Original Article

The relationship between consumer

involvement and brand perceptions
of female cosmetic consumers
Received (in revised form): 18th July 2008

Michelle F. Guthrie
received her BS in both fashion merchandizing and business administration from the University of Delaware, Newark,
DE, USA. She is currently a graduate student in the Master of Science in Psychology program at Shippensburg University,
Shippensburg, PA, USA.

Hye-Shin Kim
is an associate professor in the Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies at the University of Delaware, Newark, DE,
USA. Her research interests are in consumer behavior, including areas of consumer involvement and interests,
word-of-mouth and shopping motivations.

ABSTRACT This study investigates young womens involvement with cosmetics using
Kapferer and Laurents consumer involvement profile (CIP). Using the CIP, five
cosmetic consumer types are identified and their perceptions for cosmetic brands
are compared. An electronic survey measuring consumer involvement, brand
personality and brand attitude was administered to a sample of female participants
at a mid-Atlantic university in the United States. Cluster analysis was used to identify
consumer types and multiple regression analysis was used to determine the
relationship between brand personality and brand attitude within each consumer
type for the three most popular American cosmetic brands identified for the female
sample. This study pinpointed five consumer involvement types for the young female
cosmetic market. Results showed that a combination of brand personalities predict
a positive brand attitude in every consumer type across all three cosmetic brands.
Interesting similarities, as well as differences, in brand perceptions were found across
consumer types and brands. Brand personality competence appeared as the most
common predictor of a positive brand attitude across all brands and consumer types.
This study shows that segmenting young females into cosmetic involvement types
can provide useful tools for marketers to better understand the dynamics of brand
perceptions in relation to consumer groups and specific cosmetic brands. In addition,
the results provide special insight into gauging consumer perceptions and developing
successful brand strategies.
Journal of Brand Management (2009) 17, 114133. doi:10.1057/bm.2008.28;
published online 18 July 2008
Correspondence:
Hye-Shin Kim
211 Alison Hall Addition,
Newark, DE 19716, USA
E-mail: hskim@udel.edu Keywords: consumer; cosmetics; product involvement; brand personality

