Chapter One: Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

The purpose of this research paper is to examine the brand personality, and consumer
personality of the Apple iPhone among UK consumers. This is to examine the set of human
characteristics as posited by Aaker (1997) that are associated with the Apple iPhone, and
also to study Sun, et al,’s (2020) consumer personality factors of paying attention to social
comparison information, the need for uniqueness, and the possessing of quality
consciousness.

This research paper will base its evaluation around the construct of Brand personality, and
consumer personality. The researcher is considering that the purchase of the iPhone in the
UK could either be based on the iPhone brand personality, or the consumer personality of
UK residents. However, the researcher, after the study of Sun, et al.’s (2020) research
work, where they posited that various personality factors like paying attention to social
comparison information, the need for uniqueness NFU; the possessing of value
consciousness VC, has an impact on Chinese buyers when they try to compare iPhone and
none iPhone owners. Therefore, based on this finding by Sun, et al., (2020), this research
paper will attempt to build on the existing knowledge, by studying brand personality of the
iPhone and the consumer personality of UK phone consumers.

Why the UK? You may ask. The reason is because as an international student from Nigeria,
the researcher observed that there exists’ a wide acceptance and usage of the Apple iPhone
brand in the UK, in sharp contrast to how it is been used in Nigeria - even though the brand
has a measure of acceptance as a quality brand in his home country, however, only among a
certain privileged class. Again, the Apple iPhone is a global brand, and proposed research
work will be limited in terms of the knowledge of the brand personality data experience we
may be able to gather in other nations as a result of proximity, when compared to the UK
where the researcher is domiciled presently.

Apples largest regional market is the Americas, followed closely by Europe with a net sale
of 27.68 billion U.S dollars in the first quarter of 2023 and with a 35.84% market share

0|Page
(Ruby (2023)). Accordingly, the UK’s iOS (iPhone) 2023 market share stood at 51.63%,
coming fifth, after Sweden, which stood at 55.33%, followed by Switzerland - 55.92%,
Norway - 61.94%, and finally Denmark, which has the highest market share of 64.04%,
occupying the first position. However, the United Kingdom has the highest population of
these other European countries which stands at 67,736,802 by the 2023 population data.
This goes to show that UK has the potential to surpass these other European countries
going by the current trend which this research paper is studying. Therefore, the choice of
the UK Apple iPhone users as a case study, is both for easy access to data for qualitative
and quantitative research purposes, and growth potential.

1.2. Research Aim

The key aim of this research is to examine the brand and consumer personality of the Apple
iPhone, and how any of these two personality factors relate to the purchase of the iPhone by
UK phone users.

1.3. Research Objective

1. To identify the brand personality dimensions of the Apple iPhone.
2. To identify the consumer personality factors of the Apple iPhone users.
3. To identify the brand personality aspect that influences the purchase of the iPhone.
4. To identify the consumer personality traits that motivates the purchase of the
iPhone.
5. To identify the relationship between brand personality and consumer personality
and how it relates to iPhone purchase.

1.4. Research Questions

1. What are the iPhone brand personality?
2. What are the consumer personalities of the Apple iPhone’s consumers in the UK?
3. Which brand personality of Apple iPhone has influenced UK phone users the most?
4. Which of the consumer personality traits encourages the UK consumers the most to
purchase the iPhone?

1|Page
 5. What is the relationship between the brand personality and consumer personality on
iPhone purchases in the UK?
Chapter Two: Literature Review

The reviewed literature in this section deals with the possible reasons that could make
individuals to prefer a certain product over another. Some few researchers have done
considerable research on brand personality and consumer personality in various areas, and
this research project will attempt to build on those existing knowledge by exploring
relevant literatures.

2.1. Consumers Purchase Intention

Through brand personality

Consumer Purchase Intention (CPI) is the planning in advance by a consumer to purchase

certain goods or services in the future, and depends on the individual’s ability to perform
Warshaw & Davies, (1985). Also, according to Blackwell et al. (2001), what is cross in the
customer’s mind signifies the intention to purchase by such a customer.

