The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.

htm

EJM 44,9/10

Branding places: applying brand personality concept to cities

Melike Demirbag Kaplan
Department of Business Administration, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey

1286
Received May 2008 Revised August 2008 December 2008 Accepted December 2008

Oznur Yurt
Department of Logistics Management, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey

Burcu Guneri
Department of Business Administration, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey, and

Kemal Kurtulus
Faculty of Business Administration, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose In recent years, brand personality as a branding construct has received considerable interest, which has led to a signicant effort to develop tools to measure the personality of brands. Although the majority of these studies have focused on the brand personality of conventional product brands, the new boundaries of marketing obviously necessitate the application of branding constructs to non-traditional products such as places. This study aims to focus on brand personalities of places, and to examine the applicability of this concept for city brands. Design/methodology/approach The research employs a factor analysis method based on data collected from 898 college students. Findings The ndings of the study reveal that differentiating places with regard to their brand personalities is achievable. The paper introduces two new dimensions of brand personality for cities. Originality/value The extraction of two new factors that contribute to place brand personalities is considered a major contribution of this research to the marketing literature. Keywords Brands, Brand management, Cities, Marketing, Product differentiation Paper type Research paper

European Journal of Marketing Vol. 44 No. 9/10, 2010 pp. 1286-1304 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090561011062844

1. Introduction During the last two decades, both academia and marketing practitioners have shown an increasing interest in brand management. Branding is now widely acknowledged as a potent tool for companies to use to their advantage in achieving competitive strength in the market, as it generates value both for the producer and consumers (Keller, 2003). The strategic power of brands has triggered a plethora of studies in the eld, with the aim of exploring branding from various perspectives, enriching understanding of the issue through the development of a variety of concepts such as brand image, brand identity and brand personality (e.g. Aaker, 1996; Carpenter et al., 1994; Kapferer, 1992; Upshaw, 1995). Intensied research into such specic concepts has widened our

horizons in comprehending how brands operate and how they have developed into the most strategic marketing tool of the new economy. Enhanced awareness of brand management as a major instrument for differentiation gives rise to academic interest in the implementation of branding in products that lie outside the previous focus of the brand literature. According to Ashworth and Voogd (1994), the expansion of product denition is also directly related to recent developments in non-prot organisation marketing, social marketing, and image marketing. Pushing the frontiers of the product denition apparently results in efforts to brand places, persons or ideologies, rather than merely branding goods and services (Hankinson, 2004). In this context, place branding is now developing into a focal area for marketers and a strong emphasis on place branding is seen in the literature, particularly in the eld of destination and tourism marketing. Notably, most of these studies refer to destination brand image, widely acknowledging its signicant impact on destination choice (Gallarza et al., 2002). However, place branding is an extensive eld of research, which cannot be limited to destination image studies only. A systematic and complete exploration of the area will obviously provide other stakeholders outside the tourism industry with benets. Moreover, research on other constructs of branding, such as brand personality, is relatively scarce in the place branding literature. An expansion of research covering other areas of brand management seems necessary to improve our understanding of place branding. This paper investigates the applicability of a specic brand construct, i.e. brand personality, in place branding. The notion of brand personality appears to have been a highly debated topic for marketing scholars in recent years (Aaker, 1996, 1997; Aaker and Fournier, 1995; Batra et al., 1993). As further discussed in the following section, brand personality is relevant to brand image as it essentially captures the emotional side this construct (Biel, 1997). Particular attention devoted to brand personality itself, however, is not unreasonable, since empirical evidence reveals that consumers have a higher preference for brands that they perceive to possess a personality that reects their self-identity. This preference is due to the fact that the personality traits associated with a brand facilitates consumers expression of their actual or ideal dimensions of the self (Belk, 1988; Sirgy, 1982). Additionally, brand personality has a great inuence on choice, where consumers treat the personality of the brand as a reection and an extension of their own personalities (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004). A number of personality traits can characterise a brand in a similar way that they characterise individuals (Plummer, 1985), and businesses may market these traits in a manner to suit the needs of customers, particularly to those with similar personalities to the brand. In brief, despite inherent links to brand image, brand personality is a major area of brand research today, with a particular theory and a range of applications, which clearly justies the investigation of the phenomenon on its own. Although interest in brand personality is vast, prior measurement of the construct relies on ad hoc scales or scales that are taken directly from psychology. As Aaker argues (1997), such measurement does not include validation in branding contexts. In her pioneering work in developing a unique scale to measure the personality traits of brands, Aaker (1997) proposes a brand personality framework congruent to the structure of the Big Five personality traits (e.g. Norman, 1963; Goldberg, 1990) and similarly identies ve brand personality dimensions. A large collection of brand personality studies based on this particular scale suggests that both marketing

