For instance, Tiffany & Co. frequently selects young and fresh-faced actresses as spokespersons for their Tiffany Paper Flowers® jewelry line to convey an innocent brand personality.

Meanwhile, coolness is also a widely used brand personality dimension in marketing, representing the stage of independence and maturity in self-development. For example, the Gabrielle Chanel fragrance line encourages consumers to express themselves and is inspired by Chanel’s rebellious experiences. This cool brand personality has solidified Chanel’s position as the world’s leading luxury brand. Similarly, as Armani’s global beauty spokesperson, Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of brand authenticity and independence embodies the cool brand personality and has revitalized Armani’s sales.

Brands invest considerable effort and resources into creating brand personality that resonate with customers (Luffarelli et al., 2023). Numerous academic studies across different fields, such as tourism (Rutter et al., 2018), social media (Sevin, 2016) and others, have examined the impact of brand personality on various aspects of consumer attitudes and behaviors, including commitment (Valette-Florence and Valette-Florence, 2020), trust (Tong et al., 2018) and engagement (Mora Cortez and Ghosh Dastidar, 2022). However, the existing research on brand personality is limited to traditional unidimensional traits such as sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness (Yang et al., 2020; Villagra et al., 2021).

For instance, Aagerup (2020) suggested that warm brands focus on product quality and consumers’ interests, while competent brands have expertise in related fields and emphasize brand status (Bratanova et al., 2015). Mora Cortez and Ghosh Dastidar (2022) explored the positive influence of brand personality dimensions (excitement, competence and ruggedness) on consumer engagement in a B2B environment. In the retail and hospitality industries, competence, sincerity and excitement are the three most influential brand personality traits that positively correlate with consumer loyalty (Tran et al., 2013). In addition, Jiao et al. (2022) investigated the effect of argument quality in commercial advertising on the differentiation of a sincere and an exciting brand personality. Su and Reynolds (2017) found that brand personality drives different brand choices, and consumers tend to express their self-image through an excited or a sincere brand personality. Meanwhile, Willems (2022) argued that enthusiasm is a personality trait that attracts consumers regardless of the retail environment. Table 1 provides a summary of the most recent literature on brand personality in the field of marketing.

The current literature on brand personality has largely focused on the influence of individual traits, such as excitement or competence, on consumer attitudes. However, little attention has been given to the comparison of different brand personalities, such as innocence and coolness, which represent distinct stages of personal development. To address this gap, this study proposes a brand personality framework that incorporates both innocence and coolness dimensions. Building upon the theory of brand psychological ownership, the current research seeks to uncover new insights into the effects of different brand personalities on consumer preferences and to investigate the moderating roles of power motivation and identity centrality. The current research is conducted in the context of various consumer product categories and aims to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of brand personality on consumer behavior.

Specifically, this study is composed of four experiments that examine the influence of brand personality (innocence/coolness) on consumers’ preferences. Experiment 1 demonstrates that a cool brand personality can improve consumers’ brand preferences more effectively than an innocent brand personality. Experiment 2 verifies the causal chain model from brand personality to brand psychological ownership and then to consumers’ preferences, showing that brand personality affects psychological ownership, which leads to different brand preferences among consumers. Experiment 3 explores the moderating effect of power motivation, establishing corresponding boundary conditions for the main effect. It finds that brand personality (innocence/coolness) can effectively influence brand preferences of individuals with a high level of power motivation. Experiment 4 analyzes the moderating effect of individuals’ identity centrality on the main effect. The results suggest that, for individuals with a low level of identity centrality, brands adopting a cool personality are more likely to improve consumers’ brand preferences than those adopting an innocent personality.

2. Theoretical background

In this section, the researchers present the key theoretical foundations for the development of conceptual models. Specifically, the researchers elaborate on the definition of brand personality and its influence on consumer–brand relationships. The researchers then define the innocence dimension of brand personality, review previous studies on coolness, describe consumer behaviors based on different dimensions of brand personality, including brand perception and consumers’ brand psychological ownership, and present a summary table of the literature. Finally, the researchers demonstrate how consumers’ power motivation and levels of identity centrality intervene in shaping consumer behavior and brand preferences.

2.1 Brand personality

Aaker (1997) defined brand personality as a set of personality traits associated with a brand. Brand personality involves individuals’ subjective perceptions of brand characteristics (Loureiro et al., 2020) and is the result of positive interactions between consumers and brands (Chiang and Yang, 2018). First, the functional benefits of brand personality suggest that brand personality is an influential part of the individual relationship between brands and consumers (Machado et al., 2019) and helps to build emotional connections between brands and consumers (Sander et al., 2021). For example, brand personality is an essential external cue that influences consumers’ purchase decisions (Keller, 2009), and consumers can gain a sense of comfort through brand personality cues (Shukla, 2011). Second, as one of the important symbolic features (Japutra and Molinillo, 2019), brand personality is also the carrier of consumer self-expression, which helps consumers express different aspects of themselves. For example, consumers broadly choose brands that match their actual personality traits (Huber et al., 2018; Japutra et al., 2019) or unique brands that reflect their ideal personality to communicate, maintain or enhance self-awareness (Mandal et al., 2021). A high degree of consistency between brand personality and consumers’ personality leads to more positive brand attitudes, higher brand stickiness and increased purchase intention (Holmes, 2021; Lee et al., 2020). Therefore, by shaping valuable brand personality, brands can establish connections with various stakeholders (Baştuğ et al., 2020) to develop successful differentiated positioning strategies (Phau et al., 2020).

However, innocence and coolness, which are the dominant brand personalities in the current market, represent different stages of an individual’s self-development (Ocen, 2015), and there are no studies comparing the differences between these two brand personalities. Innocence is an immature personality trait (Alessio and Jóhannsdóttir, 2011) associated with an individual’s infancy (Kennedy et al., 2022), and innocent individuals have a strong sense of dependence on their parents and their surroundings (Fought, 2009). Coolness is a mature trait in which individuals desire to be free from constraints and pursue independence (Cross, 2002). In addition, individuals express themselves freely by exhibiting cool styles to escape the control and possession of others (Kegan, 1982; McAdams, 1988). Innocence and coolness are the two endpoints of individuals’ self-development stages, and they are different expressions of the self-development stages in cultural construction (Brougère, 2013). According to the life stage development model of Levinson (1978), the life stages experienced by individuals have specific characteristics of activities and psychological changes, and the mature internal characteristics directly affect the consumption preferences of individuals (Lawrence, 1996). Therefore, this paper mainly explores the influencing mechanism of these two brand personalities, which represent different developmental stages of individuals, on consumers’ preferences.

Innocence is a common brand personality, through which brand marketers build a brand image that is in line with consumers’ good wishes (Hao et al., 2021). Innocence includes the purity and innocent nature of girlish and boyish (Dyer, 2019), which can be dually manifested through the inner self (Mayeza, 2018) and visual expression (Duschinsky, 2013). Maynard and Taylor (1999) considered innocence as an individual’s self-expression mode of childhood, which is an attribute that includes basic characteristics such as compliance (Miller, 2011), purity (Lei et al., 2021), dependence (Fought, 2009) and nonaggressiveness (Tan, 2014). It represents an immature stage of self-development (Ocen, 2015). On the one hand, Maynard and Taylor (1999) first discussed how to construct an advertising image full of innocence based on the differences in advertising between European and American cultures. The study demonstrated the purity of an individual’s desire to seek help through innocent childlike words or actions. On the other hand, consumers who seek innocence are routinely judged negatively based on attributes such as compliant, childlike and nonthreatening. For example, innocence conveys traits of innocuity and low ego defense (Hinton, 2014), and consumers who prefer an innocent appearance and personality are typically viewed as immature and lacking assertiveness (Maruyama and Woosnam, 2021). Monden (2014) found that innocence is highly correlated with stereotypes of obedience, passivity and incompetence. When an individual’s behavior, expressed through tone (Pressey and Harris, 2023) or gesture, is overly innocuous, it dilutes or even masks their more mature traits (Kogut and Mejri, 2022), resulting in some degree of risk to public opinion. Existing research on innocence has mainly focused on the social and cultural domain (Brickman, 2016; Ilicic, 2016), and so far, few studies have fully explored the mechanisms of innocence brand personality’s influence on consumers’ preferences.

Coolness is becoming the dominant ethic in contemporary consumer society (Liu et al., 2020) and is increasingly resonating globally (Brown, 2021). Warren and Campbell (2014) defined coolness as an autonomous, dynamic and socially constructed positive personality trait (Dar-Nimrod et al., 2018). As a synonym for recognition and appreciation (Bogicevic et al., 2021), coolness represents a mature stage of self-development and drives consumption trends by giving symbolic meaning to products or brands (Loureiro et al., 2020). People perceive coolness through the target’s personality, character or the appearance of its specific style (Gennari, 2022). Therefore, coolness is a kind of subjective judgment (Sundar et al., 2014). Brands can be judged by packaging, slogans, spokespersons (Warren et al., 2019) and other visual cues of products to form a cool brand personality (Duggal and Verma, 2019) with aesthetic appeal. Existing studies on cool brands have explored the attributes of cool and its influence on consumers in different consumption situations (Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2022). For example, Huang et al. (2021) found that the use of AI service robots in hotels can improve consumers’ perceptions of coolness, which ultimately contributes to customer satisfaction and usage intention. Taking product quality as a prerequisite for brand coolness, Bagozzi and Khoshnevis (2022) tested the influence of brand coolness on WOM and purchase intention. Khoi and Le (2022) showed that cool luxury hotel brands positively influenced customers’ brand engagement through brand satisfaction and brand love. Table 2 provides a summary of the most recent literature on innocence and coolness in the field of marketing.

Although existing studies have explored the influence of innocence and coolness as sociocultural styles (Bloem, 2014; Ocejo, 2017) on consumption behavior, few studies have introduced innocence and coolness to the field of brand personality (Batra, 2019) and compared the differences between the two mainstream of brand personalities. As different stages of individuals’ self-development, innocent and cool brand personalities have different effects on individuals’ psychology and behavior. Accordingly, this study addresses the above issues and explores the influence of brand personality on consumers’ preferences and its underlying mechanism based on the theory of brand psychological ownership.

2.2 Brand psychological ownership

Ownership exists in various objectives (Baer and Brown, 2012; Shu and Peck, 2011), and the perceived ownership of an object plays a dominant role in an individual’s self-construction. Through the perception of ownership of objects, the personal significance of individuals will increase (McCracken, 1986; Vandewalle et al., 1995), and thus the object becomes part of the individual’s extended self (Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004). Psychological ownership refers to the degree to which an individual perceives a close connection between the object and the self, and the psychological state that the object belongs to one’s own psychological state (Pierce et al., 2001). Brown et al. (2014) believed that psychological ownership emphasizes an individual’s possession of the object, rather than whether the individual has actual legal ownership. Therefore, in the field of marketing, Chang et al. (2015) defined brand psychological ownership as a psychological phenomenon in which people have the desire to possess a brand and expect a sense of control over the brand. As a cognitive–emotional construct, brand psychological ownership reflects an individual’s awareness, thoughts and feelings about the brand (Pierce et al., 2003).

Consumers use brands to define themselves and to maintain self-consistency or self-improvement (Pierce et al., 2001). Possessiveness is not only a source and motivator of psychological ownership but also a symbolic representation of the self (Kumar, 2019). Consumers who develop psychological ownership of a brand believe that they have a strong connection with the brand and have made an emotional investment in the brand, so they can possess the brand (Chang et al., 2015) and communicate the possessiveness signal to others. Therefore, according to the theory of brand psychological ownership, people generate brand psychological ownership through three antecedent signals (exerting control over the brand, investing in the brand and establishing self-brand connections) (Pierce et al., 2003). First, control refers to the ability to use a brand, and it also means possession (Furby, 1978). A controlled brand can ultimately be viewed as a part of the self (Brown et al., 2014). Second, brand investment refers to the investment of time, energy or labor in the brand (Belk, 1988). When consumers invest their energy, time and labor in a brand (Barki et al., 2008), they will develop a sense of ownership (Pierce et al., 2003), which increases their brand psychological ownership. Finally, self-brand connections refer to the degree to which consumers incorporate the brand into their self-concept (Escalas and Bettman, 2003). Individuals define the self by establishing self-brand connections (Kemp et al., 2012) and increasing brand familiarity and intimacy, thereby promoting brand psychological ownership.

2.3 Power motivation

Rucker et al. (2012) defined power as the asymmetrical control of valuable resources in social relationships. Power motivation refers to the intensity of people’s desire to influence others (cognitively, emotionally or behaviorally) and gains recognition (Winter, 1992), which reflects an individual’s enduring desire for social status and success (Luria and Berson, 2013). As a mental state (Galinsky et al., 2003), power results from structural differences in socioeconomic status (Dubois et al., 2015; Kraus et al., 2009) and situational factors. Therefore, individuals have different levels of experience with the motivational drive of power (McClelland, 1975), and the pursuit of power depends not only on personal characteristics but also on the situations (Ng et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2010).

A large number of previous studies have explored the critical influence of power motivation on individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Anderson et al., 2012). For example, Fodor (2010) argued that individuals with a high level of power motivation may derive satisfaction from the use of power in the workplace by seeking direct and legitimate control over others (McClelland and Boyatzis, 1982). Fodor and Carver (2000) found a positive effect of power motivation on creativity. Individuals with a high level of power motivation tend to be proactive, more risk-tolerant, responsible and eager to learn (Chan et al., 2000), which is conducive to enhancing creativity training (Hogan and Holland, 2003; Latham and Pinder, 2004). Baumann et al. (2016) confirmed that prosocial power motivation plays a role in guiding and supporting others (McAdams, 1988), caring for children (Chasiotis et al., 2006), making prosocial decisions (Magee and Langner, 2008) and helping others (Aydinli et al., 2014), among other positive effects. The existing literature suggests that power motivation is a key factor in consumer decision-making (Stoeckart et al., 2017). Therefore, this study explores the moderating effect of power motivation on the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences.