2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers
INTRODUCTION
Consumer involvement is a motivational
state that can be used to understand con-
sumer attitudes towards products. Involve-
ment can be used to gauge the level of
product interest as well as the products
significance to the consumer. Because of its
function in enhancing the personal appear-
ance and style of consumers, cosmetic
products represent a type of product cate-
gory in which consumers are likely to be
involved in both the purchase and usage
process. The $33.5 billion dollar cosmetic
industry markets products to a broad con-
sumer base with a growing number of
products and brands.1
This study examines young female con-
sumers involvement with cosmetic prod-
ucts and how this involvement may
influence perceptions of brand personality
and brand attitude. Brand personality
reveals consumers opinions about brands
along human-like personality characteris-
tics, while brand attitude describes the
positive or negative feelings consumers
hold toward a specific brand. Examination
of brand personality allows a more detailed
understanding of consumer brand percep-
tions by further analyzing specific brand
traits that may enhance an understanding
of the product characteristics and/or brand
image. More importantly, assessments of
brand personality allow one to pinpoint
how consumers differentiate a particular
brand from its competitors. By studying
young female cosmetic consumers, we seek
to develop a better understanding of how
consumers, based on their varied interests
in products, differ in their perceptions of
brands.
BACKGROUND LITERATURE
Consumers and cosmetic products
In 2005, the cosmetics and toiletries industry
in the United States was a $33.5 billion
market with the top 10 companies (for
2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133
example Proctor and Gamble,2 LOral,
EsteLauder, Unilever, Limited Brands)
holding 63 per cent of the total industry
sales; the industry is projected to reach over
$39 billion in sales by 2010.1 Allure Catalyst
Report 2006 found that cosmetic consumers
spent almost the same amount annually on
beauty products ($1454) as they did on
clothing ($1940), thereby demonstrating the
importance of cosmetics.3 In addition,
almost all participants (97 per cent) used at
least one cosmetic product daily, averaging
7.4 products and 4.4 brands every day.
According to BuzzBack Market Research,
59 per cent of women indicated that their
personal appearance was important, ranking
their personal appearance above socializing
with friends (53 per cent), their career/job
(49 per cent) and fashion (19 per cent).4
When asked why they wear cosmetics, the
women participants answered: To feel
more attractive (46 per cent), To look my
best (46 per cent) and To brighten my
appearance (42 per cent).5 Surprisingly, the
womens top reasons for using cosmetics
related to their inner self-awareness, instead
of a need to impress others.
Reports on consumers brand loyalty to
cosmetic brands differ. An article published
in Retailing Today reports that the majority
of consumers had a brand preference when
choosing cosmetic products at big-box
retailers and superstores.6 On the other
hand, an Allure Catalyst Report 2006 study
found that only 19 per cent of consumers
perceived the cosmetic brand name to be
important during a purchase decision.3 The
low preference for brand names may be
attributed to the explosion of new cosmetic
products within the past years. The above
reports alone, however, show indications
of differing consumer behavior among cos-
metic consumers.
Consumer involvement
Consumer involvement originated from
ego involvement, which is based on ones
115
 Guthrie and Kim
association with an issue or object.7,8 High
ego involvement occurs when an issue or
object holds personal meaning and impor-
tance, relates to the self or evokes strong
feelings.7,9 Krugman, one of the first scholars
to apply Sherif et als ego involvement
theory to a marketing context, examined a
persons involvement with advertising.7,10
Since Krugmans work, several involve-
ment conceptualizations have emerged,
with involvement described as a combina-
tion of needs, values, interests and situa-
tional variables. Rothschild defines
involvement as a state of interest, motiva-
tion, or arousal, and Bloch as an unob-
servable state reflecting the amount of
interest, arousal, or emotional attachment a
consumer has with a product.11,12 Product
or consumer involvement has been identi-
fied as the products perceived importance
or personal relevance based on individual
needs and values.1318 Kapferer and Laurent
describe involvement as the state of motiva-
tion or arousal induced by factors such as
interest, pleasure, sign value and risk, while
Robertson expresses it as the strength of
the individuals belief system related to
product or brand attributes and Bloch and
Bruce emphasize the rewards and satisfac-
tion of product usage and involvement.1921
Emotional components of involvement
including self-expression, interest and plea-
sure have also been reported.2226 As such,
consumer involvement can be described as
the personal relationship one holds with a
product or situation and is determined by
both internal factors (for example values,
morals and attitudes) and external factors
(for example environment, products and
advertising).
Houston and Rothschild classify involve-
ment into three types: situational, enduring
and response.23 Also introduced as task
involvement by Clarke and Belk, situational
involvement (SI) describes temporary
arousal and interest induced by current
environmental factors (for example per-
116 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
ceived risk, price and durability of goods)
and accompanied by a decrease in involve-
ment-related behaviors once the situation
ends.13,22,24,25,27,28 Enduring involvement
(EI) represents the stable and long-term
arousal and interest with a product; EI
occurs with few products and is based on
past experience with the product and
important relevant values (for example self-
image and pleasure). Studies have con-
firmed Houston and Rothschilds SI and
EI, but not an interaction between SI and
EI, showing that consumers stable involve-
ment level is independent of the purchase
situation.23,25,29 Response or felt involve-
ment describes the combined effects of SI
and EI, and is the individuals overall per-
sonally relevant feelings that result from the
product and situation.16,23
When mastery of a product becomes
hedonic, EI often leads to leisure behavior,
such as shopping for, using and enjoying
fashion clothing and adornment products
like makeup.21 Leisure product enthusiasts,
who show high EI levels during leisure
activities, termed by Bloch as adornment-
related recreational activities (ARR), pos-
sess distinct characteristics such as testing
and talking about new grooming methods
with friends, obtaining new information on
adornments, maintaining and enhancing
products, as well as portraying the following
qualities: perceptual vigilance, innovative-
ness, interest and opinion leadership.12,21,30
They are motivated by extrinsic rewards
(for example physical attractiveness) and
intrinsic rewards (for example control and
self-esteem).31 Past research has confirmed
leisure activity is related to physical attrac-
tiveness, self-expression and self-image, and
power and control.30,3239 High involve-
ment ARR women (versus low involve-
ment ARR women) spent 8 min more per
day applying makeup, felt makeup applica-
tion was more pleasurable and rewarding,
and spent 60 per cent more on fashion
goods in the past 6 months.30
Vol. 17, 2, 114133
 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers
Lastovicka and Gardner first demon-
strated that the involvement level for the
same product varies by person, while Roth-
schild stated that high-involvement con-
sumers hold attitudes toward both brands
and products, but low-involvement con-
sumers display positive attitudes toward
only specific product classes.15,40 Con-
sumers exhibit high involvement and high
brand commitment when products and
brand attributes relate to their values and
needs, are perceived as important and/or
create feelings of uncertainty or risk.13,20,24,4043
Consumers show low involvement and low
brand commitment when products and
brands do not relate to their values, needs
or beliefs, and/or are not perceived as
important and risky.13,20,24,4042 High-
involvement consumers allot more time,
attention and effort when searching for
product information, processing product-
related information in ads and evaluating
brands.16,40,42,44 Previous studies show that
high- involvement users view larger differ-
ences between product attributes and
between competing same-product brands,
prefer one brand in the product class, dis-
play a higher level of product use and
engage in a more complex decision-making
process.15,18,21,41,44,45 Low-involvement
consumers use fewer attributes during
product and brand evaluations, spend less
time in brand name comparison and apply
simpler decision-making processes.15,42,44
Although low involvement implies little
motivation to consume and purchase a
product, Rothschild challenged the industry
to change focus from high- to low-involve-
ment consumers, asserting that new tech-
niques are needed to capture diverse
consumer markets.11
Scales conceptualizing involvement uni-
dimensionally measure several items simul-
taneously to derive one final involvement
score.15,18,28,30,42,43,46 Scales conceptualizing
involvement multidimensionally provide
individual scores representing each item to
2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133
create a more varied profile of the con-
sumer.22,24,47
In an extensive study, Kapferer and Lau-
rent identified five antecedents of involve-
ment interest, pleasure, sign, risk
importance and probability of error to
create the consumer involvement profile
(CIP).19 Interest refers to the interest and
importance in a product category, while
pleasure is the enjoyment derived from the
product purchase. Sign value is the char-
acter, personality and identity communi-
cated through the product class or brand.
Risk importance is the importance placed
on the outcome of a mispurchase. It rep-
resents how the consumer will feel if he/she
purchases the wrong product, for example,
upset, irritated or annoyed. Probability of
error measures feelings of uncertainty, based
on the likelihood of a mispurchase. These
five dimensions combine aspects of both EI
and SI.
The CIP allows marketers to understand
and segment markets along several multi-
dimensional factors. Using the CIP, Kap-
ferer and Laurent identified 10 consumer
profiles, demonstrating that consumers
differ in their type and level of involve-
ment.19 Only one-fourth of the sample
displayed low (9 per cent) and high involve-
ment (16 per cent); the remaining 75 per
cent of the sample represented eight other
profiles of varying dimensional magnitude,
showing that consumers involvement
levels differ based on interests, values and
motivations. Kapferer and Laurent empha-
