Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring brand personality using emoji: findings from Mokken scaling

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Brand personality (BP) measurement is a research area that has been attracting a tremendous amount of attention. An examination of extant BP scales reveals that: (a) all of them gauge BP through verbal stimuli; (b) most of them were formulated in one language and tested in one country; and that (c) the majority of them were developed using Classical Test Theory and factor analytic procedures as “the” measurement framework and the method of choice, respectively. This study explores the possibility of using emoji (a new universal nonverbal language) to measure BP. It adopts a Nonparametric Item Response Theory procedure known in personality research as Mokken scaling. Data were collected from 416 respondents from 10 countries via an online 30-emoji survey assessing four global brands. Results indicate that 17 of the 30 emoji form four strong and reliable Mokken scales gauging dimensions Agreeableness, Conscientiousness/Openness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. The proposed emoji-based scale represents a valuable measure that is suited to national as well as cross-national BP research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, J.L. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3): 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J., and S. Fournier. 1995. A brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in Consumer Research 22: 391–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alshenqeeti, H. 2016. Are emojis creating a new or old visual language for new generations? A socio-semiotic study. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 7 (6): 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, A., and J.N. Kapferer. 2003. Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Journal of Brand Management 11 (2): 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, C., F.M. Barlas, Z. Dowling, and R.K. Thomas. 2017. How effective are emojis in surveys taken on mobile devices? Data-Quality implications and the potential to improve mobile-survey engagement and experience. Journal of Advertising Research 57 (4): 462–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badgaiyan, A.J., S. Dixit, and A. Verma. 2017. If brands are people, then people are impulsive—Assessing the connection between brand personality and impulsive buying behaviour. Journal of Brand Management 24 (6): 622–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, F., G. Kruszewski, F. Ronzano, and H. Saggion 2016. How cosmopolitan are emojis? Exploring emojis usage and meaning over different languages with distributional semantics. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia: 531–535.

  • Baxter, S.M., J. Ilicic, and A. Kulczynski. 2018. Roses are red, violets are blue, sophisticated brands have a Tiffany Hue: The effect of iconic brand color priming on brand personality judgments. Journal of Brand Management 25 (4): 384–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackston, M. 1993. Beyond brand personality: Building brand relationships. In Brand equity & advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands, ed. D.A. Aaker and A.L. Biel, 113–124. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. 1995. A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin 117 (2): 187–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boakye, K.G., C.Y. Chiang, and X. Tang. 2018. Toward an integrated decision-making model for consumer electronic. Journal of Computer Information Systems 58 (3): 264–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D.B. 1977. Personality description in ordinary language. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprara, G.V., C. Barbaranelli, and G. Guido. 2001. Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology 22 (3): 377–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, G.L., A.C. Campbell, S. Muncer, and K.A. Carter. 2015. A Mokken analysis of the Dark Triad ‘Dirty Dozen’: sex and age differences in scale structures, and issues with individual items. Personality and Individual Differences 83: 185–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danesi, M. 2017. Emoji in Advertising. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric 1 (1): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G., J.I. Rojas-Méndez, S. Whelan, M. Mete, and T. Loo. 2018. Brand personality: Theory and dimensionality. Journal of Product & Brand Management 27 (2): 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, M.G., J.-B. Steenkamp, and J.P. Fox. 2007. Relaxing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research using a hierarchical IRT model. Journal of Consumer Research 34 (2): 260–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, M.G., J.B.E. Steenkamp, and B.P. Veldkamp. 2009. A model for the construction of country-specific yet internationally comparable short-form marketing scales. Marketing Science 28 (4): 674–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhachek, A., A.T. Coughlan, and D. Iacobucci. 2005. Results on the standard error of the coefficient alpha index of reliability. Marketing Science 24 (2): 294–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emojipedia. 2020. “OK hand”. https://emojipedia.org/ok-hand. Accessed 31 January 2020.

