Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
ISSN: 2040-7467
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2012
Submitted: January 30, 2012
Accepted: March 10, 2012
Published: May 15, 2012
An Analysis of Some Moderating Variables on the Value, Brand Trust and
Brand Loyalty Chain
1
Kambiz Heidarzadeh Hanzaee and 2Leila Andervazh
Department of Business Management, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Business Management, Persian Gulf International Educational Center,
Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran
1
Abstract: The objective in this study was to investigate the moderating effect of some variables on the value,
brand trust, and brand loyalty chain. These moderating variables are customer characteristics (Age, Gender,
Involvement, Price consciousness, Brand consciousness). More specifically, we investigate both the link
between hedonic and utilitarian values of a product and brand trust and the link between brand trust and
attitudinal and purchase loyalty and the impact of selected customer characteristics on these relationships in
the context of four product groups (mobile phones, sunglasses, running shoes, and notebooks) that can be
characterized as consumer durables with high brand relevance. In a basic research model after reviewing the
literature on brand trust, hedonic and utilitarian value as selected contributors to brand trust and brand loyalty
as an important outcome of trust, we measured the effects of product value-brand loyalty on brand trust. Then
in the second phase we analyzed the moderator effects. The proposed relationships have been tested using
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) via lisrel. We first report the main effect model and then present the
impact of moderators.
Key words: Brand consciousness, hedonic value, involvement, price consciousness, utilitarian value
INTRODUCTION
Trust is one of the most effective methods of
reducing uncertainty. Studies illustrate the importance of
trust in developing positive and favorable attitudes,
resulting in commitment to a certain brand in successful
consumer-brand relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
Fournier, 1998; Gurviez, 1996). Consumer’s trust in a
brand contributes to a reduction in consumer uncertainty
in consumer (Gommans et al., 2001; Fullerton, 2003), and
is believed to increase customer loyalty (Narayandas,
1998; Ergin and Akbay, 2010).
Most discussions of trust agree that confident
expectations and risks are critical components. For
example, Deutsch (1958) defines trust as the confidence
that one will find what is desired from another, rather than
what is feared. Similarly, Morgan and Hunt (1994) and
Lewicki et al. (1998) also consider confidence
expectations as key element of trust. Trust matters only
when a person is in a situation that involves uncertainty,
vulnerability or risk about an outcome (Mayer et al.,
1995). A strong brand is a trust mark (highly regarded by
consumers) because it signals high product quality or
reliability, evokes consumers’ feelings of security, and
enhances their confidence that a product offering will
deliver what they expect (Aaker, 1996).
Brand loyalty has been proclaimed to be the ultimate
goal of marketing (Reichheld et al., 2000).
Brand loyalty is consequence of brand trust. Many
companies try to enhance brand loyalty among their
customers. The objective in this research is to investigate
the moderating effect of some variables on the value,
brand trust, and brand loyalty chain. These moderating
variables are customer characteristics (Age, Gender,
Involvement, Price consciousness, Brand consciousness).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Brand trust: A brand is commonly referred to as the
name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that
identifies one seller's goods/services as distinct from those
of other sellers (Aaker, 1996). The Importance of trust in
developing positive and favorable attitude and, the
relation of commitment-loyalty has been examined by
many researchers, resulting determining that in
commitment to a certain brand forms a in successful
consumer-brand relationship (Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
Fournier, 1998; Gurviez, 1996). Consumer’s trust in a
Corresponding Author: Kambiz Heidarzadeh Hanzaee, Department of Business Management, Ashrafee e-Esfahani Highway,
Hesarak Road, Tehran, Iran, Zip code: 1477893855
1403
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
brand contributes to a reduction of uncertainty in
consumer purchases (Garbarino and Mark, 1999;
Gommans et al., 2001) and is believed to increase
customer, (Fullerton, 2003; Narayandas, 1998); trust as
the single most powerful relationship-based marketing
tool (Berry, 1995).
Drawing on the above mentioned literature we define
brand trust as: the feeling of security held by the
consumer in his/her interaction with the brand, witch that
is based on the perceptions that the brand is reliable and
responsible for the interests and welfare of the consumer.
In marketing literature, the term "brand trust" is variously
defined as the willingness of consumers (implying a
propensity) to rely on the ability of the brand to perform
its stated function (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001); as the
confident expectations of the brand's reliability and
intentions in situations entailing risk to the consumer
(Delgado-Ballester, 2004; Delgado-Ballester and
Munuera-Alema'n, 2001): or simply described in terms of
reliability and dependability (Dawar and Madan, 2000).
These definitions of brand trust suggest that an
individual’s propensity (a conscious inclination) to trust
on a brand’s qualities or attributes is critical in consumerbrand relationships.
First of all consumers rely on trusted brands to
economize time and other search costs (Zeithaml, 1988).
Moreover it’s trust that allows the consumer to develop a
personal relationship with the brand (Hess and Story,
2005). Brand trust leads to brand loyalty because trust
creates exchange relationships that are highly value
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Most recently, some marketing
scholars have also found that trust and loyalty are very
important constructs affecting customer performance
behavior (Bettencourt, 1997; Garbarino and Mark, 1999).
In particular, both loyalty and trust also play very
important roles in affecting customer performance
behaviors in relationship marketing. The importance of
trust in an exchange relationship has been demonstrated
in marketing (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
Literature (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Dwyer and
Schurr, 1987). Its effects on commitment-an "enduring
desire to maintain a valued relationship” have also been
well supported in the literature (Morman et al., 1992).
