3.8 Review

The antecedents and consequences of brand personality: a systematic review

期刊

EUROMED JOURNAL OF BUSINESS
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 448-476

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/EMJB-12-2020-0136

关键词

Brand personality; Consumer products; Systematic review

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study systematically reviews and synthesizes existing empirical research on antecedents and consequences of brand personality (BP) of consumer products, identifying and classifying key characteristics and suggesting avenues for future research.
Purpose The topic of brand personality (BP) has received extensive research attention in the last 2 decades, with a particular focus on examining its antecedents and consequences. This study, therefore, systematically reviews and synthesizes extant research on antecedents and consequences of BP of consumer products. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review approach is used to identify and analyze relevant studies from five major databases and a search engine. This review identified 62 articles from 43 journals published during 1997-2018. The relevant literature germane to the research objectives is extracted from these articles. Findings This study identifies and classifies antecedents and consequences of BP of consumer products, along with key mediators and moderators underlying these relationships. Additionally, the study reveals pertinent characteristics of BP literature, including conceptualizations, measurements, methods, theories and research settings. Finally, this study develops an integrative conceptual model and presents avenues for future research. Practical implications This study provides insight to practitioners that create and develop brand personalities. The study would inform managers concerning the outcomes of BP. Originality/value To the best knowledge of the authors, this is the first systematic review that synthesizes existing empirical research on antecedents and consequences of BP of consumer products.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据