  • Evans, V. 2017. The emoji code. London: Michael O’Mara Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, L.R., and D. Pearcy. 2001. Four subtle sins in scale development: Some suggestions for strengthening the current paradigm. International Journal of Market Research 43 (4): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 343–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, B.B., and S.J. Levy. 1955. The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review 33 (2): 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuens, M., B. Weijters, and K. De Wulf. 2009. A new measure of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing 26 (2): 97–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guntuku, S.C., M. Li, L. Tay, and L.H. Ungar. 2019. Studying cultural differences in emoji usage across the east and the west. arXiv preprint, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.02671.pdf.

  • Hair, J.F., M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, and J.A. Mena. 2012. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (3): 414–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C.B., S.B. MacKenzie, and P.M. Podsakoff. 2003. A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L., and K. Richey. 2006. The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a successful 21st century business. Journal of Brand Management 14 (1–2): 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijpers, R.E., L.A. Van der Ark, and M.A. Croon. 2013. Standard errors and confidence intervals for scalability coefficients in Mokken scale analysis using marginal models. Sociological Methodology 43 (1): 42–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A. 2018. Story of Aaker’s brand personality scale criticism. Spanish Journal of Marketing 22 (2): 203–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., Y. Chen, T. Hu, and J. Luo. 2018. Mining the relationship between emoji usage patterns and personality. In Proceedings of the twelfth international AAAI conference on web and social media, 648–651.

  • Lieven, T. 2017. How to create reproducible brand personality scales. Journal of Brand Management 24 (6): 592–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, G. 2016. The story of emoji. London: Prestel Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marengo, D., F. Giannotta, and M. Settanni. 2017. Assessing personality using emoji: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences 112: 74–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R.R., and P.T. Costa. 1987. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (1): 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R.R., and P.T. Costa Jr. 1997. Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52 (5): 509–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A. 1971. Silent messages. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokken, R.J. 1971. A theory and procedure of scale analysis with applications in political research. New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, I.W. 1997. Nonparametric models for polytomous responses. In Handbook of modern item response theory, ed. W.J. van der Linden and R.K. Hambleton, 369–380. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moussa, S. 2016. A two-step item response theory procedure for a better measurement of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Analytics 4 (1): 28–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moussa, S. 2019. An emoji-based metric for monitoring consumers’ emotions toward brands on social media. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 37 (2): 211–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moutafi, J., A. Furnham, and J. Crump. 2006. What facets of openness and conscientiousness predict fluid intelligence score? Learning and Individual Differences 16 (1): 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mroch, A.A., and D.M. Bolt. 2006. A simulation comparison of parametric and nonparametric dimensionality detection procedures. Applied Measurement in Education 19 (1): 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulyanegara, R.C., Y. Tsarenko, and A. Anderson. 2009. The Big Five and brand personality: Investigating the impact of consumer personality on preferences towards particular brand personality. Journal of Brand Management 16 (4): 234–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, S., R. Russell-Bennett, and T. Dagger. 2007. A typology of mass services: The role of service delivery and consumption purpose in classifying service experiences. Journal of Services Marketing 21 (7): 471–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, P.K., J. Smailović, B. Sluban, and I. Mozetič. 2015. Sentiment of emojis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J.C., and I.H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, L.J., and K. Sijtsma. 2008. Nonparametric item response theory for investigating dimensionality of marketing scales: A SERVQUAL application. Marketing Letters 19 (2): 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peabody, D., and L.R. Goldberg. 1989. Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (3): 552–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, J.T. 1985. How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research 40 (6): 79–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan, D., R. Malhotra, and T.R. Moharana. 2020. When fan engagement with sports club brands matters in sponsorship: Influence of fan–brand personality congruence. Journal of Brand Management 27 (1): 77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radler, V.M. 2018. 20 Years of brand personality: a bibliometric review and research agenda. Journal of Brand Management 25 (4): 370–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadel, W.G., and D. Cervone. 1993. The Big Five versus nobody? American Psychologist 48 (12): 1300–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K., and I.W. Molenaar. 2002. Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K., R.R. Meijer, and L.A. van der Ark. 2011. Mokken scale analysis as time goes by: An update for scaling practitioners. Personality and Individual Differences 50 (1): 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K., and L.A. van der Ark. 2017. A tutorial on how to do a Mokken scale analysis on your test and questionnaire data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 70 (1): 137–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straat, J.H., L.A. van der Ark, and K. Sijtsma. 2014. Minimum sample size requirements for Mokken scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 74 (5): 809–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straat, J.H., L.A. van der Ark, and K. Sijtsma. 2016. Using conditional association to identify locally independent item sets. Methodology 12 (4): 117–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J.C., and C. Brandon. 2006. Brand personality: Exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychology & Marketing 23 (8): 639–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Abswoude, A.A., L.A. van der Ark, and K. Sijtsma. 2004. A comparative study of test data dimensionality assessment procedures under nonparametric IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement 28 (1): 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Ark, L.A. 2018. Package ‘mokken’. https://cran.r-project.org/package=mokken. Accessed 25 December 2019.