Mohd Azam Osman et al (2012), agreed that smartphone technology is transforming

peoples’ way of life’s especially, young adults, and the surveys that have been carried out
over that are yet not sufficient. According to Ericsson Consumer Lab (2013), on the usage
of phones among University students, their research findings revealed that 57 percent of
University students use smartphone, 60 percent feel addicted to their phone, 75 percent
sleep next to their phones, 88 percent texted in class, 97 percent use them for social
networking, and 40 percent used the smartphone for study before test. The smartphone
industry has witnessed an upward boost over the last decade, there has been a regular
launch of new models in the market competing with the already established brands. This
trend in the smartphone market has impacted the populace, especially, the youths in terms
of the overriding intention that underlines such purchase decision, (Rahim et al., (2016)).
Due to the flood of varying brand of phones in the market place, there will be multiplicity
of tastes and preferences among the consumers. Therefore, consumer behavior to purchase
under such scenario, will largely depend on the characteristics of such brands, such as

2|Page
brand name, price, quality, recreation and innovation, awareness, mixed up with other
choices as well as impulsiveness (Leo et al., (2005)). This has made it necessary to examine
the factors that could lead to consumer’s Purchase Intention of the iPhone in the UK.

Toldos – Romero & Orozco-Gomez’s (2015) findings revealed that the aspect of success,
sincerity, emotionality, liveliness (entertainment) and professionalism could explain CPI. In
the Batra et al,’s (2012) model, passion is the driver of behavior, which in turn is
characterized of a passionate desire to use. This research paper is examining the CPI of
iPhone users from the perspective of Aaker’s brand personality framework, and Sun’s, et
al., (2020) consumer personality factors. According to Epstein (1977), human and brand
personality traits might share underlining similarity, their difference, however, lies in their
formation. The perceptions of human personality traits are implied on the bases of an
individual’s behavior, physical characteristics, attitudes, beliefs, and demographic
characteristic (Park (1986)). In contrast, the traits of brand personality perceptions can be
formed and influenced by any direct or indirect contact which the consumer may have with
the brand (Plummer (1985)). Lin and Lin (2007), posits that consumers Purchase Intention
is the means by which customer behavior can be evaluated and predicted in relation to
making purchase decisions. According to Bilal and Ali, (2013), CPI is considered a
dependent variable in research.

2.1.1.0. Sincere Brand

Consumer’s view sincere brands as down-to-earth, honest, trustful and cheerful. These
days’ customers prefer smartphones that have outstanding features like clear graphical
interface for touch screen interactions (Norazah (2013)). According to ChangeWave
research (2010), the Apple smart phone brand has high number of loyal customers due to its
ability to differentiate and reach different levels of customers by selling different versions
with different amount of storage space, colors and prizes. Based on previous research, it
was discovered that the products brand name influences customers’ evaluation of it and
affect their purchase decision (Khasawneh (2010)).

3|Page
Consumer’s loyalty to a given brand enhances the marketing advantages of that company,
such as reduced marketing cost, returning customers, positive word of mouth, and an
enclave of protected customers in a highly competitive economy (Chaudhuri & Holbrook
(2001); Jacoby & Kyner (1973); Phau & Cheong (2009); Tsai (2011)). The literature on
brand loyalty stipulates that the ingredient to gaining this marketing advantage, is to
develop an enduring and unique brand personality (Aaker (1996); Koo & Kim (2013);
Plummer (1985)). And this, according to Timberlake (2013) is because a lack of unique
brand personality can hinder companies from developing enduring brand loyalty.
Companies invest heavily in the creation of strong and enduring brand personalities that are
different from their competitors (Batra, Myers, & Aaker (1996); O’Cass & Lim (2022)).
This is what Apple has done around its chain of products, by using personification to
emphasize the brand personality of the Machintosh in its TV commercials, where an actor
who represents the Mac, projects the image of a young fellow, who is hippy and cool, to
distinguish the Apple brand from the PC (Freling, Crosno, & Henard (2011)). Research has
shown that certain brand personality dimensions are more closely associated with specific
product categories Leonard & (Katsanis (2013; Maehle, Otnes, & Supphellen (2011)). An
instance of this is in Maehle et al.’s (2011) positing that people usually link a competent
brand personality to tech’ appliances like Sony and Philips, and people tend to perceive
tech’ brands with cool designs, such as Apple, as exciting.

2.1.2.0. Exciting Brand

Brand which are imaginative, up-to-date, inspiring, edgy and spirited are perceived to be in
this dimension. Brand excitement is perceived by customers and communicated to other
intending customers. According to Kotler and Armstrong (2007), consumer’s action is
influenced by people surrounding them. They may want to know from their friends or
family, how up-to-date, inspiring, and other features of the phone before purchasing them.
Based on a research conducted in Malaysia by Mohd Azam Osman et al. (2012), 35.6% of
respondent’s smart phone purchase preference was following the trend in the community.
Also, Suki and Suki (2013), posited that young generation, particularly students, depend on
others experience to purchase smart phones.

4|Page
2.1.3.0. Competent Brand

Competent brands are brands that are viewed as reliable, responsible, and intelligent and
efficient. Consumers make comparison between different products, so that they can
purchase the products that fall within their budget, as well as suites their needs and wants.
In addition, they compare quality across products of similar group but from different
brands, their benefit, and the prize. The product that could tick the most of these boxes, is
the most competent for the customers. Competent brands usually, are associated with
expertise and quality (Maehle (2011)).

2.1.4.0. Sophisticated Brand

These are brands which consumers perceive as being upper class, romantic, charming,
pretentious and glamorous, and are commonly found across the luxury industries and high
prized brands (Moura (2022)). Customer’s purchase of these type of products is due to its
positioning as upper class and high prized. Ownership of such products will differentiate
them from the rest people who does not own it.

2.1.5.0. Rugged Brand

This dimension involve brands that are perceived as tough, masculine, outdoorsy, and
western. The idea is to convey the image of the product as resistant, durable and made for
the brave ones. The cPI for these types of products is to identify with this brand personality.
Customer’s intention when purchasing such brands is simply to identify and associate
themselves with this quality.

2.2. Apple’s Brand Personality

Studies that were developed on the Aaker’s brand personality framework have shown that
brand personality has a positive association with consumer’s perceptions of the product’s
quality Ramaseshan & Tsao (2007), which may be through in the case of the Apple iPhone.

Apple repositioned its brand based on customer experience, design, and innovation, and
these three elements allow Apple to be ahead of their competitors while retaining a strong

5|Page
sense of identity (Watson (2021)). Apple employees are challenged to think outside the box
through their culture of innovation and this has immensely helped Apple to stay at the
forefront of technology and keep their customers returning for more. Their branding
strategy focuses on emotions and lifestyle. The brand personality also is about simplicity
and being a company that reaches out to its customers with a human-touch. Customer
experience, design, and innovation are the three driving forces of Apple as a company
(Singh (2022)).

The starting point of the whole of Apple’s product development procedure, is their design,
and this is considered the foundation principle of Apple, Inc. (Singh (2022)).

2.3.0. Consumer Purchase Intention

Through consumer personality

The study by Sun, et al., (2020) in the bid to explore consumers purchase intention, related
the consumer personality factors to iPhone consumption in China. They posited that various
personality factors like paying attention to social comparison information, the need for
uniqueness; the possessing of quality consciousness, has an impact on Chinese buyers when
they try to compare iPhone and none iPhone owners. According to Zhou et al, (2008), there
also existed a need for uniqueness NFU among the populace from expressing differences
from others, this in a way, positively shaped the attitude of Indian consumers towards that
of the American-type products. Also, Zhan and He (2012) found that the susceptibility to
normative influence SNI, need for uniqueness NFU and value consciousness VC affected
the attitude of consumers and their purchase intentions and in a way, drives them towards
purchasing western luxury brands in China.

Going by the findings of the above researchers in line with the personality factors of : The
NFU, VC, and SNI, Zhan and He (2012), the researcher, Onuoha (2023) would like to state
his experience around a recent iPhone that was purchased by the spouse, which in a great
measure agrees with the findings of the above researchers. (For the purpose of this research
paper, the spouse’s name will be termed as ‘G’).

6|Page
“When ‘G’ had the need to replace her phone, she had been asked her most preferred brand,
and without hesitation she replied, it is the Apple iPhone – citing that she does not want to
be the only one not using the iPhone”, and she owns an Apple iPhone this moment. ‘G’s
attitude was motivated by NFU, VC and SNI. ‘G’s choice for the Apple phone had
absolutely nothing to do with whatever brand personality the Apple iphone possesses, nor
any promotional information on the Apple phone, but rather on her individual personality.
However, this does not discountenance the fact that other individuals exist, who are
influenced to purchase certain brands based on those brand’s brand personality OR other
brand related attributes.

In the view of this thesis, the individual’s personality in both instances are paramount. In
the case of ‘G’, whose choice was based on either NFU, VC, SNI Sun, et al., (2020), Zhan
and He (2012). This theses’ tentative argument therefore, is that, it is an individual’s
personality difference that would have made an Aaker’s (1997) proponent to yield to a
‘sincere brand’ for instance, and on the other hand, the same individual personality is
responsible for those who may have yielded to social comparison, normative influence and
the need for uniqueness et cetera, as propounded by (Gong et al. (2020), and Zhan and He
(2012)).

2.4. Evaluation of Relevant theories

2.4.1. Technology Acceptance Model theory (TAM)

The technology Acceptance model (TAM) was proposed by Davis (1989), being an
adaptation of the Model Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). According to the TAM model,
the use of the information systems would be determined essentially by the use intention that
the individual presents. The main objective of this model was to illumine the processes that
underpins technology acceptance, so as to predict behavior, and provide a theoretical
explanation for the successful technology implementation. The TAM was based on the
theory of reasoned action, which provided a psychological point of view on human
behavior (Davis, (1989); Davies (1993)). It is suggested that an individual’s decision to
behave in a certain manner is as a result of the analysis of the benefit that they expect to

7|Page
receive from the behavior compared to the effort/costs they put in to perform the behavior
(Johnson & Payne (1985); Payne (1982)). This means that the use of the information
system is determined by an evaluation of the trade-off between the perceived usefulness of
the system and the perceived difficulty of using it (Davis (1989)). Perceived usefulness is
defined as the individual’s perception of the degree to which the use of any given
technology would improve performance. The conceptualization of this construct stemmed
from the Banduras concept of outcome judgments, which refers to an individual’s
expectation of a behavior that triggers a positive outcome (Bandura (1982)). Perceived
usefulness was made operational based on the evidence confirming the effect of system
performance expectancy on system usage (Robey, (1979)). Perceived ease of use is defined
as the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system is free of effort
(Davies, (1989)). This construct is derived from the self-efficacy concept which refers to a
specific situation belief on how well someone can execute actions (Davis (1989), Bandura
(1982)). It was suggested that self-efficacy had somewhat of a predictive role in the making
of decision about technology use (Hill, Smith & Mann (1987)). Also, the perceived ease of
use shared similarity with the complexity factor that is theorized in the innovation diffusion
literature as an obstacle to innovation adoption. It is defined as the degree to which
individuals find an innovation difficult to understand and use (Mahajan, 2010)).

According to TAM, technology acceptance is a three-stage process, whereby system

design features, considered as external factors would trigger cognitive responses which are
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, which, in turn, form an effective response
(attitude toward using
technology/intention), influencing use behavior (Davis (1989); Davis (1993)). TAM
represents the behavior, as the outcome predicted by perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness and behavioral intention (Figure 2.0). Perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness capture the expectations of positive behavioral outcomes and the belief that
behavior will not be labour-consuming (Davis (1989)).

8|Page
 Perceived
Usefulness
Intention to use Actual use

Perceived ease of
use

Figure 2.0.: The Technology Acceptance Model

Source: Fishbein – Ajzen – 1975

2.5. Theoritical framework

The following are the expected relationship between the variables (dependent and
independent) in this research paper, as well as the objectives, for the entire research
process.

SINCERITY Paying attention to

Consumer
social Personality
comparison
BrandDown-to-earth
Personality (Aaker, 1997)
Honest Sun, etinformation
al., (2020),
Wholesome
EXCITEMENT Need for Uniqueness
Daring
Spirited Dependent Variable
Imaginative
SOPHISTICATION PURCHASE Possessing of Quality
Upper-class consciousness
Charming
INTENTION

RUGGEDNESS Susceptibility to Consumer Personal

Outdoorsy interpersonal Hamamura (2020)
Tough influence

COMPETENCE Consumer
Reliable innovativeness
Intelligent
Successful

Independent Variables

9|Page
Figure 3.0.: Proposed conceptual framework
Source: Elaborated by the researcher.

Perceived Quality

Perceived
Usefulness and
Ease of Use

Brand Feature Purchasing Attitude

Fatique
Perceived
Expressiveness

Perceived
Enjoyment

Figure 4.0.: Proposed conceptual framework based on the TAM

Source: Adapted from TIJ Research Publication Pte. Ltd., Singapore k

Parasuraman et al., (1985) asserted that there exist a difference between customer service
perception and expectation. Further, Wilkie, (1980); Wells and Prensky, (1996) and oliver,
(1997) made more clarification on the issue, that when customers carry out an assessment
or evaluation for such a product or service performance, which may be below or exceed
their level of expectation, this will lead to neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction. In
addition, Oliver (1980) expected that users will judge quality to be low level or high level if
performance does not meet their expectations, and or, performance equals or surpasses their
expectations. Additionally, due to behavioural design variations, quality service also has an
effect in determining customer loyalty (Jones and Farquhar (2003)). Bolton (1998)
maintains that service quality has significant effect on customer behaviour, intentions and

10 | P a g e
preferences. Cronin and Taylor (1994) stated that service quality significantly affects
patronage intentions.