size, It is precisely this unevenness of the
variables that creates a specific buying situ-
ation for the consumer.19
Brand personality
Brand personality, the group of human
characteristics that describe a specific brand,
is similar to human personality because
consumers ascribe human qualities to brand
names and often feel they relate to brands
in a personal way.48,49 Based on Tupes and
117
 Guthrie and Kim
Christals and Normans five human per-
sonality dimensions, Aaker created a five-
dimensional brand personality framework
to identify the traits consumers associate
with a brand, and developed the brand per-
sonality scale (BPS) to measure how con-
sumers use brands symbolically and
emotionally.50,51
Applying Malhortas product, person and
self-concepts scale, Aaker constructed a
personality trait scale from psychology and
marketing personality scales and her own
qualitative research study.52 Through a
series of scale development studies, Aaker
identified five dimensions of brand person-
ality: sincerity, excitement, competence,
sophistication and ruggedness. Aakers
Brand Personality Framework contains the
Big Five Dimensions described by 15 per-
sonality traits, as shown in Table 1.
Sincerity conveys warmth, acceptance,
honesty and caring qualities; excitement
portrays sociability, energy, activity and
youthfulness; while responsibility, depend-
ability and security describe competence.
Sophistication describes upper class, glam-
orous and sexy brands, and ruggedness
depicts brands with western American
qualities such as strength and masculinity.
Consumers may purchase brands reflecting
Table 1: Summary of Aakers brand personality
framework
Brand personality dimensions Items
Sincerity Down-to-earth
Honest
Wholesome
Cheerful
Excitement Daring
Spirited
Imaginative
Up-to-date
Competence Reliable
Intelligent
Successful
Sophistication Upper Class
Charming
Ruggedness Outdoorsy
Tough
118 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
their own personality or brands portraying
personalities they want to acquire.5254
Prior studies have also found that some
consumers prefer brands that match their
own personality, while others choose
brands that match the personality of the
situation.55,56 Brand personality, therefore,
allows a better understanding of consumers
brand perceptions, as well as how indi-
vidual and situational factors contribute to
brand preference.
Brand personality is associated with a
higher level of consumer emotional
response, higher levels of consumer trust
and loyalty, higher consumer preference
and usage, more self-expression and improved
product differentiation.49,52,54,55,5760 By
revealing the characteristics consumers
value, brand personality plays a determining
role in brand choice. Aaker et al examined
how the perceptions of sincerity and excite-
ment changed when consumers were disap-
pointed by the product or brand.61 Exciting
brands were found to be more resilient to
marketplace errors, whereas sincere brands
were more sensitive. Studies by Freling and
Forbes 62 and Kim63 found competence to
be an important personality dimension for
brands.
Brand personality influences consumer
attitudes towards a brand. In developing the
BPS, Aaker included only positively
valenced traits, explaining that the BPS
should measure how brand personality
influences the receptivity of a product.48
Studies confirm the positive relationships
between brand personality dimensions and
positive brand attitudes, purchase intentions
and brand associations.62,64
Studies exploring the relationship
between involvement and brand person-
ality are limited. Wysong et al found that
brand personality perceptions varied based
on consumers EI with beer products.65
Participants with high EI (versus low EI
participants) desired down-to-earth and
honest beers, both Sincerity traits, as well
Vol. 17, 2, 114133
 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers
as outdoorsy beers. Wysong et al believe
that high EI consumers differ from their
low EI counterparts because they possess
prior brand and product knowledge that
allows them to identify with a brands per-
sonality. CIP dimensions have been posi-
tively associated with brand loyalty, varying
according to product involvement: interest,
pleasure and sign determined brand loyalty
for a high-involvement product (shoes/
sneakers), whereas sign, pleasure and risk
importance contributed to brand loyalty for a
low-involvement product (ball-point pens).66
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to segment
young female consumers using consumer
involvement dimensions developed by
Kapferer and Laurent and to compare each
market segments perceptions of three pop-
ular cosmetic brands.67 This study seeks to
understand how each segment may hold
different impressions of brands based on
their product involvement profile and
brand personality associations. Implications
for marketers in appealing to the target
market, as well as developing brand images
are discussed.
METHODOLOGY
Data collection
An electronic survey was administered to a
randomly drawn list of 1000 female stu-
dents enrolled at a mid-Atlantic university
at the time of data collection. Two hundred
and twenty-five female students partici-
pated in the survey, resulting in a 22.5 per
cent response rate. The ages of the female
participants ranged between 18 and 49, and
82 per cent of the sample was 1822 years
of age. Undergraduate women students
represented 86 per cent of the sample pop-
ulation, while graduate students made up
12 per cent of the sample. Additionally, the
sample population represented 93 different
academic majors. The annual amount the
2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133
sample population spent on cosmetic pur-
chases was reported as follows: 40 per cent
spent under $50, 31 per cent spent $50
$100, 18 per cent spent $101$200, and 10
per cent spent more than $200 per year.
Measures
The electronic survey included items meas-
uring consumer involvement, brand per-
sonality, brand attitude and demographic
questions. Before the survey, a simple,
open-ended survey was conducted on 44
female subjects enrolled in an upper-level
undergraduate class to determine the three
most popular cosmetic brands used by
female students. In this pre-survey, students
were asked to list, in order of preference,
the cosmetic brands they use most often.
The top three brands identified from this
pre-survey were MAC, Clinique and
CoverGirl. These brands were used to
measure brand personality and brand atti-
tude in the electronic survey.
Brand personality and brand attitude
The brand personality scale was adapted
from Aakers BPS.48 Participants were
instructed to imagine each of the three
brands as possessing human qualities. The
participants rated, on a five-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree), the extent to which they felt each
personality trait described each brand. This
scale measured how the three cosmetic
brands were perceived along 15 brand per-
sonality traits. The personality traits included
qualities such as down-to-earth, daring,
reliable, upper class and tough. These 15
adjectives make up the Big Five dimensions
described previously (Sincerity, Excite-
ment, Competence, Sophistication and
Ruggedness). In measuring brand attitude,
participants were asked to rate the three
cosmetic brands using two five-point bi-
polar adjective scales (1 = very negative,
5 = very positive; 1 = strongly dislike, 5 =
strongly like). Mean scores were derived
119
 Guthrie and Kim
using items measuring each of the five brand
personality measures and brand attitudes.
Reliability statistics for the brand attitude
measure yielded a Cronbachs
range from
0.87 to 0.93 across the three brands. Brand
personality dimensions were considered
global indices and conceptually not appro-
priate to measure reliability statistics.
Consumer involvement
The consumer involvement scale was meas-
ured using Kapferer and Laurents CIP.67
The participants were asked to rate, on a
five-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree), how strongly
they disagree/agree with 16 statements
related to their involvement with cosmetics.
This scale measured the five antecedents of
consumer involvement described by Kap-
ferer and Laurent: interest, pleasure, sign,
risk importance and probability of error.
Table 2 lists the statements used in the scale
to measure each antecedent.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Confirmatory analysis of product
involvement dimensions
In order to validate the measurement prop-
erties of the consumer involvement scale,
an iteration of confirmatory factor analyses
was conducted (see Table 2).68,69 A 16-
item, five-dimension confirmatory factor
model was estimated using AMOS 6.0, and
inspection of fit indices was above accept-
able thresholds (2 = 196.43, DF = 94,
P = 0.000; GFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.95; RSMEA =
0.07). Convergent validity of items was
confirmed by sufficiently large factor load-
ings (0.60.96) and significant t values
(8.4716.73). Internal reliability was assessed
using Cronbachs
and ranged from 0.79
to 0.91. Reliabilities for all factors ranged
from 0.80 to 0.90. Discriminant validity
was confirmed by significant chi-square
differences between models that allowed
120 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
paired constructs to correlate and models
that constrained constructs correlation to
unity.70 Confirmatory factor analyses suc-
cessfully validated the items used to measure
the five consumer involvement dimensions.
Cluster analysis of consumer groups
Cluster analysis was conducted to examine
consumer market segments based on con-
sumer involvement dimensions. A two-step
clustering approach was employed using
both hierarchical and nonhierarchical
methods (for a discussion on cluster anal-
ysis, see Hair).71 First, using the mean scores
representing each of the consumer involve-
ment dimensions, a hierarchical cluster
analysis was performed using Wards
method and squared Euclidian distances.
Ranges of three to six cluster solutions
were tested and an examination of the den-
dogram and agglomeration schedule pro-
duced support for a five-cluster solution.
Next, using the hierarchical cluster
centers as initial seeds, a k-means cluster
analysis was performed. The final assign-
ment of cases to clusters resulted in five
clusters of n1 = 31, n2 = 47, n3 = 35, n4 = 66
and n5 = 36. As part of the analyses,
ANOVA models showed a significant dif-
ference in means across the five clusters
(F-values ranging from 41.59 to 108.18).
Table 3 provides the cluster means of the
means representing each consumer involve-
ment dimension and results from the Tukey
post hoc tests illustrating differences between
specific cluster means.
Consumer involvement groups
The characteristics of each cluster were
examined based on the consumer type
means, and labels were developed.
The uninterested and casual cosmetic
consumer
The means of interest, pleasure, sign and
risk importance were low, while the mean
Vol. 17, 2, 114133
 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers

Table 2: Confirmatory factor analysis results for consumer involvement

Consumer Items Coefficient Construct Variance Item t-value

involvement alpha reliability* extracted** loading
dimension

Interest I really enjoy buying cosmetics. 0.84 0.85 0.65 0.82

Whenever I buy cosmetics, it is 0.87 15.29
like giving myself a present.
To me, cosmetics are pleasurable. 0.89 15.76
Pleasure What cosmetics I purchase is 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.69
extremely important to me.
I am very interested in cosmetics. 0.91 12.06
I could not care less about 0.79 10.80
cosmetics. (reversed)
Sign I can tell a lot about a person 0.91 0.92 0.79 0.80
from the cosmetics she buys.
The cosmetic a person buys 0.96 16.73
reflects who she is.
The cosmetics I buy describe the 0.89 15.84
person I am.
Risk It is very irritating to buy 0.79 0.80 0.58 0.85
importance cosmetics that are not right.
It does not matter too much if I 0.91 8.40
make a mistake when buying
cosmetics. (reversed)
I am annoyed with myself if it 0.80 10.14
turns out that I made the
wrong choice when buying
cosmetics.
Probability of When I am in front of the 0.88 0.89 0.67 0.71
error cosmetics section, I always feel
unsure about which to choose.
When I buy cosmetics, I can 0.80 11.24
never be exactly sure if the
choice was right.
Choosing cosmetics is quite hard. 0.81 11.36
When I buy cosmetics I can never 0.92 12.61
be quite certain about my
choice.

*Construct reliability=(Standard loadings)2/(Standard loadings) 2 + Measurement error.