2.4 Identity centrality

Identity centrality refers to the importance or psychological attachment of an individual to his or her identity (Stets and Burke, 2000). It can be divided into two levels, central identity and peripheral identity, according to different roles in the construction of the self-structure (Settles, 2004). Central identities refer to the prominent and persistent central position of identity in an individual’s self-concept, and peripheral identities refer to the weakened and temporary peripheral position of identity in an individual’s self-concept (Harmon-Kizer et al., 2013). Because identity is a fundamental driver of consumer behavior (Oyserman, 2009). Specifically, consumers use identity to socially categorize and express themselves (Reed et al., 2012), and brands use identity to target people (Chernev et al., 2011) and guide individuals’ attitudes and consumption choices (LeBoeuf et al., 2010). Therefore, this study examines the moderating effect of identity centrality (central identity/peripheral identity) on the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences.

3. Research overview

This research consists of four experiments. The following sections outline the conceptual development and specific research methods of each experiment. Experiment 1 explored the influence of brand personality on consumers’ preferences and showed that cool brand personality could improve consumers’ brand preferences more than innocent brand personality (H1). Experiment 2 examined the mediating role of brand psychological ownership. Brand personality could influence consumers’ brand psychological ownership and make consumers have different brand preferences (H2), which tested the theoretical logic of the main effect. Experiments 3 and 4 analyzed the moderating effects of power motivation (H3) and the level of individuals’ identity centrality (H4), respectively, established corresponding boundary conditions for the main effect and increased the generalizability of the study by developing different advertising slogans of the target brand stimulus. Based on these theoretical underpinnings, Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework for this study. See Appendix Table A2 for experimental data results.

4. Experiment 1: the influence of brand personality on consumers’ preferences

The researchers conducted Experiment 1 to investigate whether different brand personalities had varying effects on consumers’ brand preferences and which personality was more effective in enhancing brand preferences.

4.1 Conceptual development

Innocence and coolness are two distinct styles. Innocence often reflects immature self-characteristics (Guha et al., 2022) of low autonomy, low ego defense (Valor et al., 2021) and low competence (Rodero et al., 2013). On the contrary, rebelliousness (Mohiuddin et al., 2016), authenticity (Kock et al., 2019), innovation (Raptis et al., 2017) and other elements of coolness generally emphasize the mature self-traits (Ocen, 2015) of high autonomy, high ego defense (Bruun et al., 2016) and high competence (Stuppy et al., 2020). Specifically, first, innocence symbolizes an individual’s lack of ability to act freely and represents a low autonomy state (Dougher and Pecknold, 2016). Second, Javidan (2011) claimed that innocence involves immature traits of innocuity and low ego defense. Furthermore, innocence is highly correlated with low competence (Monden, 2014). People infer the competence of individuals based on their sense of innocence, and innocent individuals are considered incompetent due to their lack of sense of independence (Mas et al., 2021). Therefore, innocence usually involves the immature psychological essence of low autonomy, low ego defense and low competence (Duschinsky, 2013; Apolloni, 2016).

On the other hand, instead of being attached to a specific physical or mental stage, coolness emphasizes the mature psychological nature (Kjeldgaard and Askegaard, 2006) of high autonomy (Michael, 2015), high ego defense (Zuboff, 2015) and high competence (Burton, 2020). First, Anik et al. (2017) believed that coolness represents a state of unconstrained high autonomy, and image advertising of coolness can attract mature consumers who are eager to explore themselves independently (Brougère, 2013). Second, this positive psychological state of coolness is associated with high ego defense (Bazzini et al., 2010). Cool individuals control changes in their self-image through unconscious psychological defenses to demonstrate strong attractiveness (Oh et al., 2013). Moreover, coolness is an innovative cultural expression mode formed in a stressful environment, reflecting a critical ability required for psychological survival (Dinerstein, 2017). For example, Chang et al. (2019) found that coolness enhances individuals’ perceptions of brand competence. Therefore, coolness, which includes elements of high autonomy, high ego defense and high competence, is one of the most important characteristics of an individual’s mature temperament (Kopylov, 2012). Individuals seek maturity and express their personality through the perception of coolness (Zhang et al., 2021).

In conclusion, compared with the innocent personality containing immature psychological nature such as low autonomy, low ego defense and low competence, brands adopting cool personality is more conducive to improving consumers’ brand preferences:

H1.

Consumers prefer brands adopting a cool personality to an innocent personality.

4.2 Methods

4.2.1 Participants

Based on the method of Cohen (1977), with an effect size of f = 0.25 and an expected power of 0.80 (Leenaars et al., 2016; Miao et al., 2021), this experiment calculated a required sample size of 158 participants using G*Power 3.1 software. Consequently, 192 participants were recruited from a university and offered 10 RMB to complete a series of survey activities about a Bluetooth earphone brand. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: innocence, coolness and control group. The final sample size was (N = 176, aged from 18 to 28 years old, M = 21.87, SD = 1.94, female 47.73%). The sample size of each group was (ncoolness = 57, ninnocence = 60, ncontrol group = 59).

4.2.2 Stimuli and procedure

A virtual Bluetooth earphone brand called DHO was created with two different brand personalities (innocence/coolness) using festival publicity pictures, see the Appendix for details. To ensure the effectiveness of this manipulation, the researchers recruited 72 participants (aged from 18 to 35 years old, M = 24.26, SD = 3.62, female 56.34%) online and randomly assigned them into two groups (innocence group/coolness group) for the pretest. Participants in each group received a festival publicity picture of the Bluetooth earphone brand with a relevant brand personality used in Experiment 1, and they were asked to rate two personality dimensions of the target brand (7 subscales, 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree): “To what extent does the brand have a sense of innocence (low autonomy, low ego defense, low competence, immaturity),” and “To what extent does the brand have a sense of coolness (high autonomy, high ego defense, high competence, maturity)” (Warren et al., 2019). The results showed that participants in the coolness group scored significantly higher on the coolness dimension than the innocence group [Mcoolness = 5.52, SD = 0.77, Minnocence = 2.73, SD = 0.81, t (70) = 14.79, p < 0.001, d = 3.53], and the innocence group scored significantly higher on the innocence dimension than the coolness group [Mcoolness = 2.42, SD = 0.81, Minnocence = 5.44, SD = 0.67, t (70) = 17.30, p < 0.001, d = 4.06]. The results ensured the effectiveness of the manipulation in Experiment 1.

In the main experiment, the researchers introduced the virtual DHO Bluetooth earphone brand information to the participants: “Experience a unique sound quality, immerse yourself in it. The DHO Bluetooth earphone incorporates professional noise reduction technology and ergonomic design to express your individuality and showcase your fashion sense.” The researchers told the participants that this activity aimed to gather consumer feedback on the new brand image and asked participants to evaluate it carefully. To control the influence of innocence on individuals’ feelings of nostalgia, as found in previous studies (McVeigh, 2000), all the participants were asked to recall a past event from their lives: “Think of a nostalgic event in your life. Specifically, try to think of a past event that makes you feel the most nostalgic. Take a few moments to think about the nostalgic event and how it makes you feel” (Zhou et al., 2012). Participants then completed the nostalgia manipulation check item: Now I feel very nostalgic (7 subscales, 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Wildschut et al., 2006).

After that, the participants of each group were presented with a brand festival picture with corresponding personality. The innocence group was shown an innocence-style brand festival picture, the coolness group was shown a coolness-style brand festival picture and the control group was shown a brand festival picture with no discernible personality. Consumers tend to form their initial impressions of a brand based on its personality, which can influence their purchasing decisions. To capture this initial impression, this experiment operationalizes brand personality preference as consumers’ attitude toward a brand when evaluating it alone – without referring to other brands with different personalities for comparison (Jia et al., 2023). This separate evaluation setup allows the researchers to demonstrate the differences in consumers’ preferences for different brand personalities in a different paradigm and avoid the confounding effect of visual stimuli. Therefore, participants rated the target brand on a seven-point scale (where 1 = not at all to 7 = very much) on how much they liked it, how much they were interested in learning more about it and how likely they were to buy it. These three items were combined to create a brand preference scale that was previously used by Galoni et al (2020) to test brand preferences.

The researchers then used Hagtvedt’s (2011) affective dimensions scale to measure the participants’ emotional state and asked them to rate the brand status (“The status of the brand is a very low”; 7 subscales, 1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree; Kao, 2015) and report on other confounding items, such as personal interests and hobbies and shopping experiences. Finally, the researchers asked the participants to recall the elements of the target brand’s festival publicity picture, answer whether their preference for the Bluetooth earphone brand depended on past shopping experiences, report the personality (including the innocence and coolness dimensions) of the target brand and guess the purpose of the experiment.

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Manipulation check

Nine participants reported the wrong elements of the brand’s festival publicity picture, Seven participants’ preferences for Bluetooth earphone brand depended on previous shopping experiences and no participant correctly guessed the real purpose of the experiment. There was no significant difference among the three groups in nostalgia [F (2, 173) = 0.56, p = 0.575, Mcoolness = 4.60, SD = 0.82, Minnocence = 4.50, SD = 0.89, Mcontrol = 4.66, SD = 0.80], emotional state [F (2, 173) = 0.58, p = 0.563, Mcoolness = 4.09, SD = 0.69, Minnocence = 4.05, SD = 0.75, Mcontrol = 4.19, SD = 0.71)] and brand status [F (2, 173) = 0.96, p = 0.386, Mcoolness = 4.11, SD = 0.79, Minnocence = 3.88, SD = 0.76, Mcontrol = 4.02, SD = 1.04]. The coolness group scored significantly higher on the coolness dimension than the innocence group [Mcoolness = 5.26, SD = 1.03, Minnocence = 2.80, SD = 0.97, t (173) = 13.88, p < 0.001, d = 2.46] and the control group [Mcontrol = 4.08, SD = 0.88, t (173) = 6.61, p < 0.001, d = 1.23]. The innocence group scored significantly higher on the innocence dimension than the coolness group [Minnocence = 5.13, SD = 0.85, Mcoolness = 2.74, SD = 0.95, t (173) = 14.80, p < 0.001, d = 2.65] and the control group [Mcontrol = 3.76, SD = 0.82, t (173) = 8.54, p < 0.001, d = 1.64]. The manipulation effectively affected most of the participants.

4.3.2 Brand preferences

The results indicated significant differences in brand preferences among the three groups of participants [F (2, 173) = 116.14, p < 0.001]. Participants in the coolness group (Mcoolness = 4.69, SD = 0.46) had a higher brand preference than those in the innocence group [Minnocence = 3.34, SD = 0.53, t (173) = 15.22, p < 0.001, d = 2.72] and the control group [Mcontrol = 3.95, SD = 0.44, t (173) = 8.32, p < 0.001, d = 1.64]. The control group had a higher brand preference than the innocence group [t (173) = 6.94, p < 0.001, d = 1.25]. The results supported H1.

4.4 Findings

The findings of Experiment 1 confirmed H1, which suggested that brands adopting a cool personality can enhance consumers’ brand preferences more effectively than an innocent one. In Experiment 2, the researchers introduced brand psychological ownership as a mediator variable to further examine the internal mechanism of the main effect.

5. Experiment 2: the mediating role of brand psychological ownership between brand personality and consumers’ preferences

Experiment 2 aimed to investigate the underlying mechanism of brand personality’s influence on consumers’ brand preferences and to test the mediating role of brand psychological ownership in the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences.

5.1 Conceptual development

In the context of this study, brand personality affects consumers’ brand psychological ownership, resulting in different preferences.

Specifically, when the brand personality is innocent, which is an immature state with low autonomy, low ego defense and low competence, the individual’s cognitive responses to the naive children are activated. Immaturity is a psychological trait that is highly correlated with low possessiveness (Quartz and Asp, 2015). Immature individuals are more dependent and constrained by others (Ocen, 2015) and lack the ability to strive for their own objects (Warren et al., 2018). Therefore, the immature innocent brand personality shows the low dominance of the target brand, which reduces consumers’ commitment to the brand as well as the degree of self-brand connections (Sangalang et al., 2013). Thus, consumers’ brand psychological ownership and brand preferences are reduced.

First, autonomy produces varying degrees of possessiveness by influencing the sense of control. Specifically, autonomy refers to the degree to which individuals follow their own desires (Wertenbroch et al., 2020). Individuals with low autonomy lack the ability to act independently and have difficulty freely controlling behavioral outcomes (Yu et al., 2018; Sandberg et al., 2022). Therefore, the low autonomy characteristic of innocent brands can reduce individuals’ attention to the independent self (Mayeza, 2018) and weaken the dominance of the target brand, which is not conducive to arousing people’s possessiveness. Second, the level of competence affects an individual’s willingness and desire to invest, and people are typically reluctant to invest energy in things with low competence (Aaker et al., 2010). Competence refers to an individual’s effectiveness in realizing his or her self-intentions (Wang and Zhang, 2020). Moreover, the perception of a brand’s competence influences consumers’ judgments and purchase intentions (Wang et al., 2016). Therefore, the low competence trait of innocent brands indicates that individuals lack the effective ability to realize their self-intentions (Ferraro, 2010), which will reduce consumers’ time, energy and labor investments (Fournier and Avery, 2011). Furthermore, low defensiveness is detrimental to individual’s self-definition and the formation of self-brand connections. Innocent brands are more compliant and vulnerable (Goff et al., 2014), highlighting lower ego defense (Dyer, 2019). Ego defense is the root of human thinking, speaking and mental activity, and individuals protect the self from internal needs (Granitz and Forman, 2015) and external manifestations of conflict (Dickinson and Ashby, 2015) through it. Therefore, the low ego defense trait of the innocence brands indicates the immaturity of the individuals’ self-development and reduces the clarity and differentiation of self-perception. As a result, it is not conducive to the individual’s self-definition, thereby reducing the self-brand connections (Sangalang et al., 2013). In summary, when the brand personality is innocent, the elements of low autonomy, low ego defense and low competence contained in innocence can weaken the dominance of the target brand and reduce the consumers’ propensity to invest in the brand and the degree of self-brand connections, thereby reducing their brand psychological ownership and brand preferences.

