代写sustainability ISSN 2071-1050

  • 100%原创包过,高质量代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信:273427
  • 代写sustainability ISSN 2071-1050
    Sustainability 2015, 7, 12322-12339; doi:10.3390/su70912322
    sustainability
    ISSN 2071-1050
    www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
    Article
    Self-Brand Personality Differences and Attitudes towards
    Electric Cars
    Ingrid Moons and Patrick de Pelsmacker *
    Department of Marketing, Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13,
    Antwerp 2000, Belgium; E-Mail: ingrid.moons@uantwerpen.be
    * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: Patrick.depelsmacker@uantwerpen.be;
    Tel.: +32-3-265-40-22; Fax: +32-3-265-40-87.
    Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen
    Received: 23 June 2015 / Accepted: 3 September 2015 / Published: 9 September 2015
    Abstract: In two representative Belgian samples, by means of an online survey, we
    investigate the effect of self-brand personality differences on car brand evaluation, the
    evaluation of an eco-friendly branded electric car extension and the evaluation of car brands
    after electric extension. We show that self-brand personality differences influence the
    attitude towards car brands. The relative importance of personality dimensions that drive
    extension judgment and parent brand attitudes after electric extension is different from that
    of brand evaluation without extension. More particularly, perceptions of a brand being more
    responsible than one’s self is a much more important driver of brand evaluation after electric
    extension than without extension. Car personality characteristics, such as activity and
    sophistication, drive brand evaluations before, as well as after electric extension.
    These effects are moderated by brand ownership in that the relative importance of brand
    personality dimensions is different for brand owners than for consumers who do not own a
    specific brand. Car manufacturers can fine-tune their marketing approach when launching
    eco-friendly extensions, taking into account that, in this context, partly different
    self-brand personality fit considerations are used by consumers than for car brands without
    electric extension.
    Keywords: self-brand personality differences; electric cars; line extension evaluation;
    parent brand feedback effects
    OPEN ACCESS
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12323
    1. Introduction and Purpose of the Study
    Electric cars may be an environmentally-friendly answer to the ecological consequences of personal
    mobility. Nowadays, forced by environmental and sustainability issues, major car brands, such as Nissan
    (Leaf) and Opel (Ampera), have developed fully eco-friendly electric car alternatives. The introduction
    of a technological innovation such as an electric car may fail because of a lack of acceptance by the
    consumer. Consumer acceptance is critical to the successful introduction and diffusion of more
    sustainable alternatives to mobility [1–3]. Therefore, insights into consumer perceptions are important
    for a successful introduction of the electric car.
    When an established car brand launches an electric variant, it is extending its product line. The success
    of extensions depends, amongst others, on the perceived fit between the extension and the parent
    brand [4–9]. However, not only the fit between a brand and its extension, but also the symbolic fit
    between the brand and the individual consumer may play a role in consumers’ brand evaluations.
    Consumers, valuing products for their self-expressive properties, use symbolic brand meanings to define
    and signal their actual or desired identities [10–13]. Brands carry symbolic meanings [14]. Brand
    personality is an important component of symbolic brand meaning [15,16]. It is a multidimensional
    construct defined as the set of human personality traits that are associated with brands [17] and that
    differentiate brands in the minds of people, even in the case that there are few differences in attributes
    and benefits between brands. Self-brand personality differences may thus be an important determinant
    of evaluative judgements of brands and their extensions.
    Consumers may take self-brand personality differences into account in different ways, depending on
    the context (e.g., the nature of the extension) [18,19]. In their evaluative judgement of car brands and
    brand extensions, some personality characteristics may indeed be more important than others [20].
    In the context of electric car extension evaluation, the importance of some personality characteristics to
    judge a brand after an eco-friendly extension may thus be different from those used to judge the brand
    in general. Self-brand personality differences have not been studied often as a factor in brand extension
    studies or in the context of sustainable products [7,16].
    The main purpose and first contribution of the present study is to investigate how self-brand
    personality differences determine brand attitudes and whether the relative importance of personality
    dimensions differs between the evaluation of a brand without or after an eco-friendly electric extension.
    Additionally, we also explore to what extend brand ownership moderates these effects. Brand owners
    have already made a decision to buy a particular brand and may therefore be less susceptible to
    self-brand personality differences and branding contexts. On the other hand, self-brand personality
    differences may be more salient for brand owners, since the brand they own themselves may be more
    important for their self-concept.
    In previous research on self-brand personality fit, researchers have used two main approaches. The
    first approach measures perceived actual or desired self-brand personality fit directly. The second
    approach measures individual and brand personality separately and constructs a distance measure
    between the two as an indication of the difference between the actual or desired self and brand
    personality [21–23]. The latter approach then constructs one measure of self-brand personality fit by
    weighing the different personality dimension scores with their relative importance [21,22]. Several
    authors suggest that researchers should examine individual brand personality dimensions to determine
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12324
    if particular dimensions are more predictive of attitudes than others, depending on the context [22,24,25].
    However, very few studies have attempted to do this (e.g., Rojas-Méndez et al. [23]). Our second
    contribution is that we measure individual and brand personality on five dimensions and enter each of
    these dimensions separately into the explanatory model. In that way, we are able to assess differences in
    the effects of self-brand personality differences on brand attitudes across contexts in a more precise way.
    The study informs brand managers, advertisers and public policy organizations on how to position
    and communicate eco-friendly extensions of existing car brands.
    2. Literature Review and Research Questions
    Product categories and brands can either be predominantly functional (e.g., lawnmowers) or
    symbolic (e.g., cars). A functional product possesses mainly product-related or concrete, functional
    associations [26,27]. Products with a symbolic positioning usually entail non-product-related or abstract,
    image-based associations [26,28]. In this study, we focus on the symbolic meaning that cars carry [14].
