INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

AHMEDABAD INDIA

Research and Publications

Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Equity:

A Meta-analysis
Arpita Pandey
Dheeraj Sharma
W.P. No. 2016-03-46
March 2016

The main objective of the working paper series of the IIMA is to help faculty members, research
staff and doctoral students to speedily share their research findings with professional colleagues
and test their research findings at the pre-publication stage. IIMA is committed to maintain
academic freedom. The opinion(s), view(s) and conclusion(s) expressed in the working paper are
those of the authors and not that of IIMA.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

AHMEDABAD-380 015
INDIA

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Antecedents and consequences of Brand Equity: A meta-analysis

Arpita Pandey
Doctoral Student, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
Dheeraj Sharma
Indian Institute of Mnagement, Ahmedabad
e-mail: dsharma@iima.ac.in
Abstract

Brand equity provides the firms, a competitive, financial and strategic advantage over other
firms in the market. Over the past few decades, brand equity has received increasing attention
from various domains. However a great deal of variance exists in extant literature regarding
the antecedents and consequences of brand equity and their relationships. This study attempts
to bring clarity to this framework through the meta-analysis of a set of 37 studies that
investigate antecedents and consequences of brand equity by empirically analyzing 139
correlations between the various antecedents and consequences. The authors attempt to
develop a framework of antecedents and consequences of brand equity that explains their
relationships and strength of impact of these antecedents on the consequences. The findings
suggest that Brand associations and perceived quality, Brand loyalty and Relational equity
have maximum impact on the brand equity and subsequently on the consumer brand
preference, perceived value and purchase intention

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 2

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

INTRODUCTION
Post the 1980s, much attention has been devoted to brand equity (BE) (Aaker and Biel 1992;
Leuthesser 1988; Maltz 1991). Brand equity has been viewed from a variety of perspectives
(Aaker 1991; Farquhar 1989; Srivastava and Shocker 1991). Aaker defines brand equity
saying, The added value that a brand name gives to a product is referred to as brand equity"
(Aaker 1991). Keller defines brand equity as, differential effect of brand knowledge on
consumer response to the marketing of the brand (Keller, 1993). Yoo, Donthu, and Lees
defined it as, the difference in consumer choice between the focal branded product and an
unbranded product given the same level of product features (2000, p. 196). Broadly we can
say that brand equity can be defined in terms of the marketing effects uniquely attributable to
the brand.

The research on brand equity has been largely guided by two motivations. One is financial
motivation to estimate and determine the value of a brand for accounting and finance
purposes. Brand equity has been viewed by scholars as being influential in helping brands
attaining a competitive advantage and realizing their financial goals (Aaker 1996; Yoo,
Donthu, Barwise et al. 1989; Wentz 1989 and Lee 2000).

The second motivation has been from the marketing strategy perspective, to improve the
productivity of marketing efforts. Given the increasing competition, high costs and flattening
demands in several markets and economies, it is becoming imperative for marketers to make
impactful marketing strategies and increase the efficiency of their marketing expenses
(Keller, 1993).
Motivated by these two streams of literature, brand equity has been discussed viewpoint of
the investor, the manufacturer, the retailer, or the consumer. The value that brand equity
represents adds value to each of these groups. The investors perspective forms the financial
stream of literature and the manufacturers, retailers and consumers perspective forms the
second motivation, the marketing strategy perspective (Keller, 1993). For the manufacturer
and trader, brand equity imparts a distinct advantage that enables the firms to generate greater
volumes, greater margins, ward off competition and expand and increase market share
(Keller, 1993; Wentz 1989). Brand equity volume has an impact on the consumer attitude and