Coolness emphasizes elements such as rebelliousness (Mohiuddin et al., 2016), authenticity (Kock et al., 2019) and innovation (Raptis et al., 2017). Brand personality of coolness is a brand personality with mature traits of high autonomy, high ego defense and high competence. Possessiveness results from characteristics associated with maturity (such as self-confidence, power and status), and mature individuals are also more wise and vigilant (Gorn et al., 2008) and less easily controlled (Kinard, 2015). Therefore, a mature cool brand personality indicates the dominance of the target brand (Lili and Dalton, 2014), which is beneficial to improve brand investment and self-brand connections (Runyan et al., 2013), thereby enhancing consumers’ brand psychological ownership (Morhart et al., 2015) and brand preferences.

First, existing research shows that autonomy and possessiveness are highly correlated, and individuals with high autonomy are free to pursue objects without the influence of others (Kang et al., 2021; Mangold and Zschau, 2019). The high autonomy of cool brands reduces the consumer’s sense of control over the brand, indicating that cool brands are not easily controlled. When individuals feel a low sense of control over things around them, the desire to regain control increases (Landau et al., 2015). Therefore, the high autonomy of cool brands stimulates consumers to possess the brand more strongly. Second, people tend to spend more time and energy on things with high competence (Fazli-Salehi et al., 2022) and increase their investment propensity and desire for objects with high competence (Kirmani et al., 2017). Individuals make cognitive evaluations by perceiving the competence of a target through observable signals (Bellezza et al., 2014). Therefore, the high competence characteristics of cool brands are beneficial to increase consumers’ time, energy and labor investment (le Grand, 2020). Moreover, a high level of defensive competence is conducive to an individual’s self-definition and the formation of self-brand connections (Kemp et al., 2012). The ego is a positive motivational structure, and elements such as rebelliousness and authenticity within coolness indicate a high ego defense of the brand (Annesley, 2021), which reflects the maturity of individuals’ self-development (Brown, 2015). Moreover, it improves the clarity and differentiation of self-cognition and helps individuals to define themselves (Rocha, 2021), thus increasing the self-brand connections. In summary, a cool brand personality enhances the dominance of the target brand, which is conducive to enhancing brand investment propensity and degree of self-brand connections, thereby promoting consumers’ brand psychological ownership and brand preferences:

H2.

Brand psychological ownership mediates the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences.

5.2 Method

5.2.1 Participants

Based on the method of Cohen (1977), with an effect size of d = 0.5 and an expected power of 0.80 (Leenaars et al., 2016; Miao et al., 2021), this experiment calculated a required sample size of 128 participants using G*Power 3.1 software. Therefore, 150 participants were recruited from a supermarket in exchange for 10 RMB to complete a series of survey activities about a sunglass brand. Participants were randomly assigned to the innocence group or the coolness group. The final sample was (N = 138, aged from 19 to 33 years old, M = 24.24, SD = 3.38, female 57.14%), and the sample size of each group was (ncoolness = 70, ninnocence = 68).

5.2.2 Stimuli and procedure

A virtual sunglass brand PEM was created with two different brand personalities (innocence/coolness) using brand spokesperson pictures, see the Appendix for details. To ensure the effectiveness of this manipulation, the researchers recruited 76 participants (aged from 19 to 33 years old, M = 24.24, SD = 3.38, female 52.63%) online and randomly assigned them into two groups (innocence group/coolness group) for the pretest. Participants in each group received a brand spokesperson picture of the sunglass brand with a relevant brand personality used in Experiment 2, and they were asked to rate the same two personality dimensions of the target brand as those in Experiment 1. The results showed that participants in the coolness group scored significantly higher on the coolness dimension than the innocence group [Mcoolness = 5.08, SD = 0.72, Minnocence = 2.87, SD = 0.61, t (74) = 14.39, p < 0.001, d = 3.31], and the innocence group scored significantly higher on the innocence dimension than the coolness group [Mcoolness = 2.70, SD = 0.81, Minnocence = 5.26, SD = 0.79, t (74) = 13.94, p < 0.001, d = 3.20]. The results ensured the effectiveness of the manipulation in Experiment 2.

In the main experiment, the researchers introduced the virtual PEM sunglass brand information to the participants: “Dazzling appearance, free swimming, PEM sunglass integrates fashion and beauty into products, swaying the spirit of creativity, exploring the new generation power of maintaining love and daring to pursue.” The researchers told the participants that this activity aimed to collect consumers’ opinions on the new brand spokesperson and asked participants to evaluate it carefully. Following this, participants recalled a past event in their life, completed the same nostalgia manipulation check item as used in Experiment 1 and then reported brand engagement according to two items of Styvén (2010) [(a) I have a strong interest in brand–consumer interaction; (b) Engaging in social interaction with brands is an important part of my shopping life; 7 subscales, 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree].

Then, participants were presented with the relevant picture of the brand spokesperson depending on their assigned group (innocence group/coolness group). The researchers asked participants to report their preference for the target brand and rate consumers’ brand psychological ownership according to three items (7 subscales, 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) in Peck and Shu’s (2009) research. The researchers then measured the participants’ emotional state, brand status and other confounding items, such as personal interests, hobbies and shopping experiences. Finally, participants were asked to recall the appearance of the target brand’s spokesperson, answer whether their preference for the sunglass brand depended on previous shopping experiences, rate the personality of the target brand and guess the purpose of the experiment.

5.3 Results

5.3.1 Manipulation check

Nine participants reported the wrong appearance of the brand spokesperson, three participants’ preferences for sunglass brand depended on previous shopping experiences and no participant correctly guessed the real purpose of the experiment. There was no significant difference between the two groups in nostalgia [Mcoolness = 4.36, SD = 0.72, Minnocence = 4.43, SD = 0.78, t (136) = 0.54, p = 0.589, d = 0.09], brand engagement [Mcoolness = 3.84, SD = 0.83, Minnocence = 3.90, SD = 0.72, t (136) = 0.41, p = 0.682, d = 0.08], emotional state [Mcoolness = 4.03, SD = 0.68, Minnocence = 3.97, SD = 0.69, t (136) = 0.50, p = 0.620, d = 0.09] and brand status [Mcoolness = 4.16, SD = 0.67, Minnocence = 4.06, SD = 0.82, t (136) = 0.74, p = 0.463, d = 0.13]. The coolness group scored significantly higher on the coolness dimension than the innocence group [Mcoolness = 5.01, SD = 0.88, Minnocent = 3.21, SD = 0.76, t (136) = 12.91, p < 0.001, d = 2.19]. The innocence group scored significantly higher on the innocence dimension than the coolness group [Mcoolness = 3.07, SD = 0.86, Minnocence = 5.15, SD = 0.82, t (136) = 14.57, p < 0.001, d = 2.48]. The manipulation effectively affected most of the participants.

5.3.2 Brand psychological ownership

The results indicated significant differences in brand psychological ownership between the two groups. Participants in the coolness group (Mcoolness = 4.46, SD = 0.71) had a higher brand psychological ownership than those in the innocence group [Minnocence = 3.47, SD = 0.67, t (136) = 8.44, p < 0.001, d =1.43].

5.3.3 Brand preferences

The results showed that there were significant differences in the preference of participants in the two groups. The participants in the coolness group (Mcoolness = 4.48, SD = 0.66) had a higher brand preference than those in the innocence group [Minnocence = 3.58, SD = 0.62, t (136) = 8.23, p < 0.001, d = 1.41].

5.3.4 Mediation analysis

This study used SmartPLS 4 as the statistical tool to analyze the proposed theoretical model and hypotheses. To ensure the validity of the results, this study also tested for common method bias using various statistical indicators, including variance inflation factor (VIF), F2 and coefficient of determination (R2).

The model’s predictive power, as measured by R2, was found to be 0.835, indicating that 83.5% of variations in brand preferences were explained by brand personality and brand psychological ownership. The effect size, as measured by F2, showed that brand personality had a significant impact on brand psychological ownership (F2 = 0.53), and brand psychological ownership had a significant impact on brand preferences (F2 = 3.04). Collinearity and standard method bias were addressed through VIF, and the study was considered bias-free with no values equal to or greater than 2.91.

Structural equation modeling: PLS-SEM results showed that brand personality had a significant impact on brand psychological ownership (β = 1.18, t = 8.62, p < 0.001). Brand psychological ownership had a significant impact on brand preferences (β = 0.87, t = 20.59, p < 0.001). Also, brand personality did not directly affect brand preferences (β = 0.13, t =1.58, p = 0.114). Brand psychological ownership mediated the relationship between brand personality and brand preferences (β = 1.03, t = 7.93, p < 0.001), see Figure 2 for details.

5.4 Findings

The results of Experiment 2 provided support for H2, which posited that brand psychological ownership served as a mediator between brand personality and consumers’ preferences. This finding not only confirmed the theoretical model proposed in this study but also demonstrated the applicability of psychological ownership theory in the field of brand. Experiment 3 introduced power motivation as a moderator variable to establish a clearer boundary for the main effect.

6. Experiment 3: the moderating effect of power motivation

Experiment 3 aimed to investigate the moderating effect of power motivation on the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences.

6.1 Conceptual development

Existing research shows that an individual’s level of power motivation influences his or her perception of external brand cues (Furley et al., 2019). Consumers with a high level of power motivation derive pleasure from influencing others and feel disgusted when others influence them (Popelnukha et al., 2021). Besides, they tend to have a high level of dominance and a strong desire to influence and control their environment (Kasser, 2017; Lloyd and Pennington, 2020). Therefore, consumers with a high level of power motivation are particularly sensitive to individual differences in society and tend to identify and establish individual differences through nonverbal signals such as brand external cues (e.g. brand personality) (Mason et al., 2010). In this way, they can present a decent social image, maintain a favorable social status (Lian et al., 2012) and construct positive emotional experiences (Herziger et al., 2020). Conversely, consumers with a low level of power motivation have no desire to influence others (Schultheiss et al., 2008), nor do they expect to be recognized and appreciated by others. Therefore, compared to consumers with a high level of power motivation, consumers with a low level of power motivation are less sensitive to individual differences in society (Galinsky et al., 2006). Moreover, they are not inclined to identify individual differences through external brand cues (Cui et al., 2020; Samaha et al., 2014), which indicates the social status (Jin and Huang, 2019).

Thus, in the context of this study, power motivation moderates the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences. Specifically, consumers with a high level of power motivation are particularly sensitive to individual differences (Dubois et al., 2012) in society and are more likely to perceive individual differences in brands. Therefore, consumers with a high level of power motivation are sensitive to the differences in brand personality (innocence/coolness). At this point, adopting a cool personality is more conducive to activating consumers’ brand psychological ownership than an innocent personality (Chen et al., 2019; Roy and Naidoo, 2021), thereby increasing consumers’ brand preferences. However, individuals with a low level of power motivation are less sensitive to brands as a symbol of social identity (Lalwani and Forcum, 2016). Individuals with a low level of power motivation pay less attention to differences in external brand cues when making consumption choices (Lammers, 2016). As a result, it is difficult for brand personality to influence consumers’ preferences through brand psychological ownership for those with a low level of power motivation:

H3.

The level of power motivation moderates the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences. For individuals with a high level of power motivation, they prefer brands adopting a cool personality to an innocent personality. For individuals with a low level of power motivation, brand personality will not significantly affect their brand preferences.

6.2 Method

6.2.1 Participants

Based on the method of Cohen (1977), with an effect size of d = 0.5 and an expected power of 0.80 (Leenaars et al., 2016; Miao et al., 2021), this experiment calculated a required sample size of 128 participants using G*Power 3.1 software. Accordingly, 150 participants were recruited from a supermarket and offered 10 RMB to participate in a survey about an electric toothbrush brand. Participants were randomly assigned to the innocence group or the coolness group. To measure participants’ power motivation level, this experiment used “The Dominance Scale” developed by Steers and Braunstein (1976), which assessed an individual’s inclination toward controlling the environment, influencing or directing others, expressing opinions forcefully or enjoying leadership. The final sample size was (N = 139, aged from 18 to 29 years old, M = 22.06, SD = 2.10, female 50.36%), and the sample size of each group was (ncoolness = 71, ninnocence = 68).

6.2.2 Stimuli and procedure

A virtual electric toothbrush brand called GVX was created with two different personalities (innocence/coolness) through the product design, see the Appendix for details. To ensure the effectiveness of the manipulation, the researchers recruited 75 participants (aged from 18 to 27 years old, M = 21.49, SD = 1.80, female 46.67%) online and randomly assigned them into two groups (innocence group/coolness group) for the pretest. Participants in each group received the product design of the electric toothbrush brand with a relevant brand personality used in Experiment 3, and they were asked to rate the same two personality dimensions of the target brand as those in Experiment 1. The results showed that the coolness group scored significantly higher on the coolness dimension than the innocence group [Mcoolness = 5.05, SD = 0.87, Minnocence = 3.49, SD = 0.77, t (73) = 8.27, p < 0.001, d = 1.90], and the innocence group scored significantly higher on the innocence dimension than the coolness group [Mcoolness = 3.71, SD = 0.80, Minnocence = 4.97, SD = 0.83, t (73) = 6.69, p < 0.001, d = 1.55]. The results ensured the effectiveness of the manipulation in Experiment 3.

Before the main experiment, the researchers asked all participants to fill out “The Dominance Scale,” and then introduced the information of the virtual electric toothbrush brand to the participants: “The GVX electric toothbrush boasts textured colors and an elegant design, offering users the freedom to choose their preferred style. With its beautiful gum care and mysterious blossom features, the toothbrush exudes a unique modern vibe,” indicating that consumers’ opinions on the new brand were hoped to be collected and asked participants to evaluate it carefully.

After recalling a past event in their life and completing the same nostalgia manipulation check item as used in Experiment 1, all participants were asked to rate their level of brand engagement using the same two items as those in Experiment 2. Each participant was presented with a picture of a product design with a relevant personality corresponding to their assigned group (innocence group/coolness group). They were asked to report brand preference, brand psychological ownership, emotional state, brand status and other potentially confounding factors related to the target brand as those in previous experiments. Finally, participants were asked to recall the name of the target brand, indicate whether their preferences for the electric toothbrush brand were influenced by previous shopping experiences, rate the brand personality and guess the purpose of the experiment.