    Brand personality is an important component of this symbolic meaning and, as such, is a major
    component of brand identity and brand image [15,16]. In the minds of people, brands can
    have multidimensional personalities that are similar in their characteristics to individuals’
    personalities [19,29,30]. The concept of brand personality attributes human characteristics or traits to a
    brand on the basis of a consumer’s perception of that brand [29,31,32]. These personalities differentiate
    brands in the minds of people. Brand personality can build unique and (un)favorable associations in
    consumer memory [16,33]. Consumer behavior is often significantly affected by symbols, rather than
    functionally-oriented attributes. Symbols may have a closer link to the consumer self-concept [34].
    This is particularly important for publicly-consumed products, such as cars [22].
    Individuals often use symbolic brand meaning for personal expression and social
    communication [22,35–37]. Consumers strengthen their own self-concept by means of being associated
    with brands whose symbolic images tend to be congruent with their own selves [35]. The self-concept
    is defined as the cognitive and affective understanding of who and what we are and can take two forms:
    the actual self and the desired self [25]. Self-brand congruity is the match between a consumer’s actual
    or desired self-concept and brand image [38]. Self-congruity theory suggests that brand attitudes are
    partially a function of the similarity or dissimilarity of a brand’s image and their own self-image or
    self-concept [22,38,39]. Self-brand congruity positively affects the brand in terms of the attitude towards
    the brand [40], brand purchase intention [41,42] and brand loyalty [21].
    Consumers use this symbolic meaning of brands, and more particularly, brand personality, in different
    ways. Whether consumers desire brands that reflect their actual or desired self depends on their
    self-motives. Self-congruity can be guided by either the need for self-consistency and self-uncertainty or
    the need for self-esteem and self-enhancement [29,40,43,44]. Often, the motivation to express one’s own
    actual self drives brand evaluation and use [40,45–47]. Consumers use brands to define, signal, sustain
    and manage their identity towards themselves and others. To satisfy this need for self-consistency
    and self-continuity, consumers tend to prefer brands that have a set of personality traits similar to
    their own [35,48–50].
    Berger and Heath [51] and Bhattacharya and Sen [52] state that, besides self-continuity, also
    self-distinctiveness and self-enhancement drive brand identification and brand appreciation of consumers.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12325
    Consumers may prefer brands with appealing personalities to enhance their selves [10,53,54].
    Self-enhancement is the motivation to maintain or increase the positivity, or decrease the negativity, of
    the self [55]. It is an individual’s desire for increased status and a positive self-concept [56]. The brand
    may then have a positive effect on their self-perception and self-esteem in line with the brand’s
    personality [41,57]. Much consumer research refers to the important role of self-enhancement in
    consumers’ affinities towards brands (e.g., [11,12]).
    In sum, the evaluation of brands may be guided by the motivation to maintain (actual self) or to
    enhance (desired self) the sense of self [37,58,59]. Personality is an important component of self-brand
    congruity. Cars are for most people value expressive and symbolic. For symbolic products or brands, such
    as cars, evaluative responses are expected to be strongly driven by self-brand personality considerations.
    In the present study, we first investigate whether the evaluation of a brand is determined by actual
    self-brand congruity or rather by the aspirational (desired) differences between brand personality and
    the personality of the individual. For value-expressive products, like cars, it is expected that the latter
    will be more relevant than the former [42].
    The self-concept is relatively stable over time and so are brand personalities. For instance, research
    shows that extensions that are non-fitting in terms of brand personality often do not lead to parent brand
    dilution effects [7,16]. Parent brands may be immune to such dilution effects when these brands have a
    high familiarity and well-established brand personalities [60]. On the other hand, to evaluate brands,
    consumers may take self-brand personality differences into account in different ways, depending on the
    context [40]. Individuals often adjust their appreciation structure when faced with new brand
    information. The relative importance or salience of different personality dimensions for brand evaluation
    may thus depend upon this new information, such as the nature of the extension [20,61]. More
    particularly, launching an electric car may trigger brand personality associations (e.g., inspired by the
    environmental friendliness of an electric car) that are different from the associations evoked by the car
    brand without the electric extension and may make some personality characteristics more important than
    others for brand attitude formation. Parent brand attitudes after an extension are often found to be partly
    driven by the attitude towards the extension (parent feedback effects [16,62,63]), but additionally,
    different self-brand personality differences may also be more important when evaluating a brand after
    an eco-friendly brand extension (such as an electric car) than when judging a car brand without
    this extension.
    The present study tries to answer the following research questions (RQ):
    RQ1. How do self-brand personality differences affect the attitude towards car brands?
    RQ2. Do self-brand personality differences affect the attitude towards car brands after an electric
    extension differently than the attitude towards brands without an electric extension?
    RQ3. Are these effects different for owners and non-owners of car brands?
    The research design is presented in Figure 1. In the upper part of Figure 1, RQ1 is depicted. In the
    lower part, RQ2 is shown: self-brand personality differences have an effect on electric extension
    attitudes, which, in turn, have an effect on brand attitudes after electric extension. Additionally,
    self-brand personality differences may also affect brand attitudes after an extension directly. The attitude
    towards the extension thus (partly) mediates the effect of self-brand personality differences on brand
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12326
    attitudes. The moderating role of car ownership on these effects (RQ3) is represented both in the upper
    and lower parts of the Figure.
    Figure 1. Research design. RQ, research question.
    3. Method
    3.1. Pretests
    We conducted two pretests. The purpose of the first pretest was to select four car brands that are
    substantially different in terms of brand personality, in order to be able to draw conclusions across brands
    with different personalities. In the first stage, we composed a list of 39 brands. Twelve respondents
    participated in an individual interview. The sample consisted of different age categories, six male and
    six female respondents. The respondents categorized the brands on the basis of their personality, using
    the five personality dimensions as proposed by Geuens et al. [31]: responsible, active, bold, simple and
    emotional (see Section 3.3 for details). We selected twelve brands that were associated most often with
    predominantly one of these personality traits for further consideration: Alfa, Audi, BMW, Ford,
    Mercedes, Nissan, Opel, Renault, Saab, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo.