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 3

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

behaviour as well. Greater the brand equity of a firm, higher is the brand preference in the
mind of the consumer (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995); leading to a higher market share for the
brand and the manufacturer(Farquhar, 1989; de Mortanges and van Riel, 2003). The varying
streams of literature posit that, it might be reasonable to say that brand equity might possibly
be the most valuable asset and means for a firm for improving marketing productivity by
influencing and impacting consumer knowledge, attitude and preferences (Keller, 1993).
Thus a study on brand equity is essential both from a academician and marketers
perspective. Different studies have explored brand equity from various perspectives. Aaker
described the 4 dimensions (brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand associations, and
perceived quality) of BE which he posited as the antecedents of BE. He also introduced the
concept of customer value as a consequence of BE (Aaker, 1992). Other studies looked at
factors such as style, warranty, reliability, store image, advertising spending as antecedents to
BE (Armstrong and Kotler (2003); Keller (1993); Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000); Yoo,
Donthu, and Lee 2000). Some studies also argued brand loyalty to be a consequence of BE
rather than an antecedent. While others posited brand preference and purchase intention of
consumer to be the consequences of BE. While some of these studies explored the product
context for BE, others looked at services context while determining the dimensions of BE.
Thus, while models on BE exist, a conclusive framework that tests these models in various
contexts and conclusively establishes the antecedents and consequences of BE is missing
(Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000).

Against this backdrop, the purpose of this research is to bring clarity to a diverse set of
studies that examine the antecedents and consequences of BE and their relationship with it.
The primary objective of this paper is to determine the predictive relationship between BE, its
precursors and effects, both from the customers and marketers perspective in product
service environment. For this purpose we analyse the BE antecedent-consequent relationships
existent in the literature to come up with a model for the dimensions of BE.

To accomplish this objective, we employ a meta-analysis of the existing research on

antecedents and consequences of BE. Compared with a primary study on the subject, this
research technique enables us to identify a more complete set of candidate factors for
dimensions and potential moderator variables (Troy, Hirunyawipada, & Paswan, 2008).

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 4

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

We proceed with an overview of the conceptual background for the study through a literature
review, followed by discussion of the research methodology and identification of the
potential design elements for the antecedents and consequents. We then, describe the findings
and discuss the results and the implications.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature on BE differs in the definition on BE and its dimensions (Irmscher 1993).
While attempting to explain BE as a construct, various studies in literature have taken
different directions due to it being a vague and subjective concept (de Chernatony and Riley
1997). Regardless of which path one takes in building the concept of BE and its dimensions,
literature appears consistent in the view that BE is a vital factor in helping firms gain a
competitive advantage and creation or extension of existing brands. Creation and
maintenance of a strong brand and robust BE has been identified to be a critical factor for the
fulfilment of financial goals of a firm (e.g., Aaker 1996; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000). This
BE evolves through the consumers interactions with the brand leading to the development of
the consumer cognitions and feelings towards the brand (Berthon, Holbrook, and Hulbert
2003), which lead to an individual perceiving the branded product as having value for
themselves (Erdem 1998).

While the literature seems consistent on the value of BE to a firm, it seems to differ in the
specifications of the causes and impacts or the antecedents and consequences of BE (Kocak,
Abimbola, and Ozer 2007). Some studies attribute functional or objective antecedents to BE
others have identified BE antecedents in an experiential or subjective context (Kocak,
Abimbola, and Ozer 2007). The functional antecedents encompass the utilitarian aspects of a
brand and its ability to fulfil consumers functional needs and wants (Keller 2001). The
experiential antecedents encompass those aspects that encompass a brands ability to satisfy
ones psychological or social needs (Keller 2001). Various studies have explored BE from
these two angles and established varying antecedents, such as warranty, price, reliability,
effectiveness, distribution intensity, design (functional) and associations, personality,
awareness, loyalty, attitude, advertisement spending etc. (experiential) (Aaker and
Joachimsthaler (2000); Aaker (1991); Keller (2003); Keller (1993); Donthu, and Lee (2000);

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 5

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry (2003); Keller (2002, 2003); Aaker (1991, 1996); Elliott and
Wattanasuwan (1998)).

How does one measure the impact of brand equity? Various studies have looked at the
consequences of brand equity from different angles. Johnson (1984) looked at advertising
spending as an antecedent of BE and measured its impact on BE by assessing brand loyalty.
Aaker (1991) on the other hand, suggested brand loyalty to be an antecedent rather than a
consequence of BE.