Therefore, it is expected that a brand that demonstrates
reliability and integrity ensures consumers’ willingness to
keep the relationship and encourage future purchases.
Following this logic, this study proposes that brand trust
positively affects on brand loyalty.
Brand loyalty: Loyalty has received considerable
attention in marketing literature for over 80 years
(Copeland, 1923). Loyalty was been defined and
measured in relation to several marketing aspects such as
brand loyalty, product loyalty, service loyalty, and chain
or store loyalty (Olsen, 2007). Loyalty has a powerful
impact on firm performance, (Edvardsson et al., 2000;
Lam et al., 2004; Reichheld et al., 2000; Mitchell and
Goldrick, 1996). Firms gain a competitive advantage by
having a high loyal consumers, who are willing to pay
higher prices and are less price sensitive (Morman et al.,
1992). Brand loyalty provides the firm with trade leverage
and valuable time to respond to competitive moves.
Understanding the concept of loyalty helps companies
better manage customer relationship management in order
to create long-term investment and profitability (Mitchell
and Goldrick, 1996).
Brand loyalty implies that consumers have a good
attitude towards a particular brand over other competing
brands. Brand loyal consumers may be willing to pay
more for a brand because they perceive some unique
value in the brand that no alternative can provide (Oliver,
1993).
THEORETICAL MODEL
In this section, the researchers focus investigating the
influence of product value on brand trust and the impact
of brand trust on brand loyalty for four consumer durables
with high brand relevance. Specifically, the researchers
focused on hedonic value and utilitarian value as drivers
trust and purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty as
outcomes of brand trust (Day, 1969).
Hedonic and utilitarian value: Adapted literature cited
earlier suggests that there exist two kinds of consumer
evaluations exist ,in which the consumption object is
cognitively placed on both a utilitarian dimension of
instrumentality (e.g., how useful or beneficial the object
is), and on a hedonic dimension measuring the
experiential effect associated with the object (e.g., how
pleasant and agreeable those associated feeling are).
There is a strong correlation between hedonic value, risk
and brand affect, antecedent to brand commitment. Thus
brands that make consumers happy will be associated with
greater commitment. Emotions and feelings of enjoyment
or pleasure are key components in purchase decisions
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
There are two broadly different types of products
with tangible, objective features that offer functional
benefits, and primarily hedonic products with subjective,
in tangible features that produce enjoyment or pleasure
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Both of these types of
benefits contribute, in differing degrees, to the overall
goodness of consumer goods or behaviors (Batra and
Aholta, 1990; Oliver, 1993).
Concerning the relationship between product value
and brand trust it can be assumed that cognitive trust
toward a specific brand is greater, when the utilitarian
1404
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
value of the product in terms of e.g. quality or
convenience is high (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). On
the other hand, products with a high pleasure potential
provide no tangible, symbolic benefits and are likely to
hold a greater potential for evoking positive emotions and
effect-based brand trust in a consumer.
The utilitarian value perspective puts emphasis on
consumer’s perception on functional performance in the
purchasing or decision-making process. When consumers’
needs are fulfilled and/or when there is a balance between
quality and price (cost), they experience utilitarian value.
Feeling the ambiance that creates enjoyment (hedonic
value) is a critical aspect of consumers’ consumption
experience (Babin and William, 1995). In summation, the
previous literature implies the following hypothesis:
H1: Utilitarian value and hedonic value will be
positively related to brand trust.
Attitudinal and purchase loyalty: Brand loyalty is
defined as the commitment to using a deeply
product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing
repetitive same-brand-set purchasing, despite situational
influence and marketing efforts having the potential to
cause switching behavior (Oliver, 1993). This definition
emphasizes the two different aspects of brand loyalty that
have been described in previous work on the concept
behavioral and attitudinal (Aaker, 1991; Assael, 1998;
Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Behavioral or Purchase
Loyalty consists of repeated purchases of the brand,
whereas attitudinal brand loyalty includes a degree of
dispositional commitment in terms of some unique value
associated with the brand. Some researchers examined
that brands high in consumer trust and effect (emotional)
are linked through both attitudinal and purchase loyalty
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Brand trust leads to
brand loyalty because trust creates exchange relationships
that are highly valued (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Thus
loyalty underlies of consumer trust. In other words, trust
and loyalty should be associated, because trust is
important in relational exchanges and loyalty is also
reserved for such valued relationships. Brand trust will
contribute to both purchase and attitudinal loyalty
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Trusted brands should
be purchased more often and should evoke higher degree
of attitudinal loyalty. We considered two types of loyalty:
attitudinal loyalty and behavioral or purchase loyalty.
Attitudinal loyalty, in contrast to behavioral loyalty,
purchase or behavioral loyalty is distinguished from
repeat buying attitudinal loyalty defined as the level of
customer's psychological attachments and attitudinal
advocacy towards the service provider or supplier
(Mellens et al., 1996; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978).
Attitude denotes the degree to which a consumer's
disposition towards a product is favorable. Attitudinal
loyalty focuses on the cognitive basis of loyalty and
isolates purchases driven by a strong attitude from
purchases due to situational constraints. Attitudinally
loyal customers are committed to a brand or company and
they make repeat purchases based on a strong internal
disposition (Rauyruen and Miller, 2007). Attitudinal
loyalty is also viewed as the extent of the customer's
psychological attachments and attitudinal advocacy
towards the organization (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978).
Accordingly, attitudinal loyalty encompasses positive
word of mouth intentions, willingness to recommend to
others and encouraging others to use the products and
services of a company (Zeithaml, 1988). Therefore we
propose this hypothesis:
H2: Brand trust will be positively related to Attitudinal
and Purchase loyalty: Based on the above discussion,
the two hypotheses suggested above are summarized in
Fig. 1.
