Brand Personality Appeal (Originality) (BPAO)

1. Abstract

The Brand Personality Appeal (Originality) (BPAO) scale is a four-item psychometric subscale designed by Freling, Crosno, and Henard (2011) to measure the extent to which consumers perceive a brand’s personality as novel, distinctive, fresh, and creative relative to competing market alternatives. As an integral component of the tripartite Brand Personality Appeal (BPA) framework—which also comprises personality Clarity and Harmony—the Originality dimension specifically captures consumers’ cognitive and evaluative appraisal of unexpectedness and differentiation in brand personification. Administered primarily as a seven-point semantic differential scale, the BPAO consists of four bipolar adjective pairs: common versus distinctive, ordinary versus novel, predictable versus surprising, and routine versus fresh.

Extensive psychometric evaluation across multiple empirical consumer investigations demonstrates that the BPAO exhibits robust psychometric properties. Internal consistency estimates routinely surpass conventional thresholds, yielding Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR) coefficients exceeding .85 across diverse product categories and brand archetypes. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) validate a distinct unidimensional structure for the subscale that integrates seamlessly into a higher-order or three-factor correlated BPA model, with average variance extracted (AVE) estimates consistently clearing .60. The scale demonstrates rigorous convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related predictive validity, predicting key consumer response metrics including brand attitude, purchase intention, emotional attachment, and consumer willingness to pay a price premium. By isolating the novelty component of brand personification, the BPAO provides academic researchers and strategic marketing practitioners with an empirically grounded instrument to assess brand differentiation, monitor repositioning campaigns, and investigate cognitive schema incongruity in modern consumer behavior.

2. Keywords

Brand Personality Appeal, Originality, BPAO, psychometrics, semantic differential, perceived novelty, brand distinctiveness, consumer psychology, scale validation, structural equation modeling

3. Authors

The Brand Personality Appeal (BPA) measurement model and its constituent Originality (BPAO) subscale were conceptualized, developed, and validated by the following academic researchers:

• Traci H. Freling, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, College of Business, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA. Specialist in consumer judgment, behavioral decision theory, and brand management.
• Jody L. Crosno, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Joseph F. Nelson Chaired Professor, Department of Marketing, John Chambers College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA. Expert in inter-organizational governance, marketing channels, and quantitative scale development.
• David H. Henard, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Innovation, Department of Business Management, Poole College of Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Researcher focused on product innovation, creative strategy, and consumer evaluation processes.

4. Purpose

For decades, academic investigations into consumer-brand relationships relied predominantly on descriptive typologies of brand personality, most notably the seminal five-factor model developed by Aaker (1997) encompassing Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness. While descriptive frameworks successfully cataloged *what* human traits consumers project onto commercial brands, they did not inherently quantify the *appeal*, evaluative potency, or psychological valence of those attributed traits. A brand might be perceived clearly as “competent” or “sincere,” yet remain entirely unremarkable, unappealing, or indistinguishable from market competitors possessing an identical personality profile. To address this profound conceptual void, Freling et al. (2011) developed the Brand Personality Appeal (BPA) construct, defining it as a brand’s personality’s ability to favorably influence consumer purchase intentions, emotional bonding, and brand equity.

Within this overarching architecture, the specific purpose of the Brand Personality Appeal (Originality) (BPAO) subscale is to quantify perceived brand novelty, uniqueness, and creative divergence. In saturated contemporary marketplaces, perceptual differentiation is a primary driver of sustainable competitive advantage. The BPAO measures the psychological contrast between a target brand’s persona and existing categorical expectations. Consumers naturally categorize brands within product classes, forming normative cognitive schemas regarding how a typical competitor behaves, communicates, and looks. The BPAO operates as an evaluative diagnostic tool that gauges the extent to which a brand breaks free from mundane industry conventions without degenerating into complete cognitive dissonance.