2.6. Brand and Consumer Personality

2.6.2. Consumer Personality

According to Sarker (2013), Consumer is the principal focus of a business, and there are
factors that influence the purchases that consumers make, like Social, cultural, personal and
psychological factors (Bhasin (2006)). This research paper will be concerned with the
personal factors, due to the research topic.

Researchers over time have developed theories based on their view of personality traits,
Sarker (2013), and some of these theories, to mention a few are: the cognitive theory,
Gestalt theory, Stimulus response theory, and Trait theory. The researcher will be
concerned with the trait theory of personality, as it is more in alignment with the research
topic of this paper. Also, the Sun, et al.’s (2020) research work on personality factors,
where they posited that various personality factors like paying attention to social
comparison information, the need for uniqueness; the possessing of quality consciousness,
has an impact on Chinese buyers when they try to compare iPhone and none iPhone owners
in China.

Sarker (2013), defines trait as any relatively enduring and distinguishable pattern that
differentiates one individual from another. Under the trait theory, personality is defined as
possessing one or more such characteristics as ambitiousness, authoritarianism,
aggressiveness, compulsiveness, competitiveness, dogmatism, extroversion and
introversion.

The consumer behavior model by Hawkins, Best and Coney (1998) opines that the needs of
consumers are influenced by external factors such as demographic, culture, social status,

11 | P a g e
sub-cultures, family, marketing activities and reference group. Internal influences like
perception, motives, learning, memory, emotions, personality and attitudes drives consumer
desires and needs also. These two sets of influences combine to form the consumer’s self-
concept and lifestyle, which in turn will drive their desires and needs. The influences
ultimately lead the consumers into a five-stage decision process, starting with problem and
recognition of needs (Hawkins, Best and Coney (1998)). The moment consumers recognize
their needs, they will search for information and alternatives. Consequently, they will
evaluate available alternatives and make their decision to purchase. The five stage process
of decision ends at post-purchase evaluation (Pyeman et al., (2016)).

Understanding the reason behind the choices of buyers during purchase, is the most
challenging concept in marketing. Consumers purchase products that reflects their
personality. The cloth, appliance, automobile etc, types, may reflect people personalities
(Bhasin (2006)). Marketers should not only consider the conscious, rational aspects of a
product in developing appeal, but should also consider the consumer’s unconsciousness
motives (Chowdhury (2007)).

According to the article “Personality of consumer: Nature, theories and life style concept”
Kashyap (2015), there exists three personality theories to describe consumers, they are:
Psychoanalytic theory or Freud’s theory, Socio-psychological theory, and the trait theory.
The article posited that researchers who applied Freud’s theory to marketing believe that
‘id’ and ‘superego’ combine to create unconscious motives for the purchase of certain
products, although, consumers are unaware of their true reasons for the purchases they
make.

The Trait theory has been used most extensively in the measure of personality due to its
quantitative approach (“Personality of consumer: Nature, theories and life style concept”
(2015)). This research is going to study the consumer’s personality of the iPhone based on
the Trait theory of personality.

Behavioral Psychologists and scientists have theorized that personality traits should predict
buyer’s activity or there store preferences, and have gone further to classify them into (a)

12 | P a g e
“Consumer innovativeness and susceptibility to interpersonal influence” (b) “Cognitive
personality factors and interrelated consumption and possession traits” (Hamamura (2020)).
Consumer innovativeness is the degree of a consumer’s receptiveness to a new
product/service that will benefit both them and the marketers.