  • Völkel, S.T., D. Buschek, J., Pranjic, and H. Hussmann. 2019. Understanding emoji interpretation through user personality and message context. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, 1–12.

  • Wallendorf, M. 2001. Literally literacy. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (4): 505–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R., I. Deary, and E. Austin. 2007. Are personality trait items reliably more or less ‘difficult’? Mokken scaling of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences 43 (6): 1460–1469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R., I.J. Egberink, L. Kirke, J.N. Tendeiro, and F. Doyle. 2018. What are the minimal sample size requirements for Mokken scaling? An empirical example with the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine 6 (1): 203–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westen, D. 1996. A model and a method for uncovering the nomothetic from the idiographic: An alternative to the five-factor model? Journal of Research in Personality 30 (3): 400–413.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author received no financial support for this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut Supérieur des Études Appliquées en Humanités, Cité des Jeunes, 2133, Gafsa, Tunisia

    Salim Moussa

Authors
  1. Salim Moussa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salim Moussa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Results from MSA at the brand level

Criterion c

Results

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Cluster 5

Cluster 6

Cluster 7

Adidas (N = 101)

 c = 0.30

[3: 23; 5; 2]

1–3, 5–19, 22–25

26–30

20, 21

–

–

–

–

 c = 0.40

[4: 14; 8; 4; 2]

6–10, 14–17, 19, 22–25

1–5

26, 27, 29, 30

20, 21

–

–

–

 c = 0.50

[6: 11; 4; 4; 4; 2; 2]

6–10, 12–15, 18, 19

26, 27, 29, 30

1, 2, 4, 5

22–25

20, 21

16, 17

–

 c = 0.60

[7: 6; 4; 4; 4; 2; 2; 2]

6–10, 13

1, 2, 4, 5

11, 12, 18, 19

29, 30

23, 25

26, 27

20, 21

Coca-Cola (N = 227)

 c = 0.30

[3: 22; 5; 2]

1– 3, 5–19, 22–25

26–30

20, 21

–

–

–

–

 c = 0.40

[5: 15; 5; 5; 2; 2]

6–10, 12–19, 22, 24

26–30

1–5

23, 25

20, 21

–

–

 c = 0.50

[5: 11; 4; 4; 4; 2]

6–10, 12–15, 18, 19

17, 22, 24, 25

26, 27, 29, 30

1, 2, 4, 5

20, 21

–

–

 c = 0.60

[7: 6; 4; 4; 2; 2; 2; 2]

6–10, 13

1, 2, 4, 5

11, 12, 18, 19

17, 25

20, 21

26, 30

22, 23

Huawei (N = 57)

 c = 0.30

[4: 18; 5; 4; 2]

1–15, 18, 19, 24

20–23, 25

26, 27, 29, 30

16, 17

–

–

–

 c = 0.40

[4: 14; 6; 4; 3]

