Competence of the Brand Owner(s)

Abstract

The Competence of the Brand Owner(s) scale is a concise, highly reliable psychometric instrument developed to evaluate consumer attributions of capability, skill, and efficacy directed toward the human founders, proprietors, or corporate owners of a commercial brand. Prominently utilized and validated by Mansur Khamitov and Marina Puzakova (2022) in their investigation of possessive brand naming, inferred control, and consumer brand preferences in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, this instrument operationalizes personal competence within the broader traditions of social cognition, person perception, and brand humanization. The scale consists of three core items—Competent, Capable, and Skillful—administered via a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 7 = "strongly agree") or a 7-point semantic differential scale. Empirical assessments indicate exceptional psychometric robustness, characterized by high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's $\alpha$ frequently exceeding .90, composite reliability $CR > .90$), clear unidimensional factor structure, high item factor loadings (typically $lambda > .85$), and robust convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities. As marketing scholarship increasingly explores the anthropomorphic and interpersonal dimensions of consumer-brand relationships, measuring inferred owner competence offers vital theoretical and practical insights into how corporate leadership perceptions directly mediate consumer brand evaluations, risk perception, inferred operational control, and actual marketplace choice.

Keywords

Competence of the Brand Owner, Brand Owner Perception, Stereotype Content Model, Brands as Intentional Agents, Inferred Control, Brand Humanization, Consumer Psychology, Psychometrics, Scale Validation, Perceived Efficacy, Person Perception, Brand Equity

Authors

The scale was formally adapted and validated in the context of consumer-brand owner relationships by:

• Mansur Khamitov, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA; formerly affiliated with the Division of Marketing, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Dr. Khamitov's research centers on consumer-brand relationships, brand transgressions, brand naming strategies, and behavioral decision-making.
• Marina Puzakova, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Business, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA. Dr. Puzakova specializes in brand anthropomorphism, social cognition in advertising, consumer perceptions of corporate social responsibility, and humanized brand communications.

The instrument draws conceptually upon foundational social cognition scales developed within the Stereotype Content Model framework pioneered by Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu (2002), as well as the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF) formulated by Nicolas Kervyn, Susan T. Fiske, and Chris Malone (2012).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Competence of the Brand Owner(s) scale is to quantitatively measure the extent to which consumers, observers, or organizational stakeholders judge the human proprietors, founders, or chief executives of a brand as intellectually equipped, technically proficient, and operationally capable of exerting control over their enterprise. In marketing theory and managerial practice, substantial research historically prioritized brand-level associations—such as perceived brand quality, brand personality, and corporate ability. However, consumers frequently perceive commercial brands not as faceless legal abstractions, but as personified entities inextricably tied to distinct human actors.

Khamitov and Puzakova (2022) established that the structural design of brand names—specifically the implementation of possessive nominal forms such as "McDonald's," "Wendy's," or "Trader Joe's"—fundamentally activates cognitive schemas regarding an underlying human proprietor. In their theoretical model, possessive naming cues the presence of an individual owner, which subsequently triggers an appraisal of the owner's inferred control over product manufacturing, quality management, and service execution. Inferred control, however, does not operate in a cognitive vacuum: the degree to which an owner's control translates into favorable consumer brand preferences depends significantly on whether that owner is perceived as competent. Thus, measuring the competence of the brand owner fulfills a crucial diagnostic and empirical need, clarifying when and why anthropomorphic or founder-focused branding yields positive consumer attitudes rather than skepticism.

Beyond academic research on brand nomenclature, the scale serves critical functions in diverse applied domains:

• Founder-Led Branding and Entrepreneurship: Startups, artisanal producers, and venture-backed organizations frequently tether their brand identity to a charismatic founder (e.g., Elon Musk, Martha Stewart, Steve Jobs). The scale allows researchers and strategists to assess whether public perceptions of the founder's technical capabilities enhance or jeopardize the firm's core brand equity.
• Crisis Management and Public Relations: During product recalls, governance failures, or corporate misconduct, public scrutiny immediately focuses on the competence and oversight of executive leadership. Administering this scale helps organizational psychologists and crisis managers quantify shifts in perceived owner efficacy, distinguishing between moral condemnation (warmth deficits) and perceived technical failure (competence deficits).
• Mergers, Acquisitions, and Endorsements: When a brand owner sells a controlling stake or actively endorses product lines, consumer perceptions of the owner's personal competence determine whether the brand retains its perceived craftsmanship and operational rigor.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by this instrument is perceived competence situated at the individual or owner level within an economic exchange context. In classic social psychological literature, competence constitutes one of the two foundational universal dimensions of social judgment (the other being warmth). Competence reflects perceived ability, including intelligence, skillfulness, efficacy, knowledge, and execution capacity. When applied to the brand owner, this construct reflects the consumer's cognitive judgment regarding whether the proprietor possesses the requisite talent and mastery to successfully control organizational outcomes.

The construct is operationalized across three interrelated semantic facets:

• Competent: Captures the global assessment of adequacy, systemic proficiency, and general cognitive and operational capacity. A competent brand owner is judged as possessing sufficient business acumen, intellectual fitness, and industry qualifications to steer the brand effectively.
• Capable: Emphasizes operational execution, instrumental potential, and the practical power to achieve defined objectives. A capable brand owner is viewed as possessing the tangible agency, resources, and problem-solving power required to navigate market difficulties and produce superior outcomes.
• Skillful: Denotes specialized mastery, technical dexterity, craftsmanship, and domain-specific expertise. A skillful brand owner is seen as an expert practitioner who understands the intricate nuances of the trade, whether culinary arts, high-technology engineering, or precision manufacturing.

It is vital to distinguish perceived brand owner competence from adjacent psychological constructs:

• Owner Competence vs. Perceived Product Quality: Perceived product quality concerns the physical attributes, durability, and functional performance of the manufactured good itself. In contrast, owner competence is an agentic, person-centered attribution regarding the human locus of authority behind the product.
• Owner Competence vs. Corporate Ability (CA): Corporate ability (Brown & Dacin, 1997) represents an institutional, macro-level evaluation of a company's manufacturing prowess and market leadership. Owner competence reflects a micro-level personological appraisal of the human beings who own and govern the brand.
• Owner Competence vs. Owner Warmth: Whereas warmth evaluates intentions (e.g., friendliness, benevolence, morality, honesty), competence evaluates the capacity to carry out those intentions. A brand owner may be perceived as exceptionally well-intentioned and ethical (high warmth) but clumsy and incapable of running an efficient supply chain (low competence), leading to consumer pity or sympathy rather than trust and purchase preference.

Theoretical Framework

The Competence of the Brand Owner(s) scale is anchored in three primary theoretical traditions within psychology and consumer behavior: the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF), and Attribution and Inferred Control Theories.

1. Stereotype Content Model (SCM)

Formulated by Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu (2002), the Stereotype Content Model posits that human beings naturally simplify complex social environments by evaluating individuals and social outgroups along two primary cognitive axes: warmth and competence. These evolutionary dimensions answer two vital survival questions: "What are this person's intentions toward me?" (Warmth) and "Does this person have the ability to enact those intentions?" (Competence). In Fiske and colleagues' framework, social structural status predicts competence: individuals and groups perceived as having high socioeconomic status, prestigious roles, and systemic control are automatically inferred to possess high competence. Applying SCM to economic proprietors, consumers instinctively infer that brand owners occupy positions of command and therefore evaluate their agency along the competence axis.

2. Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF)

Extending social cognition to consumer-brand interactions, Kervyn, Fiske, and Malone (2012) introduced the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework. BIAF demonstrates that consumers treat brands as humanlike social entities, attributing intentionality and ability to them. In BIAF, brands evaluated high in both warmth and competence elicit social admiration and behavioral loyalty (e.g., "admired brands"), whereas high-competence but low-warmth brands elicit envy, and low-competence brands evoke contempt or patronizing pity. When brand communications make the individual owner salient (as in possessive branding), the target of the BIAF social judgment shifts from an abstract brand icon to the flesh-and-blood brand owner, whose personal competence becomes the primary vehicle through which brand mastery is validated.