    The purpose of the second step in this first pretest was to narrow down the list of 12 brands to a list
    of four car brands that were as different as possible with respect to their brand personalities. A sample
    of 38 car drivers (45% men) received an online questionnaire. The sample consisted of respondents of
    different age groups (11% 18–25 years; 18% 25–35 years; 26% 35–45 years; 42% 45–65 years;
    3% >65 years). We asked them to indicate for each brand the most and the least fitting of the
    Geuens et al. brand personality dimensions. The four most differentiated brands in terms of brand
    personalities were Alfa, BMW, Toyota and Volvo. The respondents most frequently associated Alfa
    with an emotional brand personality (35%) and least with the personality dimension “simple” (53%).
    BMW is most strongly associated with the brand personality dimension “bold” (49%) and least with the
    personality characteristics “simple” (73%). The participants most strongly associate Toyota with
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12327
    “simple” (58%) and least with “bold” (46%). Volvo is strongly associated with “responsible” (75%) and
    least with “bold” (23%). These four brands are used in the remainder of the study.
    We set up a second pretest to develop and visualize an electric car concept. We formed groups
    between 6 and 10 participants (all master students in product development). One or two groups worked
    on each of the four car brands. We organized six brainstorming sessions to search for product attributes
    for an electric car, using the “idea to market” toolkit [64], to stimulate the creative process. This phase
    resulted in between 100 and 195 items per group. Next, we assigned these items to four categories on
    the basis of two dimensions: which of these items are actionable (implementable in the near future) or
    not and which of the items are original (breakthrough) or evolutionary. We only took into consideration
    those attributes that were deemed to be both original and actionable in the near future. Based on the six
    most often mentioned attributes, a professional product designer made concept cards with graphical and
    verbal stimuli, showing (pictures) and explaining (text) the six attributes, similar to the approach of Lau
    and Phau [7]. Car brands and models sometimes have very distinctive characteristics. Since the concept
    cards had to be used with different car brands, we used a generic, neutral car model, without any brand
    identifiers. To that end, we did not use a picture of an existing car, but a drawing of a generic car.
    3.2. Main Study: Samples and Procedure
    In the main study, two samples were selected. In the first one, 30 participants scored the personality
    of one of the four selected brands, as well as their own personality. The total size of Sample 1 was thus
    120 (30 for each of the four brands). In each of these subsamples of 30 participants, half of the
    respondents owned the car brand they had to evaluate, while the other half owned another car brand. The
    second sample consisted of 480 participants, 120 per tested brand. In all subsamples of this second
    sample, again, half the respondents owned the car brand they had to evaluate, while the other half owned
    another car brand. The participants in this second sample saw eight pictures of the electric car concept
    developed in the pretest: one general picture of the car with the six characteristics, six pictures visually
    and verbally highlighting the details of each of the six characteristics and the general picture again. They
    were told that Brand A (the brand they had to evaluate later on) was going to launch this electric
    extension. They then had to evaluate the extension (their attitude towards the extension), their perception
    of the personality of the extension, evaluate the parent brand (attitude towards the parent brand after the
    electric extension, without explicitly mentioning this extension again) and their perception of the
    personality of the parent brand. Finally, they had to score their own personality. We collected the data
    by means of online questionnaires, administered to a selection of panel members of a professional online
    data collection agency. The samples are representative of the Belgian population of owners of a driver’s
    license, males (55%) and females between 18 and 65, in terms of gender and age. In both samples, 6.5%
    of the respondents are between 18 and 25, 23% between 26 and 35, 24% between 36 and 45 and 46.5%
    between 46 and 65. Forty one-point-four percent had a lower education or a high school diploma, while
    58.6% received a higher education.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12328
    3.3. Measures
    As the dependent variable, in the first sample, we measured the attitude towards the car brands by
    means of a 3-item, 5-point Likert scale (“I am positive about the brand”, “The car brand shown is a good
    car”, “I like the car shown”) (alpha = 0.93). In the second sample, we measured the attitude towards the
    branded electric extension by means of the same scale, but now with reference to the electric extension
    (“I am positive about the electric car brand shown”, “The electric car shown is a good car”, “I like the
    electric car shown”) [65] (alpha = 0.92). The attitude towards the brand after extension was measured
    using the same scale as in Sample 1 (alpha = 0.94). The work of Aaker [29] inspired the majority of the
    research on brand personality to date [18,29,66,67]. However, this brand personality structure may not
    be universal [61]. One of the major criticisms of the Aaker scale is that it is a mixture of personality and
    other image dimensions. Geuens et al. [31] developed a scale that consists of only personality dimensions
    and that is a purer representation of the brand personality concept. Therefore, the present study uses the
    Geuens et al. 12-item 5-point scale brand personality dimensions to measure the independent variables
    of brand personality [31]. The scale consists of five personality dimensions: responsibility (responsible,
    down to earth, stable; alpha = 0.86), activity (active, dynamic, innovative; alpha = 0.85), boldness
    (aggressive, bold; alpha = 0.80), simplicity (ordinary, simple; alpha = 0.79) and emotionality (romantic,
    sentimental; alpha = 0.91). We used the same scale in both samples to also measure the personality of
    the participants. Per scale, we averaged all scores across items for further analysis.
    In the present study, we partly follow the approach by Rojas-Méndez et al. [23] in that we do not
    construct one single measure of actual or desired self-brand personality fit, but we calculate measures
    per personality dimension. Moreover, we do not measure “ideal” individual personality, but in our
    analyses, we test the effect of the difference between actual individual personality and perceived brand
    personality on brand attitudes. In that way, we are able to better assess the direction and nature of the
    effect of each personality dimension on consumer responses. To that end, on the basis of the brand and
    consumer personality scores, we calculated ten additional variables. First, we subtracted the consumer
    personality scores for each of the five personality dimensions from the brand personality scores for each
    of the five dimensions. This resulted in five scores. A positive score means that, in the perception of that
    individual, the brand possesses this personality characteristic more than the person himself.
    A negative score means that the individual possesses more of this personality characteristic than the
    brand (s)he evaluated. We then calculated five more variables (one per personality dimension) as the
    absolute value of the previously calculated difference scores. For these variables, a higher score means
    that there is a larger difference (in absolute terms) between an individual’s score and the brand’s score
    on this personality characteristic.