6.3 Results

6.3.1 Manipulation check

Six participants reported the wrong brand name, seven participants’ preferences for electric toothbrush brand depended on previous shopping experiences and no participant correctly guessed the real purpose of the experiment. The results indicated no significant differences between the two groups in nostalgia [Mcoolness = 4.24, SD = 0.82, Minnocence = 4.28, SD = 0.91, t (137) = 0.27, p = 0.786, d = 0.05], brand engagement [Mcoolness = 4.19, SD = 0.87, Minnocence = 4.21, SD = 0.82, t (137) = 0.06, p = 0. 952, d = 0.02], emotional state [Mcoolness = 4.06, SD = 0.71, Minnocence = 3.91, SD = 0.71, t (137) = 1.20, p = 0.233, d = 0.21] and brand status [Mcoolness = 3.65, SD = 0.72, Minnocence = 3.51, SD = 0.80, t (137) = 0.27, p = 0.786, d = 0.18]. The coolness group scored significantly higher on the coolness dimension than the innocence group [Mcoolness = 5.15, SD = 0.97, Minnocence = 3.01, SD = 0.74, t (137) = 14.60, p < 0.001, d = 2.48]. The innocence group scored significantly higher on the innocence dimension than the coolness group [Mcoolness = 3.27, SD = 0.94, Minnocence = 4.99, SD = 0.82, t (137) = 11.46, p < 0.001, d = 1.95]. The manipulation effectively affected most of the participants.

6.3.2 Brand psychological ownership

The results showed that the interaction between brand personality and power motivation could significantly affect brand psychological ownership (F = 7.33, p < 0.05). The simple slope test analysis showed that brand personality did not affect brand psychological ownership (−1 SD, β = 0.24, t = 1.22, p = 0.225) at a low level of power motivation. However, in the case of a high level of power motivation, the brand personality could significantly influence the brand psychological ownership (+1 SD, β = 0.99, t = 5.07, p < 0.001).

6.3.3 Brand preferences

The results showed that the interaction of brand personality and power motivation could significantly affect brand preferences (F = 7.99, p < 0.05). The simple slope test analysis showed that brand personality did not affect brand preference (−1 SD, β = 0.21, t = 1.08, p = 0.283) at a low level of power motivation. However, in the case of a high level of power motivation, the brand personality could significantly affect the brand preference (+1 SD, β = 0.98, t = 5.10, p < 0.001). The results provided the basis for H3.

6.3.4 Moderated mediation analysis

The model’s predictive power, as measured by R2, was found to be 0.946, indicating that 94.6% of variations in brand preference were explained by brand personality and brand psychological ownership. The effect size, as measured by F2, showed that brand personality had a significant impact on brand psychological ownership (F2 = 0.15), and brand psychological ownership had a significant impact on brand preference (F2 = 15.20). The interaction of brand personality and power motivation on brand psychological ownership was significant (F2 = 0.05). Collinearity and standard method bias were addressed through VIF, and the study was considered bias-free with no values equal to or greater than 2.07.

Structural equation modeling: The results showed that brand personality had a significant impact on brand psychological ownership (β = 0.62, t = 4.35, p < 0.001). Brand psychological ownership had a significant impact on brand preference (β = 0.96, t = 44.22, p < 0.001). Also, brand personality did not influence brand preference (β = 0.01, t = 0.36, p = 0.723). Brand psychological ownership mediated the relationship between brand personality and brand preference (β = 0.59, t = 4.27, p < 0.001, CI [0.33, 0.87]). Individuals’ power motivation could effectively moderate the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences through brand psychological ownership (β = 0.33, t = 2.76, p < 0.05, CI [0.10, 0.55]). When the individual’s power motivation was low, brand personality could not significantly affect the brand preference through brand psychological ownership (−1 SD, β = 0.23, t = 1.21, p = 0.228, CI [−0.15, 0.61]). When the individual’s power motivation was high, the indirect effect of brand personality on brand preference was significant (+1 SD, β = 0.95, t = 5.26, p < 0.001, CI [0.61, 1.32]), see Figure 3 for details.

6.4 Findings

Experiment 3 confirmed the moderation effect of individuals’ power motivation on the impact of brand personality on consumers’ preferences, thus supporting H3. Specifically, the results showed that brand personality could not significantly affect the brand preferences of individuals with a low level of power motivation. However, for individuals with a high level of power motivation, brands with a cool personality were found to improve their brand preferences more than brands with an innocent personality.

7. Experiment 4: the moderating effect of identity centrality

Experiment 4 explored the moderating effect of identity centrality on the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences.

7.1 Conceptual development

Existing research has shown that an individual’s level of identity centrality affects his or her perception of brand psychological ownership. Consumers with a high level of identity centrality tend to be more dynamic (Quinn and Chaudoir, 2009), pay more attention to social situational stimuli (such as brand personality styles) (Abrams and Hogg, 2010) and maintain their own reputation and image (Lee et al., 2010). First, consumers with a high level of identity centrality (central identity) protect themselves and communicate their identity by expressing a strong possessiveness toward their objects (Bhattacharjee et al., 2014). Second, individuals respond more positively to information that evokes self-identity (Reed et al., 2012). Similarly, consumers with a high level of identity centrality express and affirm their self-identity by investing more time, energy and labor in their objects (Jung et al., 2018). Furthermore, identity centrality belongs to the subjective evaluation of individuals and has a certain degree of autonomy (Murnieks et al., 2020). Consumers with a high level of identity centrality explain their self-concept and fulfill their identity commitments (Kachanoff et al., 2016) by strengthening the self-brand connections (Murnieks et al., 2020). In summary, consumers with a high level of identity centrality are particularly sensitive to social contextual stimuli. In addition, they are more likely to increase brand psychological ownership and actively demonstrate self-identity centrality through expressing possessiveness and strengthening brand investment and self-brand connections.

Conversely, consumers with a low level of identity centrality (peripheral identity) are not sensitive to perceptions of self-reputation and image (Burt, 2004), nor are they concerned with the social situational stimulus of brand personality styles (Lee et al., 2010). Furthermore, they are not inclined to improve psychological ownership and manifest self-identity salience (Fletcher and Everly, 2021) by expressing possessiveness (He et al., 2014) and enhancing brand investment (Jung et al., 2016) and self-brand connections (Harmon et al., 2009).

Thus, in this research context, the level of identity centrality (central identity/peripheral identity) of individuals can effectively moderate the influence of brand personality (innocence/coolness) on consumers’ preferences. Specifically, when individuals have a low level of identity centrality, they do not tend to exhibit psychological ownership through social situational stimuli (such as brand personality styles) (Lee et al., 2010), nor do they focus on expressing the salience of self-identity (Fletcher and Everly, 2021). When a brand adopts a cool personality rather than an innocent one, it is easier for it to enhance consumers’ brand psychological ownership and brand preferences by increasing their brand possessiveness, brand investment propensity and the degree of self-brand connections. As a result, a brand with a cool personality is more likely to be preferred by consumers with a low level of identity centrality than an innocent one. However, when the individuals’ level of identity centrality is high, regardless of whether the brand adopts an innocent or a cool personality, consumers will exhibit a higher possessiveness (Lee et al., 2010), a higher investment propensity (Jung et al., 2016), and a deeper self-brand connection (Kachanoff et al., 2016) toward the brand. That is, consumers will exhibit higher brand psychological ownership of the brand to actively express the salience of self-identity and maintain their reputation and image (Lee et al., 2010). At this point, for consumers with a high level of identity centrality, it is difficult for brand personality to influence consumers’ preferences through brand psychological ownership:

H4.

The level of identity centrality moderates the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences. For individuals with a low level of identity centrality, they prefer brands adopting a cool personality to an innocent personality. For individuals with a high level of identity centrality, brand personality will not significantly affect individuals’ brand preferences.

7.2 Method

7.2.1 Participants

Based on the method of Cohen (1977), with an effect size of d = 0.5 and an expected power of 0.80 (Leenaars et al., 2016; Miao et al., 2021), this experiment calculated a required sample size of 128 participants using G*Power 3.1 software. Therefore, 150 participants were recruited in a supermarket in exchange for 10 RMB to complete a series of survey activities about a coffee brand. Participants were randomly assigned to the innocence group or the coolness group. The identity centrality level of participants was measured based on two items from Harmon-Kizer et al. (2013). The final sample size was (N = 136, aged from 18 to 29 years old, M = 22.03, SD = 2.08, female 50.74%), and the sample size of each group was (ncoolness = 67, ninnocence = 69).

7.2.2 Stimuli and procedure

A virtual coffee brand called QNJ was created with two different personalities (innocence/coolness) through its logo, see the Appendix for details. To ensure the effectiveness of this manipulation, the researchers recruited 83 participants (aged from 19 to 28 years old, M = 21.99, SD = 1.92, 43.37% female) online and randomly assigned them into two groups (innocence group/coolness group) for the pretest. Participants in each group received the brand logo of the coffee brand with a relevant brand personality used in Experiment 4, and they were asked to rate two personality dimensions of the target brand as those in Experiment 1. The results indicated that the coolness group scored significantly higher on the coolness dimension than the innocence group [Mcoolness = 4.85, SD = 0.85, Minnocence = 3.83, SD = 0.70, t (81) = 5.98, p < 0.001, d = 1.31], while the innocence group scored significantly higher on the innocence dimension than the coolness group [Mcoolness = 3.20, SD = 0.78, Minnocence = 4.69, SD = 0.87, t (81) = 8.24, p < 0.001, d = 1.80]. These results ensured the effectiveness of the personality styles manipulation in Experiment 4.

Before the main experiment, the researchers administered two items from Harmon-Kizer et al. (2013) to measure participants’ level of identity centrality. Then, participants were introduced to information about the virtual coffee brand: “Explore the flavor of the planet and make coffee accessible. QNJ coffee strives to make a cup of coffee accessible to every average person. Delicious coffee allows everyone to experience life with their hearts.” The researchers indicated that they were interested in gathering consumers’ opinions about the new brand and asked participants to evaluate it carefully.

Following this, all participants were asked to recall a past event in their life and complete the same nostalgia manipulation check item as used in Experiment 1. Then, participants’ brand engagement was measured using the same two items as used in Experiment 2. Next, participants in each group (innocence group/coolness group) were shown a brand logo with corresponding personality. The researchers asked participants to report brand preference, brand psychological ownership, emotional state, brand status and other confounding items related to the target brand as used in previous experiments. Finally, participants were asked to recall the name of the target brand, indicate whether their preferences for the coffee brand depended on the previous shopping experiences, rate the brand personality and guess the purpose of the experiment.

7.3 Results

7.3.1 Manipulation check

Seven participants reported the wrong brand name, eight participants’ preferences for coffee brand depended on their previous shopping experiences and no participant correctly guessed the real purpose of the experiment. There was no significant difference between the two groups in nostalgia [Mcoolness = 4.60, SD = 0.84, Minnocence = 4.52, SD = 0.82, t (134) = 0.53, p = 0.596, d = 0.10], brand engagement [Mcoolness = 4.45, SD = 0.78, Minnocence = 4.51, SD = 0.93, t (134) = 0.40, p = 0.688, d = 0.07], emotional state [Mcoolness = 3.96, SD = 0.68, Minnocence = 3.87, SD = 0.68, t (134) = 0.73, p = 0.467, d = 0.13] and the evaluation of brand status [Mcoolness = 3.78, SD = 0.76, Minnocence = 3.67, SD = 0.78, t (134) = 0.83, p = 0.407, d = 0.14]. The coolness group scored significantly higher on the coolness dimension than the innocence group [Mcoolness = 5.01, SD = 0.90, Minnocence = 3.70, SD = 0.88, t (134) = 8.67, p < 0.001, d = 1.47]. The innocence group scored significantly higher on the innocence dimension than the coolness group [Mcoolness = 3.43, SD = 0.82, MInnocence = 4.93, SD = 0.81, t (134) = 10.69, p < 0.001, d = 1.84]. The manipulation effectively affected most of the participants.

7.3.2 Brand psychological ownership

The results showed that the interaction between brand personality and identity centrality could significantly affect brand psychological ownership (F = 62.8, p < 0.001). The simple slope test analysis showed that brand personality could significantly affect brand psychological ownership (−1 SD, β = 1.49, t = 9.44, p < 0.001) at a low level of identity centrality. However, in the case of a high level of identity centrality, the brand personality did not affect the brand psychological ownership (+1 SD, β = −0.29, t = −1.82, p = 0.070).

7.3.3 Brand preferences

The results showed that the interaction of brand personality and identity centrality could significantly affect brand preferences (F = 49.9, p < 0.001). The simple slope test analysis showed that brand personality could significantly affect brand preferences (−1 SD, β = 1.43, t = 8.81, p < 0.001) at a low level of identity centrality. However, in the case of a high level of identity centrality, the brand personality did not affect the brand preferences (+1 SD, β = −0.20, t = −1.24, p = 0.216). The results provided the basis for H4.

7.3.4 Moderated mediation analysis

The model’s predictive power, as measured by R2, was found to be 0.962, indicating that 96.2% of variations in brand preferences were explained by brand personality and brand psychological ownership. The effect size, as measured by F2, showed that brand personality had a significant impact on brand psychological ownership (F2 = 0.22), and brand psychological ownership had a significant impact on brand preferences (F2 = 23.18). The interaction of brand personality and identity centrality on brand psychological ownership was significant (F2 = 0.48). Collinearity and standard method bias were addressed through VIF, and the study was considered bias-free with no values equal to or greater than 1.98.