MODERATING VARIABLES
Gender and age: Demographic characteristics that have
been found to influence an individual’s purchase intention
and behavior in a number of different contexts are gender
and age. Compared to men, women are more involved in
purchasing activities (Slama and Tashlian, 1985).
Johnson-George and Swap (1982) found that men and
women look for different attributes in another person
when assessing her or his trustworthiness. Drawing on
findings in the personality and social psychology
literature, Chen and Dhillon (2003) propose that both age
and gender significantly influence the perception of
competence, integrity and benevolence of an Internet
vendor, and thus consumer trust in ecommerce. Hence, we
suggest age and gender to be moderators of the
relationships between value, brand trust, and brand
loyalty.
Involvement: The involvement construct has played an
increasingly important role in analyzing and explaining
consumer behavior. The level of consumer involvement
is a crucial factor influencing buying decisions and is
discussed by both attitudinal and behavioral theorists
when addressing the issue of brand loyalty (Bennett et al.,
2005). Although there is no universally accepted precise
definition of involvement, most researchers agree that the
level of involvement is related to the level of perceived
personal relevance of a certain product for the consumer
(Homburg and Giering, 2001; Knox et al., 1993). Laurent
and Kapferer (1985) conceptualize consumer involvement
as a multidimensional construct consisting of five
determinants:
1405
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
Fig. 1: Structural modle
C
C
C
C
C
Personal meaning and self-reference
Ability to provide pleasure
Ability to express the person’s self
Perceived importance of negative consequences,
which means the perceived importance of purchase
risk
Perceived probability of purchase risk
To sum up, the level of involvement indicates how
important a product and the consequences of its purchase
are for the individual.
Hence, involvement is suggested to moderate the
relationships between product value, brand trust, and
brand loyalty. For example, individuals with high product
or enduring involvement might perceive a greater pleasure
potential of the product, and therefore the influence of
hedonic value on brand trust might be more dominant than
for lowly involved persons.
Price consciousness: Whereas Zeithaml (1988) used the
term in a wider sense referring to different price-related
cognitions, Lichtenstein et al. (1993) were the first
authors to conceptualize the construct of price
consciousness in a narrower sense as “the degree to which
the consumer focuses exclusively on paying low prices”
(Lichtenstein et al., 1993). They point out that their
definition is consistent with the conceptualization of
several other authors (Tellis and Gaeth, 1990;
Lichtenstein et al., 1993; Monroe and Petroshius, 1981;
cited by Lichtenstein et al., 1993). Sinha and Batra (1999)
refer to the unwillingness of consumers to pay a higher
price for a product and are in line with Monroe and
Petroshius (1981), who conceptualize price consciousness
as individual differing reluctance to pay for additional or
distinguishing features of a product, if the price difference
is too large. Miyazaki et al. (2000) define price
consciousness as individual difference variable reflecting
the “enduring motivation to consider unit price
information” (p. 98). Price consciousness is among a
variety of other psychological constructs explaining price
perception of consumers in the marketplace. As “price is
unquestionable one of the most important marketplace
cues” (Lichtenstein et al., 1993), it plays two different
roles in influencing purchase probabilities: a negative role
as it means giving a certain amount of money in exchange
for goods and services, but also a positive role as higher
prices are cues for higher quality (Sternquist et al., 2004;
Lichtenstein et al., 1993; Lichtenstein et al., 1988;
Erickson and Johansson, 1985). Price consciousness is
one of the five constructs consistent with the negative role
of price-the others are value consciousness, price
mavensim, sale proneness and coupon proneness
(Lichtenstein et al., 1993).
Price consciousness has been increasing in awareness
of the consumers in the last few years. One of the reasons
is that consumers focus on cheaper products in order to
sustain their standard of living (Rothenberger, 2005;
Simon, 2004). Price consciousness is a crucial factor
influencing purchase behavior. Highly price-conscious
consumers express lower perceptions of offer value and
higher price information search intentions (Alford and
Biswas, 2002). According to Alford and Bsiwas (2002)
highly price conscious consumers derive emotional value
from looking for even lower prices. They get rewarded if
lower prices have been found and are proud of their
“success”. The consumers’ level of price consciousness
therefore influences the propensity to search for prices
(Urbany et al., 1996), the sensitivity of price-oriented
sales promotions (Lichtenstein et al., 1988; Blattberg and
Neslin, 1990; Lichtenstein et al., 1990), the propensitiy to
1406
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
redeem coupons in different product categories
(Swaminathan and Bawa, 2005) and the knowledge of
unit prices as they are vigilant in paying lower prices and
therefore motivated to process pricing information
(Manning et al., 2003; Miyazaki et al., 2000). In our study
the interest has been focused on the variation across
consumers, not on differing between product categories.
Sinha and Batra (1999) demonstrated that consumers are
less priceconscious in buying products in categories with
high perceived risk. As loyalty is one strategy of risk
reduction, price consciousness may moderate the valuebrand trust-brand loyalty chain. It is assumed that price
consciousness weakens the influence of hedonic value to
trust and strengthens the path from trust to attitudinal and
purchase loyalty.
As mentioned above, highly price conscious
consumers gain emotional reward from looking for even
lower prices and are motivated to search for additional
information and therefore elaborate their purchase
decision instead of relying on a known brand. Hence, trust
becomes an important missing link between hedonic value
and loyalty for highly price conscious consumers as it
reduces their reluctance to be loyal. The path between
hedonic value and trust is assumed to be stronger for less
price conscious consumers. For highly price conscious
consumers instead, a low price has a higher emotional
value than the hedonic value of a product. Hence, trust
may have other, more important antecedents than hedonic
value of the brand for highly price conscious consumers.