**Variance extracted=(Standard loadings2)/(Standard loadings2) + Measurement error.

of probability of error (M = 3.28) was The cautious and unconfident cosmetic

slightly greater than the mean. The unin-
terested and casual consumer does not
enjoy using cosmetic products. Uncon-
cerned with the negative outcomes of a
mispurchase and generally uninterested in
cosmetics, she does not feel threatened
when making a purchase and approaches
the decision with an easy-going and lacka-
daisical attitude.
consumer
This consumer type shows low interest,
pleasure and sign, with interest and pleasure
relatively close in value. Risk importance
and probability of error are the only high-
scoring dimensions. This consumer believes
purchasing the wrong cosmetic products is
very likely; therefore her uncertainty is
intensified. The cautious and unconfident

2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133 121
 Guthrie and Kim

consumer is the second-largest segment,

1 vs 2 vs 3,4 vs 5
1 vs 2 vs 4 vs 3,5

1 vs 4 vs 5,2 vs 3
comprising about 22 per cent of the total

1,4, 2 vs 3 vs 5

5 vs 4,1 vs 2,3
Tukeys post
sample.

hoc test
The aspiring cosmetic consumer
All mean scores for this consumer type are

Significance
extremely high, except for sign (M = 3.27),

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
of F
which falls slightly above the mean. Com-
pared to the interested and carefree con-
sumer below, this consumer displays higher
values on every dimension. Although

108.18
98.99
44.59
41.03
44.79
F-value

extremely interested in cosmetics, this con-

sumer feels inexperienced. She wants to
gain the knowledge, skill and confidence
that the interested and carefree consumer
Enthusiast

holds. The high-risk importance and prob-

(N=36)

4.49
4.40
3.96
3.60
2.12
ability of error show that her inexperience
contributes to her inability to choose cos-
metic products and her belief that pur-
chasing the wrong product will be
Interested and
carefree

(N=66)

detrimental.
3.75
3.94
2.15
2.99
3.05
Consumer cluster groups

The interested and carefree cosmetic

consumer
Aspiring

(N=35)

This consumer type portrays high interest

4.01
4.38
3.27
4.34
3.88

and pleasure, but a low sign value. The

means of both risk importance (M = 2.99)
Table 3: Results of cluster analysis and consumer involvement means

and probability of error (M = 3.05) center

around the mean. The interested and care-
Cautious and
unconfident

(N=47)

free consumer enjoys purchasing and using

2.69
2.89
2.21
3.72
3.83

cosmetic products, and due to the low sign

value, self-expression through cosmetics is
*Calculated mean score for consumer involvement.

minimal. This consumers casual attitude

results from the average risk importance
Uninterested
and casual

(N=31)

1.99*

and probability of error dimensions,

2.08
1.87
2.44
3.28

showing that she does not feel she is likely

to purchase the wrong product and will not
be upset if this occurs. This consumer type
represents 30.7 per cent of the sample, the
largest of the five clusters.
Consumer involvement

Probability of error
Risk importance

The enthusiast cosmetic consumer

dimension

Pleasure
Interest

All dimension means for the enthusiast

Sign

consumer were extremely high except for

122 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133
 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers
probability of error. This consumer is
extremely interested in, derives much
enjoyment from and expresses her identity
through cosmetic products. In addition, she
perceives the outcome of a mispurchase
negatively, but does not feel this is likely
to happen. This consumer type was
named the enthusiast cosmetic consumer
to describe her strong interaction with
cosmetics.
Comparison of consumer types
perceptions of cosmetic brands
Mean scores for brand attitude and brand
personality traits were calculated for each
consumer type across the three brands (see
Tables 4, 5 and 6). After determining
overall significance among consumer types
for each brand trait, a Tukeys post hoc test
established significant differences between
each consumer pair.
MAC displayed a significant differ-
ence among consumer types for 11 person-
ality variables. In terms of brand attitude,
the Tukeys post hoc test revealed type 1 to
be significantly different from types 3, 4
and 5, and types 2 and 3 to be significantly
different from type 5. Results showed
numerous significant differences between
consumer type means for brand personality
traits. There were significant differences for
types 1 and 5 for the 11 traits mentioned
above, while types 1 and 3 were signifi-
cantly different on nine personality traits.
Significant differences did not exist in
brand attitude among the five consumer
types for the Clinique brand. F-scores
revealed significant differences for only four
personality traits: honest, wholesome,
cheerful and intelligent. There were sig-
nificant differences in the mean scores of
all four brand personality traits for type 1
versus types 3 and 5. For honest and whole-
some traits, types 2 and 4 were significantly
different from type 5.
CoverGirl results did not demonstrate
a significant difference among consumer
2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133
types for brand attitude, but a significant
difference was found for one brand person-
ality trait: spirited. Unlike MAC and
Clinique, the CoverGirl brand did not
generate a large number of brand person-
ality differences among the five consumer
types.
Relationship between brand
personality and brand attitude
for consumer types
An exploratory stepwise regression was
conducted on brand attitude and brand per-
sonality perceptions for each consumer
type. Stepwise regression allows an efficient
means to develop regression models in
which the choice of predictive variables is
determined through an automatic proce-
dure using a sequence of F-tests. Due to
the high number of brand personality var-
iables that represented the five brand per-
sonality dimensions, the researchers used
this method to improve an understanding
of how individual brand personality varia-
bles could predict brand attitude. Tables 7,
8 and 9 provide a summary of the results
by brand.
Significant brand personality and brand
attitude relationships existed for every con-
sumer type across all three cosmetic brands.
Within each consumer group, certain pat-
terns in terms of brand personality traits that
represent specific dimensions were signifi-
cant predictors of brand attitude. The brand
personality traits representing each dimen-
sion, however, differed by brand and con-
sumer type.
For the MAC brand, although the
excitement personality dimension was sig-
nificantly related to positive brand attitude
for three consumer types, the brand per-
sonality traits representing each significant
excitement dimension differed. For example,
for the uninterested and casual consumer,
imaginative was a positive predictor of brand
attitude, whereas spirited was a positive pre-
dictor for the aspiring cosmetic consumer
123
124
Guthrie and Kim

Table 4: Means scores and ANOVA results for the MAC brand

Brand personality traits Consumer cluster groups F Tukeys post hoc

Uninterested and Cautious and Aspiring Interested and Enthusiast

casual unconfident carefree

Subset for
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD alpha=0.05

Brand attitude 3.13 0.72 3.47 0.80 3.77 1.03 3.95 0.87 4.44 0.81 12.13*** 1 vs 3,4,5
2,3 vs 5
Down-to-earth 2.93 0.74 2.89 0.87 2.51 1.17 2.64 0.91 2.39 1.05 2.26
Honest 3.00 0.53 3.13 0.58 3.00 1.03 3.06 0.73 3.22 0.96 0.52
Wholesome 2.80 0.76 2.87 0.71 2.47 1.16 2.62 0.67 2.81 1.04 1.46
Cheerful 3.23 0.73 3.53 0.72 3.41 0.86 3.44 0.84 3.97 0.81 4.18** 1,3,4 vs 5
Daring 3.33 0.88 3.81 0.85 4.14 0.94 3.85 0.98 4.67 0.68 10.411*** 1 vs 3,5
2,4 vs 5
Spirited 3.40 0.72 3.77 0.73 3.97 0.82 3.77 0.92 4.44 0.77 7.51*** 1 vs 3,5

2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management

2,4 vs 5
Imaginative 3.30 0.75 3.65 0.90 4.29 0.71 3.88 0.94 4.58 0.73 12.64*** 1 vs 4,3,5
2 vs 3,5
4 vs 5
Up-to-date 3.47 0.97 4.06 0.87 4.31 0.87 4.15 0.90 4.69 0.52 9.05*** 1 vs 2,4,3,5

Vol. 17, 2, 114133

2,4 vs 5
Reliable 3.00 0.69 3.51 0.78 3.74 0.89 3.65 0.90 4.22 0.83 9.20*** 1 vs 4,3,5
2,4 vs 5
Intelligent 3.07 0.74 3.43 0.74 3.29 1.02 3.41 0.84 4.03 0.86 6.06*** 1,3,4,2 vs 5
Successful 3.23 0.86 3.62 0.90 3.86 0.88 3.88 0.83 4.43 0.70 9.05*** 1 vs 3,4,5
3,4 vs 5
Upper Class 3.30 0.99 3.60 1.06 4.06 1.03 3.92 0.92 4.47 0.77 7.58*** 1 vs 4,3,5
2 vs 5
Charming 2.83 0.54 3.30 0.75 3.60 0.95 3.36 0.80 3.94 1.04 8.01*** 1 vs 4,3,5
2,4 vs 5
Outdoorsy 2.69 0.85 2.38 1.03 1.91 1.12 1.97 0.82 1.91 0.89 4.81** 3,5,4 vs 1
Tough 2.67 0.71 2.79 1.06 2.26 1.27 2.50 0.96 2.86 1.35 1.88

*Significance of F at 0.05 level, **significance of F at 0.01 level, ***significance of F at 0.001 level.

 Table 5: Means scores and ANOVA results for clinique brand

Brand personality Consumer cluster groups F Tukeys post

traits hoc

Uninterested and Cautious and Aspiring Interested and Enthusiast

casual unconfident carefree

Subset for
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD alpha=0.05

Brand Attitude 3.52 0.72 3.91 0.88 4.26 0.74 3.91 0.84 3.94 0.86 3.36 1 vs 3
Down-to-earth 3.37 1.03 3.66 1.01 3.91 0.92 3.68 0.93 4.14 0.80 3.24 1 vs 5
Honest 3.63 0.76 3.72 0.83 4.14 0.69 3.67 0.88 4.22 0.59 5.06** 1 vs 3,5
4,2 vs 5
Wholesome 3.57 1.04 3.83 0.73 4.09 0.82 3.79 0.83 4.33 0.59 4.75** 1 vs 3,5
4,2 vs 5
Cheerful 3.50 0.86 3.85 0.81 4.17 0.62 3.88 0.83 4.11 0.72 3.73* 1 vs 5,3
Daring 2.87 0.63 2.91 0.86 2.86 0.97 2.79 0.77 2.58 0.94 0.91
Spirited 3.33 0.71 3.38 0.77 3.49 0.92 3.36 0.80 3.17 1.00 0.68

2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133

Imaginative 3.13 0.97 3.11 0.94 3.44 0.89 3.18 0.80 3.08 1.08 0.87
Up-to-date 4.00 0.64 3.98 0.71 4.00 0.64 3.76 0.99 3.67 0.76 1.55
Reliable 3.90 0.92 4.11 0.87 4.40 0.55 3.98 0.79 4.28 0.51 2.75 1 vs 3
Intelligent 3.60 0.81 3.81 0.85 4.26 0.61 3.80 0.79 4.18 0.76 4.46** 1 vs 5,3
Successful 3.83 0.95 4.13 0.77 4.34 0.64 4.12 0.77 4.31 0.75 2.18 1 vs 5,3
Upper Class 3.57 0.94 3.74 1.03 3.86 0.91 3.88 0.90 4.14 0.87 1.71
Charming 3.53 0.68 3.62 0.72 3.74 0.82 3.64 0.76 3.89 0.67 1.22
Outdoorsy 2.45 1.12 2.38 1.05 2.57 0.92 2.42 0.93 2.44 1.05 0.19
Tough 2.38 1.24 2.30 0.91 2.26 0.92 2.23 0.96 2.20 0.96 0.17

*Significance of F at 0.05 level, **significance of F at 0.01 level, ***significance of F at 0.001 level.

Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers

125
126
Guthrie and Kim

Table 6: Means scores and ANOVA results for CoverGirl brand

Brand personality traits Consumer cluster groups F Tukeys post hoc

Uninterested and Cautious and Aspiring Interested and Enthusiast

casual unconfident carefree

Subset for
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD alpha=0.05

Brand attitude 3.48 0.77 3.79 0.69 3.74 0.70 3.82 0.99 3.31 0.98 2.77
Down-to-earth 3.62 1.05 3.87 0.92 4.00 0.59 3.86 0.72 4.11 0.75 1.66
Honest 3.30 0.84 3.74 0.85 3.74 0.85 3.61 0.89 4.06 0.63 3.66
Wholesome 3.53 0.73 3.72 0.83 3.86 0.85 3.58 0.91 3.89 0.71 1.47

2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management

Cheerful 3.73 0.78 4.17 0.64 4.09 0.70 3.76 0.84 3.94 0.67 3.03
Daring 2.97 0.96 3.28 0.97 3.14 0.94 3.12 0.97 2.81 1.01 1.36
Spirited 3.33 0.96 3.89 0.67 3.57 0.81 3.32 0.95 3.17 0.94 4.65** 5,4,1 vs2
Imaginative 3.23 0.97 3.47 0.97 3.31 0.83 3.21 0.94 3.00 0.96 1.34
Up-to-date 3.53 0.94 3.81 0.80 3.83 0.79 3.77 0.87 3.42 0.97 1.71

Vol. 17, 2, 114133

Reliable 3.67 0.80 3.79 0.83 3.83 0.86 3.71 0.89 3.50 0.85 0.82
Intelligent 3.47 0.82 3.40 0.85 3.46 0.89 3.29 0.82 3.44 0.81 0.4
Successful 3.43 0.94 3.74 0.88 3.69 0.96 3.56 0.84 3.53 0.97 0.69
Upper Class 2.67 0.88 2.74 0.94 2.46 0.92 2.64 0.87 2.36 1.10 1.12
Charming 3.40 0.93 3.72 0.71 3.46 0.89 3.41 0.78 3.17 0.77 2.52 5 vs 2
Outdoorsy 2.67 0.92 2.74 1.20 2.66 1.00 2.74 1.05 2.69 0.86 0.06
Tough 2.43 0.90 2.50 1.01 2.43 0.74 2.58 1.07 2.14 0.73 1.32

*Significance of F at 0.05 level, **significance of F at 0.01 level, ***significance of F at 0.001 level.

 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers

and interested and carefree consumers. Inter-
estingly, brand personality traits repre-
senting the ruggedness dimension were
positive predictors for the uninterested and
casual cosmetic consumer and aspiring cos-
metic consumer, but a negative predictor
for the enthusiast cosmetic consumer. The
interested and carefree consumer showed only
one brand personality, spirited, to be posi-
tively linked to brand attitude, whereas four
brand personality traits were identified to
be significant for the enthusiast consumer.
For the Clinique brand, results showed
the brand personality dimensions of compe-
tence and sincerity to be significantly related
to brand attitude. Brand personality traits
representing the competence and sincerity
dimensions were found to be significant
predictors of brand attitude for three con-
sumer types, and brand personality traits
representing at least one of these two
dimensions were significant for the
remaining two consumer types. For
example, for the interested and carefree con-
sumer, two brand personality traits repre-
senting the sincerity dimension were found
to be predictors of brand attitude. On the
other hand, for the enthusiast consumer,
brand personality traits representing the
competence and excitement dimensions were
predictors of positive brand attitude. Similar
to the MAC brand, the brand personality
traits representing each of the dimensions
differed.
For the CoverGirl brand, brand per-
sonality traits representing the competence
dimension were significantly related to
positive brand attitude for all consumer
types. Similar to MAC and Clinique,
the brand personality traits predicting brand
attitude differed. For example, reliable was
a positive predictor of brand attitude for
the uninterested and casual consumer type,
whereas intelligent was a positive predictor
for the cautious and unconfident consumer
type. For the uninterested and casual con-
sumer, only one brand personality, reliable,
was a predictor of brand attitude. For the
cautious and unconfident consumer, four
brand personality traits were significant pre-
dictors of brand attitude, while the brand
personality trait daring was a negative