1–3, 5, 7, 9–13, 15, 18, 19, 24

6, 8, 14, 17, 23, 25

26, 27, 29, 30

20–22

–

–

–

 c = 0.50

[5: 10; 5; 4; 4; 3]

7, 8, 10–13, 15, 18, 19, 24

1–5

26, 27, 29, 30

6, 9, 17, 27

20–22

–

–

 c = 0.60

[6: 7; 4; 3; 3; 2; 2]

7, 10–13, 18, 19

1, 2, 4, 5

6, 8, 9

26, 27, 30

17, 25

20, 21

–

Orange (N = 31)

 c = 0.30

[3: 19; 5; 5]

3, 6–10, 12, 14, 25

1, 2, 4, 5

26–30

–

–

–

–

 c = 0.40

[4: 16; 5; 4; 4]

3, 6, 8–10, 13–16, 18–24

26–30

1, 2, 4, 5

7, 11, 12, 17

–

–

–

 c = 0.50

[6: 10; 6; 4; 4; 2; 2]

2, 3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 18–20, 23

6–8, 10–12

26, 27, 29, 30

14, 21, 24, 25

1, 4

16, 17

–

 c = 0.60

[6: 7; 5; 4; 4; 3; 2]

6–10, 18, 19

14, 20, 21, 23, 24

1, 2, 4, 5

26, 27, 29, 30

12, 13, 16

3, 15

–

Appendix 2: Results from MSA at the instruction language level

Criterion c

Results

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Cluster 5

Cluster 6

Cluster 7

English (N = 209)

 c = 0.30

[3: 21; 5; 4]

3, 6–25

26––30

1, 2, 4, 5

–

–

–

–

 c = 0.40

[4: 14; 5; 5; 4]

6–10, 12–19, 22

1–5

26–30

20, 21, 24, 25

–

–

–

 c = 0.50

[6: 11; 4; 4; 4; 2; 2]

6–10, 12–15, 18, 19

22–25

1, 2, 4, 5

26, 27, 29, 30

20, 21

16, 17

–

 c = 0.60

[7: 6;4;4;4;2;2;2]

6–10, 13

1, 2, 4, 5

11, 12, 18, 19

22, 23

20, 21

26, 30

17, 25

Spanish (N = 117)

 c = 0.30

[3: 21;5;3]

2, 3, 5–10, 12–20, 22–25

26–30

1, 4, 11

–

–

–

–

 c = 0.40

[4: 16;7;5;2]

6–10, 12, 14–19, 22–25

1––5, 11, 13

26–30

20, 21

–

–

–

 c = 0.50

[6: 11;4;4;3;2;2]

7–15, 19

1, 2, 4, 5

26, 27, 29, 30

17, 23, 25

3, 16

20, 21

–

 c = 0.60

[7: 6;4;3;3;2;2;2]

7–10, 12, 13

1, 2, 4, 5

22, 23, 25

11, 18, 19

29, 30

14, 17

20, 21

Arabic (N = 90)

 c = 0.30

[4: 20; 4; 3; 2]

3, 5–15, 17–24

26, 27, 29, 30

1, 2, 4

16, 25

–

–

–

 c = 0.40

[5: 14; 5; 4; 3; 3]

6, 8, 9, 12–15, 18–24

1–5

26, 27, 29, 30

16, 17, 25

7, 10, 11

–

–

 c = 0.50

[6: 10; 4; 4; 4; 3; 2]

6–13, 18, 19

14, 23–25

26, 27, 29, 30

1, 2, 4, 5

20, 21, 22

16, 17

–

 c = 0.60

[7: 7; 4; 4; 2; 2; 2; 2]

6–10, 12, 13

1, 2, 4, 5

26, 27, 29, 30

17, 25

14, 24

20, 22

11, 19

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moussa, S. Measuring brand personality using emoji: findings from Mokken scaling. J Brand Manag 28, 116–132 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00220-8

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00220-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation