The Effects of Facial Image on Brand Personality

7/23/2019 The Effects of Facial Image on Brand Personality

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-effects-of-facial-image-on-brand-personality 1/19

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235287807

The effects of facial image and cosmetic

usage on perceptions of brand

personality

ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF FASHION MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT · MAY 2008

DOI: 10.1108/13612020810874863

CITATIONS

20

READS

1,421

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Hye-Shin Kim

University of Delaware

20 PUBLICATIONS 330 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Jaehee Jung

University of Delaware

25 PUBLICATIONS 450 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Jaehee Jung

Retrieved on: 06 January 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jaehee_Jung?enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4&el=1_x_4


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hye_Shin_Kim?enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4&el=1_x_4


https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Delaware?enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4&el=1_x_6

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235287807_The_effects_of_facial_image_and_cosmetic_usage_on_perceptions_of_brand_personality?enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4&el=1_x_3











https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4&el=1_x_1









https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4&el=1_x_1





The effects of facial image andcosmetic usage on perceptions of

brand personalityMichelle Guthrie

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA, and

Hye-Shin Kim and Jaehee JungUniversity of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to examine women’s perceptions of brand personality in relation to

women’s facial image and cosmetic usage. This study seeks to develop a better understanding of howvarious factors influence perceptions of cosmetic brands.

Design/methodology/approach – An electronic survey was administered to a sample of 225female participants at a mid-Atlantic university in the USA. The survey included items measuringfacial image, cosmetic usage, brand personality, and brand attitude. Multiple regression analyses wereconducted to determine the relationship among variables.

Findings – While the brand personality of competence was found to be important across all threebrands, consumer perceptions pertaining to the remaining brand personality traits differed. Thisstudy found that consumers’ facial image influenced the total quantity of cosmetics used but not thevariation in quantity in different situations. Results also indicate that a relationship exists betweenfacial image and brand perceptions. Also, it was found that a different group of brand personalitytraits influenced brand attitude for each cosmetic brand.

Research limitations/implications – By examining how facial image and cosmetic usage

determine brand perceptions, companies can improve their marketing strategies to enhance customersatisfaction and increase their customer base. Moreover, by identifying the brand personalities thatattract consumers, companies can pin-point the characteristics customers look for in a product, whichin turn can be used to enhance brand image. Further research on different age groups and culturesshould be conducted to better understand cosmetic consumers.

Originality/value – This study contributes to the body of knowledge in the area of consumerbehavior and cosmetics. From this study, a better understanding of cosmetic consumers is gained andthe results provide brand marketers with valuable information.

Keywords Brand image, Cosmetics, Consumer behaviour, Consumer satisfaction, Marketing strategy

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

All aspects of managing one’s outward appearance are integral to the fashion process.Rudd and Lennon (2000, p. 152) define dress as “the act of choosing how and with whatitems or processes to construct personal appearance”. As such appearancemanagement behaviors include not only apparel, but also cosmetic use and other“intentional behaviors” Similar to apparel, cosmetic products are applied to enhanceone’s appearance and used to communicate one’s style or aesthetic preference. Make-upapplication complements the use of clothing to develop and complete a look. Craik(1993, p. 158) explains that “Make-up inscribes the attributes of personality onto the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

JFMM12,2

164

Received August 2006Accepted January 2007

Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagementVol. 12 No. 2, 2008pp. 164-181q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1361-2026DOI 10.1108/13612020810874863

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270678241_Body_Image_and_Appearance-Management_Behaviors_in_College_Women?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270678241_Body_Image_and_Appearance-Management_Behaviors_in_College_Women?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4



social body”. Therefore, makeup not only assists one in completing an overall look, butalso in conveying a “positive declaration of the self” (Craik, 1993). The marketingstrategies of cosmetic brands and products mirror those of apparel fashion brands,which focus on current styles and trends that express a target group’s desired image.

In Western cultures, one of the commonly recognized reasons women use cosmeticsis to improve their physical attractiveness. For example, Cash and Cash (1982) foundwomen to express a more positive body image and self-image when wearing makeupcompared to when not wearing makeup (Cash and Cash, 1982). According toCreekmore (1974), clothing may act as an “adaptive function” that can improve one’sfeelings about the self. Similarly, the confidence women feel after applying cosmeticsmay encourage them to engage in this practice.

Despite the increasing demand for cosmetic products among women as well as men,little is known about how consumer characteristics and cosmetic usage patternsinfluence perceptions of cosmetic brands. This research examines women’s perceptionsof brand personality in relation to women’s facial image and cosmetic usage. Brandpersonality, as part of brand image, associates consumer’s perceptions of the brandwith human characteristics in a symbolic way. By studying women’s cosmetic usage(quantity and pattern of use) in conjunction with facial image, this study seeks todevelop a better understanding of how these factors influence perceptions of andfeelings toward cosmetic brands. Finally, this study seeks to assist companies in betterunderstanding their consumers. Jamal and Goode (2001) state that brand managersmust manage the meanings consumers associate with their respective brands. Byexamining factors which influence women’s cosmetic purchase behavior, includingfacial image and perceptions of brand personality, companies can identify a basis fortheir marketing strategy.

Literature review

Cosmetics industry overviewThe US cosmetics and toiletries industry made $33.5 billion in 2005, at themanufacturers’ level, a 4.1 percent increase from the 2004 sales of $32.2 billion (Klineand Company, 2005, 2006). Kline and Company, an international market research firm,found that skin care was the highest selling product class, while makeup was the thirdhighest selling product category in the USA during 2005. In the USA, ten companiesmake up 63 percent of the total cosmetics and toiletries sales. This percentage includesthe following companies evaluated in this study: Proctor and Gamblew[1] (owners of CoverGirlw ) holds 18 percent of the US market share, while Estee Lauderw (owners of M · A · Cw and Cliniquew ) comprises 7.5 percent of the US market share. Kline andCompany predicts the US cosmetics and toiletries industry to reach over $39 billion by2010, increasing 3.1 percent annually from 2005 and expects skin care products to

dominate the industry in the upcoming years. Euromonitor International (2006a,b), a“market intelligence” and consulting company, forecasts the US cosmetics and toiletriesmarket to grow 2 percent annually from 2005 to 2010. Both Kline and Company andEuromonitor believe the demand for skin care products will increase, as baby-boomersage and continue to seek anti-aging cosmetics. A study by Mintel International GroupLtd (2006) also supports this finding, stating that between 2000 and 2010 the populationof women aged 45 to 64, those constituting the baby-boomer group, will increase byapproximately 30 percent. Finally, Euromonitor found color cosmetic products grew

Facial image andcosmetic usage

165

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235265159_Consumers_and_brands_A_study_of_the_impact_of_self-congruence_on_brand_preference_and_satisfaction?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235265159_Consumers_and_brands_A_study_of_the_impact_of_self-congruence_on_brand_preference_and_satisfaction?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4



by 3 percent in 2005, with the most growth in the eye makeup category. Mintel alsofound eye makeup to represent the second-largest makeup category in sales, while “facialmakeup” or facial treatments produced the most sales. Although the US cosmetics andtoiletry industry is presently experiencing moderate growth, this study hopes to assist

marketers by analyzing the cosmetic consumer to ultimately gain market share, increasesales, and maintain strong and continuous growth. By identifying consumers’ thoughtsand behaviors, marketers can begin to understand how they choose specific cosmeticproducts and brands. This allows cosmetic companies to compete more effectively and toenhance current marketing strategies.

In the past, the USA cosmetics industry was divided into two distinct categories: themass merchandiser level and the department store level (Underhill, 2004). Massmerchandisers were comprised of drug, grocery, and discounts stores (e.g. Rite Aidw,Giantw, and Wal-Martw ) and sold brands such as Revlonw, CoverGirlw, andMaybellinew. Cosmetics sold in department stores (e.g. Lancomew, Estee Lauderw, andCliniquew ) were more expensive giving the false perception of significantly betterquality (Underhill, 2004). The distinction between these cosmetics levels was coined“the difference between mass and class.” Today, there is no longer a definitivedifference between cosmetic choices, as many women purchase them from a variety of channels. For example, a consumer may buy CoverGirlw eye shadow from the drugstore, but M·A·Cw foundation from the department store.

A well-developed and established brand name is vital in the cosmetics industry. RoyMorgan identified ten consumer segments (Roy Morgan Values Segments), oftenapplied to the cosmetics market. Using the value segments, a perceptual map can becreated showing the placement of specific brands in comparison to their competitors.According to Bulace from Roy Morgan Research (Bulace, 2000)), brands can benurtured and their relationship with customers can be cultivated to hold an existencelike living entities in the minds of consumers. Bulace (2000) also illustrates the

relationship between brand qualities and human qualities as:The way these brands speak (the style and tone of their advertising) determines the audiencebecause the way we speak, as well as what we say, determines who will listen (Bulace, 2000,p. 20).

Brand personalityBrand perceptions are the attitudes, perspectives, and views consumers hold toward abrand. Various traits concerning the brand may influence the development of a positivebrand attitude. Brand personality is defined as “the set of human characteristicsassociated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). Brand personality, which includesproduct-related attributes and symbolic associations consumers have with a brand or

product, influences brand image and brand perceptions. Using a brand personalityscale, Aaker (1997) defined five dimensions of brand personality:

(1) sincerity;

(2) excitement;

(3) competence;

(4) sophistication; and

(5) ruggedness.

JFMM12,2

166

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232282312_Dimensions_of_Brand_Personality?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4






Each of these five dimensions encompasses several corresponding adjectives. Forexample, sincerity includes adjectives such as honesty and genuineness, whereasruggedness is described by strong and outdoorsy. Brand personality can be used todifferentiate a brand within a product category and provide characteristics that can be

used to market a brand. It is developed and defined by advertisers in hopes thatconsumers will associate their brand with specific adjectives or imageries. Whenpurchasing a brand, consumers are purchasing the symbolic meaning associated withthe product in addition to the physical product. In essence, they are purchasing thebrand image they perceive to be attached to the product.

Brand personality can be used to convey one’s ideal self or different versions of theself, as well as, one’s perceptions and evaluations of the brand. For example, brandpersonality can be applied to an individual’s own personality. Previous research hassuggested consumers prefer certain brands when the brand personality parallels theconsumer’s own personality or the personality they hope to achieve (Malhotra, 1981;Sirgy, 1982). For example, Craik (1993, p. 162) explains that “From the consumer’spoint of view, buying cosmetics is a process of matching the attributes of products withthe ideal self (persona)

. . .

”. Brand personality also indicates how consumers judge thebrand itself and value certain characteristics over others, which may ultimatelyinfluence their brand choice. For example, Kim (2000) found that although personalityexpectations for apparel brands differed, the brand personality of “competent” wasfound as a common characteristic for brands that were perceived favorably. Brandpersonality has many advantages for marketers including an increase in consumerpreference and usage (Sirgy, 1982), an increase in consumer’s trust and loyalty(Fournier, 1994), and the ability to produce emotional responses in consumers (Biel,1993).

Aaker (1997) provides numerous implications for brand personality research. First,for a brand to be successful, its personality must match the consumer’s current or ideal

human personality. This can be done by identifying the brand dimension thatdescribes the brand, and ensuring the personalities of this dimension are adequatelyportrayed to the consumer. The ultimate goal is to ensure the brand personalityinfluences the consumer’s preference for a brand in a specific product category.Additionally, the Brand Personality Scale (Aaker, 1997) can be used to benchmarkone’s brand against competitors’ brands in the same product category. Companies caneasily identify the most successful brands in a product category, learn whichpersonalities this brand conveys, and copy or adjust their marketing strategies tocapture the same and/or other market segments.

Cosmetic usage and facial image Facial image and body image. Facial image can be defined as satisfaction with various

areas of the face, which includes eyes, eyebrows, lips, cheeks, skin complexion, and theoverall face. Research that exclusively examines facial image is scarce, but ratherviews facial image as a part of body image. Much research conducted on cosmeticusage examines body image as one entity. Thus, we have reviewed the literature onbody image and cosmetic usage to apply it within the context of facial image.

Body image is the feelings and attitudes one has toward his/her own appearance.Body image is described as a multi-dimensional attitude influenced by experiences of the body, particularly based on experiences with appearance (Cash and Henry, 1995;


167

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235268821_Examination_of_brand_personality_and_brand_attitude_within_the_apparel_product_category?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24099468_Self-Concept_in_Consumer_Behavior_A_Critical_Review?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34318023_A_consumer-brand_relationship_framework_for_strategy_brand_management?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34318023_A_consumer-brand_relationship_framework_for_strategy_brand_management?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24099468_Self-Concept_in_Consumer_Behavior_A_Critical_Review?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4



Cash and Labarge, 1996). Kaiser (1997, p. 98) describes body image as “the mentalpicture one has of their body at any given time”. Regardless of objective evaluationsfrom others, body image is how you see yourself in terms of physical characteristicsand is a collection of feelings and perceptions about your body. Strong positive

relationships have been found between one’s body image and self-esteem andself-confidence (e.g., Jung and Lennon, 2003). Body image includes various attributes of the body such as weight, height, physical attractiveness, and facial image.

A representative national survey by Cash and Henry (1995) of 803 adult women,ages 18 through 70 in the USA, reported some interesting findings related to the bodyimages of women. This study found almost 50 percent of women held negativeevaluations of their appearance and significant evaluations of body dissatisfaction.Negative evaluations of body image and appearance of American women appear tohave accelerated through the years (Cash and Henry, 1995).

Cosmetic usage, body image, and physical attractiveness. Cash and Cash (1982)examined many effects of body image on cosmetic usage. Women with poorer bodyimages who were unsatisfied with their entire physical appearance had recentlyincreased the number of cosmetic products they applied and the number of situationsin which they wore makeup. Also, women who were more judgmental of their physicalappearance had longer cosmetic application times.

Using the Situational Cosmetics Use Inventory to assess cosmetic usage in varioussituations, Cash and Cash (1982) found those women who used more cosmetic productsalso tended to use these products in more situations, as compared to women who didnot use an extensive number of products. They suggested that wearing cosmetics inmore situations leads women to be more attentive to how others perceive them. Thoseless concerned with their physical attractiveness in social situations were less likely touse cosmetics in various situations. Finally, they found that women who usedcosmetics in a routine pattern were more satisfied with their facial features, as

compared to those who did not have a consistent pattern of use. Also, a study byForbes et al. (n.d.) found women who idealized women in traditional roles were morelikely to use cosmetics in the pursuit of beauty.

Similar to other forms of appearance-related products, women use cosmetics tocorrect or modify their flawed self-images. Cash and Cash (1982) found routinecosmetics use to be associated with facial satisfaction reflecting the psychologicalsuccess that many women experience after enhancing their physical appearance.Similarly, Cash et al. (1989) reported that female participants reported more satisfactionwith their faces and with their overall appearance and believed they would be regardedby peers as more attractive when they were wearing their makeup than when theywere not. Also, the participants often overestimated their physical attractiveness whenwearing makeup and were even more likely to underestimate their attractiveness in the

absence of makeup. A positive relationship was found between the amount of cosmetics use and appearance satisfaction as the participants stated a higherappearance satisfaction when wearing more cosmetics (Cash et al., 1989). Theresearchers concluded that facial cosmetics influence women’s own self-perceptionsand body image. Enhancing physical appearance will be especially rewarding if appearance is important for the evaluation of self and others (Jung and Lennon, 2003).Specifically to this study, the attractiveness of one’s face may influence howindividuals evaluate their own appearance, and in return, affect their facial image.

JFMM12,2

168

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225651531_Development_of_the_Appearance_Schemas_Inventory_A_new_cognitive_body-image_assessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248857116_The_Social_Psychology_of_Clothing?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229506126_Body_Image_Appearance_Self-Schema_and_Media_Images?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271819756_The_Effects_of_Cosmetics_Use_on_the_Physical_Attractiveness_and_Body_Image_of_College_Women?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4









https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225651531_Development_of_the_Appearance_Schemas_Inventory_A_new_cognitive_body-image_assessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248857116_The_Social_Psychology_of_Clothing?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-be26818c-65d8-4389-8310-dcf5558903cd&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI4NzgwNztBUzo5OTU0Mzk3ODg3Mjg0MUAxNDAwNzQ0NTQyNzI4





Brown et al. (1986) found evidence that individuals who are more attractive may paygreater attention to and are more involved with their appearance. Moreover, McDonaldand Eilenfield (1980) found both males and females spent more time looking at theirreflections if they were more physically attractive. Therefore, it is possible that those

individuals who have a more attractive appearance may be more involved, andsubsequently more likely to actively participate in self-expression through groomingbehaviors. In support of this argument, Cash (1988) suggested that physicalappearance might be partially self-created in response to situational norms,self-presentational goals for social image and body image, and mood states. Finally,individuals are known to use cosmetics and grooming behaviors to manage and controlnot only their social impressions, but also their self-image (Cash et al., 1989). Thus,previous studies suggest that the use of cosmetics is a tool for self-presentation andsocial impression management.

The literature confirming the positive link between body image and cosmetic useprovides strong support for a possible relationship between facial image and cosmeticuse. Consumers’ image of themselves in relation to satisfaction with their facial

features provides a reasonable explanation on how consumers may use cosmetics toenhance one’s facial appearance or feelings about themselves. Consumers’ satisfactionwith their face (facial image) and related cosmetic use is predicted to have an effect onconsumers’ impressions of various cosmetic brands. For example, Tidwell et al.(1992-1993) found that people use products to enhance self-image, and according toWood (2004), participants chose specific brands to convey a certain picture of oneself tosociety. Thus, the characteristics of a brand’s personality that consumers consider asbeing favorable (positive brand attitude) may vary based on how consumers feel abouttheir face (facial image) and the ways they use cosmetics (cosmetic usage).

Purpose of study

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of facial image, cosmeticusage, and perceptions of brand personality. Based on prior research, the followingthree research questions were developed:

RQ1. How does facial image influence cosmetic usage (quantity and pattern of use)?

RQ2. How do facial image and cosmetic usage (quantity and pattern of use)influence perceptions of brand personality?

RQ3. How do facial image, cosmetic usage factors (quantity and pattern of use), andbrand personality influence brand attitude?

Figure 1 provides an illustration of the relationships among variables addressed in theresearch questions.