Aaker in his work (1991) posited that BE has 2 broad consequences, value to the firm and
value to the customer. By providing value to the customer, BE indirectly enhances the value
to the firm. The BE, increases customer value by enhancing their interpretation and
processing of information, confidence in purchasing decision, user satisfaction and reducing
the risk in decision process (Aaker 1992, 1996; Keller 2003). Be and customer value in turn
provide value to the firm by enhancing, efficiency and effectiveness of marketing programs,
brand loyalty, price/margins, brand extensions, trade leverage and competitive advantage
(Aaker, 1991). Yoo et al (2000), added another dimension, not included in Aakers
framework. They investigated the effect of price, store image, distribution intensity, ad
spending and price deals on 3 consequences of BE: perceived quality, brand loyalty and
brand awareness. Karen et al (2003) based their work on Yoo et alls model to study the
impact of brand equity on performance. They conceptualized brand profitability performance,
brand market performance, customer perceived value and customer purchase intention to be
consequences of BE.
Thus various studies have talked about the antecedents and consequences of BE in various
ways and analysed the relationships between these. In order to bring clarity to the field in the
antecedents and consequences of BE, a study of the dimensions of BE in the literature is
required and the development of a framework that explicates the dimensions of BE in both
product and service environment is needed. This study aims to fulfil this research gap by
developing a framework that incorporates possible predictive relationships between the
antecedents and consequences of brand equity from the existing literature.
This research will try to fulfil three aims: (1) develop a framework that articulates the
antecedents and consequences of BE based on the existing literature (2) try to capture the

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 6

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

outcomes of Be both from the value to the firm and from value to the consumer perspectives
(3) incorporate both the functional and experiential antecedents to BE and determine their
impact on the consequences of BE.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In order to understand the known and theorized BE antecedents, consequences and the
potential relationship paths between these constructs and build a framework for it, a metaanalytic approach on existing research on BE and its dimensions was used. A meta-analysis
provides a methodical procedure, can document whether the observed variance in effect sizes
is real, and can facilitate estimation of the central tendency of the net relationship between the
constructs (Troy et al., 2008).

To begin the meta-analysis process, we explored for relevant studies (i.e., those focusing on
Brand equity, its antecedents and consequences and their relationships) in several electronic
databases (e.g., ABI/INFORM, Business Source Premier, Emerald Fulltext, INFORMS,
ScienceDirect, Research gate) using keywords such as Brand Equity Antecedents of
Brand Equity, Consequences of Brand Equity, impact of Brand Equity Models of
Brand equity, Brand Equity frameworks etc. Next, we hand-searched appropriate
marketing and management journals (e.g., Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing
Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Journal of Business Research, Marketing Science, Academy of Management
Journal, Management Science, Journal of marketing and planning, European journal of
marketing, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing, Journey of Services Marketing etc.) for articles
relevant to our study. We also reviewed the references of these studies for additional leads.
We identified 104 empirical studies.

UNIT AND LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

The next step in our research process was to identify the appropriate (unitless) measure of
association and level of analysis (i.e., model or study) for our research. A review of the

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 7

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

studies included in our database indicated that correlations were the most common measures
reported in the literature and therefore would allow for the greatest number of studies in our
research. 37 of the studies in our database reported correlations.
Furthermore, we determined that a model-level analysis (i.e., analyzing each of the 139
correlations individually) rather than a study-level analysis (i.e., averaging the correlations
across multiple models within a study) was more suitable methodology to proceed with. This
decision was based in part This decision was based in part on the Q-test for homogeneity of
correlations within studies. The Q-test was rejected at p < .01 (2 = 998.9, d.f. = 138),
implying that there is significant heterogeneity within studies in the database (Hedges and
Olkin 1985).In addition, since the models within the studies varied in terms of design
variables (e.g., measurement, contextual factors, samples, environment), a model-level
analysis is therefore necessary to capture the influence of these variables. Finally, it was
observed that no single study contributed an excessive number of correlations (maximum
number of correlations in a single study accounted for less than 17% of the total). Therefore,
we remain consistent with previous meta-analyses in marketing that analyze correlations at
the model level rather than at the study level (e.g., Geyskens, Steenkamp, and Kumar 1998;
Henard and Szymanski 2001; Sultan, Farley, and Lehmann 1990). The 37 empirical studies
yield a database with 139 correlations between antecedents of BE and consequents of BE,
with the correlations ranging from .636 to .810. The studies represent data from more than
10 countries spanning four continents. The number of studies included (37) is consistent with
several published meta-analyses in marketing. Furthermore, the 37 studies represent more
than 3000 individual observations. The number of correlations in our study (n = 139) also
exceeds those in previous meta-analyses in marketing (e.g., Rao and Monroe 1989: 85
effects; Szymanski, Kroff, and Troy 2007: 93 effects; Szymanski, Troy, and Bharadwaj 1995:
64 effects).
To develop the database for our study, coding of the studies was done. In addition to coding
effect sizes, we also identified and coded the key variables that might influence the
conditions under which antecedents and consequences of BE have been studied in the
literature.