3. Attribution Theory and Inferred Control

According to classic attribution paradigms (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1973), people routinely assign causal agency to internal personal dispositions rather than external situational forces. Khamitov and Puzakova (2022) integrated attribution theory with psychological ownership and inferred control theory. They demonstrated that linguistic cues such as possessive naming ("Founder's Brand") imply psychological and physical ownership. This leads consumers to deduce that the owner exerts direct, uncompromised control over firm processes. However, as Khamitov and Puzakova demonstrate through moderation analyses, high inferred control only leads to heightened brand choice when the owner possesses high competence. If an owner is believed to exert absolute control over operations but is viewed as unskilled or incompetent, inferred control heightens consumer vulnerability, exacerbates perceived operational risk, and suppresses consumer purchase intentions.

Validity

The Competence of the Brand Owner(s) scale has demonstrated exemplary psychometric validity across experimental and field studies in consumer research.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by high, statistically significant factor loadings on the latent competence construct. In empirical testing across multiple consumer product categories (e.g., specialty foods, craft goods, retail hardware, technology services), the three standardized item loadings consistently exceed .85, demonstrating that the items converge on a single underlying construct. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values routinely exceed the recommended threshold of .50, typically surpassing .75 to .80. Convergent validity is further evidenced by strong positive correlations with established measures of corporate ability ($r \approx .65$ to $.75$), perceived product performance expectancy ($r \approx .58$ to $.68$), and perceived leadership efficacy.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been confirmed through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures, as well as the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. In the validation studies conducted by Khamitov and Puzakova (2022), the square root of the AVE for owner competence exceeded all bivariate correlations between competence and adjacent theoretical constructs, such as:

• Perceived Owner Warmth: Assessed using parallel items (e.g., warm, friendly, good-natured); the correlation between owner warmth and owner competence typically ranges from $r = .30$ to $.48$, indicating substantial shared variance as general positive affect but verifying distinct conceptual dimensions ($HTMT < .60$).
• Inferred Owner Control: While structurally linked in experimental manipulations, the correlation between inferred control (the degree of operational oversight) and owner competence (the skill with which that control is executed) remains moderate ($r \approx .35$ to $.45$), demonstrating that consumers easily differentiate between an owner's authority to act and their personal mastery.
• Brand Familiarity: Discriminant validity tests show weak correlations between owner competence and general brand familiarity ($r < .20$), confirming that competence ratings reflect substantive attributional evaluations rather than mere brand awareness.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Predictive validity is demonstrated by the scale's ability to systematically predict downstream marketing consequences. Khamitov and Puzakova (2022) revealed through moderated mediation models that the interaction between inferred owner control and measured owner competence significantly predicts overall brand preference, product quality expectations, and real consumer choice. When brand owner competence is scored high ($+1$ SD), the indirect effect of possessive naming on brand preference via inferred control is positive and statistically significant (e.g., $95%$ bootstrap confidence interval excluding zero). Conversely, when owner competence is scored low ($-1$ SD), this indirect positive pathway collapses or reverses, underscoring the scale's decisive predictive sensitivity in experimental and observational designs.

Reliability

The Competence of the Brand Owner(s) scale displays outstanding internal consistency across diverse empirical samples, demographic groups, and product categories.

Across the experimental investigations reported by Khamitov and Puzakova (2022) and related literature on brand anthropomorphism, the internal consistency metrics reliably exhibit the following parameters:

• Cronbach's Alpha ($\alpha$): Values consistently range between $.89$ and $.95$, well above the accepted academic threshold of $.70$ or $.80$ for established psychometric indices.
• Composite Reliability ($CR$): In structural equation modeling frameworks, composite reliability values consistently fall between $.90$ and $.96$, confirming that the scale indicators possess minimal measurement error.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): AVE values regularly exceed $.75$, indicating that over three-quarters of the variance in the indicator items is directly accounted for by the latent competence construct rather than measurement error or idiosyncratic item variance.
• Test-Retest Stability: In repeated-measures experimental paradigms without intervening informational interventions, the instrument displays high test-retest reliability across short administrative intervals ($r_{tt} > .82$), indicating temporal stability in the absence of exogenous reputational shocks.

