The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture‐Specific Factors
Abstract
The symbolic meaning of commercial brands (often called brand personality) can represent the values and beliefs of a culture. When a set of global brands were rated on the same personality attributes in the United States and Korea, 6 common dimensions of brand personality and 2 factors unique to each culture were observed. The 2 culture‐specific factors in Korea (Passive Likeableness and Ascendancy) support our general hypothesis that Korean brand personality structure carries cultural meaning, reflecting the importance of Confucian values in Korea's social and economic systems. Although their cultural meaning is less clear, the 2 unique factors (White Collar and Androgyny) that emerged in the U.S. sample suggest changing cultural values associated with occupational status and gender roles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations
Bhagat, R. S., & Hofstede, G. (2002) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/4134391 · Cited by 21,664
Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.
Triandis, H. C., & Hofstede, G. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393257 · Cited by 17,696
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
(1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,690
Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications.
Smith, M. D., & Hoyle, R. H. (1996) · The Statistician · doi:10.2307/2988418 · Cited by 6,814
Individualism and Collectivism
(1976) · The Road to Serfdom · doi:10.4324/9780203991718-8 · Cited by 6,058
Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross‐National Consumer Research
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209528 · Cited by 4,750
Aaker, D. A. (1995) · Cited by 4,431
Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications
Rigdon, E. E., & Hoyle, R. H. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151904 · Cited by 4,060
Dimensions of Brand Personality
Aaker, J. L. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379703400304 · Cited by 4,033
Cited by
Cross-cultural consumer behavior: a review of research findings
de Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011) · Journal of International Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1080/08961530.2011.578057 · Cited by 517
Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: A cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning
Lim, E. A. C., & Ang, S. H. (2008) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.004 · Cited by 189
Managing the consumer-based brand equity process: A cross-cultural perspective
Chatzipanagiotou, K., Christodoulides, G., & Veloutsou, C. (2019) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.10.005 · Cited by 82
Garcia, D. M. P., Lopez, S. S., & Donis, H. (2018) · Electronic Workshops in Computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2018.40 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 334-350
- ISSN
- 1057-7408 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7663
- OpenAlex
- W1974099431
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 22.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture‐Specific Factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327663jcp1504_8
- The paper
- Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture‐Specific Factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1504_8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