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 8

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN ELEMENTS

As meta-analysis is a methodology that summarizes and estimates the effects from research
that has been previously conducted, the identification of design elements is essentially
restricted to factors that can be coded from the set of studies in that body of literature.
Inclusion of potential antecedents and consequences is also restricted to those that the theory
or logic designate, should have an impact on the relationship of interest (in this case, the
antecedents and consequences of BE and the relationships between them) (Henard and
Szymanski 2001).
A study of the various factors obtained from the literature on brand equity and its antecedents
and consequents revealed several potential design elements for our study. A removal of
redundant elements brought out, 88 antecedents and 24 consequents. We looked at these
factors and categorized them into distinct buckets. The basis of these buckets was the
similarity and overlap amongst the factors based on the studies considered in the literature.
For our study we have categorized the potential antecedents obtained from the literature into
5 categories: brand associations and perceived quality, brand awareness, brand loyalty,
heterogeneity, relational equity. The final set of elements included was further restricted to
variables for which sufficient power existed to detect differences in the antecedents
consequences correlations. The appendix lists the classification of various antecedents into
the above mentioned buckets (table 2). To this end, we identified 39 potential antecedents in
the brand associations and perceived quality category, 10 antecedents in the Brand awareness
category, 13 antecedents in the brand loyalty category, 14 antecedents in the heterogeneity
and 12 antecedents in the relational equity category.
The consequences of brand equity have been classified into 3 categories for the purpose of
development of framework. These classifications are based on the various studies referred to
from the literature. These 3 classifications are: brand preference, perceived customer value
and purchase intention. The table 3 in the appendix lists the various division of the
consequences of BE into the 3 categories. To this end, we identified 13 potential

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 9

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

consequences in the brand preference category, 6 consequences in the perceived customer

value category and 5 consequences in the purchase intention category.
The proposed categorization helps us in developing a framework of antecedents and
consequences of Brand Equity and predicting the relationships between them. Based on the
above categorization, we propose the following framework for the antecedents and
consequences of Brand Equity. In the hypotheses section that follows, the relationships
proposed are formulated and tested in the analysis section later.

Figure 1: Proposed framework for antecedents and consequents of Brand Equity

HYPOTHESES

Based on the various antecedents and consequences identified from the studies in the
literature, we propose following hypotheses for the suggested framework of the antecedents
and consequences of brand equity and their relationships.

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 10

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

H1: Brand associations and perceived quality are positively correlated with
brand preference. This means that an increase in the brand association or
perceived quality increases the brand preference of the consumer.
H2: Brand associations and perceived quality are positively correlated with
perceived customer value. This means that an increase in the brand association
or perceived quality increases the perceived customer value of the consumer.
H3: Brand associations and perceived quality are positively correlated with
purchase intention. This means that an increase in the brand association or
perceived quality increases the purchase intention of the consumer.
H4: Brand awareness is positively correlated with brand preference. This
means that an increase in the brand awareness increases the brand preference of
the consumer.
H5: Brand awareness is positively correlated with perceived customer value.
This means that an increase in the brand awareness increases the perceived
customer value of the consumer.
H6: Brand awareness is positively correlated with purchase intention. This
means that an increase in the Brand awareness increases the purchase intention
of the consumer.
H7: Brand loyalty is positively correlated with brand preference. This means
that an increase in the Brand loyalty increases the brand preference of the
consumer.
H8: Brand loyalty is positively correlated with perceived customer value. This
means that an increase in the Brand loyalty increases the perceived customer
value of the consumer.
H9: Brand loyalty is positively correlated with purchase intention. This means
that an increase in the Brand loyalty increases the purchase intention of the
consumer.