2.7. Hypothesis

This research paper is based on the five dimensions of Aaker’s brand personality, and Gong
et al.’s (2020) research work, which posited that various personality factors like paying
attention to social ‘comparison information’, the ‘need for uniqueness’; and the
‘possessing of quality consciousness’, has an impact on Chinese buyers when they try to
compare iPhone and none iPhone owners in China, which however, this research paper is
applying to this research that involves UK citizens. The following hypotheses have
therefore been proposed:

H1: Competence has a positive effect on consumer’s Purchase Intention of the iPhone.
H2: Excitement has a positive effect on consumer’s Purchase Intention of the iPhone.
H3: Ruggedness has a positive effect on consumer’s Purchase Intention of the iPhone.
H4: Sincerity has a positive effect on consumer’s Purchase Intention of the iPhone.
H5: Sophistication has a positive effect on consumer’s Purchase Intention of the iPhone.
H6: Paying of attention to social comparison information by individual, has positive effect
on a consumer’s Purchase Intention of the iPhone.
H7: Individual’s need for uniqueness has positive effect on consumer’s Purchase Intention
of the iPhone.
H8: Possessing quality consciousness has positive effect on consumer’s Purchase Intention
of the iPhone.
H9: Consumer innovativeness has positive effect on consumer’s Purchase Intention of the
iPhone.
H10: Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence has positive effect on consumer’s
Purchase Intention of the iPhone.

This research paper, based on available evidence, has formulated few testable ideas and
concepts. However, due to the existence of multiple variables - which can affect the results,
and in order to prove the credibility of each statement, the above hypothetical statements
will be subjected to scientific testing for multiple times to prove there veracity.

13 | P a g e
REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, 34

(3), p. 352.
Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality’, SSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 34,
No. 3. doi: 10.2139/ssrn. 945432.
Ajzen, I. (2000) The Theory of planned behavior: Habit, perceived control, and reasoned
action. Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum fur Europaische Sozialforschung.
Anon (n.d.) “be careless with that!” availability of product upgrades increases…,[online]
Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmr.15.0131 (Accessed March 27,
2023)
Anon (n.d) Consumers’ brand personality perceptions in a Digital World: A…, [online]
Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijcs.12791 (Accessed March
24, 2023)
Apple’s brand positioning – how it became the most valuable firm (2022) Amati and
Associates. Available at: https://www.amati-associates.com/digital-products/brand-
positioning/apple/ (Accessed: 12 June 2023).
Bickman, L and Rog, D. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research
Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Chan, P. Y. L., Saunders, J., Taylor, G. and Souchon, A. (1970) >brand personality
perception regional or country specific: ACR, ACR European Advances, [online] Available
at: https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/11253/volumes/e06/E-06 (Accessed March 24,
2023).
Geuens, M., Weijters, B. and De Wulf, K. (2009) ‘A new measure of brand personality’,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), pp. 97 – 107. doi:
10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.12.002.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990) ‘An alternative “description of personality”: The big five factor
structure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.59, No.6, pp. 1216 – 1225.
Hamamura, T. (2020) ‘Cross-Temporal changes in people’s ways of thinking, feeling, and
behaving’, Current Opinion in Psycholoy, 32, pp. 17-21. Doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.019
Huberman, A. and Miles, M. (2009). The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. Thousand
Oaks [u.a.]: sage publ.

14 | P a g e
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: how to (ab) use them. Medical Education, 38(12), 1217-
1218.
Jana, S.K., Das, J.R. and Mishra, U.S. (2015) “Effect of brand personality congruence on
brand loyalty in CCD outlets – a structural equation modelling approach,” Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences [Preprint]. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6s2p352. (Accessed: May 7, 2023)
Kashyap, D. (2015) Personality of consumer: Nature, theories and life style concept, Your
Article Library. Available at: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/consumers/personality-
consumers/personality-of-consumer-nature-theories-and-life-style-concept/64136
(Accessed: 03 July 2023)
Keener, L. (2022) why do consumers choose one brand over another? Here’s what
psychology says., How Marketers Can Use Strategic Incentives, Quickly, [online]
Available at: https://hq.quikly.com/blog/why-do-consumers-choose-one-brand-over-
another-heres-what-psychology-says (Accessed March 23, 2023).
Kwadwo Antwi, S. and Hamza, K. (2015). Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Paradigms in Business. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(3), pp.217-227.
Laricchia, F. (2023) Apple sales revenue by country/region 2023, Statista, [online]
Available at: https://www .statista.com/statistics/382175/quarterly-revenue-of-apple-by-
geograhical-region/ (Accessed March 24, 2023).
Liamputtong, P. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods. 3rd ed. Hong Kong: Oxford
University Press, p.21.
Liao, Y.-K. et al. (2017) “Cognitive, experiential, and marketing factors mediate the effect
of Brand Personality on Brand Equity,” Social Behavior and Personality: an international
journal, 45(1), pp. 1-18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.5621. (Accessed: May 8,
2023)
Llanos-Herrera, G.R. (2022) A conceptual review of the literature on Brand Personality,
Estudios de Administracion. Availablable at: https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-
0816.2022.67025. (Accessed: May 7, 2023)
Maehle, N., Otnes, C. and Supphellen, M. (2011) ‘Consumers’ perceptions of the
dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), pp. 290-303.
Doi:10.1002/cb.355.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd ed.
Martin, R., Goleman, D. and Collins, J. (2017) the best-performing CEOs in the world,
Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/11/the-best-performing-ceos-
in-the-world (Accessed: 27 May 2023)

15 | P a g e
Moura, Prof.Dr.F.T. (2022) Brand personality: Understanding aaker’s 5 dimension model,
LiveInnovation.org. Available at: https://liveinnovation.org/brand-personality-
understanding-aaker-5-dimension-model/ (Accessed: 16 July 2023).
Onuoha, S. (2023) ‘Examination of brand and consumer personality of iPhones in the UK’
BUSI-1440: Dissertation. University of Greenwich. Unpublished dissertation.
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Taylor, C. (2013). The role of geography of self in “filling in”
brand personality traits: Consumer inference of unobservable attributes, Taylor & Francis,
[online] Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00913367.2012.748632. (Accessed March
27, 2023)
Pyeman, J. et al. (2016) Proceedings of the 1st AAGBS International Conference on Buiness
Management 2014 (AICOBM 2014). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Rahim, A. et al. (2016) ‘Factors influencing purchasing intention of smartphone among
university students’, Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, pp. 245-253. doi:10.1016/s2212-
5671(16)30121-6.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C. and Ormston, R. (2013) Qualitative
Research Practice.
Ruby, D. 26+ iPhone user & sales statistics Fresh Data (2023), Demand Sage. Available at:
https://www.demandsage.com/iphone-user-statistics/ (Accessed: 17 May 2023)
Ruby, D. iPhone market share by country 2023. Available at:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/iPhone-market-share-by-country
(Accessed: 17 May 2023)
Sachdeva, E.R. (2020) These 5 celebs were found endorsing Android phone using iPhones,
Marketing Mind. Available at: https://www.marketingmind.in/these-5-celebs-were-found-
endorsing-android-phone-using-iphones/ (Accessed: 16 July 2023)
Sarker, S. (2013) ‘Influence of personality in buying Consumer Goods-a comparative study
between Neo-Freudian Theories and trait theory based on Khulna Region’, International
Journal of Business and Econoics Research, 2(3), p. 41.
Doi:10.11648/j.ijber.201130203.12.
Singh, S. (2022) What drives Apple’s success?, Android Authority. Available at:
https://www.androidauthority.com/what-drives-apples-success-80438/ (Accessed: 09 July
2023).
Sky (2011) Apple smashes iPhone and iPad sales records, Sky News. Available at:
https://news.sky.com/story/apple-smashes-iphone-and-ipad-sales-records-10487057
(Accessed: 08 May 2023).

16 | P a g e
Sun, G. et al. (2020) Consumer personality factors and <scp>iphone</scp> consumption in
China’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(4), pp. 862-870. doi:10.1002/cb.1899.
Sun, G., Li, J., Cheng, Z., D’Alessandro, S., & Johnson, L. (2021). Consumer personality
factors and iPhone consumption in China. Journal of consumer behavior, 20(4) 862-870.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1899.
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2016). Too Exciting to Fail, Too Sincere to Succeed: The
Effects of Brand Personality on Sensory Disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer Research,
43(1), 44-67. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw003. (Accessed March 27, 2023)
Taute, H. A., Peterson, J., & Sierra, J.J. (2014). Perceived needs and emotional responses to
brands: A dual-process view. Journal of Brand Management, 21(1), 23-42.
Thomas, D. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation
Data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), pp.237-246.
Turner, D. (2010). Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice
Investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), pp.754-760.
Watson, D. (2021) Brand personality – how to make your brand stand out in the Digital
World, Outside The Square. Available at: https://www.outsidethesquare.com/news/brand-
personality-how-to-make-your-brand-stand-out-in-the-digital-world/ (Accessed: 16 July
2023)
Weinstein, M. (2021) 10 examples of social media celebrity endorsements that paid off Big
Time, Search Engine Journal. Available at: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-
celebrity-endorsements/415568/ (Accessed: 16 July 2023)

17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e