Interview Procedure

The interview procedure adopted a consistent, semi-structured approach, with an initial standardized question derived from Aaker’s (1997) original method for the brand personality framework (Aaker, 1997: 350) to overcome any biases arising from qualitative scales in perception studies. This technique facilitated the comparison of results across the sample size, alongside a more structured technique for the analysis of results. Furthermore, it was an attempt to identify inter-related beliefs, thus ensuring that responses do not deviate from the purpose of the study.

Each respondent was given a warm welcome and an explanation of the study to ensure a non-judgmental environment, which is necessary for this type of study (Krueger, 1994) as no other person was present during the interview. At the beginning of each interview, the researcher asked general

‘ice breaker’ questions to make the respondent feel more at ease. Respondents were presented with a photographic symbol of the brands and were expected to express how the brand relates to them alongside any conflicting views they may hold. By identifying the conflicting views, the participants were given the opportunity to describe any negative traits the brand holds for them. This enabled an understanding of how the brand is perceived in consumers’ minds. It would be difficult to examine this constituent in a focus group due to the high possibility of individuals concurring with discussion themes and so offering no real individual opinion. The use of photographic symbols of brands partially addressed memory error, as it elicited cues to activate the brand in consumers’ cognitive memory (Hodgkinson and Sparrow, 2002). This addressed the possible lack of previous thinking that

~ 112 ~

may have caused the inability to reflect on the reasons for significant responses (Reynolds and Gutman, 1989). Although the photographic stimuli may have reduced previous thinking, excessive cognitive demand is required from the respondents, which is likely to cause inaccuracies in their conceptualization of brands.

As a result, a soft laddering technique was adapted to further probe respondents’ responses. The data collection method was designed with a focus on the theory developing technique, which initiates from a sequential process of observation alongside in-depth interviews. This was to certify an exploratory, methodological design in order to develop a confirmatory approach to the findings.

Observation in this context focused on consumers’ thought processes in terms of what cues are triggered by the brand (Lofland, 1971). This helped capture the underlying themes as well as how, through the exploration of their responses, consumers perceive brand personality traits.

However, potential weakness of a soft laddering technique is linked to the procedure of developing focused attention. To overcome this, Means End Chain theory (MECT) and its associated laddering technique (Grunert and Grunert, 1995; Botschen, Thelen and Pieters, 1999) were utilized in this study. The approach adopted utilized the strengths of grounded theory to underpin a more directed investigation into the existence of negative retail brand personality traits while, at the same time, avoiding constraining consumers’ responses (Yin, 1985; Bryman, 2004).

Therefore, questions such as ‘What is your perception of this brand?’, ‘What human characteristics would you assign to this brand?’, ‘Is it viewed in a positive or a negative light?’ and ‘Would you like to associate yourself with this brand?’ were asked for clarification of the traits being assigned and the rationale behind respondents’ responses. Specific examples were probed for more detail, hence establishing more hierarchical constructs (Dibley and Baker, 2001; Lin, 2002). By carefully probing and not pushing for a specific response, a more accurate picture of the respondents’ true motives towards brand personality was allowed (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005). Keeping in line with the exploratory goals of the research, little direction was pre-specified. Rather, during the interview, attitudes, associated reasoning and motivational factors were probed, which is associated with the Means-end technique. This gave the opportunity to analyze why certain factors were important to the respondents (Klenosky, 2002), and helped add a logical flow to the follow-up questions. Doing this enabled reasons to be probed for why certain attributes are important for the consumer, allowing for personal values and perceptions to be expressed in respondents’ own words.

Furthermore, the process provided the opportunity for a more in-depth understanding of why consumers hold Positive or Negative Brand Personality traits. To avoid directed questioning, the

~ 113 ~

probing was set to move towards a more abstract level matching the consequences and personal values. The respondents were guided across the ladder of abstraction where the links were uncovered between the concrete attributes and the more abstract themes and personal values.

When difficulties were raised and the respondent was unable to assign a personality trait to the brand, the researcher engaged in some cognitive processing to arrive at an answer that retrieved some of the respondent’s pertinent attitudes, facts or experiences which helped formulate these cognitions into responses (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005). To further facilitate the elicitation of attributes and outcome variables, it was explained to respondents that although responses may seem obvious it was important to answer all questions for the purposes of the interview.

Respondents were encouraged to relate their recent or current experiences, as well as given the scope to recall deep emotive thoughts which influenced their perceptions of the selected brands. The probing technique was adopted in an attempt to elicit more detail in responses.

Some respondents experienced slight difficulty with the question asking them to assign human characteristics to brands. This was simplified for respondents by asking them the question ‘If brand X was a person, how would you describe them?’ This initiated more insightful responses and consumers expressed the emotional feeling of brands and whether the characteristics selected to describe the brand were perceived in a positive or negative light.

The data was collected through audio tape recording (with permission) that lasted between 1 and 2 hours. The researcher continued the discussion until confident that no additional information could be generated from each participant (Silverman, 2000). Some key notes were taken during and after each interview to summarize the emerging themes and ideas. This is in line with suggestions and procedures in existing literature (Miles and Huberman, 1994). All participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. This followed the informed consent, which included their voluntary acceptance of participation that could be withdrawn at any time should the participant no longer wish to participate in the study. All participants self-volunteered as no incentive was given to respondents. In addition, all participants were briefed orally and in writing and debriefed orally.

Appendix B (i. ii. iii. and iv) provides details of the initial consent form, interview transcripts and debriefing forms and the interview question guide respectively.

~ 114 ~