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 11

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

H10: Heterogeneity is negatively correlated with brand preference. This means

that an increase in the Heterogeneity decreases the brand preference of the
consumer.
H11: Heterogeneity is positively correlated with perceived customer value.
This means that an increase in the Heterogeneity increases the perceived
customer value of the consumer.
H12: Heterogeneity is negatively correlated with purchase intention. This
means that an increase in the Heterogeneity decreases the purchase intention of
the consumer.
H13: Relational equity is positively correlated with brand preference. This
means that an increase in the Relational equity increases the brand preference
of the consumer.
H14: Relational equity is positively correlated with perceived customer value.
This means that an increase in the Relational equity increases the perceived
customer value of the consumer.
H15: Relational equity is positively correlated with purchase intention. This
means that an increase in the Relational equity increases the purchase intention
of the consumer.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
For this study, we follow the procedures that are common to many meta-analyses in
marketing (e.g., Bijmolt, Van Heerde, and Pieters 2005; Henard and Szymanski 2001;
Szymanski, Kroff, and Troy 2007) and are suggested by authors in quantitative meta-analysis
techniques (e.g., Bijmolt and Pieters 2001; Hedges and Olkin 1985; Hunter and Schmidt
1990; Lipsey and Wilson 2001). We begin by conducting a preliminary analysis that provides
initial insights into the frequency distribution and into the central tendency of the effects,
including the size and direction of the relationships between the antecedents and the
consequences of Brand Equity. We then calculate and analyse the correlation between the
various antecedents and consequences based on the hypotheses developed above and try to
understand the relationship between them.

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 12

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

As Figure 2 illustrates, a frequency distribution of the 139 correlations between the

antecedents and the consequences of Brand Equity indicates that the correlations range from
.636 to .810. The correlations are analysed for the frequency distribution. ZSkewness is found
to be -1.129 and ZKurtosis is 0.968. Table 4 in the appendix gives the descriptive statistics and
detailed values of the frequency analysis of the correlations. An overview of the correlation
reveals that some of the studies had zero correlations as well. In our study here, we have
considered only those research work that had non zero correlation between at least one of the
antecedent and consequence. We also find that several of the correlations are negative (14 out
of the 139 relations), however most of the correlations in the studies considered are positive
(125 out of 139).

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 13

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Figure 2 : Frequency Distribution of correlations

RELATIONSHIP ANALYSIS

Before we look at the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences of Brand
Equity, we look at the impact of the potential design elements (antecedents and the
consequences) on the relationships. We first use a homogeneity test (Q-statistic) to detect the
systematic variance associated with each effect size (the reliability corrected correlations)

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 14

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

(Overton 1998). The homogeneity test of the correlations between antecedents and the
consequences of Brand Equity was significant at p < .01 (2 = 998.9, d.f. = 138), confirming
that the distribution of effect size is heterogeneous (Lipsey and Wilson 2001, p. 117).
Consistent with the varied meta-analyses in marketing done previously, we used the
reliability-corrected correlations in the analysis of the relationships of the antecedents and the
consequences (e.g., Geyskens, Steenkamp, and Kumar 1998; Henard and Szymanski 2001;
Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden 2005; Szymanski, Kroff, and Troy 2007). Because of the
potential for significant bias in effect size, we adjust the reliability-corrected correlations for
measurement artifacts, and thus they more accurately represent effect size than uncorrected
correlations (Hunter and Schmidt 1990). Utilising Fishers transformation, we converted each
reliability-corrected correlation, as it is generally considered a superior approach to linear
combinations of correlations (Hedges and Olkin 1985: Neter et al. 1996).
In order to test the hypotheses for the proposed relationships we determine the correlation
relationships for the predicted hypotheses between the various antecedent and consequent
categories. Using Neter et als approach (1996), Fischers transformation is used to obtain to
transform the z values back to r, to obtain unbiased estimation of correlation.