In research contexts, the BPAO enables scholars to isolate how perceived creativity and novelty in brand character directly affect downstream cognitive and behavioral mechanisms. It allows researchers to test theories of sensory marketing, cognitive incongruity, and consumer curiosity. In corporate, clinical, and applied strategic environments, the BPAO serves as an indispensable diagnostic measurement tool. Brand managers, consumer insights specialists, and organizational psychologists use the scale during pre-launch concept testing, brand audit procedures, post-merger integration assessments, and longitudinal brand tracking studies. It determines whether rebranding efforts have successfully revitalized a stale, predictable corporate image into a dynamic, fresh, and captivating market force.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the BPAO is Perceived Brand Personality Originality, conceptualized as a consumer’s subjective cognitive evaluation of the uniqueness, distinctiveness, freshness, and unexpectedness of a brand’s humanlike attributes relative to competitive benchmarks within the same domain. Rather than assessing objective brand features or functional product performance (e.g., product speed, durability, or computational capacity), the BPAO operates strictly within the socio-cognitive realm of anthropomorphic trait projection, symbolic consumption, and associative mental networks.

The construct encompasses four essential conceptual facets:

• Distinctiveness (Common vs. Distinctive): This facet reflects the degree to which a brand’s anthropomorphized identity stands apart from surrounding industry clutter. A brand scoring high on distinctiveness is perceived as possessing an idiosyncratic “voice,” visual vocabulary, and behavioral demeanor that resists being conflated with generic category players. For example, while traditional retail banking personalities historically exhibited conservative, austere, and institutional character traits, a challenger digital bank cultivating an informal, witty, and deeply empathetic persona exhibits high distinctiveness.
• Novelty (Ordinary vs. Novel): Novelty represents the perception of conceptual newness and creative ingenuity within the brand’s identity system. Grounded in cognitive novelty processing, this facet evaluates whether the consumer encounters a personality configuration that feels genuinely innovative versus one that merely reiterates banal, worn-out marketing clichés.
• Unexpectedness / Element of Surprise (Predictable vs. Surprising): This dimension taps into the cognitive contrast between established prior consumer expectations and direct brand interaction. A predictable brand personality rigidly conforms to standard categorical archetypes; a surprising brand personality strategically violates mundane normative scripts, presenting playful, stimulating, or unconventional behaviors that awaken consumer attention and trigger cognitive elaboration.
• Freshness (Routine vs. Fresh): Freshness captures the vitality, contemporariness, and dynamic energy of the brand persona. Stale, routine brand personalities often suffer from cognitive fatigue and habituation among consumers, whereas fresh brand identities evoke perceptions of modern relevance, forward momentum, and youthful responsiveness to cultural shifts.

Crucially, within the broader BPA framework, Originality does not operate in isolation. It works in synergistic tension with Clarity (the ease with which consumers perceive and understand the personality) and Harmony (the aesthetic and psychological congruity among the disparate traits). A brand personality that exhibits extreme originality without clarity risks confusing consumers, whereas high originality paired with high clarity and internal harmony generates an exceptionally potent, magnetic brand appeal.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Brand Personality Appeal (Originality) subscale is anchored in several classic psychological paradigms, integrating principles from cognitive psychology, social cognition, and behavioral economics:

Schema Incongruity and Cognitive Elaboration Theory

The conceptual foundation of the BPAO rests significantly on Schema Theory and Mandler’s (1982) schema incongruity model. According to schema theory, consumers store associative networks of knowledge regarding product categories in long-term memory. When an incoming marketing stimulus is entirely congruent with existing category schemas (e.g., an insurance company acting solemn and bureaucratic), it undergoes minimal cognitive processing and elicits neutral, mild affect. Conversely, extreme schema incongruity can cause cognitive discomfort and rejection. However, moderate schema incongruity—which the BPAO effectively captures—provokes cognitive arousal, spurs curiosity, and demands active cognitive elaboration. When consumers successfully resolve this unexpected brand framing, the resulting cognitive mastery yields heightened positive affect, enhanced memorability, and stronger brand evaluations.

Associative Network Model of Memory

Grounded in the associative network memory model popularized by John R. Anderson and adapted to branding by Keller (1993), a brand node in human memory is linked to an array of informational nodes representing attributes, benefits, experiences, and affective reactions. A brand personality that scores high on the BPAO establishes unique associative pathways that diverge from standard industry linkages. These distinctive pathways exhibit higher retrieval fluency during decision-making contexts, insulating the brand from competitive interference and memory decay.