    4. Results
    4.1. Effects of Self-Brand Personality Differences on the Attitude towards the Brand without
    Electric Extension
    RQ1 and part of RQ3 are investigated in the first sample of 120 participants. First, we checked to
    what extent the four selected brands had different personalities as anticipated in the pretest. Table 1
    shows the results of five ANOVA analyses in which the scores per personality dimension are compared
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12329
    across brands. The results show that the four brands have distinctly different personalities. Alfa Romeo
    is more strongly associated with “emotional” and “bold” and less often with “simple” and “responsible”
    than the other three brands. BMW is more often referred to as responsible, active and bold than the other
    brands, but less than Toyota and Volvo as simple. Toyota is described as simpler and less active, bold,
    responsible and emotional than the other brands. Volvo’s distinct characteristic is responsibility and not
    active, bold or emotional, especially compared to Alfa and BMW. The brands in the study are thus
    substantially different in terms of their brand personalities.
    Table 1. Perceived differences in brand personality between Alfa, BMW, Toyota and Volvo.
    Alfa BMW Toyota Volvo p
    Responsible 3.58 4.27 3.90 4.45 0.006
    Active 4.11 4.45 3.51 3.75 0.001
    Bold 3.50 3.24 2.44 2.28 0.001
    Simple 1.50 1.65 3.24 2.44 0.000
    Emotional 3.07 2.76 2.68 2.13 0.074
    Cells are mean personality scores on 5-point Likert scales. p-values refer to ANOVA tests and indicate the
    significance of the difference in personality scores across brands.
    In case individuals evaluate brands more positively the higher their actual self-brand personality fit
    is, brand attitudes should be more positive the smaller the absolute difference between brand personality
    and individual personality. This should result in a negative effect of the absolute difference personality
    variables on brand evaluation. Alternatively, individuals may evaluate a brand more positively or
    negatively when it possesses certain personality characteristics more or less than the individual himself.
    If, for instance, the perception of a consumer is that a car that is more active than himself is a better car,
    this reflects an aspiration or desire, i.e., an evaluation that this brand is more valuable because it has a
    personality characteristic that is better than his own personality. If that is the case, brand attitude should
    be more positive or negative as a function of the non-absolute differences between brand and consumer
    personality. The results show that, as expected, the explanatory power of the models with non-absolute
    brand-consumer personality differences is substantially higher than those for absolute differences. This
    signals an aspirational judgment of brands in terms of personality fit.
    In Table 2, the results are shown of two regression analyses in which the attitude towards the brand
    is predicted by non-absolute self-brand personality differences, one for non-owners of a brand and one
    for brand owners. Non-owners evaluate a brand more positively if it is more active and more
    sophisticated (less simple) than themselves. The relationship between brand personality and brand
    evaluation is less important for brand owners. Only the dimensions “active” and emotional’ have a
    marginally significant effect on brand attitudes.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12330
    Table 2. Brand attitude as a function of the difference between the brand scores and the
    individuals’ scores on the five personality dimensions (Sample 1: brands without electric
    extension) (regression analysis), for non-owners and owners of a brand.
    Personality Characteristic Non-Owners Owners
    Responsible 0.160 (0.210) −0.036 (0.813)
    Active 0.552 (<0.001) 0.273 (0.077)
    Bold −0.200 (0.106) −0.041 (0.759)
    Simple −0.320 (0.013) −0.157 (0.216)
    Emotional −0.121 (0.295) 0.239 (0.053)
    R2 0.432 0.174
    N 60 60
    Cells are standardized betas (significance levels). Sample composition: equal number of respondents per brand.
    4.2. Effects of Self-Brand Personality Differences on the Attitude towards the Brand after
    Electric Extension
    RQ2 and part of RQ3 are investigated in the second sample in which we presented an eco-friendly
    electric extension for each brand and measured extension attitude and parent brand attitude after electric
    extension. These analyses were all performed on non-absolute personality differences, as also in this
    case, they proved to have substantially more explanatory power than the absolute differences. The effect
    of self-brand personality differences on the attitude towards the brand after electric extension is carried
    out in two steps, by means of regression analyses [68]. In the first step, we predict the attitude towards
    the electric extension by means of self-brand personality differences. In the second step, we predict the
    attitude towards the brand after extension by means of the attitude towards the extension (parent brand
    feedback effect) and the personality differences. In that way, the mediating role of the attitude towards
    the extension can be assessed. Each of these two regression analyses is carried out for owners and
    non-owners of the brands, in order to explore the moderating role of brand ownership.
    Table 3 shows the results of two regression analyses (one for brand owners and one for non-owners
    of a brand) in which self-brand personality differences predict extension attitudes. For non-owners, the
    extension attitude is significantly influenced by the personality dimension “responsibility” and
    marginally by “activity”. If the extension is perceived as more responsible and more active than the self,
    extension attitudes are more positive. Based on the beta coefficients, for owners, again, the personality
    dimension “responsibility” has the strongest impact on extension attitudes, but also “simplicity” and
    “activity” have a significant effect. The more an extension is perceived as more responsible, active and
    sophisticated (less simple) than the self, the more positive the attitude towards the extension. Besides
    the generally aspired car characteristics, such as activity and sophistication, the evaluation of electric
    extensions is also driven by the personality characteristic “responsibility”. This can be explained by the
    fact that this extension connects the brand to the category of “environmentally-friendly” products and
    makes certain ecological associations more salient. This is the case for both non-owners and owners of
    the brand. As to the latter, presenting an electric extension cue is apparently meaningful extra brand
    information that primes them to reconsider self-brand personality criteria for evaluative judgement of an
    electric extension.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12331
    Table 3. Attitude towards the electric extension as a function of the difference between the
    brand scores and the individuals’ scores on the five personality dimensions (Sample 2:
    brands with electric extension) (regression analysis), for non-owners and owners of the brand.