FINDINGS

To test the hypotheses stated above, we determine the correlation relationships between the
buckets/categories of the antecedents and consequents based on the hypotheses using the
Neter et als method described above. To examine in what way (positively or negatively) the
various antecedents impacted the consequences we look at the correlation values. If the
values obtained for the relationship is significantly different from zero and of the same sign
as predicted, then the hypothesis for the relationship is said to be supported.
Based on the above measure we find that hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, H7, H8, H9, 13, H14,
H15 are not rejected. Hypotheses H5, H10 and H12 are rejected. We also find that there is no
support for hypotheses H6 and H10. Table 4 summarises the results of the hypotheses testing
obtained.

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 15

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Figure 3 : Framework for relationships between antecedents and consequents of Brand Equity

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 16

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Hypotheses Antecedent

Relation

with

Consequence
H1

Brand associations and perceived brand preference

- Rejected/Not
Rejected
NR

quality
H2

Brand associations and perceived perceived

quality

H3

customer NR

value

Brand associations and perceived purchase intention

NR

quality
H4

Brand awareness

brand preference

H5

Brand awareness

perceived

NR

customer R

value
H6

Brand awareness

purchase intention

H7

Brand loyalty

brand preference

NR

H8

Brand loyalty

perceived

customer NR

value
H9

Brand loyalty

purchase intention

NR

H10

Heterogeneity

brand preference

H11

Heterogeneity

perceived

customer -

value
H12

Heterogeneity

purchase intention

H13

Relational equity

brand preference

NR

H14

Relational equity

perceived

customer NR

value
H15

Relational equity

purchase intention

NR

Table 1: Hypotheses testing results

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 17

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

DISCUSSION

The Findings from our study provide evidence that the relationships between antecedents and
consequences of brand equity are indeed complicated. Based on the results of the correlation
analysis and hypotheses testing we find that brand preference is impacted by Brand
associations and perceived quality, Brand awareness, Brand loyalty and Relational equity.
Amongst these it is found that brand loyalty has the highest impact on the customer brand
preference (r = 0. 597). For the perceived customer value, we find that 3 of the 5 antecedents
have positive correlation with it: Brand associations and perceived quality, Brand loyalty and
Relational equity. It is also found that brand awareness is not positively correlated with
perceived customer value. Brand loyalty is most positively correlated with perceived
customer value (r = 0.717) and hence its increase has the highest impact on consumers brand
equity and perceived value. The third consequence of BE, purchase intention is impacted by
Brand associations and perceived quality, Brand loyalty and Relational equity. Purchase
intention was found to be most positively correlated with Relational equity (r = 0.79) and
hence its increase has the highest impact on consumers brand equity and purchase intention.
It is interesting to find that the hypotheses for heterogeneity among the consumer is not
rejected for 2 out of the 3 consequences, brand preference and purchase intention while no
support was found for the third consequence - perceived customer value.
This means that an increase in marketing efforts towards, Brand associations and perceived
quality, Brand loyalty and Relational equity will have maximum impact on the brand equity
and subsequently on the consumer brand preference, perceived value and purchase intention.
These results are important as they summarise the relationships between the various
antecedents and consequences of BE. They can act as a guideline for marketers in developing
marketing strategy. Using these marketers and firms can develop efficient and effective
marketing strategies and appropriate marketing budget towards the right brand equity
strategies and actions.