Branding places

1287

EJM 44,9/10

1288

academia and professionals are eager to utilize this framework widely. Although recent research raises some concerns over the generalizability and conceptual validity of Aakers scale (e.g. Austin et al., 2003; Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003), in broad terms, successive studies usually conrm this methodology as a reliable framework to identify the personalities of brands (e.g. Kim et al., 2001). This study explores the extensibility of the existing brand personality framework in place branding, and more specically the applicability of a brand personality scale to cities, irrespective of whether they are tourist destinations or not. While there is research on place brand personality, the focus of these studies is limited to tourism destinations (e.g. Hosany et al., 2006; Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Henderson, 2000). Such a restricted framework results in ignoring personality dimensions that are redundant to tourism locations, as clearly delineated in Hosany et al.s (2006) decision to eliminate some personality traits from the original scale of Aaker that are not deemed to be suitable to dene tourism destinations. However, as mentioned previously, the context of place branding necessitates exploration of the brand personality from a wider perspective, with a consideration of such characteristics that may be reected in place brand personalities, regardless of whether the place in focus is a tourism destination. Moreover, the current study develops a new set of personality traits related to places in general and tests the applicability of this set, as opposed to previous work based on existing scales. In this context, this paper offers a substantial contribution to marketing, and particularly to the place branding literature, by exploring the applicability of the brand personality concept for places in general, using a novel scale. The paper consequently provides useful information to academicians and practitioners of marketing by identifying the brand personality characteristics of places, with a particular emphasis on cities. 2. Literature review 2.1 Place branding While the contemporary market place is characterised to a greater extent by globalisation and erce competition, enhancing product recognition and differentiation is moved to the top of the agenda and branding practices are prioritised. The denition of a product in the new millennium extends beyond the traditional goods and services approach, correspondingly broadening the boundaries of brand management. De Chernatony and McDonald (1992, p. 237) dene a successful brand as an identiable product, service, person or place, augmented in such a way that the buyer or user perceives relevant, unique, sustainable added values, which match their needs most closely. According to Kapferer (1992, p. 4), the brand is not the product in physical terms; instead, it is the products source [and] [. . .] meaning. Similar holistic denitions of brand prevail widely in the literature, suggesting that contemporary brand terminology is applicable to products other than goods or services. In a recent review, Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002) note a total of 766 publications on place marketing and branding published between 1952 and 2001, which appears to be an indicator that the area is a major eld of study today. A signicant number of the studies in this eld are on nation branding (e.g. Anholt, 2002; OShaughnessy and OShaughnessy, 2000), while many other authors also apply the place branding concept to cities as well as regions (Hankinson, 2004).

Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005) suggest that places are brandable entities if their characteristics can differentiate them from each other. Such efforts to differentiate places have frequently been observed in recent years, as the competition for resources, investors, skilled work force and visitors becomes intense (Kotler and Gertner, 2002; Van den Berg and Braun, 1999). In this context, place branding today refers to the practice of applying appropriate marketing strategies in order to differentiate cities, regions and countries from the competition, with regard to economic, social, political and cultural aspects. The notion of place branding can be traced back to place promotion efforts, which operated as the core element of place marketing, particularly in a tourism context (Barke and Harrop, 1994). Some efforts were then rened into a more comprehensive marketing approach and developed into several specic areas of place branding. An extensive review by Kavaratzis (2005) demonstrates that place branding today encompasses numerous trends, including place of origin branding, culture and entertainment branding, nation branding, and destination branding. The majority of place branding studies exist in the realm of destination branding, which are fundamentally tourism-oriented (Walmsley and Young, 1998). These studies overwhelmingly focus on place/city brand images and tourists decision-making in relation to tourism behaviour (Echtner and Ritchie, 1991). Similarly, Pike (2002) reviews a total of 147 papers that focus on destination images between 1973 and 2000, most of which attempt to identify image attributes of destinations (e.g. Walmsley and Jenkins, 1993; Leisen, 2001; Hankinson, 2004). Studies in other domains also highlight the place brand image construct, suggesting that the place image is a strategic managerial tool to attract domestic or foreign investment and improve urbanization (e.g. Warnaby and Davies, 1997, Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002). It should be noted that place branding is a more difcult and complex process as compared to branding of goods and services, due to the fact that this process involves many factors and associations to consider, such as geography, tourists attractions, natural resources, local products, residents characteristics, institutions, and infrastructure (Dinnie, 2004; Fan, 2006). Moreover, place brands differ from conventional forms of good and service brands with regard to offerings, attributes, image, associations, purpose, ownership and audiences (Fan, 2006). More specically, it may be suggested that attributes of places are difcult to dene, their image is more complicated, and the associations they evoke are more numerous and diverse as opposed to goods and services. In addition, the ownership of the place brand is unclear due to the existence of multiple stakeholders, which leads to a diverse audience (Fan, 2006). From this perspective, several authors note that place brands resemble corporate brands, which refer to the sum of intangible organizational assets that are hardly imitable and allow for a superior nancial performance (Roberts and Dowling, 2002). According to Einwiller and Will (2002, p. 101), corporate branding can be dened as a systematically planned and implemented process of creating and maintaining favorable images and consequently a favorable reputation of the company as a whole by sending signals to all stakeholders, which substantially coincides with the objectives and processes of place branding. Similar to place brands, corporate brands are more abstract in nature and they are characterised by a greater degree of complexity as they reect a wide range of meanings for different stakeholders (Urde, 2003; Balmer and Greyser, 2002). According

Branding places

1289

EJM 44,9/10

1290

to Keller and Richey (2006, p. 75), such associations may be based on people and relationships, programs and values, [. . .] [and] common products and their shared benets, which is also the case for place brands. In this context, the growing body of literature on corporate branding may also extend frontiers for place branding research. For instance, corporate branding literature often notes that the corporate brand image is mainly based on the values, behaviours and characteristics of the organisations employees and management (Schultz and De Chernatony, 2002; Hulberg, 2006; Keller and Richey, 2006), which indicates that the perception of a place brand and related constructs may similarly rely on the values and attitudes of the citizens. In the same manner, corporate branding literature suggests that internal marketing activities play a key role in developing and delivering proposed brand values (Vallaster, 2004; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007), implying that place branding strategists should also consider internal marketing a priority to develop and promote a powerful brand identity. This also allows other members of the organisation (such as employees or citizens, depending on the context) to share the responsibility to communicate brand values to other stakeholders at multiple contact points and in a variety of ways (Lomax and Mador, 2006; Hulberg, 2006). Finally, corporate branding literature also sheds light for place branding by offering guidelines for practical purposes, such as re-branding, or heritage branding (e.g. Urde et al., 2007). The fact that place brands are more abstract and involve a greater degree of complexity due to multiple associations they invoke obviously leads to a number of difculties, particularly in adaptation of several constructs that are present in traditional branding literature (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002; Kotler and Gertner, 2002). However, some important similarities in place branding and conventional product branding also exist, such as the fact that place brands are also built on factors such as trust and customer satisfaction, and several personality traits such as friendliness or reliability can portray place brands. Despite the difculties in branding places, a strong place brand offers invaluable benets to its stakeholders once developed. Having a positive and strong place brand is a critical tool to compete with other nations, regions and cities. Therefore, place branding today is of increased interest to different parties such as academicians, tourism professionals and urban policy makers. In place branding context, development of a place brand with a strong personality may generate considerable advantages, as discussed in the following section. 2.2 Brand personality Merriam Websters Dictionary denes personality as the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially the totality of an individuals behavioral and emotional characteristics. The concept of personality is usually attributable to humans; however this notion can also dene the characteristics of a non-human being. Guthrie (1997, p. 51) refers such an attribution as anthropomorphism, which he denes as the transmission of human characteristics to non-human things and events. Humans tend to attribute positive traits to products through anthropomorphism in order to increase their feeling of comfort and familiarity, and to reduce feelings of risk when using them (Haigood, 1999). In the same context, personality traits are also attributable to brands. As Wee (2004) mentions, the personality functions in much the same way as the human