Structural equation modeling: The results showed that brand personality had a significant impact on brand psychological ownership (β = 0.60, t = 4.35, p < 0.000). Brand psychological ownership has a significant impact on brand preferences (β = 0.98, t = 4.35, p < 0.001). Also, brand personality did not directly affect brand preferences (β = 0.02, t = 52.29, p = 0.101). Brand psychological ownership mediated the relationship between brand personality and brand preferences (β = 0.59, t = 4.32, p < 0.001, CI [0.32, 0.86]). Individuals’ identity centrality could effectively moderate the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences through brand psychological ownership (β = −0.77, t = 9.48, p < 0.001, CI [−0.90, −0.59]). When the individual’s level of identity centrality was high, brand personality could not significantly affect the brand preference through brand psychological ownership (+1 SD, β = −0.28, t = 1.53, p = 0.126, CI [−0.63, 0.09]). When the individual’s level of identity centrality was low, the indirect effect of brand personality on brand preference was significant (−1 SD, β = 1.48, t = 8.81, p < 0.001, CI [1.14, 1.79]), see Figure 4 for details.

7.4 Findings

The results provided support for H4, demonstrating that individuals’ level of identity centrality could moderate the impact of brand personality on consumers’ preferences. Specifically, for those with a low level of identity centrality, a brand with a cool personality was found to be more effective at improving brand preference compared to one with an innocent personality. Conversely, for individuals with a high level of identity centrality, brand personality did not significantly affect brand preference.

8. General discussion

8.1 Conclusions

This study demonstrated the influence of brand personality (innocence/coolness) on consumers’ preferences through four experiments. Experiment 1 showed that brands adopting a cool personality could improve consumers’ brand preferences more than an innocent personality. Experiment 2 verified the causal chain model for the main effect from brand personality to brand psychological ownership and then to consumers’ preferences. Experiment 3 explored the moderating effect of the level of individuals’ power motivation on the main effect. For individuals with a high level of power motivation, brands adopting a cool personality can improve their brand preferences more than an innocent one. Experiment 4 analyzed the moderating effect of individual identity centrality level on the main effect. For individuals with a low level of identity centrality, brands adopting a cool personality can improve their brand preferences more than an innocent one.

8.2 Theoretical contributions

The theoretical contributions of this study are mainly reflected in the following aspects:

First, this study enriches and extends the brand personality research literature. Existing research on brand personality ignores the importance of these two brand personalities, innocence and coolness, in this conceptual structure and their potential impact on consumers’ preferences. As a result, the influence of innocence and coolness on brand preferences is unclear and inconsistent. Therefore, this study provides a new research perspective to explain the heterogeneity of consumers’ brand preferences related to innocence and coolness by introducing a two-dimensional structure of brand personality variables derived from sociocultural styles.

On the one hand, this study extends the research findings of coolness perceptions on consumer behavior. Existing research on coolness is relatively scattered and lacks a clear theme and direction. However, this study builds on previous studies and directly compares and analyzes two common but completely different brand personalities to discuss how different brand personalities essentially affect consumers’ preferences, rather than focusing on a single degree of coolness or noncoolness of brands or products (Yin et al., 2014). Hence, it further expands the basic understanding of coolness in the existing literature.

On the other hand, innocence has been the subject of a small number of studies in the fields of advertising and Japanese cultural economics. After Maynard and Taylor (1999) first discussed how to construct an advertising image with a sense of innocence, few empirical studies have further analyzed the influence mechanism of the innocent style. Combined with the existing literature, based on the core dimension of innocence, that is, the connotation of four main elements, namely, low autonomy, low ego defense, low competence and immature characteristics, this study complements and improves the influence mechanism and theoretical perspective of innocence and has opened up new research directions for follow-up research.

Second, this study sheds light on the influence of the perception of brand psychological ownership on preferences between different brand personalities. By focusing on the specific context of brands, this research creatively examines the significant role that brand psychological ownership plays in the preferences of brand personality (innocence and coolness) based on a three-dimensional perspective of brand psychological ownership (possessiveness, brand investment and self-brand connections). For the first time, the mediation model of brand psychological ownership between brand personality and consumers’ preferences has been validated. The theoretical link between brand personality and brand psychological ownership was identified, thereby explaining and connecting the implicit psychological perception of brand psychological ownership and consumers’ preferences. The relationship between explicit variables establishes a more detailed causal chain, providing a more in-depth exploration of how brand personality affects consumers’ preferences, both theoretically and empirically, and addressing the deficiencies of existing studies.

Finally, this study also explores the moderating role of individuals’ power motivation and identity centrality, establishing clear boundary conditions for the main effect. Existing research on power motivation has mostly focused on leadership (Luria and Berson, 2013), creativity (Latham and Pinder, 2004) and social interaction (Furley et al., 2019). Similarly, research on identity centrality has primarily focused on employee performance (Fletcher and Everly, 2021), online opinion leaders (Lee et al., 2010) and uncertainty perceptions (Wagoner et al., 2018), among others. Few studies have explored the influence of power motivation and identity centrality on consumers’ decisions and behaviors in the brand domain. This study introduces power motivation and identity centrality into the main research framework and designs relevant consumption situations for the research. It also confirms that for individuals with a low level of power motivations and belonging to central identities, the influence of brand personality on their preferences is weakened by brand psychological ownership. This finding further expands the research context of power motivation and identity centrality, provides a fresh perspective for discussion both in both theory and application and comprehensively and systematically explains the marketing effect and boundary conditions of brand personality.

8.3 Managerial contributions

Enterprises often use different styles of brand personality in their marketing plans to communicate specific messages to the market and achieve their market goals. Consumers make inferences and evaluations about brands (Wang et al., 2018) and their users (Jerónimo et al., 2018) through brand personality. This research focuses on the market effects of brand personality and provides a practical basis for companies to design and implement brand personality strategies more effectively by exploring the influence of brand personality styles on consumers’ preferences (Chen et al., 2021; Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2021).

First, this research provides an interesting direction for exploring the aesthetics of brand personality. Brand managers can create different brand personalities for different categories of consumer goods brands (e.g. utilitarian brands and hedonic brands) through various themes such as advertising, spokespersons, product design and physical properties such as different facial express and slogans to enhance consumer perceptions and preferences (Puligadda and VanBergen, 2023).

Another way for brands to use the internal mechanism of “brand personality–consumers’ preferences” is by inducing consumers to extract stable information about brand psychological ownership, which can positively influence their brand purchase preference. As more and more consumers are pursuing a cool style in the market, brands should consider using a cool style rather than an innocent one as a persuasive marketing tool to enhance consumers’ brand psychological ownership and create a higher preference for the brand to successfully differentiate their brand from competitors (Koskie and Locander, 2023).

In addition, it is important to note that the influence of brand personality on consumers’ preferences has certain boundary conditions. Specifically, for consumers with a low level of power motivation or a high level of individual identity centrality, it may be difficult for brands to effectively influence their brand preferences through personality strategies alone. Therefore, it is important for enterprises to carefully consider the power motivation and identity centrality of their target consumers when formulating brand personality strategies. By aligning their brand personality with the needs and preferences of their target consumers, companies can effectively manage their brand personality and improve their brand positioning.

8.4 Limitations and future research

Consumers often associate heavy visual cues of brands with positive psychological experiences (Maeng and Aggarwal, 2018). However, this study only focuses on physical features such as brand spokesperson and shape and examines the influence of brand personality on consumers’ preferences. Future research can comprehensively understand other aspects of brand visual cues (e.g. product description, texture) and further explore their market effects in the brand domain from the perspective of visual design.

In addition, this study only explores the moderating effect of different levels of individuals’ power motivation and identity centrality on the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ preferences. Future research could consider the potential downstream effects of others’ status in society and their signal validity or product category on brand personality and consumers’ behavior.

Finally, this study compared and analyzed the influence of the two brand personalities on consumers’ preferences in the context of Chinese consumption. However, different cultures may have different perceptions of innocence and coolness (Gerber and Geiman, 2012). Therefore, future studies can explore the influence of the two brand personalities on consumers’ attitudes and behaviors in a cross-cultural context to gain a broader understanding of the market effects of brand personality.

Figures

Conceptual framework

Figure 1

Conceptual framework

The mediation effect of Experiment 2

Figure 2

The mediation effect of Experiment 2

The moderation effect of Experiment 3

Figure 3

The moderation effect of Experiment 3

Moderated mediation analysis

Figure 4

Moderated mediation analysis

Brand festival publicity picture stimuli (Experiment 1)

Figure A1

Brand festival publicity picture stimuli (Experiment 1)

Brand spokesperson stimuli (Experiment 2)

Figure A2

Brand spokesperson stimuli (Experiment 2)

Product design stimuli (Experiment 3)

Figure A3

Product design stimuli (Experiment 3)

Brand logo stimuli (Experiment 4)

Figure A4

Brand logo stimuli (Experiment 4)

Research on different brand personalities in the marketing literature

Dimensions of brand personality Context Dependent variable Mechanism Main findings
Excitement and competence
(Mandal et al., 2021)
Consumer-related WOM intentions Consumer mindsets Fixed (growth) mindset individuals exhibit greater WOM intentions than growth (fixed) mindset individuals for motives of impression management
Sincerity versus competence
(Youn and Jin, 2021)
Digital contexts
(AI Chatbot)
CRM-related outcomes (behavioral intention, satisfaction, trust) Parasocial interaction
Ideological views
The consumer–chatbot relationship type had effects on CRM-related outcomes through competent brand personality
Sincerity and excitement
(Choi et al., 2022)
Digital contexts
(Service robot)
Customer reactions
(Willingness to book, behavioral intentions, agent preference)
Robot type
Perceived fit
Presence of a warmth cue
Customers tend to react negatively to high-contact robots when the brand had a sincere (vs exciting) personality
Sincerity versus ruggedness
(Deska et al., 2022)
Promotion
(Advertising)
Brand judgment
(ad liking, brand liking, purchase intensions)
Product category
Brand positioning fit
Spokespersons with high(low) appearance‐based aspect – facial width‐to‐height ratio (fWHR) are more effective for rugged (sincere) brands leading to more positive brand judgment
Sincerity versus competence
(Chen and Wei, 2022)
Hospitality and tourism industry Tourist responses
(Attitudes, booking intentions)
Need for autonomy
Connectedness to nature
Competent(sincere) hotel brands benefit from using egoistic (biospheric) minimalistic lifestyle appeals when marketing capsule hotels to tourists
Sincerity
(Motoki et al., 2023)
Food branding Brand evaluations
(Brand attitudes, food sales)
Perceived congruence Sincerity is reliably associated with sweet tastes
Warmth versus competence
(Leung et al., 2023)
Brand-related Consumers’ preferences and responses / Informal(formal) address is more likely to be preferred, and elicits higher preferences and more positive responses, when used by warmer(competent) brands
Paradoxical personalities
(Rugged yet sophisticated)
(Xin et al., 2022)
Brand-related Brand evaluation Cognitive flexibility
Construal level
Mixed emotional appeals (sadness and happiness), as compared to positive emotional appeals (happiness), can leverage favorable evaluations of paradox brands
Ruggedness and sophistication
(Melzner and Raghubir, 2023)
Sensory marketing
(Acoustics)
Brand personality
judgments
Brand (re-)positioning
Purchase intentions
/ Timbral sound quality in audio logos (e.g. roughness/smoothness) informs abstract judgments of brand personality
Sincerity and excitement
and competence
and sophistication
and ruggedness
(Eyni et al., 2023; Luffarelli et al., 2023)
Corporate Customer-based brand equity (CBBE) / On average, the BPDs of excitement, competence, and sincerity have more positive effects on CBBE than sophistication and ruggedness
Sensory marketing
(Visual design)
Brand personality perceptions Perception of brand power
Perceived power of the self, visuospatial capacity
Logo thickness shape the perception of brand power
Masculine versus feminine
(Boeuf, 2020)
Brand-related Consumers’ responses (Message attitude, brand attitude, intentions to recommend the brand) Emotion
Appropriateness
Brand sincerity
Masculine brands can suffer from the stereotype that masculinity is typically associated with emotional control
Single- versus dual-personality
(Wang et al., 2020)
Cross-culture
(Western and East Asian)
Co-brand evaluation Ideal social self-congruence
Product type
The dialectical self negatively influences one’s attitude toward a co-brand in the dual-personality condition only
Naturalness
(Sander et al., 2021)
Promotion
(Environmental advertising)
Attitude toward
the ad
Brand attitude
Ad credibility A focus on environmental aspects delivers the more impactful advertising content when promoting a brand’s sustainability
Pleasantness
(Excitement and calmness)
(Trump and Newman, 2021)
Consumer-related Consumers’ response
(Brand attitude,
Purchase intentions)
Motivation Consumers experiencing unpleasant emotions are attracted to brands with opposing, pleasant personalities to repair their emotions
Humorous
(Howe et al., 2023)
Promotion
(Advertising)
Brand attitudes
Engagement
Perceptions of brand warmth and competence
Need for cognition
As the cleverness of a humor attempt increases, consumers report higher brand attitudes and are more engaged with the brand

Source: Authors

Research on innocence and coolness in the marketing literature

Dimension Studies Context Attributes Antecedent(s) Consequences
Innocence Chan et al. (2018) Chinese market / / Brand warmth
Li et al. (2019) Tourism
(Hotel)
/ Nostalgia
(Personal/Historical nostalgia)
Brand-self connections
Coolness Duggal and Verma (2019) Indian market Being oneself/Rounded/
Social and sense of humor/
Calm/Groomed/
Unpretentious/
Sensitive and caring
/ /
Loureiro et al. (2020) Luxury fashion brands Useful/High status/
Popular/Subcultural
Luxury values
(Individual/Social/
Functional/Financial value)
Passionate desire
Zhang et al. (2021) Restaurant industry / Brand personality
(Responsible/Active)
Brand experience
Customer WOM (EWOM,
Interpersonal WOM)
Tiwari et al. (2021) Technology products Rebelliousness/Desirability/
Innovativeness of technology/Reliability/
Attractiveness/Usability
/ Brand love
(Continued)
Coolness Bogicevic et al. (2021) Tourism (Hotel) / Advanced technology (VR) Self-brand connection
Kock (2021) Tourism
(Destination)
Authentic/Rebellious/
Original/Vibrant/Symbolic
/ Intention
Actual visit behavior
Destination’s social return
City-self connection
Jiménez-Barreto et al. (2022) Service brands Aesthetic/Authentic/
Exciting/Extraordinary/
High status/Iconic/
Original/Popular/
Rebellious/Subcultural
/ Communal-brand connection and loyalty
Suzuki and Kanno (2022) Masstige marketing Trendy/Hip/Appealing/
Fascination/Attractive
/ Perceived fit between luxury and mass brands
Attitude toward the co-brand
Purchase probability
Koskie and Locander (2023) US individuals Subcultural/Popular Desire for unique
consumer products
Brand attachments
Willingness to pay more