    Personality Characteristic Non-Owners Owners
    Responsible 0.369 (<0.001) 0.268 (<0.001)
    Active 0.146 (0.056) 0.178 (0.006)
    Bold 0.101 (0.106) 0.080 (0.160)
    Simple −0.019 (0.768) −0.228 (<0.001)
    Emotional 0.034 (0.589) 0.065 (0.220)
    R2 0.249 0.274
    N 240 240
    Cells are standardized betas (significance levels). Sample composition: equal number of respondents per brand.
    Table 4 shows the results of two regression analyses (one for brand owners and one for non-owners
    of a brand) in which the attitude towards the extension and self-brand personality differences predict
    attitudes towards the brand after electric extension. For non-owners, the attitude towards the extension
    significantly positively influences parent brand attitudes after the electric extension. This confirms the
    parent brand feedback effect of extensions. The attitude towards the extension is the most important
    determinant of the attitude towards the parent brand after extension. The brands are also more positively
    evaluated when they are more responsible, more active and less simple than the individual. The analyses
    for brand owners show largely similar results, although in this case, the personality dimension
    “responsibility” is a more important predictor than the attitude towards the extension.
    The conclusion is that the attitude towards the electric extension partly mediates the effect of selfbrand
    personality differences on brand attitudes after extension. Especially, the personality dimensions
    “responsibility”, “activity” and, to a lesser extent, “simplicity” have both a direct and an indirect effect
    (through extension attitudes) on brand attitudes after extension. There is a moderating effect of brand
    ownership, but not to the extent that it fundamentally affects the basic conclusion. Both for brand owners
    and non-owners, there is a mediating effect of extension attitude and a direct and indirect effect of
    responsibility and activity. For owners, also simplicity is an important determinant of extension attitude,
    and thus, it has both a direct and indirect effect on brand attitude. For non-owners, the effect of simplicity
    is only direct. Further, the relative importance of personality dimensions is to a certain extent different
    for brand owners and non-owners.
    The effect of self-personality differences on parent brand evaluation after extension is thus largely
    similar as in the case of extension evaluation. Again, the addition of an eco-friendly extension apparently
    makes specific personality considerations (more particularly “responsibility”) salient and important for
    brand judgement. Additionally, as anticipated, a clear parent brand feedback effect is present: extension
    evaluation strongly determines parent brand attitudes after extension.
    Comparing the results of Tables 2–4, the conclusion is that being perceived as more active and to a
    lesser extent more sophisticated (less simple) than the self are significant drivers of brand attitude, but
    their impact is substantially smaller after electric extension than without electric extension. Being more
    responsible is a substantially more important driver of brand evaluation after electric extension than
    without extension. The mean brand attitude scores in the two samples were not different. Two t-tests
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12332
    show no significant differences between the mean brand attitude in the two samples (non-owners:
    t = 0.634, p = 0.528; owners: t = 01.442, p = 0.150). However, the brand attitude formation process as a
    function of self-brand personality differences is substantially different in the two contexts.
    Table 4. Attitude towards the parent brand following electric extension, as a function of the
    attitude towards the extension and the difference between the brand scores and the
    individuals’ scores on the five personality dimensions (Sample 2: brands with electric
    extension) (regression analysis), for non-owners and owners of the brand.
    Personality Characteristic Non-Owners Owners
    Responsible 0.216 (<0.001) 0.318 (<0.001)
    Active 0.221 (0.002) 0.173 (<0.001)
    Bold −0.004 (0.950) 0.010 (0.866)
    Simple −0.153 (0.007) −0.135 (0.014)
    Emotional 0.072 (0.200) 0.043 (0.399)
    Attitude towards extension 0.378 (<0.001) 0.222 (<0.001)
    R2 0.415 0.318
    N 240 240
    Cells are standardized betas (significance levels). Sample composition: equal number of respondents per brand.
    5. Discussion
    The extent to which a brand is perceived to possess certain personality characteristics more than
    oneself is more predictive of brand evaluations than the mere absolute difference between a brand’s
    personality and one’s own. This means that, when evaluating brands, consumers do not so much have
    actual self-brand congruity in mind, but rather desired self-brand congruity [51,52]. This is in line with
    research that demonstrates that brands are mainly used for self-enhancement, especially for publiclyconsumed
    products, such as cars [25,35]. Malär et al. [25] found that brand personality fit with the actual
    self is more important than desired personality fit, especially for high involvement products. The authors
    explain this by arguing that, when a brand represents something that is out of reach, this need for
    distancing could result in a decreased emotional brand attachment. However, this may be true for, say,
    cosmetics, but is probably less true for cars or electric extensions of car brands, as these are usually more
    realistic and less out of reach than the positioning of certain other products.
    The relative importance of dimensions of the self-brand personality difference for brand evaluations
    is different in an eco-friendly electric car context than for car brand evaluation in general. This lends
    support to the claim that different aspired personality characteristics can be important depending on the
    context in which judgments are formed [14,19], as people tend to take different personality dimensions
    into account in different contexts. Graeff [69] already mentioned that contextual cues may evoke other
    aspects of the role that self-brand personality congruity may play. Introducing the electric extension as
    a new contextual cue may evoke ecological personality fit dimensions, since it connects the car category
    to the category of environmentally-friendly products. The electric car may thus make the “responsibility”
    personality dimension more salient, as it may serve to expose a more ecologically-responsible
    personality [4,7,27,70]. Consequently, the personality dimension “responsibility” drives post-extension
    attitudes to a greater extent than pre-extension attitudes. An extension triggers different personality fit
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12333
    priorities. This indicates that consumers in their relation to brands are “malleable” [43]. The electric
    extension has thus self-enhancement possibilities in offering a responsible personality profile.
    Both without and after an electric extension, a number of self-brand personality differences are
    important for judgement formation, namely activity and simplicity: generally speaking, car brands are
    judged more favorably when they are more active and less simple than the individual. These results seem
    to point to a predominantly car category-driven desired personality effect [61,71]. Apparently, in general,
    people aspire for a car that enhances their activity and sophistication, no matter the context.
    The fact that people own a certain car brand has an effect on how they take self-brand personality
    differences into account. In a “contextless” situation (Sample 1), owners do not seem to take personality
    dimensions into account so much. This is not surprising. These people already own the car brand they
    had to evaluate. They probably went through the process of considering self-brand personality fit (or
    other buying criteria) when they purchased the car. Consequently, they may have a stable attitude that is
    not easily reconsidered without any extra triggers to reevaluate their attitudes. Indeed, attitudes are
    relatively stable, especially without meaningful extra information [72]. Non-owners, on the other hand,
    are confronted with a brand that they are less familiar with, and therefore, they may elaborate more on
    their evaluation of such a brand, leading them to the conclusion that a car brand that they perceive as
    more active and sophisticated than themselves is more desirable.
    Remarkably, the situation is different when owners are confronted with an electric car extension.
    Presenting this extension cue is apparently meaningful extra brand information and a prime to scrutinize
    and re-evaluate self-brand personality criteria. Besides considerations of activity and simplicity, also
    extension evaluations and especially considerations about self-brand responsibility differences drive
    brand attitudes after extension. This is not so much different from the attitude formation of non-owners.
    Furthermore, the latter take the same self-brand differences into account, be it that in their case, the effect
    of the personality dimension predominantly works through their evaluation of the extension, while for
    brand owners, the responsibility factor predominantly has a direct effect on brand attitudes. Apparently,
    the effect of extension attitudes for brand attitude formation is less important for owners than for
    non-owners. Again, non-owners may have elaborated more when forming a brand attitude, also
    including more actively the new extension information.
    6. Future Research
    In the present study, parent feedback effects were measured shortly after exposure to the electric
    extension and questions about the extension itself. This may have biased the results. Future research
    should measure parent feedback effects in the longer run.
    Self-brand congruity can be measured in different ways, either directly or indirectly, or either on the
    basis of personality dimensions or otherwise. Future research should investigate to what extent these
    different approaches lead to different outcomes and what the reasons for these differences could be.
    The extent to which the effect of self-brand personality differences on brand evaluation changes in
    different contexts may partly depend on implicit self-theories of consumers. Individuals who
    strongly believe in the entity self-theory perceive personal characteristics as fixed and difficult
    to change [18,19,73,74]. Strong entity self-theorists may therefore react more negatively to extensions
    that do not fit their own perceived personality [41,75]. Individuals adhering more to the incremental selfSustainability
    2015, 7 12334
    theory believe that personality traits are malleable and can be developed [18,19]. Strong incremental
    self-theorists may therefore be more inclined to develop different personality fit responses in different
    contexts. Future research could measure the degree to which consumers perceive their personality in
    view of their relationships with brands to be malleable and study the effects of this malleability on
    self-brand congruity effects.
    Self-brand personality fit effects on brands, extensions and parent brand feedback may differ from
    one brand to another. For instance, Jeong and Jung [9] investigated two dimensions of brand personality,
    “sincere” and “prestige”, and concluded that a non-fitting extension of sincere brands may alter brand
    personality, as opposed to extending a prestige brand, in which case the extension leaves the brand
    personality unaffected. Fournier [11] and Park and John [41] state that identification and appreciation is
    easier for “warm” than for “cold” brands. Future research could investigate differences in attitude
    formation for different brands and what causes them.
    Besides brand ownership, other potentially moderating factors of the self-brand personality fit/brand
    attitude relation could be relevant, such as the general attitude towards electric cars. Additionally, for
    instance, more environmentally-conscious individuals may take different personality considerations into
    account than less eco-friendly consumers. An electric car is an innovative product. Strongly innovative
    individuals may take personality considerations into account in a different way than less innovative
    consumers. Previous research has shown that, in this early stage of the adoption of electric cars, these
    factors do not play an important role in the adoption intention process [76]. Nevertheless, as the adoption
    process progresses, these factors may play an increasingly important role.
    Cars are, for most people, high involvement, publicly-used and self-relevant products. Future research
    should test the role of self-brand personality considerations in attitude formation, for less involving, less
    self-relevant or less conspicuously-used products.
    7. Managerial and Policy Implications
    The insights developed in this study can be used by designers and marketers of eco-friendly cars and
    public policy organizations. Designers and marketers could design and position electric cars in such a
    way that they appeal to the aspirational personality of prospective consumers. Apart from promoting
    generic desirable car personality characteristics, such as activity and sophistication, emphasizing the
    “responsibility” personality dimension will make this eco-friendly line extension even more appealing.
    Car marketers should realize that, whatever the current personality associations and aspirations with
    respect to their brands, adding an eco-friendly alternative to their product line will enrich the
    attractiveness of their brand with an extra aspirational personality dimension (responsibility).
    The eco-friendly association of adding an electric car to the product line triggers eco-related personality
    dimensions when evaluating both the extension and the parent brand after extension and makes this
    personality dimension more salient. Public policy organizations who wish to promote sustainable
    mobility by advocating the adoption of electric cars should realize that car buyers are still triggered by
    aspirational motives of activity and sophistication. However, appealing to the aspiration of responsibility
    is also an important buying motivation that could be used in awareness campaigns.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12335
    8. Conclusions
    Self-brand personality differences are significant predictors of attitudes towards car brands. A car
    brand that is perceived as more active and less simple than the self is more positively evaluated, both
    without and after an electric extension. Most strikingly, the relative importance of self-brand personality
    differences for brand attitudes is different after electric extension than without this extension. After
    electric extension, brand attitudes are predominantly determined by the extent to which a person
    perceives a car as more responsible than himself, while the personality dimension “responsibility” does
    not determine brand attitudes without extension. This basic conclusion holds for both brand owners and
    non-owners. However, the relative importance of certain personality dimensions is different for both
    groups. In the formation of brand attitudes without extension, owners are hardly driven by self-brand
    personality differences (except, marginally, by “activity” and “emotionality”), while the attitude
    formation of non-owners is significantly driven by differences in self-brand activity and simplicity.