Table 7: Regression results for MAC brand

Cosmetic Brand Brand B Standard Beta t-value Model

consumer personality personality error summary
type trait dimension

Uninterested Imaginative Excitement 0.491 0.145 0.574 3.373** R2=0.405

and casual
Outdoorsy Ruggedness 0.446 0.124 0.610 3.583** Adj R2=0.358
Cautious and Reliable Competence 0.502 0.117 0.508 4.304*** R2=0.546
unconfident
Cheerful Sincerity 0.366 0.126 0.342 2.901** Adj R2=0.525
Aspiring Tough Ruggedness 0.255 0.111 0.301 2.289* R2=0.532
cosmetic
Reliable Competence 0.519 0.171 0.431 3.043** Adj R2=0.482
Spirited Excitement 0.405 0.187 0.311 2.163*
Interested Spirited Excitement 0.345 0.101 0.401 3.418** R2=0.161
and carefree
Adj R2=0.147
Enthusiast Outdoorsy Ruggedness 0.362 0.116 0.394 3.109** R2=0.693
Up-to-date Excitement 0.961 0.167 0.616 5.767*** Adj R2=0.649
Down-to-earth Sincerity 0.297 0.112 0.356 2.653*
Wholesome Sincerity 0.239 0.105 0.305 2.267*

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133 127
 Guthrie and Kim
predictor of brand attitude. For the enthu-
siast consumer type, the brand personality
dimension of excitement was a positive pre-
dictor of brand attitude.
As indicated in the prior section, results
showed higher similarity among brand per-
ceptions for the five consumer types within
each brand; however, similar perceptions
do exist across the brands for each con-
sumer type. Overall, the brand personality
traits representing the dimension of compe-
tence were most frequently found to be a
positive predictor of brand attitude across
brands and consumer types. For the unin-
terested and casual consumer, the reliable
brand personality trait (competence dimen-
sion) positively predicted brand attitude for
both Clinique and CoverGirl brands.
For the cautious and unconfident consumer,
competence and sincerity brand dimensions
were predictive of positive brand attitudes
in every brand; however, the brand per-
sonality traits representing the competence
dimension were similar for MAC and
Clinique (reliable) compared to Cover-
Girl (intelligent and successful). The aspiring
consumer perceived competence as significant
to positive brand attitude, although specific
traits differed by brand. The enthusiast con-
sumer associated the excitement dimension
with a positive brand personality in every
brand, except in the Clinique brand where
the daring trait of the excitement dimension
demonstrated a negative relationship with
brand attitude. Additionally, for the enthu-
siast consumer, the competence and excitement
dimensions, represented by the respective
personality traits successful and imaginative,
held significant positive brand attitude rela-
tionships for Clinique and CoverGirl.
IMPLICATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS
Using five dimensions of product involve-
ment, this study successfully identified five
cosmetic consumer types (uninterested and
casual, cautious and confident, aspiring, inter-
128 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
ested and carefree, and enthusiast), each dif-
fering in their perceptions related to
personal interest and importance, enjoy-
ment and pleasure associated with the
product, sensitivity to making the right
cosmetic product choices and confidence
in cosmetic buying decisions. Using Kap-
ferer and Laurents CIP, this study con-
firmed that each of these consumer types
were significantly different in their product
involvement.
Compared to other studies that examine
the intensity of product involvement uni-
dimensionally (for example low, medium
and high), this study provides a more com-
plex analysis of product involvement using
Kapferer and Laurents five CIP dimen-
sions.18,26,30,46,67 Kapferer and Laurents 10
consumer profiles, obtained from 20 dif-
ferent product categories, resemble the
consumer types in this study.19,24 The min-
imal (low) involvement and total (high) involve-
ment consumers are each comparable to the
uninterested and casual and enthusiast cosmetic
consumers identified in this study. Further-
more, the cautious and unconfident cosmetic
consumer is similar to Kapferer and Lau-
rents undramatized risk profile, as both dis-
play low interest, pleasure and sign factors
relatively close in value to each other, with
high risk importance. The aspiring cosmetic
consumer resembles the need for expertise
consumer, who places high on all variables
except for sign, which falls slightly below
the mean. Finally, the interested and carefree
consumer parallels Kapferer and Laurents
pleasure involvement profile because both
portray high interest and pleasure, an about
average risk value and low sign value.
Although Kapferer and Laurent identified
10 involvement profiles, most products
were distributed between three and five of
the 10 segments. Kim also segmented con-
sumers according to CIP dimensions by
identifying five apparel involvement groups
and further measuring the personal values
of these groups.72 Unlike our study, Kim
Vol. 17, 2, 114133
 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers

Table 8: Regression results for Clinique brand

Cosmetic Brand Brand B SE Beta t-value Model summary

consumer personality personality
type trait dimension

Uninterested Reliable Competence 0.290 0.131 0.368 2.207* R2=0.346

and casual
Wholesome Sincerity 0.245 0.114 0.359 2.15* Adj R2=0.295
Cautious and Reliable Competence 0.327 0.147 0.372 2.224* R2=0.438
unconfident
Honest Sincerity 0.307 0.150 0.343 2.05* Adj R2=0.411
Aspiring Honest Sincerity 0.460 0.138 0.479 3.325** R2=0.432
Successful Competence 0.351 0.153 0.331 2.298* Adj R2=0.394
Interested and Cheerful Sincerity 0.345 0.112 0.369 3.087** R2=0.310
carefree
Down-to-earth Sincerity 0.233 0.100 0.279 2.332* Adj R2=0.288
Enthusiast Successful Competence 0.319 0.148 0.329 2.16* R2=0.458
Imaginative Excitement 0.383 0.120 0.578 3.195** Adj R2=0.400
Daring Excitement 0.267 0.124 0.36 2.143*

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Table 9: Regression results for CoverGirl brand

Cosmetic Brand Brand B Standard Beta t-value Model summary

consumer type personality trait personality error
dimension

Uninterested Reliable Competence 0.389 0.143 0.464 2.719* R2=0.215

and casual
Adj R2=0.186
Cautious and Intelligent Competence 0.296 0.088 0.357 3.365** R2=0.684
unconfident
Honest Sincerity 0.271 0.078 0.341 3.497** Adj R2=0.652
Successful Competence 0.340 0.082 0.441 4.159***
Daring Excitement 0.154 0.069 0.219 2.234*
Aspiring Intelligent Competence 0.294 0.112 0.377 2.624* R2=0.552
Charming Sophistication 0.381 0.117 0.467 3.251** Adj R2=0.523
Interested and Reliable Competence 0.750 0.076 0.761 9.854*** R2=0.649
carefree
Upper class Sophistication 0.157 0.078 0.155 2.012* Adj R2=0.637
Enthusiast Successful Competence 0.264 0.122 0.274 2.164* R2=0.580
Upper class Sophistication 0.391 0.111 0.458 3.522** Adj R2=0.539
Imaginative Excitement 0.318 0.117 0.326 2.716*

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

found pleasure and interest, as well as per-
ceived importance and risk, to load on one
factor, providing only three CIP dimen-
sions.72 Our cosmetic involvement types
are similar to those identified in Kims
study.72 Kims indifferent moderate showed
values all below the mean, paralleling the
uninterested and casual cosmetic consumer,
while the knowledged enthusiast, who scored
high on all dimensions except probability
of error, is similar to the enthusiast cosmetic
consumer. The cautious moderate and cautious
and unconfident type both display high risk
importance and low pleasure/interest, while
the challenged enthusiast resembles the inter-
ested and carefree type, both of whom show