Source: Authors

Measurement scales

Construct Scale items References
Brand psychological ownership I feel like this is my brand Peck and Shu (2009)
I feel a very high degree of personal ownership of the brand
I feel like I own this brand
Power motivation I seek an active role in the leadership of a group Steers and Braunstein (1976)
I am trying to influence those around me to see things my way
I find myself organizing and directing the activities of others
I strive to gain more control over the events around me at work
I strive to be “In command” when I am working in a group
Identity centrality I feel that identity is a part of my self-concept across various situations, and it is important to how others view me Harmon-Kizer et al. (2013)
I feel that identity is part of my self-concept, but does not help define myself across various situations, nor does it matter how others view me
Brand preference How much do you like the brand?
How much are you interested in learning more about the brand?
How much are your likelihood of buying the brand?
Galoni et al. (2020)

Source: Authors

Independent samples t-test and ANOVA results table

Coolness group Innocence group Control group
Predictors M SD M SD M SD F t p-Value d
Manipulation check
Experiment 1
(N = 176)
Nostalgia 4.60 0.82 4.50 0.89 4.66 0.80 0.56 / 0.575 /
Emotional state 4.09 0.69 4.05 0.75 4.19 0.71 0.58 0.563
Brand status 4.11 0.79 3.88 0.76 4.02 1.04 0.96 0.386
Coolness 5.26 1.03 2.80 0.97 / / 13.88** / 2.46
5.26 1.03 / 4.08 0.88 6.61** 1.23
Innocence 2.74 0.95 5.13 0.85 / 14.80** / 2.65
/ 5.13 0.85 3.76 0.82 8.54** 1.64
Main effect
Brand preferences 4.69 0.46 3.34 0.53 / / 15.22** / 2.72
4.69 0.46 / 3.95 0.44 8.32** 1.64
/ 3.34 0.53 3.95 0.44 6.94** 1.25
Manipulation check
Experiment 2
(N = 138)
Nostalgia 4.36 0.72 4.43 0.78 / 0.54 0.589 0.09
Brand engagement 3.84 0.83 3.90 0.72 0.41 0.682 0.08
Emotional state 4.03 0.68 3.97 0.69 0.50 0.620 0.09
Brand status 4.16 0.67 4.06 0.82 0.74 0.463 0.13
Coolness 5.01 0.88 3.21 0.76 12.91** / 2.19
Innocence 3.07 0.86 5.15 0.82 14.57** 2.48
Main effect
Brand psychological ownership 4.46 0.71 3.47 0.67 / 8.44** / 1.43
Brand preferences 4.48 0.66 3.58 0.62 8.23** 1.41
Manipulation check
Experiment 3
(N = 139)
Nostalgia 4.24 0.82 4.28 0.91 / 0.27 0.786 0.05
Brand engagement 4.19 0.87 4.21 0.82 0.06 0.952 0.02
Emotional state 4.06 0.71 3.91 0.71 1.20 0.233 0.21
Brand status 3.65 0.72 3.51 0.80 0.27 0.786 0.18
Coolness 5.15 0.97 3.01 0.74 14.60** / 2.48
Innocence 3.27 0.94 4.99 0.82 11.46** 1.95
Manipulation check
Experiment 4
(N = 136)
Nostalgia 4.60 0.84 4.52 0.82 / 0.53 0.596 0.10
Brand engagement 4.45 0.78 4.51 0.93 0.40 0.688 0.07
Emotional state 3.96 0.68 3.87 0.68 0.73 0.467 0.13
Brand status 3.78 0.76 3.67 0.78 0.83 0.407 0.14
Coolness 5.01 0.90 3.70 0.88 8.67** / 1.47
Innocence 3.43 0.82 4.93 0.81 10.69** 1.84
Note:

**p < 0.001

Sources: Copyright Yuanping Xu; Authors

References

Aagerup, U. (2020), “Building nightclub brand personality via guest selection”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 85, p. 102336.

Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.

Aaker, J., Vohs, K.D. and Mogilner, C. (2010), “Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: firm stereotypes matter”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 224-237.

Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2010), “Social identity and self-categorization”, The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination, Vol. 1, pp. 179-193.

Alessio, D. and Jóhannsdóttir, A.L. (2011), “Geysers and ‘girls’: gender, power and colonialism in Icelandic tourist imagery”, European Journal of Women's Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 35-50.

Anderson, C., John, O.P. and Keltner, D. (2012), “The personal sense of power”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 313-344.

Anik, L., Miles, J. and Hauser, R. (2017), “A general theory of coolness”.

Annesley, J. (2021), “Uncomfortably numb: Elizabeth Wurtzel’s Vool lifestyles”, Comparative American Studies: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-172.

Apolloni, A. (2016), “The lollipop girl’s voice: respectability, migration, and Millie Small’s ‘my boy lollipop’”, Journal of Popular Music Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 460-473.

Aydinli, A., Bender, M., Chasiotis, A., Cemalcilar, Z. and van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2014), “When does self-reported prosocial motivation predict helping? The moderating role of implicit prosocial motivation”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 645-658.

Baer, M. and Brown, G. (2012), “Blind in one eye: how psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 60-71.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Khoshnevis, M. (2022), “How and when brand coolness transforms product quality judgments into positive word of mouth and intentions to buy/use”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, pp. 1-20.

Barcelos, R.H., Dantas, D.C. and Sénécal, S. (2018), “Watch your tone: how a brand’s tone of voice on social media influences consumer responses”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 60-80.

Barki, H., Paré, G. and Sicotte, C. (2008), “Linking IT implementation and acceptance via the construct of psychological ownership of information technology”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 269-280.

Baştuğ, S., Şakar, G.D. and Gülmez, S. (2020), “An application of brand personality dimensions to container ports: a place branding perspective”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 82, p. 102552.

Batra, R. (2019), “Creating brand meaning: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 535-546.

Baumann, N., Chatterjee, M. and Hank, P. (2016), “Guiding others for their own good: action orientation is associated with prosocial enactment of the implicit power motive”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 56-68.

Bazzini, D., Curtin, L., Joslin, S., Regan, S. and Martz, D. (2010), “Do animated Disney characters portray and promote the beauty-goodness stereotype?”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 2687-2709.

Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-168.

Bellezza, S., Gino, F. and Keinan, A. (2014), “The red sneakers effect: inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 35-54.

Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.J. (2010), “The quest for authenticity in consumption: consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 838-856.

Bhattacharjee, A., Berger, J. and Menon, G. (2014), “When identity marketing backfires: consumer agency in identity expression”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 294-309.

Bloem, W. (2014), Japanese Fanspeak in the Anglophone Manga and Anime Fan Culture, Leiden University.

Boeuf, B. (2020), “Boys do not cry: the negative effects of brand masculinity on brand emotions”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 31 No. 2-3, pp. 247-264.

Bogicevic, V., Liu, S.Q., Seo, S., Kandampully, J. and Rudd, N.A. (2021), “Virtual reality is so cool! how technology innovativeness shapes consumer responses to service preview modes”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 93, p. 102806.

Bratanova, B., Kervyn, N. and Klein, O. (2015), “Tasteful brands: products of brands perceived to be warm and competent taste subjectively better”, Psychologica Belgica, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 57-70.

Brickman, B.J. (2016), “This charming butch: the male pop idol, girl fans, and lesbian (in)visibility”, Journal of Popular Music Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 443-459.

Brougère, G. (2013), “Licensing and the rhetoric of fun: the cute and the cool”, Young Consumers, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 342-350.

Brown, V. (2015), Cool Shades: The History and Meaning of Sunglasses, Bloomsbury Publishing.

Brown, V. (2021), “Is coolness still cool?”, Journal for Cultural Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 429-445.

Brown, G., Crossley, C. and Robinson, S.L. (2014), “Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: the critical role of trust in the work environment”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 463-485.

Bruun, A., Raptis, D., Kjeldskov, J. and Skov, M.B. (2016), “Measuring the coolness of interactive products: the cool questionnaire”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 233-249.

Burt, R.S. (2004), “Structural holes and good ideas”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 349-399.

Burton, T.I. (2020), “Eat me, drink me, like me”, The New Atlantis, Vol. 61, pp. 35-43.

Chan, K., Rounds, J. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The relation between vocational interests and the motivation to lead”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 226-245.

Chan, T.H., Chen, R.P. and Tse, C.H. (2018), “How consumers in China perceive brands in online and offline encounters”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, p. 90.

Chang, Y., Li, Y., Yan, J. and Kumar, V. (2019), “Getting more likes: the impact of narrative person and brand image on customer-brand interactions”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1027-1045.

Chang, H., Kwak, H., Puzakova, M., Park, J. and Smit, E.G. (2015), “It’s no longer mine: the role of brand ownership and advertising in cross-border brand acquisitions”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 593-620.

Chasiotis, A., Hofer, J. and Campos, D. (2006), “When does liking children lead to parenthood? Younger siblings, implicit prosocial power motivation, and explicit love for children predict parenthood across cultures”, Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 95-123.

Chen, S. and Wei, H. (2022), “Minimalism in capsule hotels: enhancing tourist responses by using minimalistic lifestyle appeals congruent with brand personality”, Tourism Management, Vol. 93, p. 104579.

Chen, S., Wei, H., Meng, L. and Ran, Y. (2019), “Believing in karma: the effect of mortality salience on excessive consumption”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 1519.

Chen, S., Wei, H., Ran, Y., Li, Q. and Meng, L. (2021), “Waiting for a download: the effect of congruency between anthropomorphic cues and shopping motivation on consumer patience”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 2327-2338.

Chernev, A., Hamilton, R. and Gal, D. (2011), “Competing for consumer identity: limits to self-expression and the perils of lifestyle branding”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 66-82.

Chiang, L.L.L. and Yang, C.S. (2018), “Does country-of-origin brand personality generate retail customer lifetime value? A big data analytics approach”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 130, pp. 177-187.

Choi, S., Liu, S.X. and Choi, C. (2022), “Robot-brand fit the influence of brand personality on consumer reactions to service robot adoption”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 129-142.

Cohen, J. (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, San Diego.

Cross, G. (2002), “Valves of desire: a historian’s perspective on parents, children, and marketing”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 441-447.

Cui, H., Fam, K., Zhao, T., Xu, W. and Han, C. (2020), “How to save the wounded self: power distance belief’s moderation of self-identity threat and status-related consumption”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 3-12.

Dar-Nimrod, I., Ganesan, A. and MacCann, C. (2018), “Coolness as a trait and its relations to the Big Five, self-esteem, social desirability, and action orientation”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 121, pp. 1-6.

Deska, J.C., Hingston, S.T., DelVecchio, D., Stenstrom, E.P., Walker, R.J. and Hugenberg, K. (2022), “The face of the brand: spokesperson facial width-to-height ratio predicts brand personality judgments”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1487-1503.

Dickinson, W.L. and Ashby, J.S. (2005), “Multidimensional perfectionism and ego defenses”, Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 41-54.

Dinerstein, J. (2017), “The origins of cool in postwar America”, The Origins of Cool in Postwar America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Dougher, S. and Pecknold, D. (2016), “Girls, girlhood, and popular music”, Journal of Popular Music Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 407-411.

Dubois, D., Rucker, D.D. and Galinsky, A.D. (2012), “Super size me: product size as a signal of status”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1047-1062.

Dubois, D., Rucker, D.D. and Galinsky, A.D. (2015), “Social class, power, and selfishness: when and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 436-449.

Duggal, E. and Verma, H.V. (2019), “Cool perspectives, Indian cool and branding”, South Asian Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 130-145.

Duschinsky, R. (2013), “Childhood innocence: essence, education, and performativity”, Textual Practice, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 763-781.

Dyer, H. (2019), “The contested design of children’s sexual education: queer growth and epistemic uncertainty”, Gender and Education, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 742-755.

Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2003), “You are what they eat: the influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-348.

Eyni, A., Thongpapanl, N., Ashraf, A.R. and Wang, K.Y. (2023), “The logo ‘visual thickness effect’: when and why it boosts brand personality”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 343-364.

Fazli-Salehi, R., Torres, I.M., Madadi, R. and Zúñiga, M.Á. (2022), “The impact of interpersonal traits (extraversion and agreeableness) on consumers’ self-brand connection and communal-brand connection with anthropomorphized brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Ferraro, P.J. (2010), “Know thyself: competence and self-awareness”, Atlantic Economic Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 183-196.

Fletcher, L. and Everly, B.A. (2021), “Perceived lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) supportive practices and the life satisfaction of LGBT employees: the roles of disclosure, authenticity at work, and identity centrality”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 485-508.

Fodor, E.M. (2010), “The power motive”, in Schultheiss, O.C. and Brunstein, J.C. (Eds), Implicit Motives, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Fodor, E.M. and Carver, R.A. (2000), “Achievement and power motives, performance feedback, and creativity”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 380-396.

Fought, C. (2009), “Homegirls: language and cultural practice among Latina youth gangs”, Language in Society, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 266-269.

Fournier, S. and Avery, J. (2011), “The uninvited brand”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 193-207.

Furby, L. (1978), “Possession in humans: an exploratory study of its meaning and motivation”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-65.

Furley, P., Schweizer, G. and Wegner, M. (2019), “The power motive as a predictor of receptiveness to nonverbal behavior in sport”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 917-928.

Galinsky, A., Gruenfeld, D. and Magee, J. (2003), “From power to action”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 453-466.

Galinsky, A.D., Magee, J.C., Inesi, M.E. and Gruenfeld, D.H. (2006), “Power and perspectives not taken”, Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1068-1074.

Galoni, C., Carpenter, G.S. and Rao, H. (2020), “Disgusted and afraid: consumer choices under the threat of contagious disease”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 373-392.