    Self-brand differences in responsibility strongly drive electric extension attitudes for non-owners of a
    brand, while for owners, the effect of responsibility differences is smaller, and contrary to non-owners,
    they are also driven by self-brand differences in simplicity. The attitude towards the electric extension
    partly mediates the effect of self-brand personality differences on car brand attitudes after extension. For
    non-owners, the attitude towards the brand after electric extension is strongly driven by extension
    attitudes, while for brand owners, the effect of self-brand differences in perceived responsibility has the
    strongest effect. Overall, responsibility perceptions are important for both owners and non-owners of a
    brand after electric extension, but in the case of non-owners, this effect works predominantly indirectly,
    through extension attitudes, while for owners, the effect of responsibility is more direct. For owners, also
    self-brand simplicity difference is an important determinant of extension attitude and, thus, has both a
    direct and indirect effect on brand attitude. For non-owners, the effect of this self-brand simplicity
    difference is only direct.
    Author Contributions
    The authors have each contributed equally to the research design, the analysis of the data and the
    writing of the manuscript. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
    Conflicts of Interest
    The authors declare no conflict of interest.
    References
    1. Feitelson, E.; Salomon, I. The implications of differential network flexibility for spatial structures.
    Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2000, 34, 459–479.
    2. Verhoef, E.; Bliemer, M.; Steg, L.; van Wee, B. Pricing in Road Transport: A Multi-Disciplinary
    Perspective; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2008.
    3. Paliwal, P. Consumer behaviour towards alternative energy products: A study. Int. J. Consum. Stud.
    2012, 36, 238–243.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12336
    4. Czellar, S. Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: An integrative model and research
    propositions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2003, 20, 97–115.
    5. Martínez, E.; Pina, J.M. The negative impact of brand extension on parent brand Image. J. Prod.
    Brand Manag. 2003, 12, 432–446.
    6. Martínez, E.; de Chernatony, L. The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image.
    J. Consum. Mark. 2004, 21, 39–50.
    7. Lau, K.C.; Phau, I. Extending symbolic brands using their personality: Examining antecedents and
    implications towards brand image fit and brand dilution. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 421–444.
    8. Dens, N.; de Pelsmacker, P. Attitudes toward the extension and parent brand in response to
    extension advertising. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 1237–1244.
    9. Jeong, S.; Jung, K. Effects of Brand Personality Attitude, Perceived Quality on Brand Extension
    Evaluations and Brand Personality Changes. Available online: http://wbiconpro.com/london%20
    management/Chi(431).pdf (accessed on 20 February 2013).
    10. Swaminathan, V.; Page, K.L.; Gürhan-Canli, Z. “My” Brand or “Our” Brand: The Effects of Brand
    Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations. J. Consum. Res. 2007, 34,
    248–259.
    11. Fournier, S. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research.
    J. Consum. Res. 1988, 24, 343–353.
    12. Escalas, J.E.; Bettman, J.R. You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers’
    connections to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 2003, 13, 339–348.
    13. Kirmani, A. The self and the brand. J. Consum. Psychol. 2009, 19, 271–275.
    14. Aaker, D. Brand Portfolio Strategy; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
    15. Midgley, D.F. Patterns of interpersonal information seeking for the purchase of a symbolic product.
    J. Mark. Res. 1983, 20, 74–83.
    16. Diamantopoulos, A.; Smith, G.; Grime, I. The impact of brand extensions on brand personality:
    Experimental evidence. Eur. J. Mark. 2005, 39, 129–149.
    17. Aaker, D.A.; Keller, K.L. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 27–41.
    18. Aaker, J.L. The Malleable Self: The Role of Self Expression in Persuasion. J. Mark. Res. 1999, 36,
    45–58.
    19. Graeff, T.R. Image congruence effects on product evaluations: The role of self-monitoring and
    public/private consumption. Psychol. Market. 1996, 13, 481–499.
    20. Sung, Y.; Sejung, M.C.; Lin, J.-S. The interplay of cultural and situational cues in consumers’ brand
    evaluation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 696–701.
    21. Kressmann, F.; Sirgy, J.M.; Hermann, A.; Huber, F.; Huber, S.S.; Lee, D.-J. Direct and indirect
    effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 955–964.
    22. Parker, B.T. A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence.
    J. Consum. Mark. 2009, 26, 175–184.
    23. Rojas-Méndez, J.I.; Papadopoulos, N.; Alwan, M. Testing self-congruity theory in the context of
    nation brand personality. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2015, 24, 18–27.
    24. Park, C.W.; Milberg, S.; Lawson, R. Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature
    similarity and brand concept consistency. J. Consum. Res. 1991, 18, 185–193.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12337
    25. Malär, L.; Krohmer, H.; Hoyer, W.D.; Nyffenegger, B. Emotional brand attachment and brand
    personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. J. Mark. 2011, 75, 35–52.
    26. De Ruyter, K.; Wetzels, M. The role of corporate image and extension similarity in service brand
    extensions. J. Econ. Psychol. 2000, 21, 639–659.
    27. Park, C.W.; Jaworski, B.J.; MacInnis, D.J. Strategic brand concept-image Management. J. Mark.
    1986, 50, 135–145.
    28. Bhat, S.; Reddy, S.K. The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect on brand
    extension evaluation. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 53, 111–122.
    29. Aaker, J.L. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 347–356.
    30. McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T. Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective;
    Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
    31. Geuens, M.; Weijters, B.; de Wulf, K. A New Measure of Brand Personality. Int. J. Res. Mark.
    2009, 26, 97–107.
    32. Grohmann, B. Gender dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 2009, 46, 105–119.
    33. Pandey, A. Understanding Consumer Perception of Brand Personality. Available online:
    http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1441824 (accessed on 20 February 2013).
    34. Usakli, A.; Baloglu, S. Brand personality of tourist destinations: An application of self-congruity
    theory. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 114–127.
    35. Belk, R.W. Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 139–168.
    36. McCracken, G.S. Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement
    of cultural meaning of consumer goods. J. Consum. Res. 1986, 13, 71–84.
    37. Zinkhan, G.M.; Hong, J.W. Self-concept and advertising effectiveness: A conceptual model of
    congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Adv. Consum. Res. 1991, 18, 348–354.
    38. Sirgy, M.J. Self-Congruity: Toward a Theory of Personality and Cybernetics; Praeger Publishers:
    New York, NY, USA, 1986.
    39. Sutherland, J.; Marshall, S.; Parker, B.T. Real, ideal and undesired self-concepts and their effects
    on viewer preferences: Who do you love? In Proceedings of the Conference—American Academy
    of Advertising, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 25–28 March 2004.
    40. Sirgy, M.J. Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. J. Consum. Res. 1982, 9, 287–300.
    41. Park, J.K.; John, D.R. Got to Get You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub Off on Consumers?
    J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 655–669.
    42. Lam, S.K.; Ahearne, M.; Hu, Y.; Schillewaert, N. Resistance to brand switching when a radically
    new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 128–146.
    43. Hogg, M.A. Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of
    social identity processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 11, 223–255.
    44. Malhotra, N.K. Self-concept and product choice: An integrated perspective. J. Econ. Psychol. 1988,
    9, 1–28.
    45. Swann, W.B., Jr. Self-verification: bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In Social
    Psychological Perspectives on the Self; Suls, J., Greenwald, A.G., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum and
    Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1983; Volume 6, pp. 33–66.
    46. Perera, L.C.R. A processual theory of green identity formation: The case of young environmentalists in
    Australia. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 289–296.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12338
    47. Pinto, D.C.; Herter, M.M.; Rossi, P.; Borges, A. Going green for self or for others? Gender and
    identity salience effects on sustainable consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 540–549.
    48. Ahuvia, A.C. Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives.
    J. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 171–184.
    49. Maehle, N.; Shneor, R. On congruence between brand and human personalities. J. Prod.
    Brand Manage. 2010, 19, 44–53.
    50. Wang, X.; Ynag, Z.; Liu, N.R. The impacts of brand personality and congruity on purchase
    intention: Evidence from the Chinese mainland’s automobile market. J. Glob. Mark. 2009, 22,
    199–215.
    51. Berger, J.; Heath, C. Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains.
    J. Consum. Res. 2007, 34, 121–134.
    52. Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding
    consumers’ relationships with companies. J. Mark. 2003, 26, 76–88.
    53. Ditto, P.H.; Lopez, D.F. Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and
    nonpreferred conclusions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 63, 568–584.
    54. Sedikides, C.; Strube, M.J. Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to
    thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In Advances in Experimental Social
    Psychology; Zanna, M.P., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 209–269.
    55. Reid, S.A.; Hogg, M.A. Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification. Pers.
    Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2005, 31, 804–817.
    56. Hornsey, M.J. Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review.
    Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2008, 2, 204–222.
    57. Higgins, E.T. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychol. Rev. 1987, 94, 319–340.
    58. Strizhakova, Y.; Coulter, R.A.; Price, L.L. Branded products as a passport to global citizenship:
    Perspectives from developed and developing countries. J. Int. Mark. 2008, 16, 57–85.
    59. Strizhakova, Y.; Coulter, R.A.; Price, L.L. Branding in a global marketplace: The mediating effects
    of quality and self-identity brand signals. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2011, 28, 342–351.
    60. John, D.R.; Loken, B.; Joiner, C. The negative impact of extensions: Can flagship products be
    diluted? J. Mark. 1998, 62, 19–32.
    61. Caprara, G.V.; Barbaranelli, C.; Guido, G. Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit?
    J. Econ. Psychol. 2001, 22, 377–395.
    62. Martínez, E.; Montaner, T.; Pina, J.M. Brand extension feedback: The role of Advertising.
    J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 305–313.
    63. Keller, K.L.; Sood, S. Brand equity dilution. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2003, 45, 12–15.
    64. Dewit, I.; du Bois, E.; Moons, I.; Jacoby, A. Idea²Market: Implementing an ideation guide for
    product design education and innovation. In E&PDE 2012, Proceedings of the 14th International
    Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Antwerp, Belgium, 6–7 September 2012.
    65. Cauberghe, V.; de Pelsmacker, P. Adoption intentions toward interactive digital television among
    advertising professionals. J. Int. Advert. 2011, 11, 45–59.
    66. Aaker, J.L.; Benet-Matinez, V.; Garolera, J. Consumption of symbols as carriers of culture: A study
    of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 81, 492–508.
    Sustainability 2015, 7 12339
    67. Kim, C.K.; Han, D.; Park, S.B. The effect of brand personality and brand personification on brand
    loyality: Applying theory of social identification. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 2001, 43, 195–206.
    68. Kenny, D.A. Mediation. Available online: http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm (accessed on 5
    August 2015).
    69. Graeff, T.R. Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on consumers’ brand
    evaluations. Psychol. Mark. 1997, 14, 49–70.
    70. Grime, I.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Smith, G. Consumer evaluations of extensions and their effects on
    the core brand: Key issues and research propositions. Eur. J. Mark. 2002, 36, 1415–1438.
    71. Boush, D.M., Loken, B. A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. J. Mark. Res. 1991,
    28, 16–28.
    72. Derbaix, C.M. The impact of affective reactions on attitudes toward the advertisement and the
    brand: A step toward ecological validity. J. Mark. Res.1995, 32, 470–479.
    73. Levy, S.R.; Stroessner, S.J.; Dweck, C.S. Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of
    implicit theories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1421.
    74. Yorkston, E.; Nunes, J.; Matta, S.M. The malleable brand: The role of implicit theories in evaluating
    brand extensions. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 80–93.
    75. Dweck, C. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development; Psychology
    Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2000.
    76. Moons, I.; de Pelsmacker, P. An extended decomposed theory of planned behaviour to predict the
    usage intention of the electric car: A multi-group comparison. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6212–6245.
    © 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
    distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
    (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
    代写sustainability ISSN 2071-1050