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 18

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaker, D. (1991) Managing Brand Equity. The Free Press, New York.
, D. A. (1992). The Value of Brand Equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4), 27
32. doi:10.1108/eb039503
Biel, A. L., & Aaker, D. (1993). Brand equity and advertising. Hisdale, NJ: Laurence
Eribaum Associates.
Aaker, D. (1996) Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review, 38(3), 102-119.
, and Erich Joachimsthaler (2000), Brand Leadership, New York, Free Press.
Armstrong, Gary, and Philip Kotler (2003), Marketing: An Introduction, 6th ed., Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K. S., & Binder, G. (2003). Performance consequences of brand equity
management: evidence from organizations in the value chain. Journal of product &
brand management, 12(4), 220-236.
Berthon, Pierre, Morris B. Holbrook, and James M. Hulbert (2003), Understanding and
Managing the Brand Space, Sloan Management Review, 44 (2), 4954.
Bijmolt, Tammo H.A. and Rik G.M. Pieters (2001), Meta-Analysis in Marketing When
Studies Contain Multiple Measurements, Marketing Letters, 12 (May), 15769.
Brown, Stephen, Robert V. Kozinets, and John F. Sherry, Jr. (2003), Teaching Old Brands
New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning, Journal of Marketing,
67 (3), 1928.
Broyles, S. A., Schumann, D. W., & Leingpibul, T. (2009). Examining brand equity
antecedent/consequence relationships. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(2),
145-162.
Chang, H. H., Hsu, C. H., & Chung, S. H. (2008). The antecedents and consequences of
brand equity in service markets. Asia Pasific Management Review, 13(3), 2008.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., Donthu, N. (1995) Brand equity, brand preference, and
purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25-40.
de Chernatony, L., Drury, S., Segal-Horn, S. (2003) Building a services brand: Stages, people
and orientations. The Service Industries Journal, 23(3), 1-21.
de Mortanges, C. P., van Riel, A. (2003) Brand equity and shareholder value. European
Management Journal, 21(4), 521-527.
Elliott, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 19

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

identity. International journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131-144.

Erdem, T. (1998). An empirical analysis of umbrella branding. Journal of Marketing
Research, 339-351.
Farquhar, P. H. (1989) Managing Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(3), 24-33.
Irmscher, Markus (1993), Modeling the Brand Equity Concept, Marketing and Research
Today, 21 (2), 102110.
Keller, K. L. (1993). and Measuring , Brand Managing Customer-Based Equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57(1), 122. doi:10.2307/1252054
, K. L. (1998) Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
(2001), Building Customer-Based Brand Equity, Marketing Management, 10
(JulyAugust), 1519.
(2002), Branding and Brand Equity, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
(2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Geyskens, Inge, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Nirmalya Kumar (1998), Generalizations
About Trust in Marketing Channel Relationships Using Meta-Analysis, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 15 (July), 22348.
Hedges, Larry V. and Ingram Olkin (1985), Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Henard, David H. and David M. Szymanski (2001), Why Some New Products Are More
successful Than Others, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (August), 36275.
Hunter, John E. and Frank L. Schmidt (1990), Methods of Meta Analysis. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, Tod (1984), "The Myth of Declining Brand Loyalty," Journal of Advertising
Research, 24 (February/March), 9-17.
Kocak, Akin, Temi Abimbola, and Alper Ozer (2007), Consumer Brand Equity in a CrossCultural Replication: An Evaluation of a Scale, Journal of Marketing Management,
23(12), 157173.
Leuthesser, L. (1988). Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity: A Conference
Summary by. Marketing Science Institute.
Lipsey, Mark W. and David B. Wilson (2001), Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 20