Gennari, J. (2022), “Groove, voice, and mystery: reflections on steely Dan’s cool”, Rock Music Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 341-364.

Gerber, J.P. and Geiman, C. (2012), “Measuring the existence of cool using an extended social relations model”, PsychNology Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 103-115.

Goff, P.A., Jackson, M.C., Di Leone, B.A.L., Culotta, C.M. and DiTomasso, N.A. (2014), “The essence of innocence: consequences of dehumanizing black children”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 106 No. 4, p. 526.

Gorn, G.J., Jiang, Y. and Johar, G.V. (2008), “Babyfaces, trait inferences, and company evaluations in a public relations crisis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 36-49.

Granitz, N. and Forman, H. (2015), “Building self-brand connections: exploring brand stories through a transmedia perspective”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 38-59.

Guha, A., Bressgott, T., Grewal, D., Mahr, D., Wetzels, M. and Schweiger, E. (2022), “How artificiality and intelligence affect voice assistant evaluations”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 843-866.

Hagtvedt, H. (2011), “The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 86-93.

Hao, F., Zhang, S. and Xiao, H. (2021), “A return to innocence: Guimi tourism and women empowerment”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 971-983.

Harmon, T.R., Kumar, A. and Ortinau, D. (2009), “When the ingroup fails to indicate brand meaning: exploring the role of identity centrality in self-brand connections”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp. 1012-1013.

Harmon-Kizer, T.R., Kumar, A., Ortinau, D. and Stock, J. (2013), “When multiple identities compete: the role of centrality in self-brand connections”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 483-495.

He, H., Zhu, W. and Zheng, X. (2014), “Procedural justice and employee engagement: roles of organizational identification and moral identity centrality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 122 No. 4, pp. 681-695.

Herziger, A., Berkessel, J.B. and Steinnes, K.K. (2020), “Wean off green: on the (in)effectiveness of biospheric appeals for consumption curtailment”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 69, p. 101415.

Hinton, P.R. (2014), “The cultural context and the interpretation of Japanese ‘Lolita Complex’ style anime”, Intercultural Communication Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 54-68.

Hogan, J. and Holland, B. (2003), “Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: a socioanalytic perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 100-112.

Holmes, T.A. (2021), “Effects of self-brand congruity and ad duration on online in-stream video advertising”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 374-385.

Howe, H.S., Zhou, L., Dias, R.S. and Fitzsimons, G.J. (2023), “Aha over Haha: brands benefit more from being clever than from being funny”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 107-114.

Huang, D., Chen, Q., Huang, J., Kong, S. and Li, Z. (2021), “Customer-robot interactions: understanding customer experience with service robots”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 99, p. 103078.

Huber, F., Eisele, A. and Meyer, F. (2018), “The role of actual, ideal, and ought self-congruence in the consumption of hedonic versus utilitarian brands”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-63.

Ilicic, J., Baxter, S.M. and Kulczynski, A. (2016), “White eyes are the window to the pure soul: metaphorical association and overgeneralization effects for spokespeople with limbal rings”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 840-855.

Japutra, A. and Molinillo, S. (2019), “Responsible and active brand personality: on the relationships with brand experience and key relationship constructs”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 99, pp. 464-471.

Japutra, A., Ekinci, Y. and Simkin, L. (2019), “Self-congruence, brand attachment and compulsive buying”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 99, pp. 456-463.

Javidan, P. (2011), “Global class and the commercial-sexual exploitation of children: toward a multidimensional understanding”, Columbia Journal of Race and Law, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 365-381.

Jerónimo, R., Ramos, T. and Ferreira, M.B. (2018), “Trait transference from brands to individuals: the impact of brand-behavior congruency”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 54-65.

Jia, H., Wan, E.W. and Zheng, W. (2023), “Stars versus bars: how the aesthetics of product ratings ‘shape’ product preference”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 142-166.

Jiao, J., Levin, I.P., Gaeth, G.J. and Chatterjee, S. (2022), “Sincere or exciting? Brand personality and argument quality on brand attitude”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1268-1279.

Jiménez-Barreto, J., Correia Loureiro, S.M., Rubio, N. and Romero, J. (2022), “Service brand coolness in the construction of brand loyalty: a self-presentation theory approach”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 65, p. 102876.

Jiménez-Barreto, J., Loureiro, S., Braun, E., Sthapit, E. and Zenker, S. (2021), “Use numbers not words! communicating hotels’ cleaning programs for Covid-19 from the brand perspective”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 94, p. 102872.

Jin, L. and Huang, Y. (2019), “How power states influence the persuasiveness of top‐dog versus underdog appeals”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 243-261.

Jung, J., Hogg, M.A. and Choi, H.S. (2016), “Reaching across the DMZ: identity uncertainty and reunification on the Korean Peninsula”, Political Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 341-350.

Jung, J., Hogg, M.A. and Lewis, G.J. (2018), “Identity uncertainty and UK-Scottish relations: different dynamics depending on relative identity centrality”, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 861-873.

Kachanoff, F.J., Ysseldyk, R., Taylor, D.M., de la Sablonnière, R. and Crush, J. (2016), “The good, the bad and the central of group identification: evidence of a U-shaped quadratic relation between in-group affect and identity centrality”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 563-580.

Kang, J., Martinez, C.M.J. and Johnson, C. (2021), “Minimalism as a sustainable lifestyle: its behavioral representations and contributions to emotional well-being”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 27, pp. 802-813.

Kasser, T. (2017), “Living both well and sustainably: a review of the literature, with some reflections on future research, interventions and policy”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 375 No. 2095, p. 20160369.

Kao, D.T. (2015), “Is Cinderella resurging? The impact of consumers’ underdog disposition on brand preferences: underdog brand biography and brand status as moderators”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 307-316.

Kegan, R. (1982), The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Keller, K.L. (2009), “Managing the growth tradeoff: challenges and opportunities in luxury branding”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 290-301.

Kemp, E., Childers, C.Y. and Williams, K.H. (2012), “Place branding: creating self‐brand connections and brand advocacy”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 508-515.

Kennedy, A.M., Waiguny, M.K.J. and Lockie, M.A. (2022), “Children’s consumption culture development through Christmas myths: ethical implications”, Young Consumers, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 321-343.

Khoi, N.H. and Le, A.N.H. (2022), “Is coolness important to luxury hotel brand management? The linking and moderating mechanisms between coolness and customer brand engagement”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 2425-2449.

Kinard, T.A. (2015), “Anonymous green painting: an artifact of resistance as danger and hope in an early childhood educational setting”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-215.

Kirmani, A., Hamilton, R.W., Thompson, D.V. and Lantzy, S. (2017), “Doing well versus doing good: the differential effect of underdog positioning on moral and competent service providers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 103-117.

Kjeldgaard, D. and Askegaard, S. (2006), “The glocalization of youth culture: the global youth segment as structures of common difference”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 231-247.

Kock, F. (2021), “What makes a city cool? Understanding destination coolness and its implications for tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 86, p. 104317.

Kock, F., Josiassen, A., Assaf, A.G., Karpen, I. and Farrelly, F. (2019), “Tourism ethnocentrism and its effects on tourist and resident behavior”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 427-439.

Kogut, C.S. and Mejri, K. (2022), “Female entrepreneurship in emerging markets: challenges of running a business in turbulent contexts and times”, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 95-116.

Kopylov, I. (2012), “Perfectionism and choice”, Econometrica, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 1819-1843.

Koskie, M.M. and Locander, W.B. (2023), “Cool brands and hot attachments: their effect on consumers’ willingness to pay more”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 905-929.

Kramarae, C. and Treichler, P.A. (Eds) (1985), Feminist Dictionary, Boston Pandora Press, Boston.

Kraus, M., Piff, P. and Keltner, D. (2009), “Social class, sense of control, and social explanation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 6, pp. 992-1004.

Kumar, J. (2019), “How psychological ownership stimulates participation in online brand communities? The moderating role of member type”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 105, pp. 243-257.

Lalwani, A.K. and Forcum, L. (2016), “Does a dollar get you a dollar’s worth of merchandise? The impact of power distance belief on price-quality judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 317-333.

Lammers, J., Stoker, J.I., Rink, F. and Galinsky, A.D. (2016), “To have control over or to be free from others? The desire for power reflects a need for autonomy”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 498-512.

Landau, M.J., Kay, A.C. and Whitson, J.A. (2015), “Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 141 No. 3, pp. 694-722.

Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C. (2004), “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 485-516.

Lawrence, B.S. (1996), “Interest and indifference: the role of age in the organizational sciences”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, ed. G.R.

LeBoeuf, R.A., Shafir, E. and Bayuk, J.B. (2010), “The conflicting choices of alternating selves”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 48-61.

Lee, S.H., Cotte, J. and Noseworthy, T.J. (2010), “The role of network centrality in the flow of consumer influence”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 66-77.

Lee, J.K., Hansen, S.S. and Lee, S.Y. (2020), “The effect of brand personality self-congruity on brand engagement and purchase intention: the moderating role of self-esteem in Facebook”, Current Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 2116-2128.

Lee, D., Hosanagar, K. and Nair, H.S. (2018), “Advertising content and consumer engagement on social media: evidence from Facebook”, Management Science, Vol. 64 No. 11, pp. 5105-5131.

Leenaars, C.H.C., Zant, J.C., Aussems, A., Faatz, V., Snackers, D. and Kalsbeek, A. (2016), “The Leeds food preference questionnaire after mild sleep restriction – a small feasibility study”, Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 154 No. 1, pp. 28-33.

Le Grand, E. (2020), “Representing the middle-class ‘hipster’: emerging modes of distinction, generational oppositions and gentrification”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 184-200.

Lei, S., Wang, X., Peng, L. and Guo, Y. (2021), “I” seek differentiation and ‘we’ seek assimilation: the impact of self-expressive customization on consumers’ willingness to pay a premium”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 691-706.

Leung, E., Lenoir, A.S.I., Puntoni, S. and van Osselaer, S.M. (2023), “Consumer preference for formal address and informal address from warm brands and competent brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 546-560.

Levinson, D.J. (1978), “The seasons of a man’ s life”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 105-108.

Li, G. (2018), “A study on the communication of Moé culture phenomenon”, Research on Transmission Competence, Vol. 2 No. 36, pp. 14-15.

Li, Y., Lu, C., Bogicevic, V. and Bujisic, M. (2019), “The effect of nostalgia on hotel brand attachment”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 691-717.

Lian, H., Ferris, D.L. and Brown, D.J. (2012), “Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 107-123.

Lili, W. and Dalton, A. (2014), “Keepin’ it cool: the behavioral effects of wearing sunglasses”, Association for Consumer Research, Vol. 42, pp. 728-729.

Liu, C.R., Chiu, T.H., Wang, Y.C. and Huang, W.S. (2020), “Generation Y’s revisit intention and price premium for lifestyle hotels: brand love as the mediator”, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 242-264.

Lloyd, K. and Pennington, W. (2020), “Towards a theory of minimalism and wellbeing”, International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 121-136.

Loureiro, S.M.C., Jiménez-Barreto, J. and Romero, J. (2020), “Enhancing brand coolness through perceived luxury values: insight from luxury fashion brands”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 57, p. 102211.

Luffarelli, J., Delre, S.A. and Landgraf, P. (2023), “How has the effect of brand personality on customer-based brand equity changed over time? Longitudinal evidence from a panel data set spanning 18 years”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 598-616.

Loureiro, S.M.C., Stylos, N. and Miranda, F.J. (2020), “Exploring how mindfulness may enhance perceived value of travel experience”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 40 Nos 11/12, pp. 800-824.

Luria, G. and Berson, Y. (2013), “How do leadership motives affect informal and formal leadership emergence?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 995-1015.

McAdams, D.P. (1988), Power, Intimacy, and the Life Story: Personological Inquiries into Identity, Guilford press, New York.

McClelland, D.C. (1975), Power: The Inner Experience, Irvington, Oxford.

McClelland, D.C. and Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), “Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 737-743.

McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.

McVeigh, B.J. (2000), “How Hello Kitty commodifies the cute, cool and camp: ‘consumutopia’ versus ‘control’ in Japan”, Journal of Material Culture, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 225-245.

Machado, J.C., Vacas-de-Carvalho, L., Azar, S.L., André, A.R. and dos Santos, B.P. (2019), “Brand gender and consumer-based brand equity on Facebook: the mediating role of consumer-brand engagement and brand love”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 96, pp. 376-385.

Maeng, A. and Aggarwal, P. (2018), “Facing dominance: anthropomorphism and the effect of product face ratio on consumer preference”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1104-1122.

Magee, J.C. and Langner, C.A. (2008), “How personalized and socialized power motivation facilitate antisocial and prosocial decision-making”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1547-1559.

Mandal, S., Sahay, A., Terron, A. and Mahto, K. (2021), “How implicit self-theories and dual-brand personalities enhance word-of-mouth”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1489-1515.

Mangold, S. and Zschau, T. (2019), “In search of the ‘good life’: the appeal of the tiny house lifestyle in the USA”, Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 26.

Maruyama, N.U. and Woosnam, K.M. (2021), “Representation of “mill girls” at a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Gunma, Japan”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 29 No. 2-3, pp. 277-294.

Mas, L., Bolls, P., Rodero, E., Barreda-Ángeles, M. and Churchill, A. (2021), “The impact of the sonic logo’s acoustic features on orienting responses, emotions and brand personality transmission”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 740-753.

Mason, M.F., Zhang, S. and Dyer, R.L. (2010), “Male susceptibility to attentional capture by power cues”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 482-485.

Mayeza, E. (2018), “Charmer boys’ and ‘cream girls’: how primary school children construct themselves as heterosexual subjects through football”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 128-141.

Maynard, M.L. and Taylor, C.R. (1999), “Girlish images across cultures: analyzing Japanese versus U.S. seventeen magazine ads”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 39-48.

Melzner, J. and Raghubir, P. (2023), “The sound of music: the effect of timbral sound quality in audio logos on brand personality perception”, Journal of Marketing Research, p. 222437221135188.

Miao, X.Y., Sun, X., Kuang, Y. and Wang, Z.J. (2021), “Co-experiencing the same negative emotional events promotes cooperation”, Acta Psychologica Sinica, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 81-94.