personality and that, by extension, the personality of brands would likely function much like the personality of humans. Accordingly, the brands, like humans, may possess distinct personality characteristics (Plummer, 1985). As dened by Aaker (1997, p. 347), then, brand personality is the set of human characteristics associated with a brand. This denition also highlights the fact that brand personality is something perceived by external parties (e.g. consumers) through attribution of several traits, rather than being a construct that already resides in the branded entity. A discussion that is concerned with the nature of brand personality inevitably involves the relation of this concept with brand identity and brand image. With regard to place branding studies, it is also evident that there is great ambiguity in use of these terms. According to Aaker (1996, p. 68), brand identity is a unique set of associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain. In other words, brand identity relates more to the sender and it denes how the organisation wants the brand to be perceived. On the other hand, brand image refers to the meaning that the consumers associate with the product, based on experiences, impressions and perceptions of the functional, emotional, and symbolic benets of the brand (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990), and therefore it resides on the receivers side. As Kapferer (1992, p. 37) notes, then, identity necessarily precedes image. The literature suggests that brand image is rooted in hard and soft associations evoked by product attributes, where the former refers to tangible properties (e.g. functional or physical), and the latter to intangible properties (Biel, 1992). According to Biel (1997), brand personality is based on these soft associations, capturing the emotional side of brand image. However, the relationship between brand personality and brand image does not necessarily suggest that place brand image studies are sufcient to examine how consumers perception of a place inuence their attitudes and behaviours. This is particularly due to the fact that brand personality has a unique effect such that consumers are likely to prefer brands perceived to match their own personalities (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004). Moreover, as brand personality embraces affections, it stimulates the establishment of stronger emotional ties to the brand, which in turn leads to trust and loyalty (Siguaw et al., 1999). As a result, a well-established brand personality plays a signicant role in decision-making process and the ultimate brand choice of consumers. According to Wee (2004), marketers may develop and manipulate critical elements such as imagery of users, imagery of origin, brand emotional values, brand identity, brand relationship, and buying experiences through brand personality management. Obviously, all these consequences are vital for businesses to survive in a competitive market place, highlighting the importance of endowing a brand with certain characteristics to endorse consumers to perceive a distinctive personality. With regard to place brands, a shift from traditional image studies to brand personality research is also apparent, which underlines the need for fully exploring how place brand personalities form and operate (Hosany et al., 2006). General interest in the concept has been present for more than three decades; however a ourish of research on brand personality has been noticeable since the pioneering work of Aaker (1997), who developed a widely applicable brand personality scale, rather than identifying brand personality dimensions solely for commercial purposes. In her study, Aaker attempted to adapt the Big Five model to brands, which is a human psychology model that classies and organises the determinants of human personality into extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional

Branding places

1291

EJM 44,9/10

1292

stability (or Neuroticism) and openness dimensions. Similarly, Aakers study identied ve different personality dimensions that are associated with brands, which she labelled as Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness. Aakers model is not in full congruency with the Big Five, as the author suggests that some adjectives that describe human personality traits are irrelevant to brands (Aaker, 1997). Thus, the framework does not fully reect the dimensions of Openness And Neuroticism, and replication of the study in other countries shows that some dimensions are dependent on culture. For example, the Peacefulness dimension for Japanese replaces the Ruggedness dimension of the USA, and a Passion dimension emerges in Spain. Aaker et al. (2001) also classify two American dimensions of Competence and Ruggedness into a single heading in the Spanish replication of the study. It should also be noted that the majority of consecutive research on brand personality has been limited to consumer goods and services. Concerns over the applicability and generalizability of Aakers framework are also present in the literature. These concerns primarily depend on the methodology that the pioneering study employs and its effort to base the brand personality framework on the Big Five model, derived from human psychology. A recent study by Austin et al. (2003) asserts that Aakers framework cannot be used at the individual level to describe specic brands, which raises doubts regarding the generalizability of the model. Wee (2004) notes that the current brand personality framework relies on the assumption that personality is stable over time and association, although research proves the opposite. The degree of congruency of Aakers framework with the Big Five is also debatable, as two facets of Aakers model (i.e. sophistication and ruggedness) are not relevant to those of the former (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003). Finally, efforts to base brand personality on the constructs of human psychology also means that negative traits, such as unreliability or selshness, are rarely reected in brand personalities, although some essentially negative traits may also characterise individuals, and associatively brands, indicating the darker sides of personality. In this context, the Ruggedness dimension of the original study cannot capture negative traits, as it is more likely to reect a strong, outdoorsy, tough and masculine character (Aaker, 1997). Despite such criticisms, Aakers model is widely used in scholarly research. However, application of this model to place brands is still in its infancy. In a recent study, Hosany et al. (2006) investigated the relationship between destination brand image and destination brand personality for tourism destinations, and identied three dimensions: (1) Excitement; (2) Sincerity; and (3) Conviviality. Yet, further support for applicability of the model to place brands is very limited in the literature, which underlines the need for further studies to test the applicability of the brand personality framework in other contexts. 3. Methodology This study was carried out in three different cities using the survey method adapted from Aaker (1997). To identify properly how external parties perceive brand personality dimensions, the choice of the study units was critical. According to Phau