Brand consciousness: Nelson and McLeod (2005) do not
differ conceptually between brand consciousness and
brand sensivity. According to these authors, these
constructs have been studied to manage brands (Laurent
and Kapferer, 1985), to understand consumer socialization
processes and to investigate the different feelings
ofconsumers against imitation of brands.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The objective of this study is to provide additional
insight into the product value-brand trust-brand loyalty
chain by examining the effects of moderating variables. A
12 item questionnaire developed and Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001) was used to measure Brand trust,
utilitarian value, hedonic value, purchase loyalty and
attitudinal loyalty. A standardized self-administered
questionnaire was developed to test the proposed
relationships for four products (mobile phones,
sunglasses, running shoes, and Notebooks). Subjects for
the study were randomly selected people that have been
approached during shopping hours in shopping streets in
Tehran. Data collection took place between 9 a.m. and 7
p.m. on five working days.
Table 1: Characteristics of the sample
Frequency Percent
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Age
18-24 Year
25-34 Year
35-44 Year
45 and older
Total
Valid percent Cumulative
percent
155
195
350
44.3
55.7
100.0
44.3
55.7
100.0
44.3
100.0
69
112
99
70
350
19.7
32.0
28.3
20.0
100.0
19.7
32.0
28.3
20.0
100.0
19.7
51.7
80.0
100.0
To measure the moderating variables including
Involvement with 16-items by Laurent and Kapferer
(1985), Brand consciousness and price consciousness with
3-items by Walsh et al. (2001)and Lichtenstein et al.
(1988) . A five point scale was constructed ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
For internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
were calculated for all items of each construct. Results
indicated that all the scales were considered to be reliable
(Cronbach’s alphas).
To measure the effects of product value on brand
trust and brand loyalty, using the scale developed by
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). Moderating variables
were contained: involvement with 16-items were
developed by Laurent and Kapferer (1985). To measure
the moderating variables on the value, brand trust and
brand loyalty a 33-items questionnaire, was used that was
developed by (Matzler et al., 2006) that shown in
Table 2. Consequently, the thirty three item. Scale was
taken into account for brand trust with 4-items,utilitarian
value with 2-items,hedonic value with 2-items purchase
loyalty with 2-items, attitudinal loyalty with 2-items, were
measured using the scale developed by Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001). Involvement was measured with 16
items by Laurent and Kapferer (1985). Brand
consciousness with 6 items, developed by Walsh and
price consciousness with1item developed by Lichtenstein.
All statements were measured on a 5-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). For internal
reliability. Coronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated
for all items of each construct. Results indicated that all
the scales were was considered to be reliable. For
detetermining reliability and validity of the questionnaire
in this research used Coronbach's alpha was used.
Coronbach's alpha for the constructs are: hedonic value:.
752, utilitarian value:. 738, brand trust:. 773, purchase
loyalty:. 787, and attitudinal loyalty:. 726 so reliability of
this questionnaire is acceptable. For determining validity,
discriminant validity was assessed for all constructs
and indicators. Discriminant validity was assessed by
1407
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
Table 2: Reliability and overall measurement model
Construct
Item
Utilitarian value I rely on this product
This product is a
Hedonic value
I love this product
I feel good when I use
Brand trust
I trust this brand
I rely on this brand
This is an honest brand
This brand is safe
Purchase
I will buy this brand the
I intend to keep
Attitudinal
I am committed to this
I would be willing to
Table 3: Fit indices
Recommend
Model-fit index value
Recommender
#3
Fox et al. (2006)
X2/df
RMSEA
#0.8
Fox et al. (2006)
RMR
#0.5
Fox et al. (2006)
NFI
>0.90
forza and filippini (1998)
GFI
>0.80
Fox et al. (2006)
CFI
>0.90
Fox et al. (2006)
AGFI
>0.80
Forza and Filippini (1998)
PGFI
>0.50
Kayank (2003)
PNFI
>0.50
Kayank (2003)
Factor loadings
0.75
0.77
0.86
0.70
0.58
0.48
0.46
0.49
0.80
0.81
0.79
0.73
Structural
model
2.9975
0.0760
0.0310
0.9600
0.9400
0.9800
0.8900
0.5300
0.6400
examining the factor loading for statistical significance.
All the results of these measures were significant and are
shown in Table 2.
To ensure of the validity and reliability of the
questionnaire a pilot test were used before the formal
survey. This pilot test contained 30 buyers (mobile phone,
notebooks, running shoes, sunglasses).
The results of this test indicated that coronbach's "
did include the necessary values and validity was verified.
In this research overall 350 usable questionnaire were
collected (140 mobile phone buyers, 45 notebook buyers,
98 running shoes buyers, and, 66 sunglass buyers.
Table 1 displays the characteristics of the sample.
RESULTS
The proposed hypotheses were tested using Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) via LISREL. As said, the
relationship between hedonic and utilitarian value brand
trust and brand loyalty was measured, then we measured
the effects of moderating variables (gender, age,
involvement, brand consciousness and price
consciousness) on hedonic and utilitarian value,
brandloyalty and brand trust. Various recommenders, test
of Fit-indices model is supported. In Table 1 the values
shown of recommend values and structural model values
are shown.
To determine whether the hypotheses were supported,
each structural path coefficient was examined with fit
R²
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
t-value
11.7
11.6
8.72
8.31
8.89
14.7
12.3
CR1
0.88
"2
40.738
AVE 3
0.793
0.890
0.752
0.802
0.857
0.773
0.600
0.905
0.787
0.826
0.879
0.726
0.785
Table 4: Results of hypothesis test
Results of hypothesis tests
--------------------------------------------------------------Hypothesis path Standardize d estimates t-value
Utilitarian value 0.48
4.47
Hypothesis is supported
6 Brand trust
Hedonic value
0.40
3.79
Hypothesis is supported
6 B rand trust
0.93
9.92
Hypothesis is supported
Brand trust 6
Purchase loyalty
0.89
9.68
Hypothesis is supported
Brand trust 6
Attitudinal loyalty
indices of the proposed models. The fit indices of models
are shown in Table 3.
The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) indicates “how well would the model, with
unknown but optimally chosen parameter values, fit the
population covariance matrix if it were available?” The
RMSEA’s value of less than 0.08 and RMR = 0.031 both
within the acceptable level and indicates a good fit for our
model. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) is an indicator of
the amount of variance and covariance accounted for by
the model and a value exceeding 0.90 is considered as
reflecting acceptable fit. NFI = 0.96 and PNFI = 0.64 are
acceptable range. Last but not least the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) is based on the non-centrality parameter and
a value exceeding 0.90 is an indication of good fit. Table
2 contains a summary of the model’s fit statistics, as
produced by LISREL 8.8. The combination of their values
shows that the hypothesized model unquestionably fits the
available data.
CONCLUSION
This study were included two phases: the first: it
examined the effects of main variables, hedonic and
utilitarian value on brand trust and brand loyalty and then
second we examined the effects of gender, age,
involvement, brand consciousness and price
consciousness as moderating variables on the product
value, brand trust and brand loyalty.
Test of main effects: The results of first part are shown
in Table 4.
1408
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
Table 5: The results of gender
Gender
------------------------------------------Hypothesis path (1)
Female, N = 195
Male, N = 155
0.32 (T = 1.93)
0.82 (T = 3.27)
Utilitarian value 6
Brand trust
Hedonic value 6
0.55 (T = 2.48)
0.14 (T = 0.84)
Brand trust
Brand trust 6
0.92 (T = 2.93)
0.98 (T = 4.05)
Purchase loyalty
Brand trust 6
0.93 (T = 2.91)
0.59 (T = 3.29)
Attitudinal loyalty
Difference
= -7.60252
Goodness of fit statistics
RMSEA
Gender
------------------------------------Female
Male
0.089
0.080
= 4.398115
NFI
0.94
0.90
= -6.53039
GFI
0.91
0.91
= 9.029261
CFI
0.96
0.94
AGFI
0.84
0.85
Contribution to Chi-Square 134.28
133.43
= 0.85 N.S
PGFI
0.51
0.52
Percentage contribution to 50.16
49.84
= 0.32 N.S
PNFI
0.63
0.60
Chi-Square
RMSEA = Root mean Square Error; NFI = Normal Fit Index; GFI = Goodness fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness
of Fit Index; PGFI = Parsimonious goodness Fit Index; PNFI = Parsimonious Normal Fit Index
Table 6: The results of age
Hypothesis path (4)
Utilitarian value 6
Brand trust
Hedonic value 6
Brand trust
Brand trust 6
Purchase loyalty
Brand trust 6
Attitudinal loyalty
Age
------------------------------------------Young, N = 181
Old, N = 169
0.52 (T = 2.52)
0.48 (T = 3.77)
Difference
0.493983
0.39 (T = 1.94)
0.35 (T = 2.95)
0.430034
NFI
0.95
0.96
0.92 (T = 6.07)
0.90 (T = 8.31)
1.084353
GFI
0.91
0.93
0.88 (T = 5.95)
0.94 (T = 8.51)
-4.12425
CFI
0.97
0.98
Goodness of fit statistics
RMSEA
Age
-------------------------------------Young
Old
0.086
0.071
AGFI
0.85
0.87
Contribution to Chi-Square 113.86
105.84
= 8.02 N.S
PGFI
0.52
0.52
Percentage contribution to 51.83
48.17
= 3.66 N.S
PNFI
0.63
0.64
Chi-Square
RMSEA = Root mean Square Error; NFI = Normal Fit Index; GFI = Goodness fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness
of Fit Index; PGFI = Parsimonious goodness Fit Index; PNFI = Parsimonious Normal Fit Index
The structural model supports the significant and
direct pathways proposed in the conceptual model model
results show that the Gamma index of the utilitarian value
equal to 0.48 and the Gamma index of hedonic value
equal to 0.40 on brand trust for the utilitarian equal to
0.99 which has the required value to be meaningful with
the confidence level of 0.99. Also brand trust $-indices on
purchase loyalty of value 0.93 and brand trust $-indices
on attitudinal loyalty with the value of 0.89 have the
required value to be meaningful with the confidence level
of 99%. According to the results obtained from the
proposed model, the hypothesis proposed in the research
accepted at the confidence level of 99%.
Therefore it can be argued that the brand trust has a
direct and significant impact on the utilitarian value and
hedonic value affect the behavioral and attitudinal loyalty
with the meaningful impact. According to the results of
the structural part of the following hypothesis have been
answered:
The first hypothesis: Utilitarian and hedonic value with
the trust have direct relationship. Considering the
intensity effect of the utilitarian value of 0.48 calculated
from T-value has the required value of 4.47 therefore
rejecting the null hypothesis no correlation at 99% level
of confidence and a significant positive effect of brand
trust on behavioural loyalty is supported. The construct of
brand trust, explained about 87% of the variations of
behavioral loyalty. Also increased level of brand trust
increased attitudinal loyalty. The results of the structural
model is shown in Fig. 1.
Test of moderating variables: Moderating variables in
this study are gender, age, Involvement, brand
consciousness and price consciousness. These results are:
C
C
C
1409
The results of gender: The results have shown in
Table 5. The results shown that there are no
significant difference between male and female
groups, but the coefficient related to the impact of
utilitarian value on brand trust in male group
compared with female is more greater and the impact
of hedonic value on brand trust in female is more
greater.
The results of age: The results have shown in
Table 6. The results shown that there are no
significant difference between young and old groups,
but the coefficient related to the impact of attitudinal
loyalty in the old persons compared with young is
more greater.
The results of involvement: According to the results
impact of brand trust on behavioral loyalty in the
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
Table 7: The results of involvement
Involvement
------------------------------------------Hypothesis path (3)
Low, N = 165
High, N = 185
0.68 (T = 2.91)
0.40 (T = 3.30)
Utilitarian value 6
Brand trust
Hedonic value 6
0.13 (T = 0.69)
0.53 (T = 3.89)
Brand trust
Brand trust 6
0.85 (T = 5.86)
0.99 (T = 8.16)
Purchase loyalty
Brand trust 6
0.95 (T = 5.85)
0.89 (T = 7.80)
Attitudinal loyalty
Difference
= 3.755017
Goodness of fit statistics
RMSEA
Involvement
-------------------------------------Low
High
0.042
0.094
= -4.25309
NFI
0.96
0.95
= -12.8778
GFI
0.95
0.90
= 3.795752
CFI
0.99
0.97
AGFI
0.90
0.83
Contribution to Chi-Square 77.52
136.82
= 59.3
PGFI
0.53
0.51
Percentage contribution to 36.17
63.83
= 27.66
PNFI
0.64
0.63
Chi-Square
RMSEA = Root mean Square Error; NFI = Normal Fit Index; GFI = Goodness fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness
of Fit Index; PGFI = Parsimonious goodness Fit Index; PNFI = Parsimonious Normal Fit Index
Table 8: The results of brand consciousness
Brand consciousness
-----------------------------------------Hypothesis path (6)
Low, N = 159
High, N = 191
Utilitarian value 6
0.45 (T = 2.83)
0.52 (T = 3.49)
Brand trust
Hedonic value 6
0.39 (T = 2.57)
0.37 (T = 2.57)
Brand trust
Brand trust 6
0.93 (T = 6.71)
0.92 (T = 7.89)
Purchase loyalty
Brand trust 6
0.91 (T = 5.92)
0.90 (T = 7.90)
Attitudinal loyalty
Difference
= -0.84578
Goodness of fit statistics
RMSEA
Brand consciousness
------------------------------------Low
High
0.68
0.086
= 0.216062
NFI
0.95
0.95
= 0.637105
GFI
0.93
0.92
= 0.517071
CFI
0.98
0.97
AGFI
0.87
0.85
Contribution to Chi-Square 89.91
113.32
= 23.41
PGFI
0.52
0.52
Percentage contribution to 44.24
55.76
= 11.52
PNFI
0.63
0.64
Chi-Square
RMSEA = Root mean Square Error; NFI = Normal Fit Index; GFI = Goodness fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness
of Fit Index; PGFI = Parsimonious goodness Fit Index; PNFI = Parsimonious Normal Fit Index
Table 9: The results of price consciousness
Price consciousness
-------------------------------------------Hypothesis path (2)
Low, N = 186
High, N = 164
Utilitarian value 6
0.41 (T = 2.80)
0.56 (T = 3.56)
Brand trust
Hedonic value 6
0.45 (T = 3.01)
0.32 (T = 2.27)
Brand trust
Brand trust 6
0.97 (T = 7.12)
0.90 (T = 7.00)
Purchase loyalty
Brand trust 6
0.92 (T = 6.72)
0.89 (T = 7.19)
Attitudinal loyalty
Difference
= -1.82501
Goodness of fit statistics
RMSEA
Price consciousness
------------------------------------Low
High
0.072
0.070
= 1.416885
NFI
0.96
0.95
= 5.737873
GFI
0.92
0.93
= 1.545524
CFI
0.98
0.98
AGFI
0.86
0.88
Contribution to Chi-Square 88.29
93.61
= 5.32 N.S
PGFI
0.52
0.52
Percentage contribution to 48.54
51.46
= 2.92 N.S
PNFI
0.64
0.64
Chi-Square
RMSEA = Root mean Square Error; NFI = Normal Fit Index; GFI = Goodness fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness
of Fit Index; PGFI = Parsimonious goodness Fit Index; PNFI = Parsimonious Normal Fit Index
C
groups owners of high involvement and impact of
hedonic value on attitudinal loyalty in the groups
owners with low involvement is meaningfully much
greater. These results is shown in Table 7.
The results of brand consciousness: According to
the results impact of brand trust on behavioral loyalty
in the groups owners of high brand consciousness
and impact of hedonic value on attitudinal loyalty in
the groups owners with low brand consciousness is
meaningfully greater, but the coefficient related to
path of model have no significant impact on two
groups. These results is shown on Table 8.
The results of price consciousness: The results have
shown in Table 9. The results shown that there are no
significant difference between two groups, but the
1410
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
coefficient related to the impact of behavioral loyalty in
the group owners with high price consciousness with
comparing group owners low price consciousness is
meaningfully greater. These results have shown in
Table 9.