Divergent Thinking and Product Creativity Paradigms

The subscale also draws directly from psychological theories of creativity (Guilford; Runco & Jaeger, 2012), which define creative outputs along two primary parameters: divergence (novelty, original thinking, unexpectedness) and relevance (appropriateness, meaningfulness, utility). In the BPA taxonomy, the BPAO represents the divergent dimension of creativity applied to brand personification, ensuring that consumer assessments capture the authentic artistic and strategic differentiation engineered by brand architects.

7. Validity

During its initial conceptualization and extensive cross-validation studies across multiple student and nationwide adult consumer samples, Freling, Crosno, and Henard (2011) subjected the BPAO to rigorous psychometric scrutiny, demonstrating exceptional validity across multiple domains:

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity of the BPAO subscale was established through confirmatory factor modeling. All four semantic differential items exhibited high, statistically significant standardized factor loadings on the latent Originality factor, universally exceeding .80 (with individual parameter estimates ranging between .82 and .92, p < .001). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for the Originality construct consistently exceeded the recommended .50 benchmark, regularly surpassing .70 across diverse product and service evaluations (ranging from everyday packaged goods like soft drinks and athletic footwear to complex services like retail banking and consumer electronics). This confirms that the majority of variance captured by the indicators is shared with the underlying latent construct rather than measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was verified through rigorous testing protocols. First, using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion, the square root of the AVE for the Originality subscale consistently exceeded its inter-construct correlations with the other two BPA dimensions (Clarity and Harmony) as well as with adjacent marketing constructs such as generalized Brand Attitude ($A_{brand}$), Perceived Brand Quality, and Brand Familiarity. Second, nested chi-square difference tests comparing unconstrained models with models constraining the correlation between Originality and related constructs to unity ($1.0$) yielded statistically significant differences ($\Delta \chi^2$, p < .001), corroborating that perceived personality originality represents a distinct psychological construct separate from mere affective liking or trait clarity.

Nomological and Predictive Criterion Validity

Nomological validity was established by embedding the BPAO within comprehensive structural equation models examining consumer decision pathways. The Originality subscale explained substantial incremental variance in consumer brand attitudes, word-of-mouth recommendations, brand trust, and purchase intentions beyond standard descriptive brand personality measures (e.g., Aaker’s dimensions). Subsequent laboratory experiments demonstrated that experimental manipulations designed to elevate brand originality produced corresponding, statistically significant increases in BPAO scale scores, verifying the scale’s acute sensitivity to genuine shifts in perceived brand differentiation.

8. Reliability

The BPAO exhibits outstanding internal consistency and measurement precision across heterogeneous consumer demographics, product categories, and sampling methodologies. Key reliability metrics reported across empirical studies include:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): In the foundational validation studies by Freling et al. (2011), the four-item Originality subscale achieved Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently spanning from .89 to .93 across exploratory, confirmatory, and replication samples. These values comfortably exceed the traditional .70 and .80 thresholds recommended for psychometric assessment instruments.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling evaluations demonstrated composite reliability figures ranging from .90 to .94, demonstrating exceptional internal consistency while minimizing the risk of item redundancy.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlation values for each of the four bipolar pairs routinely surpassed .75, indicating that all individual scale indicators contribute substantially to the core latent construct.
• Temporal Stability and Test-Retest Reliability: In longitudinal panel testing and multi-wave experimental designs, the subscale demonstrated robust stability over two- to four-week test-retest intervals ($r_{tt} > .82$), reflecting a reliable trait-state balance that captures enduring brand representations while remaining appropriately sensitive to deliberate strategic repositioning interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the BPA battery, and the BPAO subscale specifically, was rigorously analyzed using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) during the scale purification and validation phases.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During preliminary scale development, an extensive pool of potential candidate items reflecting brand appeal was administered to broad consumer panels. Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation extracted three distinct, theoretically coherent factors corresponding to Clarity, Harmony, and Originality. The four items comprising the BPAO loaded cleanly onto a single distinct novelty/originality factor, exhibiting minimal cross-loadings (all secondary loadings < .20). The eigenvalue for the extracted Originality factor substantially exceeded the Kaiser criterion threshold of 1.0, accounting for a large proportion of the total explained variance in brand appeal evaluations.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent validation utilizing Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis corroborated the stability of the hypothesized measurement model. When evaluated as a standalone first-order measurement model or embedded within a higher-order Brand Personality Appeal structural model, the four-item BPAO consistently yields outstanding goodness-of-fit indices across sample datasets:

• Standardized Factor Loadings ($lambda$):
  • Common / Distinctive: $lambda pprox .84 – .88$
  • Ordinary / Novel: $lambda pprox .86 – .91$
  • Predictable / Surprising: $lambda pprox .80 – .85$
  • Routine / Fresh: $lambda pprox .85 – .89$
• Model Fit Indices: Structural models testing the three-factor BPA configuration demonstrated exemplary fit statistics meeting or exceeding the strict benchmarks proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999):
  • $\chi^2 / df$: Ratios typically falling between $1.2$ and $2.4$, indicating minimal model misspecification.
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Consistently $ge .96$ (frequently $.98 – .99$).
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently $ge .95$.
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently $le .05$ (with 90% confidence intervals bounded below $.08$).
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values $le .04$.

Competing models—including a single-factor omnibus appeal model and various two-factor configurations—were systematically tested and rejected via chi-square difference testing ($\Delta \chi^2$), verifying that the Originality dimension represents an analytically distinct, psychometrically non-redundant component of the consumer evaluation apparatus.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The BPAO is engineered for efficient self-report administration in online surveys, computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI), paper-and-pencil questionnaires, and mobile consumer research applications. Key architectural specifications of the instrument include:

• Instrument Designation: Brand Personality Appeal – Originality Subscale (BPAO).
• Primary Developer: Freling, Crosno, and Henard (2011).
• Measurement Paradigm: Semantic Differential Technique (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957).
• Total Item Count: 4 bipolar adjective pairs.
• Response Format: Seven-point semantic differential scale (scored 1 to 7). Visual radio buttons or numerical continuum anchors are positioned between the polar opposites.
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 60 seconds per focal brand evaluation, rendering it ideal for inclusion in omnibus surveys or multi-brand competitive benchmarking matrices.
• Scoring and Indexing:
  • Individual items are anchored such that lower scores (1) represent low originality (conventional, routine perceptions) and higher scores (7) represent high originality (distinctive, novel perceptions).
  • An overall Perceived Personality Originality Index is computed by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean of the four items:
    
    $$\text{BPAO Score} = \frac{\text{Distinctiveness} + \text{Novelty} + \text{Surprise} + \text{Freshness}}{4}$$
  • Composite scores range from 1.00 to 7.00, with higher composite values indicating greater perceived brand personality originality.
  • In structural equation modeling (SEM), the four items serve as reflective continuous indicators loading directly onto the latent BPAO construct.
• Target Population: General consumer populations (adolescent to adult) evaluating consumer packaged goods, corporate institutions, technology platforms, service providers, luxury brands, or non-profit organizations.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Brand Personality Appeal framework and the BPAO subscale were officially published in 2011 in the peer-reviewed Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS). The scale and its developmental methodology are copyrighted by the Academy of Marketing Science and published by Springer Science+Business Media.

Under standard academic convention and fair-use principles, the BPAO scale items may be utilized freely without royalty fees by academic scholars, non-profit institutions, university educators, and postgraduate researchers for non-commercial research, theses, dissertations, and scientific publication, provided that full bibliographic attribution is granted to the original authors (Freling et al., 2011). Commercial enterprises, market research corporations, and independent branding consultants seeking to embed the scale into proprietary commercial software suites, for-profit audit platforms, or syndicated benchmarking products should obtain written permission from the copyright holder (Springer/Academy of Marketing Science) or contact the lead authors directly.

12. References

• Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400308
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., & Henard, D. H. (2011). Brand personality appeal: Conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0208-8
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101
• Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 3–36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press.
• Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

13. Items of the Scale