and Lau (2001), these units should be dominant and have broad exposure in the market. Since cities are the subject of this study, the investigation of personality dimensions is based on the three most populated cities in Turkey i.e. Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir as the test stimuli. For this study, city brand personality was dened as the set of human characteristics associated with the city brand, resulting from a combination of utilitarian, symbolic and experiential attributes. These attributes are the outcome of the heritage, environmental and spatial aspects, inhabitants and activities of the city. As Aaker (1997) states, to develop a generalisable scale across the product categories, emphasis on the symbolic use of brand should be at the same level with the emphasis on the utilitarian function of brands. Accordingly, selection of cities in this study relies on the criteria of diverse reection of utilitarian, symbolic and utilitarian-symbolic characteristics. For instance, Istanbul, once known as the capital of capitals, possesses many unique features: she is the only city in the world to straddle two continents, and the only one to function as a capital city during two consecutive empires. Once the capital of the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul still remains the commercial, historical and cultural pulse of Turkey, and its attractiveness lies in its ability to embrace its contradictions. Hence, both the symbolic and utilitarian attributes are dominant in Istanbul. On the other hand, Ankara, the capital city of modern Turkey, is mostly famous for its historic and bureaucratic role in the country. Having served as the seat of many important past civilizations, Ankara today is the political centre of the country, which highlights utilitarian attributes to a great extent in an attempt to explore the personality of this city. Finally, Izmir is the third biggest city in Turkey, located on the Aegean coast, with an atmosphere more of Mediterranean Europe than traditional Turkey. Izmir and its peripheral towns are tourism centres, which enhance the symbolic attributes as central characteristics of the city. To build a valid and reliable scale, the study was implemented in two stages. The rst stage aimed to collect attributes that are used to dene personality traits of people using their native language, Turkish, as the effect of culture and language on identifying attributes is critical in such a study. To avoid any unnoted methodological aws potentially derived from previous studies, establishing a new trait list instead of directly using existing lists was essential. In the second stage, respondents rated selected cities on these traits via a personally administered questionnaire. In the rst stage, 195 university students volunteered for a pilot study to collect attributes that may describe different personalities. At this stage, participants were asked to write down any ve different human personality traits that they found appropriate to characterise ten given cities. Selection of those ten cities relied on the extent of their reection of symbolic, utilitarian and symbolic-utilitarian attributes. The pilot study revealed 363 different traits associated with human characteristics. Through literature review, the number of traits was increased to 410. The number of adjectives was subsequently reduced to a more manageable one, 87, through a judgmental process involving ve professionals with considerable psychology, marketing and brand management experience. Through this process, the judges rated how descriptive these 410 traits were when attributed to places. A further study to identify synonyms, antonyms, and the words with higher frequency use in daily language accompanied the rating process. These attributes also included some demographic propositions such as being feminine or masculine, rich or poor, old or

Branding places

1293

EJM 44,9/10

1294

young, and well-educated or non-educated, as to imagine a person apart from demographic characteristics is difcult (Aaker, 1997). To note, a relatively smaller number of personality traits used in this study (e.g. compared to 114 in Aakers study) is particularly due to the fact that the English vocabulary is three times larger than the Turkish vocabulary, as the latter does not frequently express nuances through different words. In this context, 87 personality attributes used in this study are quite sufcient to embrace and identify human personality dimensions, given the limitations in the language of administration. In the second stage of the study, the 87 personality traits selected were used to identify the personality characteristics of Izmir, Ankara and Istanbul. Participants were instructed to imagine the particular city as a person, and rate these 87 personality traits for the city using a ve-point Likert scale (1 absolutely disagree, and 5 absolutely agree). Juniors and seniors studying in business schools of universities formed the sample of the study. Although listing a large number of brands increases the generalisability and validity of the scale, an excessively lengthy questionnaire may result in a negative effect on participants, which may result in a response bias (Aaker, 1997). To overcome this bias, each participant was given the questionnaire for only one city. Because the external validity and generalizability of the brand personality scale depend on the subjects on which the scale was based (Aaker, 1997), the questionnaire was limited to university students in the three cities being studied. The sample included students from both public and private universities with respect to their proportion within all Turkish universities, reecting a cosmopolitan prole and being representative of university students in Turkey. This group also constitutes an important target market for place branding purposes, since their views will affect their choice of future work and life locations. A total of 898 completed questionnaires were collected: 47.3 per cent of the participants were female, 86.8 per cent were in the middle-income class and 7 per cent were in the high-income class, and the average age was 22.2 with a standard deviation of 1.67, representative of the Turkish university student population. The number of participants from each city was almost equal: 297 from Izmir, 305 from Ankara, and 296 from Istanbul. Additionally, participants in each city evaluated the personality traits of the three cities almost equally, as demonstrated in Table I. 4. Findings As mentioned, this study aims to test the applicability of brand personality dimensions to place brands. To this end, the analysis focuses on the perception of personality dimensions in general, rather than the personality traits of a particular city. Eighty-seven personality traits discussed in the instrument were factor analysed using principal component extraction with Varimax rotation.
Residence of participants Ankara Istanbul n Per cent n Per cent 99 102 104 305 11.0 11.4 11.6 34.0 98 99 99 296 10.9 11.0 11.0 33.9