Michael, J. (2015), “It’s really not hip to be a hipster: negotiating trends and authenticity in the cultural field”, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 163-182.

Miller, L. (2011), “Cute masquerade and the pimping of Japan”, International Journal of Japanese Sociology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 18-29.

Mohiuddin, K.G.B., Gordon, R., Magee, C. and Lee, J.K. (2016), “A conceptual framework of cool for social marketing”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 121-143.

Monden, M. (2014), “Being Alice in Japan: performing a cute, ‘girlish’ revolt”, Japan Forum, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 265-285.

Monden, M. (2022), “Midnight Cinderella: amoral shōjo (girl) and Japanese girl culture”, The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 454-475.

Mora Cortez, R. and Ghosh Dastidar, A. (2022), “A longitudinal study of B2B customer engagement in LinkedIn: the role of brand personality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 145, pp. 92-105.

Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F. and Grohmann, B. (2015), “Brand authenticity: an integrative framework and measurement scale”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 200-218.

Motoki, K., Nakahara, T. and Velasco, C. (2023), “Tasting brands: associations between brand personality and tastes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 156, p. 113509.

Murnieks, C.Y., Cardon, M.S. and Haynie, J.M. (2020), “Fueling the fire: examining identity centrality, affective interpersonal commitment and gender as drivers of entrepreneurial passion”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 35 No. 1, p. 105909.

Ng, I., Winter, D.G. and Cardona, P. (2011), “Resource control and status as stimuli for arousing power motivation: an American-Chinese comparison”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 328-337.

Ocejo, R.E. (2017), “Masters of craft”, Masters of Craft, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Ocen, P.A. (2015), “(E)racing childhood: examining the racialized construction of childhood and innocence in the treatment of sexually exploited minors”, UCLA Law Review, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 1586-1640.

Oh, J., Robinson, H.R. and Lee, J.Y. (2013), “Page flipping vs. clicking: the impact of naturally mapped interaction technique on user learning and attitudes”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1334-1341.

Oyserman, D. (2009), “Identity-based motivation: implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 250-260.

Peck, J. and Shu, S.B. (2009), “The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 434-447.

Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2001), “Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 298-310.

Phau, I., Matthiesen, I.M. and Shimul, A.S. (2020), “Is HUGO still the boss? Investigating the reciprocal effects of brand extensions on brand personality of luxury brands”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 297-305.

Pierce, J., Kostova, T., Dirks, K. and Olin, J. (2003), “The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 84-107.

Popelnukha, A., Weng, Q., Ali, A. and Atamba, C. (2021), “When do low-power customers complain? The joint effects of chronic sense of personal power and complaint success on complaining intentions”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 101-118.

Pressey, A.D. and Harris, L.C. (2023), “When we practice to deceive: service worker manipulation and (mis)behavior on cruise ships”, Journal of Travel Research, p. 472875231153126.

Puligadda, S. and VanBergen, N. (2023), “The influence of sound logo instruments on brand personality perceptions: an investigation of brand ruggedness and sophistication”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 156, p. 113531.

Quartz, S. and Asp, A. (2015), “Cool: how the brain’s hidden quest for cool drives our economy and shapes our world”, Toshokan Zasshi, Vol. 140 No. 4, p. 103.

Quinn, D.M. and Chaudoir, S.R. (2009), “Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: the impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 634-651.

Raptis, D., Bruun, A., Kjeldskov, J. and Skov, M.B. (2017), “Converging coolness and investigating its relation to user experience”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 333-350.

Reed, A., Forehand, M.R., Puntoni, S. and Warlop, L. (2012), “Identity-based consumer behavior”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 310-321.

Rocha, C. (2021), “Cool Christianity: the fashion-celebrity-megachurch industrial complex”, Material Religion, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 580-602.

Rodero, E., Larrea, O. and Vázquez, M. (2013), “Male and female voices in commercials: analysis of effectiveness, adequacy for the product, attention and recall”, Sex Roles, Vol. 68 No. 5-6, pp. 349-362.

Roy, R. and Naidoo, V. (2021), “Enhancing chatbot effectiveness: the role of anthropomorphic conversational styles and time orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 126, pp. 23-34.

Rucker, D.D., Galinsky, A.D. and Dubois, D. (2012), “Power and consumer behavior: how power shapes who and what consumers value”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 352-368.

Runyan, R.C., Noh, M. and Mosier, J. (2013), “What is cool? Operationalizing the construct in an apparel context”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 322-340.

Rutter, R., Nadeau, J., Lettice, F., Lim, M. and Shamaisi, S. A (2018), “Place branding of seaports in the Middle East”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 197-212.

Samaha, S.A., Beck, J.T. and Palmatier, R.W. (2014), “The role of culture in international relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 78-98.

Sandberg, B., Hurmerinta, L., Leino, H.M. and Menzfeld, M. (2022), “Autonomy or security? Core value trade-offs and spillovers in servicescapes for vulnerable customers”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 9-28.

Sander, F., Föhl, U., Walter, N. and Demmer, V. (2021), “Green or social? An analysis of environmental and social sustainability advertising and its impact on brand personality, credibility and attitude”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 429-445.

Sangalang, A., Quintero Johnson, J.M. and Ciancio, K.E. (2013), “Exploring audience involvement with an interactive narrative: implications for incorporating transmedia storytelling into entertainment-education campaigns”, Critical Arts, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 127-146.

Schultheiss, O.C., Wirth, M.M., Waugh, C.E., Stanton, S.J., Meier, E.A. and Reuter-Lorenz, P. (2008), “Exploring the motivational brain: effects of implicit power motivation on brain activation in response to facial expressions of emotion”, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 333-343.

Sevin, E. (2016), “Branding cities in the age of social media: a comparative assessment of local government performance”, in Sobaci, M.Z. (Ed.), Social Media and Local Governments: Theory and Practice, Springer International Publishing, pp. 301-320.

Settles, I.H. (2004), “When multiple identities interfere: the role of identity centrality”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 487-500.

Shu, S.B. and Peck, J. (2011), “Psychological ownership and affective reaction: emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 439-452.

Shukla, P. (2011), “Impact of interpersonal influences, brand origin and brand image on luxury purchase intentions: measuring interfunctional interactions and a cross-national comparison”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 242-252.

Steers, R.M. and Braunstein, D.N. (1976), “A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in work settings”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 251-266.

Stets, J. and Burke, P. (2000), “Identity theory and social identity theory”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 224-237.

Stoeckart, P., Strick, M., Bijleveld, E. and Aarts, H. (2017), “The implicit power motive predicts action selection”, Psychological Research, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 560-570.

Stuppy, A., Mead, N.L. and Van Osselaer, S.M.J. (2020), “I am, therefore I buy: low self-esteem and the pursuit of self-verifying consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 956-973.

Styvén, M.E. (2010), “The need to touch: exploring the link between music involvement and tangibility preference”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 Nos 9/10, pp. 1088-1094.

Su, N. and Reynolds, D. (2017), “Effects of brand personality dimensions on consumers’ perceived self-image congruity and functional congruity with hotel brands”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 66, pp. 1-12.

Sundar, S.S., Tamul, D.J. and Wu, M. (2014), “Capturing ‘cool’: measures for assessing coolness of technological products”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 169-180.

Suzuki, S. and Kanno, S. (2022), “The role of brand coolness in the masstige co-branding of luxury and mass brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 149, pp. 240-249.

Tan, C.S. (2014), “ご当地キャラ (gotochikyara) & ゆるキャラ (yurukyara)-the fusion of pop culture in place branding in Japan”, UTCC International Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 73-89.

Tiwari, A.A., Chakraborty, A. and Maity, M. (2021), “Technology product coolness and its implication for brand love”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 58, p. 102258.

Tong, X., Su, J. and Xu, Y. (2018), “Brand personality and its impact on brand trust and brand commitment: an empirical study of luxury fashion brands”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 196-209.

Tran, X., Dauchez, C. and Szemik, A.M. (2013), “Hotel brand personality and brand quality”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 329-341.

Trump, R.K. and Newman, K.P. (2021), “Emotion regulation in the marketplace: the role of pleasant brand personalities”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 231-245.

Valette-Florence, R. and Valette-Florence, P. (2020), “Effects of emotions and brand personality on consumer commitment, via the mediating effects of brand trust and attachment”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 84-110.

Valor, C., Lloveras, J. and Papaoikonomou, E. (2021), “The role of emotion discourse and pathic stigma in the delegitimization of consumer practices”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 636-653.

Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J.L. (2004), “Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 439-459.

Vandewalle, D., Dyne, L.V. and Kostova, T. (1995), “Psychological ownership: an empirical examination of its consequences”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 210-226.

Villagra, N., Monfort, A. and Sánchez Herrera, J. (2021), “The mediating role of brand trust in the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 1153-1163.

Wagoner, J.A., Antonini, M., Hogg, M.A., Barbieri, B. and Talamo, A. (2018), “Identity-centrality, dimensions of uncertainty, and pursuit of subgroup autonomy: the case of Sardinia within Italy”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 582-589.

Wang, C.X. and Zhang, J. (2020), “Assertive ads for want or should? It depends on consumers’ power”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 466-485.

Wang, T., Wezel, F.C. and Forgues, B. (2016), “Protecting market identity: when and how do organizations respond to consumers’ devaluations?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 135-162.

Wang, W., Chen, C.H.S., Nguyen, B. and Shukla, P. (2020), “Collaboration between east and west: influence of consumer dialectical self on attitude towards co-brand personality traits”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1155-1180.

Wang, X., Wang, X., Fang, X. and Jiang, Q. (2018), “Power distance belief and brand personality evaluations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 84, pp. 89-99.

Warren, C. and Campbell, M.C. (2014), “What makes things cool? How autonomy influences perceived coolness”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 543-563.

Warren, C., Pezzuti, T. and Koley, S. (2018), “Is being emotionally inexpressive cool?”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 560-577.

Warren, C., Batra, R., Loureiro, S.M.C. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2019), “Brand coolness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 36-56.

Wertenbroch, K., Schrift, R.Y., Alba, J.W. and Zwebner, Y. et al. (2020), “Autonomy in consumer choice”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 429-439.

Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J. and Routledge, C. (2006), “Nostalgia: content, triggers, functions”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 975-993.

Willems, K. (2022), “Brand personality appeal in retailing: comparing fashion-and grocery retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 64, p. 102833.

Winter, D.G. (1992), “Power motivation revisited”, in Smith, C.P. (Ed.), Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Xin, B., Zhu, C. and Septianto, F. (2022), “The effects of mixed emotional appeals in leveraging paradox brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 153, pp. 266-275.

Yang, S., Isa, S.M., Ramayah, T., Blanes, R. and Kiumarsi, S. (2020), “The effects of destination brand personality on Chinese tourists’ revisit intention to Glasgow: an examination across gender”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 435-452.

Yin, E., Pol, G. and Tellis, G. (2014), “Understanding the concept of product coolness”, SCP’s Annual Winter Conference, pp. 240-242.

Youn, S. and Jin, S.V. (2021), “‘In A.I. we trust?’ The effects of parasocial interaction and technopian versus luddite ideological views on chatbot-based customer relationship management in the emerging ‘feeling economy’”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 119, p. 106721.

Yu, S., Levesque-Bristol, C. and Maeda, Y. (2018), “General need for autonomy and subjective well-being: a meta-analysis of studies in the US and East Asia”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1863-1882.

Zhang, Z. and Zhou, J. (2020), “Cognitive and neurological mechanisms of cuteness perception: a new perspective on moral education”, Mind, Brain and Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 209-219.

Zhang, Y., Winterich, K.P. and Mittal, V. (2010), “Power distance belief and impulsive buying”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 945-954.

Zhang, S.N., Li, Y.Q., Liu, C.H. and Ruan, W.Q. (2021), “Reconstruction of the relationship between traditional and emerging restaurant brand and customer WOM”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 94, p. 102879.

Zhou, X., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Shi, K. and Feng, C. (2012), “Nostalgia: the gift that keeps on giving”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Zuboff, S. (2015), “Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 75-89.

Further reading

Adikaram, A. and Weerakotuwa, S. (2022), “Scorned by men and pursued by women: sexual harassment of heterosexual working men”, Gender in Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 549-565.

Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E. and Schreier, M. (2010), “The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers’ product demand”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 65-79.

Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Holtzblatt, K. (2011), “What makes things cool? Intentional design for innovation”, Interactions, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 40-47.

Hosany, S. and Martin, D. (2012), “Self-image congruence in consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 685-691.

Kilbourne, J. (2004), “The more you subtract, the more you add: cutting girls down to size”, in Dines, G. and Humez, J.M. (Eds), Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader, 2nd ed., SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 258-267.

McCrae, R.R. (1992), “Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 39-55.

Molinillo, S., Japutra, A., Nguyen, B. and Chen, C.H.S. (2017), “Responsible brands vs active brands? An examination of brand personality on brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 166-179.

Rudmin, F.W. and Berry, J.W. (1987), “Semantics of ownership: a free-recall study of property”, The Psychological Record, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 257-268.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the JPBM review team for their helpful comments throughout the review process and acknowledge financial support from the National Nature Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 72172107 and 71532011).

Since acceptance of this article, the following author has updated her affiliation: Lijia Wang is at the College of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Wuhan Institute of Shipbuilding Technology, Wuhan, China.

Corresponding author

Yuanping Xu can be contacted at: latte.orange.1997.1017@gmail.com

About the authors

Wenting Feng, PhD, is an associate professor at the Gemmological Institute, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan, China. Her research papers have been published in several prestigious Chinese journals, including Acta Psychologica Sinica, Nankai Business Review and Management Review. Her research interests include brand management, consumer behavior and donation behavior. She also studies gender stereotypes and anthropomorphic communication of consumer decision process.

Yuanping Xu is a PhD student at the Department of Marketing, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. Her research interests include brand management, visual marketing and consumer behavior.

Lijia Wang is a teaching assistant at the Wuhan Institute of Shipbuilding Technology, Wuhan, China. Her research interests include green products, romantic relationship and consumer behavior.

Related articles