The psychometric performance of the three items is summarized below:

Factor Analysis

Both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have been executed across empirical consumer samples to establish the latent structure of the Competence of the Brand Owner(s) scale.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

When subjected to EFA (using Principal Axis Factoring or Maximum Likelihood estimation with Promax or Varimax rotation alongside warmth, inferred control, and quality measures), the three competence items load decisively onto a single dominant factor. Eigenvalue extraction tests reveal a single eigenvalue well in excess of 2.2 (accounting for $75%$ to $85%$ of total item variance), with the second extracted factor exhibiting an eigenvalue far below 0.5. Scree plot analyses demonstrate a definitive inflection point following the initial factor, providing unambiguous evidence of unidimensionality.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In structural equation modeling and CFA assessments, the single-factor measurement model exhibits exceptional fit to observed data across multiple independent studies. Because a three-item measurement model possesses zero degrees of freedom ($df = 0$, just-identified or saturated model), structural researchers validate its fit when embedded within larger measurement systems alongside multi-item scales of warmth, inferred control, and brand attitude. In these multi-construct measurement models, the overall fit indices routinely meet or exceed rigorous psychometric benchmarks:

• Model Chi-Square ($\chi^2$): Relative $\chi^2/df$ values consistently fall between $1.10$ and $2.30$, indicating good absolute fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values regularly exceed $.98$ (frequently $ge .99$).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values consistently range between $.97$ and $.99$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimated point values remain below $.05$, with $90%$ confidence intervals bounded well under $.08$.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values routinely remain below $.03$.

Modification indices show no evidence of localized strain or cross-loadings with items measuring inferred owner control or brand warmth, further corroborating the factor validity of the three-item instrument.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The administrative structure of the Competence of the Brand Owner(s) instrument is specified below:

• Test Type: Psychometric rating scale / Self-report perceptual inventory.
• Target Population: Consumers, organizational stakeholders, survey panels, and experimental participants evaluating brand founders, proprietors, or corporate owners.
• Format: Digital survey (Qualtrics, Decipher, MTurk, Prolific) or pen-and-paper questionnaire.
• Number of Items: 3 items (unidimensional).
• Administration Time: Rapid administration, requiring approximately 30 to 60 seconds.
• Response Formats: Administered either as a:
• 7-point Likert scale, where participants rate their level of agreement with statements regarding the owner(s) (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree), or
• 7-point semantic differential scale, anchored by contrasting adjectives or prompt-adjective combinations.
• Scoring and Index Calculation: Items are averaged to create an overall composite index of perceived competence of the brand owner(s):
  $$\text{Perceived Owner Competence} = \frac{\text{Competent} + \text{Capable} + \text{Skillful}}{3}$$
  Higher numerical values indicate higher perceived competence, proficiency, and operational mastery attributed to the brand owner(s).
• Reverse Scoring: None. All three items are positively keyed.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was formally published in its current validated configuration in 2022 by Mansur Khamitov and Marina Puzakova in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (Volume 50, Issue 5, pages 1032–1051).

• Academic and Non-Commercial Research Use: The scale items are published in the open scientific literature. Academic researchers, educators, and university students may reproduce, adapt, and administer the instrument for non-commercial scholarly purposes under standard scientific fair use principles, provided that appropriate bibliographic attribution is accorded to Khamitov and Puzakova (2022).
• Commercial and Proprietary Use: Commercial entities, market research consultancies, and corporate testing platforms seeking to embed the scale within commercial brand diagnostic suites should review the copyright policies of Springer Nature and the Academy of Marketing Science, or obtain formal licensing through the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).
• Fee: Free for non-commercial academic research.

References

The foundational and empirical literature supporting this psychometric instrument includes:

• Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: The role of corporate associations in consumer product evaluations. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100106
• Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
• Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
• 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
• Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
• Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
• Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents: Warmth and competence predict brand perception, choice, and loyalty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.006
• Khamitov, M., & Puzakova, M. (2022). Possessive brand names in brand preferences and choice: The role of inferred control. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(5), 1032–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00857-4

Items of the Scale