Cities analysed Table I. Distribution of city questionnaires according to the residence of participants Izmir Ankara Istanbul Total

n 98 98 101 297

Izmir Per cent 10.9 10.9 11.3 33.1

n 295 299 304 898

Total Per cent 32.8 33.3 33.9 100

The analysis includes six factors with eigenvalues higher than 1, which reect six personality dimensions for places. All traits, which have at least 0.40 loadings on one of the six factors, are accepted as the determinants of each dimension. As a result, 78 (see Appendix) of the 87 traits are loaded onto at least one of the six factors, where this six-factor solution explains 51.3 percent of the total variance. This ratio is surprisingly high, due to the fact that brand personality of a city depends on more diverse factors compared to the brand personality of products (Dinnie, 2004; Fan, 2006). Cities are subject to many different aspects, such as different districts, residents and subcultures, which lead to different city personality perceptions among individuals. Additionally, all factors have high a coefcients, ranging from 63 per cent to 94 per cent, and the reliability of the scale in general is 95 per cent. The naming procedure for the six factors extracted resulted in the following: (1) excitement; (2) malignancy; (3) peacefulness; (4) competence; (5) conservatism; and (6) ruggedness. Determination of the factor labels followed a comparison of existing brand personality dimensions, which were identied in previous studies that use a similar methodology (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2001; Hosany et al., 2006). Newly emerging factors, which were not present in literature, were named after the representative attributes within the factor. Table II shows all six factors extracted in this study, their respective eigenvalues, and the variance explained by each. To represent each brand personality dimension accurately, the analysis also included a facet identication step. Each factor was individually factor analyzed using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. The analysis revealed that the Excitement factor has four facets, and Malignancy three, while Competence, Peacefulness and Conservatism have two each. The ndings suggest that the Ruggedness dimension is relatively homogeneous, as only one facet appears for this dimension. Figure 1 depicts the personality dimensions and facets under each dimension. The Appendix shows brand personality dimensions of cities, which provide a good t with the traits loaded in each factor. The only exception to an excellent t appears in traits good-natured, loyal, sincere and decent, which have loaded to both Malignancy and Peacefulness dimensions. This was accepted as a minor aw of the study and
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 Name Excitement Malignancy Peacefulness Competence Ruggedness Conservatism Eigenvalues 19.096 14.876 4.353 2.638 2.489 1.356 Variance explained 21.949 17.099 5.004 3.032 2.861 1.559

Branding places

1295

Table II. Extracted factors for place brand personality

EJM 44,9/10

1296

these traits were treated with regard to their highest loadings. Figure 1 reveals that the traits are highly isomorphic to the ones that were extracted in previous studies. While four of six factors extracted are congruent with previous studies conducted in different cultural settings, the current study introduces a further two new factors, neither of which are mentioned in previous studies. These factors are labelled as Malignancy and Conservatism. The Appendix highlights the traits that symbolize these relatively negative and darker sides of the personality. Not all personality traits, whether attributed to humans or brands, are positive, and therefore it seems remarkable that previous research has identied only positive attributes for brand personalities. The literature suggests that brands can be leaders, charming, or domestic, but never addresses priggish or ungrateful brands. In reality, negative attributes may characterise brands in the same way as they characterise humans. This nding in particular highlights an important aw in previous studies on brand personality. As noted before, the original study of Aaker (1997) is not completely congruent with the Big Five model. This incongruity arises from the elimination of two dimensions in the former model, namely Openness and Neuroticism, and Aaker concludes that these dimensions are not directly relevant to brands. Nevertheless, the current study proposes that these dimensions may also appear as descriptors of brand personality. To illustrate, adjectives such as envious, jealous or fretful refer to Neuroticism dimension, and identify the existence (or non-existence) of emotional stability. Apparently, Malignancy, and to a certain extent Conservatism factor that emerge in this study are the reections of Neuroticism dimension of the Big Five. This nding may represent a signicant contribution to the literature, as proposed by this paper, as it suggests that a negative attribute, Neuroticism, can have applications to the conceptualization of brand personality. Furthermore, the lack of such negative dimensions emanating from Neuroticism in previous studies suggests that prior measuring instruments may, in fact, be inappropriate, an issue that will be discussed in the following section. 5. Conclusion and implications This research aims to explore the applicability of brand personality framework to place branding. To this purpose, a study focusing on city brands that follows the existing framework has been conducted. Findings of the study reveal that personality characteristics may dene and differentiate place brands in a similar manner with conventional product brands. For instance, a subsequent analysis based on these ndings show that individuals perceive Istanbul as being attractive, exciting, and energetic, while Ankara is mature and leader but malevolent, and Izmir possesses an attractive, popular, liberal, and amusing personality. A more detailed analysis of brand

Figure 1. Place brand personality dimensions

personalities for each city is obviously possible, but not included in this paper as it is beyond the scope of this study. This study identies six brand personality dimensions for places: (1) excitement; (2) malignancy; (3) peacefulness; (4) competence; (5) conservatism; and (6) ruggedness. Three of these six dimensions Excitement, Competence and Ruggedness are congruent with American brand personality dimensions (Aaker, 1997). Considering the successive research conducted in Spain and Japan (Aaker et al., 2001), the congruency becomes stronger with regard to the additional factors revealed in that study. Similarly, the current study identies peacefulness as a factor and passion as sub-dimension of excitement factor. Findings also support a recent study by Hosany et al. (2006), which identies excitement, sincerity and conviviality as the personality dimensions for tourism destinations. Remarkably, prior research does not identify any of two dimensions that appear in this study, namely Malignancy and Conservatism, as dimensions of brand personality. Conservatism in this study is a depiction of being poor and religious, and therefore vulnerable to religious indoctrination due to the lack of proper education. As previous studies assert, culture is an important dynamic in assessing brand personality (Aaker, 1997; Aaker et al., 2001), and it is reasonable to consider Conservatism as the result of the dominance of Eastern culture. This dimension primarily refers to the conservative nature of the population of a particular city. Another major nding of the study is Malignancy dimension, which refers to characteristics such as unreliability, ingratitude, opportunism, malevolence, or deception. In other words, this dimension is the reection of the dark side of human personality on place brand personality. Although Malignancy was absent from previous studies, this dimension is not culture-specic. The reason behind this assertion is the fact that previous research on brand personality focuses on classifying personality characteristics of brands following a similar methodology to human personality assessment. In other words, identication of brand personality dimensions generally rely on traits used in human personality tests. However, human personality tests usually attempt to assess personality characteristics of the subjects themselves via self-report questionnaires (Bowen et al., 2002; Schuerger, 1992), and obviously the subjects of these studies are extremely unlikely to identify themselves with a negative trait such as malevolence, irresponsibility or selshness. Due to the tendency of subjects to give socially desirable responses, self-reporting leads to results which may be biased, leading a number of researchers to describe this as a major aw in personality studies (Bowen et al., 2002). Therefore, adjectives with negative connotations do not function in human personality tests, and usually they do not appear in these questionnaires. However, assessment of brand personality dimensions should be different, as this procedure does not involve a self-assessment of the subject, but is rather similar to the personality assessment of a third person. Therefore, this study proposes that places can also be identied with their

Branding places

1297

EJM 44,9/10

1298

negative as well as the positive personality traits, similar to human beings, and this nding is a major contribution of the research to the marketing literature. This study supports the fact that brand personality of the places embraces more diverse and broader dimensions than product brands, as places evoke a greater number and variety of associations. The distinctive dimensions of brand personality for cities are valuable tools for several groups such as governorships, municipalities, urban strategists, non-governmental organisations, tourism agencies and related research centres. Therefore, the paper also raises interesting practical implications for urban policy makers. In todays world, there is evidence that places compete with each other for resources, factories, labour and visitors. In such an environment, successful positioning and differentiation of the place becomes crucial for policy makers, while branding plays a key role in this effort. Development of a strong brand personality clearly fosters the success of branding activities. In this context, place marketers and policy makers should focus on establishing an inimitable and distinct place brand personality. This study may also provide useful insights, particularly with regard to the very nature of place brand personality and how it differs from brand personalities of conventional products. Practitioners of this eld may benet from these insights in efforts to build and maintain distinctive place brand personalities. The contribution of the study to theory in brief is as follows: First, the ndings show that brand personality dimensions are applicable to place brands, while the study develops a new set of personality traits that marketers may utilise to assess brand personalities of places. Second, current paper identies a culture-specic dimension of brand personality, namely Conservatism. Another dimension that this study identies is Malignancy, which is one of the major contributions of the paper. Revelation of this factor as a dimension of brand personality shows that the negative aspects of personality also deserve careful consideration, especially when subjects are evaluating the personality of another entity rather than themselves. This nding also proposes brand personalities may indeed reect the Neuroticism dimension of the Big Five, and the facets of this dimension are not necessarily irrelevant to brands. 6. Limitations and future research The main limitation of this study is that the brand personality of cities depends on more diverse factors than the brand personality of conventional products. Assessment of place brand personalities thus involves an analysis of many different aspects that lead to different perceptions among people. Therefore, difculty in generalisability of such different factors appears as a drawback for the study. The fact that the analysis is based on personality perceptions of a relatively small number of cities is another limitation, particularly for factor analysis. However, the number of perceptually accessible cities is not comparable to that of commercial brands, and in order to accurately identify personality dimensions, the study units (i.e. cities) should have broad exposure in the market. Therefore, restricting the number of metropolitan areas studied to three distinctive ones, about which residents and non-residents have denite opinions, is justied in such a study. Findings congruent with earlier studies also verify that this limitation does not have a serious negative effect on the validity of the research. Another limitation of the study is the use of a student sample. Although use of students is sometimes opposed as it may limit generalisability of results, evidence also

suggest that student samples do tend to represent the general buying public (Bodey and Grace, 2006). Moreover, due to their homogeneity as compared to a sample chosen from the general population, they are considered ideal samples for testing theoretical predictions about the relationships among variables, which is in line with the purpose of this study (Calder et al., 1981). Finally, the student sample is justiable for this study, because young individuals constitute an important target group for place brands. Future research should include the validation of the ndings of this study, especially in other cultural settings. An extension of this study should be to test and compare brand personalities of particular cities with regard to several factors. For instance, research can explore which aspects of a city or its marketing activities cause people to attribute certain personality traits to that place. In such an effort, researchers can investigate factors such as size, location and population of the city, particular organisations or entities associated with the city (e.g. football clubs, universities, cuisine, geographical, historical, architectural or agricultural landmarks), branding activities (e.g. marketing communications) and urban strategies. Second, branding theory and research need to test the scale developed in this paper for other products that fall outside the boundaries of traditional marketing, such as people or ideas. Finally, a validation of new dimensions extracted by this study for both conventional (e.g. goods and services) and non-conventional (e.g. people or ideologies) products is strongly required.

Branding places

1299

References Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, J.L. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 347-56. Aaker, J.L. and Fournier, S. (1995), Brand as a character, a partner and a person: three different perspectives on the question of brand personality, in Kardes, F.R. and Sujan, M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 391-5. Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001), Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 1-15. Anholt, S. (2002), Nation branding: a continuing theme, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 59-60. Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H. (1994), Marketing and place promotion, in Gold, J.R. and Ward, S.V. (Eds), Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 39-52. Austin, J.R., Siguaw, J.A. and Mattila, A.S. (2003), A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker Brand Personality Measurement Framework, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 77-92. Azoulay, A.A. and Kapferer, J.N. (2003), Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 143-55. Balmer, J. and Greyser, S. (2002), Managing the multiple identities of the corporation, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 72-87.