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Shekhar Kumar, R., Dash, S., & Chandra Purwar, P. (2013). The nature and antecedents of
brand equity and its dimensions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(2), 141-159.
Maltz, E. (Ed.). (1991). Managing brand equity: conference summary (No. 91-110).
Marketing Science Institute.
Neter, John, Michael H. Kutner, Christopher J. Nachtsheim, and William Wasserman (1996),
Applied Linear Regression Models. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin.
Overton, R. C. (1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for
meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological methods, 3(3), 354.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1989), The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store
Name on Buyers, Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 35157.
Srivastava, R. K., & Shocker, A. D. (1991). Brand equity: a perspective on its meaning and
measurement. Marketing Science Institute.
Sultan, Fareena, John U. Farley, and Donald Lehmann (1990), A Meta-Analysis of
applications of Diffusion Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (February), 70
78.
Szymanski, David M., Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and P. Rajan Varadarajan (1993), An Analysis
of the Market Share Profitability Relationship, Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 118.
and Paul S. Busch (1987), Identifying the Generics-Prone Consumer: A Metaanalysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (November), 42531.
, Michael W. Kroff, and Lisa C. Troy (2007), Innovativeness and New Product
Success: Insights from the Cumulative Evidence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 35 (March), 3552.
, Lisa Troy, and Sundar G. Bharadwaj (1995), Order of Entry and Business
Performance: An Empirical Synthesis and Reexamination, Journal of Marketing, 59
(October), 1734.
Troy, L. C., Hirunyawipada, T., & Paswan, A. K. (2008). Cross-Functional Integration and
New Product Success: An Empirical Investigation of the Findings. Journal of
Marketing, 72(November), 132146. doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.6.132
, L. C., Hirunyawipada, T., & Paswan, A. K. (2008). Cross-functional integration and
new product success: an empirical investigation of the findings. Journal of Marketing,
72(6), 132-146.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S. (2000) An examination of selected marketing mix elements and
brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195-211.
, B., Donthu, N. (2001) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumerbased brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1-14.

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 21

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Appendix
Table 2 : Classification of Antecedents
Brand associations
and perceived

Brand awareness

Brand loyalty

Heterogeneity

Relational equity

quality
Aesthetics

Advertising

Assurance

Age

Association

Awareness

Brand loyalty

Belief in fate

Affective

brand

experience
Behavioral

brand

experience
Brand Association

Brand awareness

Brand identification

Communication

brand image

Company image

Premium

Belief in fortune-tellers

Bonding

R&D

Belief in lucky charms

Empathy

Reciprocity

Belief in magic and fictional

Entertainment

Promotion

figures
brand Quality

Destination Brand Awareness

Reliability

Belief in superstitious rituals

Post Purchase Services

Corporate branding

Destination Brand Image

Responsiveness

Belief in urban legends

Relational Equity

Destination

Integrated

Shared Values

Education

Staff Behaviour

Trust

Gender

Brand

Brand

Quality

Marketing

Communication

Destination

Brand

Role Ambiguity

Value

citizenship

behavior

Firm Size

Role Overload

Value

Ideal Self-congruence

Emotional value

Growth rate

Value Equity

Intellectual brand experience

Relational Equity

Industry Type

Trust

Lifestyle-congruence

Relationship attributes

&

credibility
Perceived ease of use
Perceived Quality
Perceived

Functional value

Multinationality
Non-product attributes

Service

Quality
Perceived usefulness
Perceived value
Physical Quantity
Price Benefits
Quality
Sensory

brand

experience
Service Quality
Tangibles
Brand Association
Brand Feelings
Brand Judgments
Brand Performance 1
Brand Salience
Differentiation

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 22

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Endorser Credibility
Perceived fit
Price
Place
Product
Product quality
Promotion
Perceived sacrifices
Social value
Product attributes

Table 3 : Classification of Consequences

Brand Preference

Perceived Customer Value

Purchase Intention

Mobile Brand equity

Customer Experience

Behaviour-based CRM performance

loyalty

Perceived Quality

Customer activity

SME performance

Brand Resonance

Behaviour-based CRM performance

Brand Loyalty

Customer brand relationship

Behavioral Intention

Brand Equity

change in brand equity

Brand attitudes

overall brand equity

CLV(Brand Equity)

Brand Equity
SME performance
Brand citizenship behavior
Destination Brand Loyalty
Brand Image
Brand Association
Brand logo sensitivity

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 23

IIMA INDIA

Research and Publications

Table 4 : Descriptive statistics for the correlations

Statistics
Correlation
N

Valid

139

Missing
Std. Deviation

0
.29907

Variance

.089

Skewness

-1.129

Std. Error of Skewness

.206

Kurtosis

.968

Std. Error of Kurtosis

.408

Percentiles

10

-.0430

20

.2080

30

.2900

40

.4110

50

.4700

60

.5600

70

.6260

80

.6600

90

.7200

W.P. No. 2016-03-46

Page No. 24