Methodology Data collectionAn electronic survey was administered to a randomly drawn list of female studentsenrolled at a mid-Atlantic university at the time of data collection. A total of 225 femalestudents participated in the survey, ages 18 to 49 years, with ages 18 through 22representing 82 percent of the entire sample. Overall, 86 percent of the women wereenrolled in all academic years at the undergraduate level and 12 percent were enrolled


169







at the graduate level. A wide variety of academic majors were represented. In terms of

cosmetic purchases, 40 percent of the participants stated they spent under $50 annuallyon cosmetics, while 31 percent spent $50 to $100. Only 18 percent spent $101 to $200and 10 percent spent over $200.

MeasuresThe electronic survey included items measuring facial image, cosmetic usage, brandpersonality, brand attitude, and personal questions. Prior to the survey, a simpleopen-ended survey was conducted on 44 female subjects enrolled in an upper-levelfashion merchandising class to determine the three most popular cosmetic brands usedby female students. In the pre-survey, students were asked to list the five cosmeticbrands they used most often in order of preference. The top three brands (M · A · Cw,Cliniquew, and CoverGirlw ) were included in the electronic survey. Table I provides abrief description of the three brands used in this study.

Facial image. The facial image scale asks participants to rate five areas of their faceand entire face on two scales: unsatisfied/satisfied and unimportant/important. The sixaspects of the face are eyes, eyebrows, lips, cheeks, skin complexion, and the entireface. The basis for this measure was taken from the Body Areas Satisfaction Scale(BASS) of the Multidimensional Body Self-Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ; Brownet al., 1990), a widely used index of body site satisfaction, in which individuals ratedhow dissatisfied/satisfied they felt with different areas of the body. These two scales

Figure 1.Relationship amongvariables studied

JFMM12,2

170



also use five-point Likert-type scales. For each facial area, a score was calculated byweighting the satisfaction level (1 ¼ unsatisfied, 5 ¼ satisfied) of each facial area byits importance (1 ¼ unimportant, 5 ¼ important). Next, all items were summed toderive a composite score representing facial image. The more participants consider

facial parts important and are satisfied with those areas, the more participants aresatisfied with their facial features and overall face. Thus, a higher score on the facialimage scale reflected a positive facial image.

Cosmetic usage. The cosmetic usage section was adapted from the Cash CosmeticsUse Inventory (CCUI; Cash and Cash, 1982; Cash et al., 1989) and asked participants toindicate their usage of various cosmetic products in certain settings. More specifically,participants were asked to rate how frequently they use each of the eleven facialcosmetic products in each of the ten different life situations on a 4-point Likert-typescale (1 ¼ never; 2 ¼ occasionally; 3 ¼ usually; 4 ¼ always). The cosmetic productsare foundation, face powder, concealer, mascara, eye liner, eye shadow, eyebrow pencil,lipstick/lip color, lip gloss, lip liner, and blush. The situations tested include bothpublic and private encounters with females only, males only, and both genders

simultaneously. Examples include attending class, shopping with female friends, aninformal party with a date, exercising with male and female friends, and stayingindoors with female friends. The CCUI matrix based on frequency of usage and lifesituations then generated the quantity of product use and the quality or pattern of product use. The original sale included 15 facial cosmetics products for 12 different lifesituations, but the modifications for the CCUI were taken place by administering theentire CCUI to a select group of students and adjusting the situations and productsaccording to their feedback.

Cosmetic brand Description Products offered

M · A · Cw M · A · Cw is for every age, sex, and race, but specifically“targets professional makeup artists and fashion forward

consumers” (The Estee Lauder Companies Incw, 2007).M · A · Cw is sold in boutiques and department stores in theUnited States

Makeup, Skin Care,Fragrances, and

Accessories

Cliniquew Cliniquew emphasizes the importance of quality skin carein makeup products. Cliniquew products are fragrance-freeand allergy-tested by dermatologists (The Estee LauderCompanies Incw, 2007). Recently, Cliniquew has started totarget men in who are concerned with their appearance andimage, by promoting their skin care line for men (NewMedia Age, 2006). Cliniquew is commonly sold in variousdepartment stores in the United States

Makeup, Skin Care,Fragrances, andAccessories

CoverGirlw CoverGirlw is for “women of all ages who want a clean,

fresh and natural look.” (Proctor & Gamblew

, 2007).Compared to M· A· Cw and Cliniquew brands, CoverGirlwis lower-priced and sold at discount stores such as grocerystores, drug stores, and mass-retailers in the United States.Beginning in the fall of 2005, CoverGirlw began to focus onAmerican women 35 and older for their anti-aging productline (O’Loughlin, 2006)

Makeup and

Accessories

Table I.Cosmetic brand

descriptions


171



Two indices derived from the CCUI, the quantity of product use and the pattern of product use, were determined by:

(1) computing the mean of the 11 product use ratings for each situation;

(2) computing the mean ( M ) of these means (i.e. those computed in 1) across thesituations; and

(3) computing the variance ( SD 2 ) of means across situations.

The grand mean computed in 2) represents the quantity of cosmetics use, while thevariance comuputed in 3) represents the qualitative pattern of use index. The higherstandard deviation scores mirror higher “situationality” of product use, whereas lowerscores represent a “dispositional” pattern of use (Cash and Cash, 1982). The formerrefers to using cosmetics according to situations with varying degree, whereas thelatter refers to using cosmetics in a routine pattern regardless of situations. Compositescores for quantity and pattern of cosmetic use were considered global indices andcalculation of reliability statistics was not appropriate.

Brand personality. The brand personality scale was modified from Aaker’s (1997)Brand Personality Scale. Participants were instructed to imagine each brand aspossessing human qualities. Then, the participants rated, on a five-point scale(1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree), the extent to which they feel eachpersonality characteristic describes each brand. This scale measures how the threecosmetics brands are perceived along 15 brand personality characteristics. Thepersonality characteristics include items such as down-to-earth, daring, reliable, upperclass, and tough. These 15 personality characteristics ultimately describe the fivedimensions stated previously (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, andruggedness). Table II provides a summary of the brand personality characteristics.Brand personality dimensions were considered global indices and conceptually notappropriate to measure reliability statistics.

Brand personality dimensions Items

Sincerity Down-to-earthHonestWholesomeCheerful

Excitement DaringSpiritedImaginativeUp-to-date

Competence Reliable

IntelligentSuccessful

Sophistication Upper classCharming

Ruggedness OutdoorsyTough

Source: Aaker, 1997

Table II.Summary of BrandPersonality items

JFMM12,2

172





Brand attitude. The brand attitudes scales include two items: negative/positive anddislike/like. Brand attitude was measured for each of the three cosmetic brands. Meanscores were derived using items measuring each of the five brand personality measuresand brand attitude. Reliability statistic for the brand attitude measure yielded a

Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 across the three brands.Sample characteristics. Demographic questions concerning the participants’

personal background were included in the survey. Questions include the amountspent on cosmetics annually, age, gender, major, academic major, and currentlevel/year at the university.

Data analysis and resultsFirst, mean and correlation tables were developed to initially examine the variables inthe study (see Table III). The overall mean for facial image was moderate ( M ¼ 96.58)with 150 being the highest score possible. The mean score representing the quantity of cosmetic used across situations was low at 1.07 with four being the highest possible

score. The pattern of use represented by the standard deviation across the meancosmetic usage score for each subject was a moderate 0.59.Next, consumer perceptions of brand personality traits for each brand were

examined. Consumer perceptions for personality traits excitement, competence, andsophistication for the M · A · Cw brand were moderately high ( M . 3.50) with meanscores ranging from 3.63 to 3.97. Competence was a highly regarded trait for Cliniquew

( M ¼ 4.05). Personality traits sincerity ( M ¼ 3.85) and sophistication ( M ¼ 3.75) werealso favorable for Cliniquew. CoverGirlw showed a high score for personality traitSincerity ( M ¼ 3.81). Consumer attitudes for all three brands (brand attitude) werefavorable with mean scores ranging from 3.69 to 3.94. Results from the correlationtable showed indications of relationships among the study variables.

Facial image, cosmetic usage, and brand personalityA multiple regression analysis was first conducted to determine the relationshipbetween cosmetic usage factors and facial image. It was determined that only quantityof cosmetic use was influenced by facial image ( b ¼ 0.14, p , 0.05). Multipleregression analyses were then employed to test how each dimension of brandpersonality was influenced by facial image and the two factors of cosmetic usage.These results are summarized for each of the three brands, as seen in Table IV. Facialimage influenced perceptions of competence ( b ¼ 0.19, p , 0.01) of the M·A·Cw

Brand and Sincerity ( b ¼ 0.15, p , 0.05) of the Cliniquew brand. The quantity factor of cosmetic usage was a significant predictor for the excitement ( b ¼ 0.15, p , 0.05) andsophistication ( b ¼ 0.15, p , 0.05) dimensions for the M· A · Cw brand. Pattern of usewas a significant predictor for the excitement ( b ¼ 0.17, p , 0.05) dimension of the

Cliniquew brand.

Facial image, cosmetic usage, brand personality, and brand attitudeA multiple regression analysis was used to determine the relationship the followingvariables have with brand attitude: facial image, cosmetic usage (quantity and patternof use), and the five personality dimensions. For the M · A· Cw brand, facial image( b ¼ 0.15, p , 0.01) and quantity of cosmetic usage ( b ¼ 0.17, p , 0.01) weresignificant predictors of positive brand attitudes. Additionally, Excitement ( b ¼ 0.39 ,


173



I t e m s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

M · A · C w

b r a n d

1 .

F a c i a l i m a g e

1 . 0

0

0 . 1

4 *

0 . 0

8

2 0 . 1

0

0 . 1

3

0 . 2

0 * *

0 . 1

5 *

0 . 0

7

0 . 2

6 * * *

C o s m e t i c u s a g e

2 .

Q u a n t i t y

1 . 0

0

0 . 3

7 * * *

0 . 0

8

0 . 1

7 * *

0 . 1

3 *

0 . 2

2 * *

2 0 . 0

9

0 . 2

7 * * *

3 .

P a t t e r n

1 . 0

0

0 . 0

1

0 . 0

8

0 . 0

5

0 . 1

4 *

2 0 . 1

7 * *

0 . 0

6

B r a n d p e r s o n a l i t y

4 .

S i n c e r i t y

1 . 0

0

0 . 1

8 * *

0 . 3

8 * * *

0 . 2

6 * * *

0 . 3

2 * * *

0 . 2

5 * * *

5 .

E x c i t e m e n t

1 . 0

0

0 . 6

5 * * *

0 . 5

5 * * *

2 0 . 1

6 *

0 . 5

4 * * *

6 .

C o m p e t e n c e

1 . 0

0

0 . 6

5 * * *

2 . 0

4

0 . 5

0 * * *

7 .

S o p h i s t i c a t i o n

1 . 0

0

2 0 . 1

4 *

0 . 3

4 * * *

8 .

R u g g e d n e s s

1 . 0

0

0 . 0

2

9 .

B r a n d a t t i t u d e

1 . 0

0

M e a n

9

6 . 5

8

1 . 0

7

0 . 5

9

2 . 9

8

3 . 9

7

3 . 6

3

3 . 6

4

2 . 3

7

3 . 7

4

S D

2

1 . 3

1

0 . 4

6

0 . 2

3

0 . 6

5

0 . 7

8

0 . 7

7

0 . 8

1

0 . 8

7

0 . 9

0

C l i n i q u e w

b r a n d

1 .


1 . 0

0

0 . 1

4 *

0 . 0

8

0 . 1

8 * *

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

6

0 . 0

6

0 . 0

2

0 . 1

0


2 .

Q u a n t i t y

1 . 0

0

0 . 3

7 * *

0 . 2

2 * *

0 . 0

4

0 . 1

4 *

0 . 1

9 * *

2 0 . 0

0

0 . 2

4 * * *

3 .

P a t t e r n

1 . 0

0

0 . 2

5 * *

0 . 1

6 *

0 . 1

6 *

0 . 1

6 *

0 . 0

5

0 . 3

0 * * *


4 .

S i n c e r i t y

1 . 0

0

0 . 2

1 * *

0 . 5

1 * * *

0 . 3

1 * * *

0 . 1

9 * *

0 . 4

8 * * *

5 .

E x c i t e m e n t

1 . 0

0

0 . 3

6 * * *

0 . 3

7 * * *

0 . 2

1 * * *

0 . 3

6 * * *

6 .

C o m p e t e n c e

1 . 0

0

0 . 6

0 * * *

2 0 . 1

3 *

0 . 4

7 * *

7 .


1 . 0

0

2 0 . 0

5

0 . 3

1 * * *

8 .

R u g g e d n e s s

1 . 0

0

0 . 0

7

9 .


1 . 0

0

M e a n

9

6 . 5

8

1 . 0

7

0 . 5

9

3 . 8

5

3 . 3

1

4 . 0

5

3 . 7

5

2 . 3

5

3 . 9

4

S D

2

1 . 3

1

0 . 4

6

0 . 2

3

0 . 7

0

0 . 6

5

0 . 6

8

0 . 7

1

0 . 9

2

0 . 7

7

( c o n t i n u e d )

Table III.Correlation for studyconstructs

JFMM12,2

174



I t e m s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

C o v e r G i r l w b r a n d

1 .


1 . 0

0

0 . 1

4 *

0 . 0

8

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

1

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

9

0 . 0

2

2 0 . 0

5


2 .

Q u a n t i t y

1 . 0

0

0 . 3

7 * *

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

9

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

7

0 . 1

3 *

0 . 1

3 *

3 .

P a t t e r n

1 . 0

0

2

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

8

0 . 0

1

2 0 . 0

3

2 0 . 0

3

2 0 . 0

1


4 .

S i n c e r i t y

1 . 0

0

0 . 3

3 * * *

0 . 4

6 * * *

0 . 2

8 * * *

0 . 2

4 * * *

0 . 3

3 * * *

5 .

E x c i t e m e n t

1 . 0

0

0 . 5

1 * * *

0 . 5

7 * * *

0 . 2

3 * * *

0 . 3

9 * * *

6 .

C o m p e t e n c e

1 . 0

0

0 . 5

8 * * *

0 . 2

6 * * *

0 . 6

0 * * *

7 .


1 . 0

0

0 . 2

6 * * *

0 . 5

0 * * *

8 .

R u g g e d n e s s

1 . 0

0

0 . 2

6 * * *

9 .


1 . 0

0

M e a n

9 6 . 5

8

1 . 0

7

0 . 5

9

3 . 8

1

3 . 3

9

3 . 5

6

3 . 0

1

2 . 5

9

3 . 6

9

S D

2 1 . 3

1

0 . 4

6

0 . 2

3

0 . 6

5

0 . 7

7

0 . 7

2

0 . 7

2

0 . 9

0

0 . 7

9

N o t e : * p ,

0 . 0

5 ,

* * p ,

0 . 0

1 , p ,

0 . 0

0 1 .

F a c i a l i m a g e s c o r e i s a c o m p o s i t e s c o r e w i t h l e v e l o f s a t i s f a

c t i o n w e i g h t e d b y i m p o r t a n c e f o r e a c

h f a c i a l a r e a .

F a c i a l i m a g e - r e l a t e d i t e m s

w e r e m e a s u r e d o n a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e .

C o s m e t i c u s a g e q u a n t i t y w a s m e a s u r e d o

n a 4 - p o i n t s c a l e .

F o r d i s c u s s i o n o n c o

s m e t i c u s a g e

p a t t e r n , p l e a s e s e e m e t h o d o l o g y s e c t i o n .

I t e m s m e a s u r i n g b r a n d p e r s o n a l i t y w e r e m e a s u r e d o n a 5 - p

o i n t s c a l e

Table III


175



M · A · C w

B r a n

d

C l i n i q u e w

C o v e r G i r l w

D e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e

b

R - s q u a r e

b

R - s q u a r e

b

R - s q u a r e

I n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s

C o s m e t i c u s a g e : q u a n t i t y

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

2


0 . 1

4 *

0 . 1

4 *

0 . 1

4 *

C o s m e t i c u s a g e : p a t t e r n

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0


0 . 0

8

0 . 0

8

0 . 0

8

B r a n d p e r s o n a l i t y : s i n c e r i t y

0 . 0

0

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

1


2 0 . 0

2

0 . 1

5 *

0 . 0

4


0 . 0

8

0 . 1

0

0 . 1

2


2 0 . 0

0

0 . 2

2 * *

2 0 . 0

7

B r a n d p e r s o n a l i t y : e x c i t e m e n t

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

0


0 . 1

0

2 0 . 0

1

0 . 0

0


0 . 1

5 *

2 0 . 0

2

0 . 0

5


0 . 0

3

0 . 1

7 *

0 . 0

4

B r a n d p e r s o n a l i t y : c o m p e t e

n c e

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

3

0 . 0

0


0 . 1

9 * *

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

0


0 . 0

8

0 . 1

0

0 . 0

3


0 . 0

2

0 . 1

1

2 0 . 0

3

B r a n d p e r s o n a l i t y : s o p h i s t i c a t i o n

0 . 0

6

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

1


0 . 1

2

0 . 0

3

0 . 0

9


0 . 1

5 *

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

6


0 . 0

9

0 . 1

3

2 0 . 0

8

B r a n d p e r s o n a l i t y : r u g g e d n

e s s

0 . 0

3

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0


0 . 0

9

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

1


2 0 . 0

6

2 0 . 0

5

0 . 1

4


2 0 . 1

3

0 . 0

8

2 0 . 1

1


0 . 4

8

0 . 3

7

0 . 4

1


0 . 1

5 * *

0 . 0

0

2 0 . 0

8

C o s m e t i c u s a g e : Q u a n t i t y

0 . 1

7 * *

0 . 1

0

0 . 1

1


2 0 . 0

1

0 . 1

2

2 0 . 0

6

S i n c e r i t y

0 . 0

9

0 . 2

6 * * *

0 . 0

3

E x c i t e m e n t

0 . 3

9 * * *

0 . 1

8 * *

0 . 0

2

C o m p e t e n c e

0 . 2

3 * *

0 . 2

5 * *

0 . 4

3 * * *


2 0 . 1

2

2 0 . 0

3

0 . 1

9 * *

R u g g e d n e s s

2 0 . 0

4

0 . 0

1

0 . 0

6

N o t e : * p ,

0 . 0

5 ,

* * p ,

0 . 0

1 ,

* * * p ,

0 . 0

0 1

Table IV.Multiple regressionresults

JFMM12,2

176



p , 0.001) and competence ( b ¼ 0.23, p , 0.01) both influenced the brand attitudes of M · A · Cw. The brand attitudes of Cliniquew were significantly related to the brandpersonality dimensions of sincerity ( b ¼ 0.26, p , 0.001), Excitement ( b ¼ 0.18, p , 0.01), and competence ( b ¼ 0.25 , p , 0.01). Facial image and cosmetic usage

factors did not influence brand attitudes for the Cliniquew brand. Finally, forCoverGirlw only two brand personality dimensions, competence ( b ¼ 0.43, p , 0.001)and sophistication ( b ¼ 0.19, p , 0.01), were predictors of brand attitude. Nosignificant results were found for facial image, cosmetic usage, and other brandpersonality dimensions for the CoverGirlw brand.

Discussion and implicationsYoung female consumers perceived M · A · Cw to be a relatively exciting, competent,and sophisticated brand. Cliniquew was perceived to be sincere, competent, andsophisticated and CoverGirlw was perceived to be competent. Consistent with findings

by Kim (2000), the brand personality of competence emerged as a characteristic foundacross all three cosmetic brand types. Comparing across the three brands, M · A · Cw

was the only brand with a high mean score ( M . 3.50) for the brand personality of excitement and the lowest score on sincerity. Cliniquew had the highest score onsophisticated. These results provide evidence that each cosmetic brand holds a uniqueset of brand personality traits identified by consumers. Although the brand personalityof competence might be a universal trait desired in cosmetic brands, other personalitytraits differed. Overall, consumers perceived all three cosmetic brands positively(brand attitude) with the Cliniquew brand being the highest scored.

Facial image and cosmetic usage Facial image influenced the quantity of cosmetic usage, or amount of cosmetics used.(Question 1). The current study found consumer’s facial image to influence the totalquantity of cosmetics used, but not the variation in quantity in different situations.Although descriptive statistics report that different patterns of cosmetic use based ondifferent situations exist, we found no evidence to suggest that an individual’s facialimage may affect the pattern of cosmetic use. The current findings contradict priorreports by Cash and Cash (1982) that cosmetic usage is affected by one’s overall bodyimage and not specifically by facial image, and the level of dissatisfaction with one’sphysical appearance increases the number of cosmetic products applied. Also, ourfindings do not support Cash and Cash’s (1982) findings that women who weresatisfied with their facial features were more likely to use cosmetics in a routine pattern

rather than a varied pattern. Instead, our study found facial image to positivelycorrespond to the quantity of cosmetics used. Thus, the conclusion can be drawn thatwomen who are more satisfied with their facial image tend to use more cosmetics. Thecause and effect relationship between facial image and cosmetic usage should befurther examined. That is, it could be equally understood that cosmetic usage increasesfacial image, as well as, those consumers with positive facial images have moreconfidence in using cosmetics to further enhance and creatively manipulate their facialfeatures resulting in higher levels of cosmetic use.


177





Facial image, cosmetic usage, and brand personalityResults indicate a relationship exists between facial image and brand personality andbetween cosmetic usage factors and brand personality (Question 2). Our study found apositive facial image influences perceptions of competence in the M · A · Cw brand and

sincerity in the Cliniquew brand. These findings indicate that women’s satisfactionwith their facial image does indeed influence how they perceive the brand. Also, arelationship was found between cosmetic usage (quantity and pattern) and brandpersonality for two brands: M· A · Cw and Cliniquew. For the M· A· Cw brand, higherquantity users of cosmetics perceived the M· A· Cw brand to be exciting andsophisticated whereas, women who reported a more varied pattern of usage perceivedthe Cliniquew brand to be exciting. These findings provide important implications formarketers in terms of strategies for brand management. By understanding consumerperceptions of brands in relation to their cosmetic usage patterns and facial image,marketers are able to develop brand images by emphasizing and leveraging theirknowledge about their consumers. For example, in relation to the M · A · Cw brand, theexcitement characteristic appears to be a very important characteristic for consumerswith higher levels of cosmetic usage. In addition, this particular characteristic is uniquein comparison to the more traditional or conservative image held by its closestcompetitors Cliniquew and CoverGirlw.

Facial image, cosmetic usage, brand personality, and brand attitudeFacial image and quantity of cosmetic usage influenced positive brand attitudes foronly the M · A · Cw brand, however, results concerning brand personalitycharacteristics were more varied (Question 3). Our results suggest the brandpersonality of competence to be important across all three brands, suggesting thatsuccessful brands are viewed as being competent, a characteristic or brand image thatis earned. In regards to other brand personality traits, our study found a different

group of brand personality traits to positively influence brand attitude for the threecosmetic brands. For example, competence and sophistication are the two main brandpersonality traits that influence positive perceptions for the CoverGirlw brands.Therefore, the CoverGirlw brand should focus on the prior two brand personality traitsto improve the image of their brand, as the female participants viewed these as thefactors which determine their feelings toward the brand. In another example, for theCliniquew brand, consumer perceptions for the brand personality trait of excitementwere not high (M ¼ 3.31). However, findings showing that excitement influencespositive feelings towards the Cliniquew brand indicate that marketers for thisparticular brand will need to focus and emphasize this characteristic as part of thebrand’s image.

This research study contributes to the body of knowledge in the area of consumer

behavior and cosmetics by examining consumer perceptions and preferences forbrands in conjunction with personal characteristics (cosmetic usage and facial image).From this study, a better understanding of cosmetic consumers is gained. Findingsfrom this study also provide companies with valuable information to apply to theirmarketing strategies. By investigating how facial image and cosmetic usage determinecosmetic brand perceptions, companies can improve their marketing strategies toenhance customer satisfaction and increase their customer base. Moreover, byidentifying the brand personalities that attract certain types of consumers, companies

JFMM12,2

178



can pinpoint the characteristics customers look for in a product, which in turn can beused to enhance brand images.

Further research must be conducted to better understand cosmetic consumers.Using cosmetic brands most popular among young college women, the results are

confined to young college women and results for a broader population may differ. Itwould be valuable to determine the differences between different age groups, cultures,and residential areas (urban vs. rural) throughout the country. Moreover, furtherresearch is needed in examining the relationship between cosmetic usage factors andfacial image. Also, future studies may examine the entire physical appearance (inaddition to facial features) in relation to cosmetic usage. This would show whetherconsumers who are dissatisfied with other areas of the body have a different cosmeticusage pattern. Additionally, brand personalities for cosmetic brands can be comparedto consumers’ own personalities. This would explain if consumers choose cosmeticbrands that parallel their own personalities, or if they choose brands that portray thepersonality they desire to achieve. Finally, it would be worthwhile to include a varietyof different cosmetic brands with different personalities to determine the effects on theparticipants’ perceptions.

Note

1. All brand names with “w” notations are registered trademarks of their respective owners.

References

Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34,pp. 347-56.

Biel, A. (1993), “Converting image into equity”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A. (Eds), Brand Equityand Advertising , Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Brown, T.A., Cash, T.F. and Mikulka, P.J. (1990), “Attitudinal body-image assessment: factoranalysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire”, Journal of Personality Assessment ,Vol. 55, pp. 135-44.

Brown, T.A., Cash, T.F. and Noles, S.W. (1986), “Perception of physical attractiveness amongcollege students: selected determinants and methodological matters”, The Journal of Social

Psychology, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 305-16.

Bulace, W. (2000), “Is branding more than a cosmetic issue?”, Retail World , Vol. 53 No. 15, p. 20.

Cash, T.F. (1988), “The psychology of cosmetics: a research bibliography”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 455-60.

Cash, T.F. and Cash, D.W. (1982), “Women’s use of cosmetics: psychosocial correlates andconsequences”, International Journal of Cosmetic Science, Vol. 4, pp. 1-13.

Cash, T.F. and Henry, P.E. (1995), “Women’s body images: the results of a national survey in the

USA”, Sex Roles, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, pp. 19-28.Cash, T.F. and Labarge, A.S. (1996), “Development of the appearance schemas inventory: a new

cognitive body-image assessment”, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 37-50.

Cash, T.F., Dawson, K., Davis, P. and Bowen, M. (1989), “Effects of cosmetics use on the physicalattractiveness and body image of American college women”, Journal of Social Psychology,Vol. 129 No. 3, pp. 349-55.

Craik, J. (1993), The Face of Fashion: Cultural Studies in Fashion , Routledge, London.


179



Creekmore, A.M. (1974), “Clothing related to body satisfaction and perceived peer self”, ResearchReport No. 239, Technical Bulletin, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan StateUniversity, East Lansing, MI.

(The) Estee Lauder Companies (2007), The Este e Lauder Companies Inc. Family of Brands,

available at: www.elcompanies.com/our_brands.asp (accessed January 4, 2007).Euromonitor (2006), Colour Cosmetics in the USA, available at: www.euromonitor.com/

reportsummary.aspx?folder ¼ Colour_Cosmetics_in_the_USA&industryfolder ¼Cosmetics_and_toiletries (accessed June 20, 2006).

Euromonitor International (2006), Cosmetics and Toiletries in the US , available at: www.euromonitor.com/Cosmetics_and_Toiletries_in_the_US (accessed January 10, 2007).

Forbes, G., Jung, J. and Haas, K. (n.d.), “Benevolent sexism and cosmetic use: a replication withthree college and one adult sample”, The Journal of Social Psychology (in press).

Fournier, S. (1994), “A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategy brandmanagement”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Jamal, A. and Goode, M.M.H. (2001), “Consumers and brands: a study of the impact of self-image

congruence on brand preference and satisfaction”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning ,Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 482-92.

Jung, J. and Lennon, S.J. (2003), “Body image, appearance self-schema, and media images”, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal , Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 27-51.

Kaiser, S.B. (1997), The Social Psychology of Clothing , 2nd ed., Fairchild, New York, NY.

Kim, H.-S. (2000), “Examination of brand personality and brand attitude within the apparelproduct category”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management , Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 243-52.

Kline and Company (2005), Cosmetics and Toiletries USA 2004, available at: www.klinegroup.com/reports/brochures/cia4c/brochure.pdf (accessed June 20, 2006).

Kline and Company (2007), Cosmetics and Toiletries USA 2005 , available at: www.klinegroup.com/brochures/cia4d/brochure.pdf (accessed January 10, 2007).

McDonald, P.J. and Eilenfield, V.C. (1980), “Physical attractiveness and the approach/avoidanceof self-awareness”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 6, pp. 391-5.

Malhotra, N.K. (1981), “A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product concepts”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, pp. 456-64.

Mintel International Group (2006), Makeup – US , February 1, available at: www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?productid¼ 1224041&SID¼ 67099889-355613004-382592445(accessed January 10, 2007).

New Media Age (2006), “Clinique uses AOL to target male grooming market”, New Media Age,October 5, p. 3.

O’Loughlin, S. (2006), “CoverGirl adds layer to anti-aging line”, Brandweek, Vol. 47 No. 5, p. 9.

Proctor & Gamble (2007), P&G US Product Information by Brands: CoverGirl , available at: www.pg.com/product_card/brand_overview.jhtml?document ¼ %2Fproduct_cards

%2Fprod_card_main_covergirl.xml&brand_name ¼ CoverGirl (accessed January 4,2007).

Rudd, N.A. and Lennon, S.J. (2000), “Body image and appearance-management behaviors incollege women”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal , Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 152-62.

Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 412-25.

Tidwell, P.M., Horgan, D.D. and Kenny, C.T. (1992-1993), “Brand character as a function of brandloyalty”, Current Psychology: Research and Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 347-53.

JFMM12,2

180



Underhill, P. (2004), “Is there a better way of selling beauty? In his latest book, Paco Underhilltakes readers on a tour of the mall (Health & Beauty Merchandiser)”, Retail Merchandiser ,44(4), 24(2), available at: General BusinessFile ASAP online database (accessed June 6,2004).

Wood, L.M. (2004), “Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour: consumers in the 18-24 agegroup”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour , Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 9-24.

Corresponding authorHye-Shin Kim can be contacted at: [email protected]


181

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The Effects of Facial Image on Brand Personality

Documents