EJM 44,9/10

1300

Barke, M. and Harrop, K. (1994), Selling the industrial town: identity, image and illusion, in Gold, J.R. and Ward, S.V. (Eds), Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity to Sell Towns and Regions, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 93-114. Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R. and Singh, D. (1993), The brand personality component of brand goodwill: some antecedents and consequences, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 83-96. Belk, R.W. (1988), Possessions and the extended self, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 139-68. Biel, A.L. (1992), How brand image drives brand equity, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32, pp. RC6-RC12. Biel, A.L. (1997), Discovering brand magic: the hardness of the softer side of branding, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 199-210. Bodey, K. and Grace, D. (2006), Segmenting service complainers and non-complainers on the basis of consumer characteristics, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 178-87. Bowen, C., Martin, B.A. and Hunt, S.T. (2002), A comparison of ipsative and normative approaches for ability to control faking in personality questionnaires, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 10, pp. 240-59. Calder, B., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981), Designing research for application, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 197-207. Carpenter, G.S., Glazer, R. and Nakamoto, K. (1994), Meaningful brands from meaningful differentiation: the dependence on irrelevant attributes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 339-50. De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1992), Creating Powerful Brands, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Dinnie, K. (2004), Place branding: overview of an emerging literature, Place Branding, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 106-10. Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), In search of brand image: a foundation analysis, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 110-20. Echtner, C.M. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1991), The meaning and measurement of destination image, The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 2-12. Einwiller, S. and Will, M. (2002), Towards an integrated approach to corporate branding an empirical study, Corporate Communications, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 100-9. Ekinci, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006), Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tourism destinations, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 127-39. Fan, Y. (2006), Branding the nation: what is being branded, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-14. a, H.C. (2002), Destination image towards a conceptual Gallarza, M., Saura, I. and Garc framework, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 56-78. Goldberg, L.R. (1990), An alternative description of personality: the Big-Five factor structure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 1216-29. Guthrie, S.E. (1997), Anthropomorphism: a denition and a theory, in Mitchell, R.W., Thompson, N.S. and Miles, H.L. (Eds), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 50-8. Haigood, T.L. (1999), The brand personality effect: an empirical investigation, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Conference, Vol. 10, pp. 149-50.

Hankinson, G. (2004), The brand image of tourism destinations: a study of the saliency of organic images, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 6-14. Henderson, J.C. (2000), Selling places: the new Asia-Singapore brand, Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 36-44. Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2006), Destination image and destination personality: an application of brand theories to tourism places, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 638-42. Hulberg, J. (2006), Integrating corporate branding and social paradigms: a literature study, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 60-73. Leisen, B. (2001), Image segmentation: the case of a tourism destination, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49-58. Kapferer, J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management, The Free Press, New York, NY. Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Keller, K.L. and Richey, K. (2006), The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a successful 21st century business, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 74-81. Kavaratzis, M. (2005), Place branding: a review of trends and conceptual models, The Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 329-42. Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G.J. (2005), City branding: an effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick?, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograe, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 506-14. Kim, C.K., Han, D. and Park, S. (2001), The effect of brand personality and brand identication on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identication, Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 195-206. Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002), Country as brand, product, and beyond: a place marketing and brand management perspective, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos 4/5, pp. 249-61. Lomax, W. and Mador, M. (2006), Corporate re-branding: from normative models to knowledge management, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 82-95. Norman, W.T. (1963), Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor 54 structure in peer nomination personality ratings, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 574-83. OShaughnessy, J. and OShaughnessy, N.J. (2000), Testing the nation as a brand: some neglected issues, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 56-64. Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (2002), Country equity and country branding: problem and prospects, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos 4/5, pp. 294-314. Phau, I. and Lau, K.C. (2001), Brand personality and consumer self-expression: single or dual carriageway?, Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 428-44. Pike, S. (2002), Destination image analysis a review of 142 papers from 1973-2000, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 541-9. Plummer, J.T. (1985), How personality makes a difference?, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 27-31. Punjaisri, K. and Wilson, A. (2007), The role of internal branding in the delivery of employee brand behaviour, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15, pp. 57-70. Roberts, P.W. and Dowling, G.R. (2002), Corporate reputation and sustained superior nancial performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 1077-93.

Branding places

1301

EJM 44,9/10

1302

Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2004), Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Schuerger, J.M. (1992), The 16 personality factor questionnaire and its junior versions, Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 231-44. Schultz, M. and De Chernatony, L. (2002), Introduction: the challenges of corporate branding, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 105-12. Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A. and Austin, J.R. (1999), The brand personality scale, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 48-56. Sirgy, J.M. (1982), Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 287-300. Upshaw, L.B. (1995), Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile Marketplace, Wiley, New York, NY. Urde, M. (2003), Core value-based corporate brand building, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1017-40. Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), Corporate brands with a heritage, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-19. Vallaster, C. (2004), Internal brand building in multicultural organisations: a roadmap towards action research, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 100-13. Van den Berg, L. and Braun, E. (1999), Urban competitiveness, marketing and the need for organising capacity, Urban Studies, Vol. 36 Nos 5/6, pp. 987-99. Walmsley, D.J. and Jenkins, J.M. (1993), Appraisive images of tourist areas: application of personal constructs, Australian Geographer, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 1-13. Walmsley, D.J. and Young, M. (1998), Evaluative images and tourism: the use of personal constructs to describe the structure of images, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36, pp. 65-9. Warnaby, G.B. and Davies, B.J. (1997), Cities as service factories, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 25 Nos 6/7, pp. 204-11. Wee, T.T.T. (2004), Extending human personality to brands: the stability factor, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 317-30.