2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133 129
 Guthrie and Kim
high interest/pleasure, risk importance and
probability of error located near the mean.
This study demonstrates that five consumer
involvement types are successful in describing
the young female cosmetic market.
Results in our study show that the five
consumer types differed in how they per-
ceived brands, especially the MAC and
Clinique brands. These results provide
strong evidence that consumers with var-
ying levels of product involvement view
brands very differently, justifying a need to
use diverse marketing approaches based on
impressions formed for a particular brand,
as well as a consumers involvement with
cosmetic products.
In this particular study, brand personality
is used to identify how various consumer
groups perceive the human characteristics
of each cosmetic brand, contributing to
consumers impressions of brand image.
According to Keller, brand image may
comprise several types of brand associations,
including product-related and nonproduct-
related attributes, certain benefits (for
example symbolic, functional and experi-
ential) and overall consumer brand atti-
tudes.73 As such, each brand personality
trait associated with the cosmetic brands
can be associated with product-related and
nonproduct-related attributes. Although
examining the relationship between spe-
cific product attributes and brand person-
ality traits was beyond the scope of the
current study, possible relationships between
various attributes may be considered. For
example, the brand personality traits compe-
tence and intelligence may reflect the quality
and performance aspect of the product or
brand. Also, the brand personality trait
upper class may symbolically reflect the user
of the product/brand and the brands usage
situation. Brand personality provides a way
for consumers to formulate specific impres-
sions of a particular brand, in which con-
sumers may relate to the brand in a very
personal way.
130 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
Our findings concerning which brand
personalities predict brand attitude provide
further evidence of the dynamic relation-
ship between brand personality and brand
attitude and how this differs based on a
consumers involvement with the product
category under consideration. Similar to
findings in other studies, certain brand
characteristics appealed across consumer
groups and across brands.55,56,62,63 In gen-
eral, we found the brand personality traits
representing the dimensions of competence
and sincerity to be significant predictors of
brand attitude. As noted in prior sections,
the many brand personality traits repre-
senting each brand personality dimension,
however, differed. For example, for the
Clinique brand, the successful brand per-
sonality trait was a significant predictor of
brand attitude for the aspiring and enthusiast
consumer types. On the other hand, reliable
was a significant predictor for brand attitude
for the uninterested and casual and cautious
and unconfident consumer types. The finer
differences in how each consumer type
views cosmetic brands provide marketers
with valuable information and detail as to
the brand characteristics that appeal to each
consumer type.
Our study provides evidence that
although similar general impressions can be
formed, not all consumer types view the
same brand alike. Within each brand, each
consumer type showed a different set of
brand personality traits that predicted brand
attitude, furthering evidence of distinctive
consumer behavior based on product
involvement. For the marketer, under-
standing the patterns of brand perceptions
based on brand and consumer type will
provide valuable information to formulate
appropriate marketing strategies related to
developing brand images and appeals. By
understanding how involvement with cos-
metics relates to brand perceptions, mar-
keters can pinpoint a specific consumer
market, uncover the brand personalities
Vol. 17, 2, 114133
 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers
associated with a positive brand attitude and
construct the cosmetic brand marketing
strategy accordingly. Additionally, brand
personality can be used to measure how
market segments perceive competitor
brands. Freling and Forbes maintain that
the strong, positive brand personality,
which creates a more favorable brand atti-
tude, should be used to differentiate prod-
ucts to consumer markets.62 Aaker suggests
assessing the effect of marketing variables
(for example advertising, packaging, price
and so on) on perceptions of brand person-
ality dimensions, as well as manipulating
brand personality dimensions to determine
their influence on marketing variables.48
The limitations of this study are noted.
Data from this study were collected from
female college students in the United States
and the three most popular cosmetic brands
for this particular consumer market. Fur-
ther research is recommended in order to
cover a broader cosmetic consumer market
in terms of age. Also, as cosmetics are mar-
keted globally in many countries, cultural
differences as to how brand personality may
be assigned to the brands are important.
Finally, research on a broader selection of
cosmetic brands would further our under-
standing of brand personality and cosmetic
products.
REFERENCES
(1) Kline and Company. (2006) Cosmetics and toi-
letries USA 2005. Available at http://www.kline
group.com/reports/brochures/cia4d/brochure
.pdf.
(2) All brand names with notations are registered
trademarks of their respective owners.
(3) OLoughlin, S. (2006) Promiscuous housewives
desperate for new brands: Women willing
to experiment when buying beauty products.
Brandweek 47(25): 9.
(4) BuzzBack Market Research. (2006) Exploring
Beauty: Her Self-image, Attitudes, and Beliefs. New
York, Available from http://www.buzzback.com.
(5) EPM Communications. (2006) Womens desire
for better, or at least different, appearances
drives beauty product sales. Research Alert
24(11): 1.
2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133
(6) Craig, T. (ed.) (2006) State of brands: The blurring
of retail channels and the evolution of brands.
Retailing Today 45(19): 29.
(7) Sherif, C.W., Sherif, M. and Nebergall, R.E.
(1965) Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social
Judgment-Involvement Approach. Philadelphia, PA:
Saunders.
(8) Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. (1967) Attitude as the
individuals own categories: The social judgment-
involvement approach to attitude and attitude
change. In: C.W. Sherif and M. Sherif (eds.)
Attitude, Ego Involvement, and Change. New York,
NY: Wiley, pp. 105139.
(9) Sherif, C.W., Merrilea, K., Rodgers Jr, H.L.,
Sarup, G. and Tittler, B.I. (1973) Personal
involvement, social judgment, and action.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27(3):
311328.
(10) Krugman, H.E. (1966/1967) The measurement of
advertising involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly
30(4): 583596.
(11) Rothschild, M.L. (1984) Perspectives on involve-
ment: Current problems and future directions.
Advances in Consumer Research 11(1): 216217.
(12) Bloch, P.H. (1986) The product enthusiast: Impli-
cations for marketing strategy. The Journal of
Consumer Marketing 3(3): 5162.
(13) Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983) A theo-
retical model for the study of product importance
perceptions. Journal of Marketing 47(3): 6981.
(14) Hupfer, N.T. and Gardner, D.M. (1971)
Different involvement with products and issues:
An exploratory study. In: D.M. Gardner (ed.)
Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of
the Association for Consumer Research. College
Park, MD: Association for Consumer Research,
pp. 262269.
(15) Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D.M. (1979a)
Components of involvement. In: J.C. Maloney
and B. Silverman (eds.) Attitude Research Plays for
High Stakes. Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association, pp. 5373.
(16) Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988) The role of
involvement in attention and comprehension
processes. The Journal of Consumer Research 15(2):
210224.
(17) Tyebjee, T.T. (1979) Refinement of the involve-
ment concept: An advertising planning point of
view. In J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman (eds.)
Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes. Chicago, IL:
American Marketing Association, pp. 94111.
(18) Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985) Measuring the involve-
ment construct. The Journal of Consumer Research
12(3): 341352.
(19) Kapferer, J. and Laurent, G. (1985/1986) Con-
sumer involvement profiles: A new practical
approach to consumer involvement. Journal of
Advertising Research 25(6): 4856.
(20) Robertson, T.S. (1976) Low-commitment con-
sumer behavior. Journal of Advertising Research
16(2): 1924.
131
 Guthrie and Kim
(21) Bloch, P.H. and Bruce, G.D. (1986) Product
involvement as leisure behavior. Advances in
Consumer Research 13(1): 539543.
(22) Higie, R.A. and Feick, L.F. (1989) Enduring
involvement: Conceptual and measurement issues.
Advances in Consumer Research 16(1): 690696.
(23) Houston, M.J. and Rothschild, M.L. (1978)
Conceptual and methodological perspectives in
involvement. In: S.C. Jain (ed.) Research Frontiers
in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions. Chicago, IL:
American Marketing Association, pp. 184187.
(24) Kapferer, J. and Laurent, G. (1985) Consumers
involvement profile: New empirical results.
Advances in Consumer Research 12(1): 290295.
(25) Richins, M.L. and Bloch, P.H. (1986) After the
new wears off: The temporal context of product
involvement. The Journal of Consumer Research
13(2): 280285.
(26) Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994) Research notes: The
personal involvement inventory: Reduction,
revision, and application to advertising. Journal of
Advertising 23(4): 5970.
(27) Clarke, K. and Belk, R.W. (1979) The effects of
product involvement and task definition on antic-
ipated consumer effort. Advances in Consumer
Research 6(1): 313318.
(28) Bloch, P.H. (1981) An exploration into the scaling
of consumers involvement with a product class.
Advances in Consumer Research 8(1): 6165.
(29) Richins, M.L., Bloch, P.H. and McQuarrie, E.F.
(1992) How enduring and situational involvement
combine to create involvement responses. Journal
of Consumer Psychology 1(2): 143153.
(30) Bloch, P.H. (1993) Involvement with adornments
as leisure behavior: An exploratory study. Journal
of Leisure Research 25(3): 245262.
(31) Neulinger, J. (1981) To Leisure: An Introduction.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
(32) Brown, T.A., Cash, T.F. and Noles, S.W. (1986)
Perceptions of physical attractiveness among col-
lege students: Selected determinants and meth-
odological matters. The Journal of Social Psychology
126(3): 305316.
(33) McDonald, P.J. and Eilenfield, V.C. (1980)
Physical attractiveness and the approach/avoidance
of self-awareness. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 6(3): 391395.
(34) Cash, T.F. and Cash, D.W. (1982) Womens use
of cosmetics: Psychosocial correlates and
consequences. International Journal of Cosmetic
Science 4: 113.
(35) Creekmore, A.M. (1963) Clothing behaviors and
their relation to general values and to the striving
for basic needs. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA.
(36) Creekmore, A.M. (1974) Clothing Related to
Body Satisfaction and Perceived Peer Self. Research
Report 239, Technical Bulletin, Agricultural Exper-
imental Station, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.
132 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management
(37) Kelly, J.R. (1983) Leisure Identities and Interactions.
London: George Allen.
(38) Cash, T.F., Dawson, K., Davis, P., Bowen, M.
and Galumbeck, C. (1989) Effects of cosmetics
use on the physical attractiveness and body image
of American college women. Journal of Social
Psychology 129(3): 349355.
(39) Freedman, R.J. (1986) Beauty Bound. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
(40) Rothschild, M.L. (1979) Advertising strategies for
high and low involvement situations. In: J.C.
Maloney and B. Silverman (eds.) Attitude Research
Plays for High Stakes. Chicago, IL: American
Marketing Association, pp. 7493.
(41) Lastovicka, J.L. (1979) Questioning the concept
of involvement defined product classes. Advances
in Consumer Research 6(1): 174179.
(42) Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D.M. (1979b) Low
involvement versus high involvement cognitive
structures. Advances in Consumer Research 5(1):
8792.
(43) Traylor, M.B. and Joseph, W.B. (1984) Measuring
consumer involvement in products: Developing
a general scale. Psychology and Marketing 1(2):
6577.
(44) Bolfing, C. (1988) Integrating consumer involve-
ment and product perceptions with market
segmentation and positioning strategies. The Journal
of Consumer Marketing 5(2): 4957.
(45) Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1984) Conceptualizing and
measuring the involvement construct in mar-
keting. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Uni-
versity of California, Los Angeles, CA.
(46) Tigert, D.J., Ring, L.J. and King, C.W. (1976)
Fashion involvement and buying behavior: A
methodological study. Advances in Consumer
Research 3(1): 4652.
(47) McQuarrie, E.F. and Munson, J.M. (1992) A
revised product involvement inventory: Improved
usability and validity. Advances in Consumer Research
19(1): 108115.
(48) Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand
personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34(3):
347356.
(49) Fournier, S. (1994) A consumer brand relationship
framework for strategy brand management.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.
(50) Tupes, E.C. and Christal, R.C. (1958) Stability of
Personality Trait Rating Factors Obtained Under
Diverse Conditions. US Air Force, Lackland Air
Force Base, TX. USAF WADS Technical Report
No. 5861.
(51) Norman, W.T. (1963) Toward an adequate tax-
onomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66(6):
574583.
(52) Malhorta, N.K. (1981) A scale to measure self-
concepts, person concepts, and product concepts.
Journal of Marketing Research 18(4): 456464.
Vol. 17, 2, 114133
 Relationship between consumer involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers
(53) Malhorta, N.K. (1988) Self-concept and product
choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of
Economic Psychology 9(1): 128.
(54) Sirgy, J. (1982) Self-concept in consumer behavior:
A critical review. The Journal of Consumer Research
9(3): 287300.
(55) Aaker, J.L. (1999) The malleable self: The role of
self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing
Research 36(1): 4557.
(56) Phau, I. and Lau, K.C. (2001) Brand personality
and consumer self-expression: Single or dual
carriageway? Journal of Brand Management 8(6):
428444.
(57) Biel, A. (1993) Converting image into equity.
In: D.A. Aaker and A. Biel (eds.) Brand Equity and
Advertising. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 6782.
(58) Belk, R.W. (1988) Possessions and the extended
self. The Journal of Consumer Research 15(2):
139168.
(59) Aaker, D.A. (1996) Measuring brand equity across
products and markets. California Management
Review 38(3): 102120.
(60) Halliday, J. (1996) Chrysler brings out brand per-
sonalities with 97 ads. Advertising Age 67(40):
34.
(61) Aaker, J.L., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S.A. (2004)
When good brands do bad. The Journal of Consumer
Research 31(1): 116.
(62) Freling, T.H. and Forbes, L. P. (2005) An empir-
ical analysis of the brand personality effect.
Journal of Product and Brand Management 14(7):
404413.
(63) Kim, H.-S. (2000) Examination of brand person-
ality and brand attitude within the apparel product
category. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Manage-
ment 4(3): 243252.
2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1350-23IX Brand Management Vol. 17, 2, 114133
(64) Wysong, S., Munch, J. and Kleiser, S. (2002) An
investigation into the brand personality construct,
its antecedents, and its consequences. American
Marketing Association Winter Educators Conference
Proceedings 13: 512518.
(65) Wysong, S., Munch, J. and Kleiser, S. (2004) This
brands for you: An exploratory look at how indi-
vidual variables can influence brand personality
perceptions. American Marketing Association Winter
Educators Conference Proceedings 15: 239245.
(66) Quester, P. and Lim, A.L. (2003) Product involve-
ment/brand loyalty: Is there a link? Journal of
Product and Brand Management 12(1): 2238.
(67) Kapferer, J. and Laurent, G. (1993) Further
evidence on the consumer involvement profile:
Five antecedents of involvement. Psychology and
Marketing 10(4): 347355.
(68) Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Struc-
tural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin 103(3): 411423.
(69) Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988)
An updated paradigm for scale development incor-
porating unidimensionality and its assessment.
Journal of Marketing Research 25(2): 186192.
(70) Bagozzi, R.P. and Phillips, L.W. (1981) Repre-
senting and testing organizational theories: A
holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly
27(3): 459489.
(71) Hair, J.F. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(72) Kim, H.-S. (2005) Consumer profiles of apparel
product involvement and values. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management 9(2): 207220.
(73) Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring,
and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing 57(1): 122.
133