Limitations and future research: Overall, the results of
this study provide encouraging empirical support both for
the theory based product value-brand trust-brand loyalty
chain as well as for the hypothesized moderating effects
on the relationships between brand trust and product value
as one of its antecedents, and brand loyalty as one of its
outcomes. Hence, this research makes a significant
contribution towards a better understanding of the
relationships between product value, brand trust, and
brand loyalty. Future research should build upon the
findings of this study and attempt to provide further
insight into the nature of these relationships.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A., 1996. Building Strong Brands. The Free
Press, NY.
Assael, H., 1998. Consumer Behavior and Marketing
Action. 6th Edn., Cincinnati, Ohio, South-Western.
Alford, B., L. and Biswas, Abhijit 2002, The effects of
discount levelm price consciousness and sale
proneness on consumers’ price perception and
behavioural intention, J. Bus. Res., 55, 775-783
Batra, R. and O.T. Ahtola, 1990. Measuring the hedonic
and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes, makert.
Lett. 2(2): 159-170.
Babin, B.J. and R.D. William, 1995. Consumer selfregulation in a retail environment. J. Retailing, 71(1):
47-70.
Berry, L., 1995. Relationship marketing of servicesgrowing interest, emerging perspectives. J. Acad.
Market. Sci., 23: 236-245.
Bettencourt, L., 1997. Customer voluntary performance:
Customers as partners in service delivery. J.
Retailing, 7: 383-406.
Bennett, R., H²rtel, C.E., and J.R. McColl-Kennedy,
2005, Experience as a moderator of involvement and
satisfaction on brand loyalty in a business-to-business
setting, 02-314R, Indust. Market. Manage., 34, 97107.
Blattberg, R.C. and S. A. Neslin., 1990. Sales Promotion:
Concepts, Methods, and Strategies, 1st Edn.,
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Chaudhuri, A. and M.B. Holbrook, 2001. The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: The role of brand loyalty. J. Market.,
65: 81-93.
Chen, S.C. and G.S. Dhillon, 2003. Interpreting
dimensions of consumer trust in e-commerce. Inform.
Technol. Manage., 4: 203-318.
Copeland, M.T., 1923. Relation of consumer’s buying
habits to marketing method. Harvard Bus. Rev., 1:
282-289.
Dawar, N. and M.P. Madan, 2000. Impact of productharm crises on brand Equity: The moderating role of
consumer expectations. J. Market. Res., 37: 215-226.
Day, G.S., 1969. A two-dimensional concept of brand
loyalty. J. Advertising Res., 9: 29-35.
Delgado-Ballester, E., 2004. Applicability of a brand trust
scale across product categories-A multi group
invariance analysis. Eur. J. Market., 38(5-6):
573-592.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and J.L. Munuera-Alema'n, 2001.
Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. Eur.
J. Market., 35(11-12): 1238-1258.
Deutsch, M., 1958. Trust and suspicion. Conflict
Resolution, 2(4): 265-279.
Dwyer, F.R., P.H. Schurr and S. Oh, 1987. Developing
buyer-seller relationships. J. Market., 51: 11-27.
Edvardsson, B., M.D. Johnson, A. Gustafsson and
T. Strandvik, 2000. The effects of satisfaction and
loyalty on profits and growth: Products versus
services. Total Qual. Manage., 11(7): 917-927.
Ergin, E.A. and H.O. Akbay, 2010. Consumers’ Purchase
Intentions for Foreign Products: An Empirical
Research Study in Istanbul, Turkey, EABR & ETLC
Conference Proceedings Dublin, Ireland, pp:
510-517.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands:
Developing relationship theory in consumer research.
J. Consum. Res., 24: 343-373.
Fox, J., 2006. Structural Equation Modeling With the
SEM Package in Rstructural equation modeling,
13(3): 465-486.
Fullerton, G., 2003. The impact of brand commitment on
loyalty to retail service brands. Can. J. Adm. Sci.,
22(2): 97-187.
Forza, C., and R. Filippini 1998. TQM impact on quality
conformance and customer satisfaction: A causal
model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 55(1): 1-20.
Garbarino, E. and S.J. Mark, 1999. The different roles of
satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships. J. Market., 63(2): 70-87.
Gommans, M., K.S. Krishan and K.B. Scheddold, 2001.
From brand loyalty to e-loyalty: A conceptual
framework. J. Econ. Soc. Res., 3(1): 43-58.
Gommans, M., K.S. Krishan and K.B. Scheddold, 2001.
From brand loyalty to e-loyalty: A conceptual
framework. J. Econ. Soc. Res., 3(1): 43-58.
Gurviez, P., 1996. The Trust Concept in the BrandConsumer Relationship. In: Beracs, J., A. Bauer and
J. Simon, (Eds.), EMAC Proceedings Annual
Conference, European Marketing Academy,
Budapest, pp: 559-574.
1411
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
Hess, J. and J. Story, 2005. Trust-based commitment:
Multidimensional consumer-brand relationships. J.
Consum. Market., 22(6): 313-322.
Homburg, C. and A. Giering, 2001. Personal
characteristics as moderators of the relationship
between customer satisfaction and loyalty-An
empirical analysis. Psychol. Market., 18(1): 43-66.
Jacoby, J. and R. Chestnut, 1978. Brand Loyalty
Measurement and Management. John Willy & Sons,
New York.
Johnson-George, C. and W.C. Swap, 1982. Measurement
of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and
validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 43: 1306-1317.
Knox, S., D. Walker and C. Marshall, 1993. Measuring
consumer involvement with grocery brands: Model
validation and scale-reliability test procedures. J.
Marketing Manage., 10(1-3): 147-152.
Kayank, O., and Efe, O., M., An algorithm for fast
convergence in training neural networks. Presented at
the International Joint Conference on Neural
Networks (IJCNN'01), Washington DC, July 15-19,
2001.
Lam, S.Y., V. Shankar, M.K. Erramilli and B. Murthy,
2004. Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty and
switching costs: An illustration from a business-to
business service context. J. Acad. Market. Sci., 32(3):
293-311.
Laurent, G. and J.N. Kapferer, 1985. Measuring consumer
involvement profiles. J. Marketing Res., 22: 41-53.
Lewicki, R.J., D.J. McAllister and R.J. Bies, 1998. Trust
and distrust: New relationships and realities. Acad.
Manage. Rev., 23(3): 438-458.
Lichtenstein, D.R., PH. Bloch and W.C. Black, 1988.
Correlates of Price Acceptability. J. Consum. Res.,
15: 243-252.
Lichtenstein, D.R., R.G. Netemeyer and S. Burton, 1990.
Distinguishing coupon proneness from value
consciousness: An acquisition-transaction utility
theory perspective. J. Market., 54: 54-67.
Lichtenstein, D.R., M.R. Nancy and G.N. Richard, 1993.
Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior:
A Field Study. J. Market. Res., 30: 234-245.
Moorman C.G. Zaltman and R. Deshpande, 1992.
Relationships Between Providers and Users of
Market Study: The Dynamics of Trust Within and
Between Organisatizations. J. Market. Stud., 29:
314-328.
Manning, K.C., D.E. Sprott and A.D. Miyazaki, 2003.
Unit price usage knowledge: Conceptualization and
empirical assessment. J. Bus. Res., 56: 367-377.
Matzler, K., S. Granber and S. Bidmon, 2006. The valuebrand trust-brand loyalty chain: An analysis of some
moderating variables. Innov. Market., 2(2): 76-88.
Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis and F.D. Schoorman, 1995. An
integrative model of organizational trust. Acad.
Manage. Rev., 20(3): 709-734.
Mellens, M., M.G. Dekimpe and J.B.E.M. Steenkamp,
1996. A Review of Brand-Loyalty Measures in
Marketing. Tijdschrift Voor Economie en
Management, 41: 507-533.
Miyazaki, A., D., Sprott, E. David and Manning,
C. Kenneth, 2000. Unit prices on retail shelf labels:
An assessment of information prominence. J. Retail.
76(1): 93-112.
Mitchell, V.W. and P.J.M. Goldrick, 1996. Consumers
risk-reduction strategies: A review and synthesis. Int.
Rev. Retail Distr. Consum. Res., 6(1): 1-33.
Monroe, K.B. and S.M. Petroshius, 1981. Buyers
Perceptions of Price: An Update of the Evidence.
Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, Glenview,
Foresman and Company, IL: Scott, pp: 43-55.
Morgan, R.M. and S.D. Hunt, 1994. The commitmenttrust theory of relationship marketing. J. Market., 58:
20-38.
Narayandas, D., 1998. Measuring and managing the
benefits of customer retention an empirical
investigation. J. Serv. Res., 1(2): 108-128.
Nelson, M. and L., McLeod 2005. Adolescent brand
consciousness and product placements: awareness,
liking and perceived effects on self and others. Int. J.
consum. Stud., 29(6): 515-528
Oliver, R.L., 1993. Cognitive, affective, and attribute
bases of the satisfaction response. J. Consum. Res.,
20(3): 418-430.
Olsen, S.O., 2007. Repurchase loyalty: The role of
involvement and satisfaction. Psychol. Market.,
24(4): 315-341.
Rothenberger, S. 2005. Antezendezien und Konsequenzen
der Preiszufriedenheit. Wiesbaden, Gabler.
Rauyruen, P. and K.E. Miller, 2007. Relationship quality
as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. J. Bus. Res.,
60(1): 21-31.
Reichheld, F.F., R.G.J. Markey and C. Hopton, 2000. The
loyalty effect-the relationship between loyalty and
profits. Eur. Bus. J., 12(3): 134-13.
Sinha, I. and R. Batra, 1999. The effect of consumer price
consciousness on private label purchase. Int. J. Res.
Market., 16: 237-251.
Slama, M.E. and A. Tashlian, 1985. Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated
with purchasing involvement. J. Market., 49: 72-82.
Simon, H., 2004. Preismanagement-Analyse, Strategie,
Umsetzung. Wiesbaden, Gabler.
Sternquist, B., B. Sang-Eun and B. Jin, 2004. The
dimensionality of price perceptions: a cross-cultural
comparison of asian consumers. Int. Rev. Retail
Distr. Consum. Res., 14: 83-100.
1412
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(10): 1403-1413, 2012
Swaminathan, S. and K. Bawa, 2005. Category-specific
coupon proneness: The impact of individual
characteristics and category-specific variables., J.
Retail., 81(3): 205-214.
Tellis, G.J. and G.J. Gaeth, 1990. Best value, priceseeking and price aversion: The impact of
information and learning on consumer choices. J.
Market., 54: 34-45.
Urbany, J., E. Dickson, R. Peter and R. Kalapurakal,
1996. Price search in the retail grocery market. J.
Market., 60: 91-104.
Walsh, G.M., Vincent-Wayne and T., Hennig-Thurau,
2001. German consumer decision-making styles,
J. Consum. Affair., 35(1): 73-95.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price,
quality and value: A means end model and synthesis
of evidence. J. Market., 52: 2-22.
1413