Appendix
Varimax-rotated principal factors (decimals omitted) EXC MAL PEA COM CON RUG Original Turkish term 84 83 83 80 79 77 76 76 72 72 67 64 62 62 62 61 60 60 60 58 56 55 52 52 49 2 49 47 43 42 42 35 00 11 17 04 17 13 05 06 07 04 05 23 06 01 05 2 50 01 2 02 2 01 2 01 2 09 2 11 10 2 01 2 09 2 10 2 07 2 10 2 10 00 2 02 22 2 02 2 03 20 2 03 2 10 2 16 2 08 2 42 18 19 11 12 2 20 12 34 72 71 70 68 68 67 66 66 66 63 60 58 57 57 56 56 06 00 00 01 2 03 04 27 00 20 03 01 15 06 21 01 40 11 14 08 2 10 2 06 2 08 00 01 39 10 27 20 00 25 14 06 19 00 14 30 2 01 24 27 18 24 21 06 07 28 16 00 08 11 06 09 04 2 12 07 17 2 13 14 2 22 2 04 2 05 13 29 2 01 21 2 03 08 01 44 27 11 2 22 2 04 02 2 12 20 2 14 36 16 09 2 01 00 11 2 04 09 01 2 03 2 09 04 02 2 21 05 03 02 17 04 2 03 08 03 00 06 05 05 09 07 12 2 03 10 31 2 04 2 04 22 2 04 2 03 01 00 2 11 16 00 08 00 29 19 00 27 14 06 05 01 2 06 01 2 14 20 06 18 15 16 03 13 06 01 2 09 06 00 01 2 01 00 2 12 11 2 08 03 2 01 2 10 04 2 17 05 2 01 12 00 19 2 01 00 2 14 2 07 2 04 2 13 02 17 19 2 04 2 27 2 01 02 06 15 11 20 04 16 2 06 00 04 10 07 05 23 05 08 04 lenceli Eg Heyecan verci C ekici Cos kulu Enerjik Seksi Sempatik Tutkulu Nes eli ler Popu Kadns el Espritu Konus kan zgu r O Yaratc Canayakn S k Esnek Duygusal Srads Gizemli Risk alan Hevesli Ehlikeyif Narin Hayalperest Iyimser venli Kendine gu Merakl Sec kin Beceriksiz Densiz Entrikac Maymun is tahl stah Ku Bencil Ukala venilmez Gu C karc zlu Ac go Tutarsz zsu z Yu Kurnaz Dengesiz r Nanko Vurdumduymaz S mark (continued )

Branding places

Abbreviated English translation Amusing Enthusiastic Attractive Exhilarated Energetic Sexy Sympathetic Passionate Cheerful Popular Feminine Witty Chatty Independent Creative Friendly Stylish Flexible Emotional Extraordinary Mystical Risk taker Enthusiastic Self-indulgent Tender Fanciful Optimistic Self-condent Curious Elite Clumsy Tactless Trickster Fickle Arrogant Selsh Snob Unreliable Self-seeking Greedy Inconsistent Barefaced Shrewd Immoderate Ungrateful Callous Spoilt

1303

Table AI. Factor loadings for place brand personality dimensions

EJM 44,9/10
Abbreviated English translation Irresponsible Arriviste Malevolent Stingy Respectable Vindictive Peaceful Tolerant Benevolent Good-natured Realistic Gentle Decent Sincere Loyal Fastidious Modern Homebody Lazy Determined Strong Leader Mature Clever Authoritarian Charismatic Reticent Poor Uneducated Villager Devout Religious Cool Jealous Rebellious Nervous Rough Harsh Impatient Coward

Varimax-rotated principal factors (decimals omitted) EXC MAL PEA COM CON RUG Original Turkish term 2 20 16 04 24 22 18 17 32 10 23 15 21 2 10 40 12 2 07 47 2 22 12 05 32 31 09 50 2 31 62 2 18 09 04 22 20 01 2 20 2 06 2 43 12 26 2 16 2 21 23 55 51 51 41 20 38 20 32 35 44 32 31 46 42 50 33 22 23 35 24 05 03 32 11 01 05 36 2 02 33 18 36 2 13 2 12 38 25 39 29 36 36 24 22 10 18 06 37 27 62 61 59 56 55 50 50 45 44 44 42 40 05 35 12 07 24 20 05 07 25 01 15 05 17 2 39 07 2 07 17 04 00 12 11 2 01 21 23 00 Sorumsuz rme 23 15 10 Sonradan go tu niyetli 05 31 07 Ko 04 11 08 Cimri 39 14 09 Saygn 2 10 20 30 Kindar 05 10 05 Huzurlu ru lu 2 03 00 07 Hos go 2 01 2 06 2 09 Yardmsever 18 04 12 Iyi huylu 28 17 05 Mantkl 07 33 10 Kibar 14 02 05 Ahlakl 13 10 06 Samimi 26 2 06 00 Sadk 12 18 2 12 Titiz das 25 29 11 C ag 07 05 2 02 Evcimen 27 21 2 03 Tembel 14 20 2 12 Kararl c 70 02 2 09 Gu lu 65 01 06 Lider ruhlu 61 09 2 03 Olgun 46 11 2 02 Zeki 42 2 09 2 17 Otoriter 42 05 02 Karizmatik zsk 11 15 2 05 Ag 02 70 2 04 Yoksul itimsiz 05 65 18 Eg ylu 00 62 07 Ko 04 59 14 Yobaz 2 28 42 03 Inanc l ukkanl 35 2 08 00 Sog 06 03 58 Kskanc 00 2 01 55 Asi 2 10 19 55 Asabi 2 40 21 46 Sert 2 25 18 44 Has in 01 07 23 Sabrsz 14 06 2 01 Korkak

1304

Table AI.

Corresponding author Melike Demirbag Kaplan can be contacted at: melike.demirbag@ieu.edu.tr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints