You are on page 1of 22


DOI: 10.1515/auseb-2015-0001

A Causal Model of Consumer-Based
Brand Equity
Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, Faculty of Economic and Human
Sciences Department of Business Sciences, Miercurea Ciuc

Kecskemét College, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and
Automation, Kecskemét
Abstract. Branding literature suggests that consumer-based brand equity
(CBBE) is a multidimensional construct. Starting from this approach and

can be best modelled with a two-dimensional structure and claims that it


In THE lNAL MODEL.ONEWILLBEABLETOlTALMOST any valid construct because of the halo effect and common method bias.

 4RUST IN QUALITY  AND !DVANTAGE ARE CAUSING THE SECOND order Brand Equity.M31 1.#LASSIlCATIONC3. Keywords: brand equity. causal measurement models *%. The two-dimensional brand equity is an intuitive model easy to interpret and easy to measure. which thus may be a much more attractive means for the management as well. structural equation modelling. The empirical research based on Aaker’s  MODELHASSIGNIlCANTLYDETERMINEDTHEAPPROACHOFTHEPRESENTPAPER The concept of brand equity became popular at the beginning of the eighties MAINLYASANAGENCY BASEDMEASUREOFMARKETINGEFlCIENCY)NTERBRAND. Introduction 4HEPRESENTPAPERFOCUSESONMEASURINGCONSUMER BASEDBRANDEQUITYDElNEDBY Aaker (1991) as a set of brand assets or liabilities that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service.

Keller.#OOPERS and Lybrand. the concept gained quick academic acceptance (Farquhar. Arthur Young Australia).1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . Aaker 1991.10. . 1993). 1993. After the conference of the Marketing Science Institute in 1988. 1989.

6 !TTILA3:ő#3.

Yoo & Donthu. 2006. 2004. Some studies do not operationalize brand equity but only its dimensions (Vázquez et al. Vázquez et al. Chau & Ho... 2004. 2010). Martensen & Gronholdt. Kim & Hyun. while others do not estimate brand equity as a second-order latent variable. Netemeyer et al. Boo et al. Erdem et al. 2010). 2009. Jensen & Klastrup.. Atilgan et al. 2004).. 2008. but they include the construct as a dependent variable (Martensen & Gronholdt. 2002. 2009. Some studies estimate the causal measurement model in isolation and do NOTREPORTONAPPROPRIATElTINDICATORS-ARTENSEN'RONHOLDT. Netemeyer et al. Kim & Hyun. 2000.. 2002.. Boo et al. 2004. 2009. 1998. 2008...*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 Consumer-based brand equity research predominantly uses structural equations for estimation (Erdem & Swait.

(2009) operationalize brand equity as a latent variable. but they estimate only THE#&!#ONlRMATORY&ACTOR!NALYSIS MODELANDDONOTPROVIDEINFORMATION about structural relationships (but they do provide the cultural validation of THEIRMODEL )NGENERAL. !TILGANET al.



 AND THEY ESTIMATE THE MODEL IN 0. Baldauf et al. who develop their model for business to business markets. This study estimates a second-order factor model in covarianceBASED3%-3TRUCTURAL%QUATION-ODELn!MOS . but they measure brand equity on the level of retailers. similarly to Jensen and Klastrup (2008).3 (Partial Least Square). (2009) specify brand equity as a second-order construct.

2IEmER.WHILETHESIGNIlCANTMAJORITY of the studies estimate second-order factor models in PLS as Diamantopoulos.

Vazquez et al. (2002) suggest 8. 2003) and the articles by Lehman et al. and models . and then reduces them to six factors.10. The initial model of this paper is based on the conceptual model of Aaker (1991.AND2OTH PRESENTTHEM Keller’s conceptual models (1993. especially to the Yoo and Donthu (2000) model. Our model differs from the other empirical models as it tries to overcome the listed shortcomings. Martensen and Gornholdt (2004) and Keller (2003) suggest 6 dimensions. therefore. (2008).’s (2008) article measures 27 concepts. (2002). and Martensen and Gronholdt (2004) suggest that consumer-based brand equity is a multidimensional concept. it concretely differs from the Yoo and Donthu (2000) model in specifying brand equity as a second-order latent variable.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . our model shows similarities to these empirical models. Lehman et al. Vazques et al. 1993) as other important brand equity models.

not in the more convenient PLS. The next section presents THE INITIAL MODEL OF THIS STUDY.!#AUSAL-ODELOF#ONSUMER "ASED"RAND%QUITY 7 its consequences. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. An important characteristic of our model is that we estimate it in a covariance-based SEM.

 THE THIRD SECTION DEALS WITH THE SPECIlCATION related questions of our model. section four presents the methodology employed. SECTIONlVEPRESENTSTHERESULTS.

thus making possible a more detailed assessment of brand-related associations. The Initial Second-Order Model of Consumer-Based Brand Equity This study re-interprets the consumer-based brand equity concept by asking the question which are those brand-related concepts that can enter an associative STRUCTUREWHERETHEYARESIMULTANEOUSLYINmUENCINGCAUSING SOMETHING 4HE STUDY MODIlES THE INITIAL STRUCTURE OF THE !AKER   MODEL AFTER RE evaluating the empirical studies based on Aaker’s (1991) conceptual model and the multidimensional character of Keller’s (1993) conceptual model. The conceptual development of the consumer-based brand equity model of this paper differs from the empirical models based on Aaker’s (1991) model in some important points.ANDSECTIONSIXDISCUSSES 2. Trust. In spite of the theoretical importance attributed to it !AKER. etc. the study INCLUDES IN THE MODEL AS SPECIlC ASSOCIATIONS THE DIMENSIONS OF DIFFERENTIATION (Advantage and Uniqueness). Further on. 4HISSTUDYDOESNOTDElNEBRAND RELATEDASSOCIATIONSASONECONCEPTBUTINCLUDES associations as separate concepts (Uniqueness.).

Unlike earlier practice. namely: Perceived Quality. 2010) includes four components of the Aaker (1991) model. the study uses scale items explicitly referring . apart from a few exceptions (Martensen & Gronholdt. 1998). 2008. The present model endeavours to take into account the business reality that changes as a consequence of the economic crisis and the spreading of social networks.10. Atilgan et al. The empirical research (Yoo & Donthu. 2009. availability of quality-related information. this study interprets Loyalty similarly to Erdem and Swait (1998). following the direction Aaker (1996) indicates.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . Loyalty. 2000. 2004. on the other hand. Trust has become an essential factor due to the increasing consumer consciousness. as the consequence of brand equity.. Washburn & Planck. Kim & Hyun. To measure Loyalty. Awareness. Young and Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator). and Associations. the signalling theory STATESTHATTHESUCCESSOFBRANDBUILDINGSIGNIlCANTLYDEPENDSONTHEEXTENTTO which consumers trust the communication of a brand (Erdem & Swait. and it includes the dimension of trust in the initial model. differentiation is not present in CBBE models. 2002. 2006). Chau & Ho.THE!MERICAN-ARKETING!SSOCIATIONSDElNITIONOFBRAND"AUER Berács.

8 !TTILA3:ő#3.

OYALTYEXPLAINS.*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 to purchase decisions. THEAUTHORSDONOTlNDITACCEPTABLETHAT. In the case of such operationalization of loyalty though.

and Trust. Advantage. 1990). following Aaker’s (1996) instructions. greater samples -AC$ONALD3HARP. as follows. Awareness Consumers are more likely to select well-known brands from the consideration set (Hoyer & Brown. among others. and the consumers who choose a brand with high awareness consider fewer alternatives and more rarely choose the best quality brands (Hoyer & Brown. Awareness concretely refers to the brand NODEEXISTINGINTHECONSUMERSMINDEVERYOTHERBRAND RELATEDCONCEPTQUALIlES as an association.1. 1990. The following sections present in detail the hypothesized dimensions of the initial model. The results of the classical articles of Hoyer (1984) and Hoyer and Brown (1990) were repeatable on other. the conceptual model of this study incorporates Awareness and brand-name-related associations such as Uniqueness. The study reinterprets the three Aaker dimensions. a consequence of Brand Equity such as Purchase Intention. 2.THROUGHITSEFFECTON Brand Equity. and since everything that connects with some strength to a brand name representing the node in the association network is an association (Keller 1993). Activity. Consequently. Perceived Quality. Leong 1993).




2010). Kim & Hyun. 2001. and from the analysed thirteen empirical models only one accepts awareness as an independent dimension OF THE lNAL MODEL "OO ET AL. NORDOESTHISDIMENSIONlTASANINDEPENDENT one (Yoo & Donthu.

Differentiation means that a brand is able to provide more in the case of a certain characteristic than a concurrent one in such a way that consumers’ sensitivity and expectation towards other characteristics decrease. Uniqueness measures merely distinctness since there are consumers who.2.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . 1993). due to which a brand can reduce costs (Sharp & Dawes. Uniqueness This study operationalizes uniqueness and advantage as the subdimensions of a more comprehensive differentiation. the authors still consider it IMPORTANT TO INTRODUCE AWARENESS INTO THE INITIAL MODEL TO lND OUT HOW THIS DIMENSIONlTSTHECAUSALSTRUCTUREOFTHEMODEL 2.10. .   'IVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF AWARENESS IN the conceptual models (Aaker. 1991. 2001). to enhance their consumer status. distinguish themselves from others by possessing a brand. Keller.

Netemeyer et al... Kim & Hyun.!#AUSAL-ODELOF#ONSUMER "ASED"RAND%QUITY 9 2.. Erdem et al. 2009. 2. 2009. 2010) and constitutes the dimension of Aaker’s (1991) conceptual brand equity model. 1998. 2004). Erdem & Swait. Perceived quality adds value to the product by creating motivation to buy. Perceived Quality Perceived quality is one of the key dimensions of consumer-based brand equity (Aaker. making price premium application possible. 2001. Advantage The advantage dimension measures the extent to which a brand can differentiate ITSELFINSUCHAWAYTHATITOFFERSREALBENElTSCOMPAREDTOITSCOMPETITORS4HE advantage dimension is part of the agency-based BrandZ model and it is also a dimension of the second-order comparative advantage in the brand performance model (Lehman et al. 2003.. 2008).3. and differentiating the brand. Companies characterized by high market orientation invest in quality development instead OFTRYINGTOACHIEVEABETTERlNANCIALPERFORMANCEWITHPRICECUTS(OOLEYETAL. Boo et al. it is present in a great number of consumerbased brand equity models (Yoo&Donthu. Atilgan et al. The operationalization of Advantage makes this dimension similar to the conceptualization of the perceived value that Zeithalm (1988) formulates as “value is whatever I want in a product”... 2006. 1996. Netemeyer et al.4.

000 strategic business UNITS FROM 0)-3 DATABASE lNDS PERCEIVED QUALITY THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR INmUENCINGRETURNS-ANAGERSINDICATEDPERCEIVEDQUALITYASTHEMOSTIMPORTANT source of competitive advantages (Aaker. Activity Social communities. 2012). 1989). 2000). through the spectacular spreading of community networks (Facebook. and they increase the instability of the market structure 3ENGUPTA'REETHAM. The research of Jacobson and Aaker (1987) on 3.5. forums). 2. have a SIGNIlCANT IMPACT ON JUDGING BRANDS AND SPREADING BRAND RELATED INFORMATION (Patterson. etc.) and user-generated content (blog. Twitter.


1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access ..THERE DElNITIONOFINNOVATION diffusion is necessary to stress the central role of social relations in the innovation diffusion model. 2008). In the present. .10. to treat it as part of their everyday life (Lehman et al. the initial model activity measures the consumers’ willingness to share information about a brand.


Delgado et al. 2001). 2004. When the number of accessible brands grows at a spectacular pace on the market and more low-quality products appear increasingly.1 Trust is also a component of credibility that plays a central role in Erdem and Swait’s (1998) and Erdem et al. 2006..’s (2006) CBBE model. Trust is a component of several consumer-based brand equity measures (Martensen & Gronholdt. Trust measures a brand’s PERCEIVED ABILITY TO FULlL ITS OFFERS THUS. 2005.. Research International’s Equity Engine). 2009. Trust Trust is one of the most important concepts related to a brand (Delgado & Munuera. 2003. Christodoulides et al.*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 10 2. Chaudhuri & Holbrook. Atilgan et al.6. trust in a brand is becoming one of the most important factors of consumer-based brand equity..

Purchase Intention In the case of brands with high brand equity.7. this study expects higher willingness TO PURCHASE. A RELIABLE BRAND DOES NOT NECESSARILY provide high quality. but it provides the quality promises. 2.

. Christodoulides et al. Tsao et al.. 1998. In their meta-analysis of brand equity. thus reducing search costs and perceived risk (Erdem & Swait. 1 After Research International has merged into TNS.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . this model was withdrawn from the market. 1995. 2006. 2006).10. the impact of brand equity on consumer decisions increases in the case of product categories with high transaction costs (Fernández-Barcala & GonzálezDíaz. Christodoulides et al. 2... From the viewpoint of the transaction costs theory. the rise of the relative cost of time increases the demand for the well-known national brands (Pashigian & Bowen. 1994). Erdem et al. the importance of a brand grows (Akerlof. 2006). 1996. 2006). Under the conditions of information asymmetry. Low Search Cost The economic literature discusses the reduced search costs as one of the most important advantages provided by a brand (Ramello.. ASSUMING THAT HIGH BRAND EQUITY POSITIVELY INmUENCES PURCHASE intent (Laroche et al. 2006.. 1970) since by its ability to signal quality the brand reduces information asymmetry.8. 2006). Cobb-Walgreen et al. Agarwal and Rao (1996) mark purchase intention as a brand equity measure of high priority. but they do not interpret it as a consequence of brand equity. . For instance.



ANDTHEMAJORITYOFMODELSUSEREmECTIVESPECIlCATION4HEPRESENTPAPER operationalizes consumer-based brand equity in a causal measurement model. When searching for the answer as to whether measure consumer-based brand EQUITYWITHCAUSALORREmECTIVEINDICATORS.

1991). The substantive theoretical formulations essential from the viewpoint of the CAUSALSPECIlCATIONOFCONSUMER BASEDBRANDEQUITYARE – Brand adds value to the product (Farquhar. – Consumer-based brand equity is the concept measuring the brand’s ability to add value to a product. Achenbaum. – The totality of intangible brand assets (Aaker.WEDONOTWANTTOANSWERTHEQUESTION what consumer-based brand equity is like. Consumer-based brand equity cannot BEQUALIlEDASEITHERREmECTIVEORCAUSALINITSELF We consider that the theoretical and methodological arguments favour causal measurement. 4HEREAREALSOEMPIRICALMODELSTHATEMPLOYTHECAUSALSPECIlCATIONOFBRAND EQUITY WITHOUT ARGUING ABOUT THE CHOSEN SPECIlCATION 9OO  $ONTHU. 1989. 1993).

Netemeyer et al. we measure latent concepts by asking the interviewees about brand-related associations already present in their mind. 2004). Jensen & Klastrup. 7HENTHERESPONDENTSANSWERQUESTIONSRELATEDTOBENElTSORPERCEIVEDQUALITY.  Martensen & Gronholdt. The methodology used determines the way we specify the concepts of our MODEL 4HE lRST ORDER LATENT VARIABLES THE DIMENSIONS OF BRAND EQUITY  ARE CAUSINGTHElRST ORDER#""%4HESTUDYESTIMATESTHElRST ORDERLATENTVARIABLES DIMENSIONSOFTHE#""% INREmECTIVEMEASUREMENTMODELS In survey-based data collection. 2004.. 2009.




1991). Consequently. theory regards brand equity as something that comes into being due to the associations linked to the brand name. This study distinguishes causal models from composite (formative) as well ASREmECTIVEMODELS4OTHEPROPOSALOF"OLLEN .BRANDEQUITYISDElNEDASTHE totality of intangible brand assets (Aaker.

10.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .WEWILLTRYTOAVOIDTHE .

12 !TTILA3:ő#3.

*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 use of the formative notion because it has often been used in the literature to denote (causal) measurement models with real latent variable and (composite) measurement models as well. There are important differences between these CONCEPTS )N THE CASE OF REmECTIVE MODELS.

EQS. The causal measurement model presumes the following relations: Where ithis the causal indicator. To estimate causal models with latent variable. which is not the case in composite model estimation. In causal measurement. estimators (maximum likelihood by default) assured by covariance-based software (Amos. THE INDICATORS ARE THE REmECTIONS OF the latent variable. Lisrel) are suitable. a disturbance term is estimated at the level of the latent variable. while in the case of causal models the latent variable is determined by the indicators. while a popular way to estimate the composite measurement models is PLS (Smart PLS). a composite (and not a latent) variable is determined by the indicators. while the disturbance term comprises THEVARIANCENOTCAPTUREDBYTHEINDICATORS$IAMANTOPOULOS. In the case of composite (formative) measurement models. the parameter measures the direct effect of the ith indicator on the latent variable.


3OURCEOWNDESIGN Figure 1.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .4HEINITIALMODELOFTHECAUSALLYMEASUREDBRANDEQUITY . There is no correlation between the disturbance term and the indicators of the latent variable (cov ()=0).10.AND2OTH 2008).

)N THE MODEL ABOVE.!#AUSAL-ODELOF#ONSUMER "ASED"RAND%QUITY 13 Illustrating brand equity within a structural equation gives us the opportunity to model consumer-based brand equity together with its sources and consequences.


and brand equity dimensions have to be under the control of management. Brand equity measure has to be independent from industry and valid at high abstraction level. The consumer-based brand equity model has to be a useful tool for management. Some important considerations determine the conceptual development of this study. coherent managerial decisions can build trust. UMBRELLABRANDS. It follows from the foregoing that measurement applies to corporate brands. which determines its two consequences: Purchase Intention (PI) and Low Search Cost (LS). BUT THE COVARIANCEARROWSARENOTREPRESENTED4HESIXREmECTIVELYMEASUREDDIMENSIONS cause brand equity. For example.

Methodology Structural equation modelling makes possible the application of numerous analysis techniques together. the observed as well as latent variables can also be included and their cause-effect relationships can also be analysed within the same model. Continuous and discrete independent variables as well as continuous and discrete dependent ones can be built into this model. 2006). 2003).ORPRODUCTBRANDSRATHERTHANONSPECIlCPRODUCTMODELS 4. which are built on the general linear model (GLM) (Ullman. The model has two important parts: the measurement model and the structural model (Tomarken & Waller. at the same time. the measurement model is a CONlRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS MODEL 'ARSON. In strict terms.


 IN WHICH THE RELATIONSHIP between the latent variables and indicators (observed variables) are modelled AND THE GOODNESS OF lT IS ANALYSED )N FACT.

2010). while the structural model assures the evaluation of the theoretical validity (Schumacker & Lomax. In structural equation modelling. One of McDonald and Ho’s (2002) most important METHODOLOGICALCONCLUSIONSISTHATTHEGOODNESS OF lTOFTHESTRUCTURALEQUATION MODELISNOTACCEPTABLEIFTHEGOODNESS OF lTOFTHETWOCOMPONENTMODELSISNOT FULlLLED-OREPRECISELY. we also have the possibility to analyse THE GOODNESS OF lT OF THE TWO COMPONENTS THE MEASUREMENT MODEL AND THE path model separately. WE DO NOT MAKE A FURTHER STEP IN BUILDINGAMODELUNTILTHEVALIDITYOFOURMEASUREMENTMODELISFULlLLED4HE measurement model evaluates convergent and discriminant validity.


1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .10.A MODELCANBEREGARDEDASACCEPTABLEIFTHEMEASUREMENTMODELISlTTEDlRSTAND THEPATHMODELISlTTEDNEXT .

14 !TTILA3:ő#3.

and Sample Starting from the empirical research based on Aaker’s (1991. Scale Development. 1996) model. Data Collection.*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 4. EMPIRICALlNDINGS.1.



the market leader was Nokia and the second biggest brand was Samsung. this brand also enters the study with the scope of testing the possibility of brand measurement when experience is low or is missing. The questionnaire was carried out with the help of two online survey providers (SurveyMethods. The authors presumed that everyone is highly familiar with the selected mobile phone product category. and they selected three mobile phone brands (Nokia. The preferred one was a link sent in a personalized ELECTRONIC LETTER FOLLOWING WHICH THE ADDRESSEE COULD lLL IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE &ORSECURITYREASONS.. 2006) and formulating some new ones. and consequently give more relevant answers about different brands.ADAPTINGTHEMAJORITYOFTHEITEMSFROMOTHERSTUDIES (Lehmann et al. Erdem & Swait. 2008. We sent questionnaires to 395 people’s email box. mostly because everybody has the possibility to easily get in contact with and experience several mobile phone brands. The questionnaires were passed to the respondents in three forms. Zoomerang). but actually more people received them. Despite the presumption that sample members have moderate knowledge or have no experience with iPhone. At the time of the data collection. Samsung. and iPhone) as stimuli.



332 observations were included into the sample.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .ro). we eliminate the observations with more than 30% missing data. After deleting outliers and observations with a large proportion of missing data. But since we deleted the outliers and the observations with missing data earlier.ORMOREPRECISELY ONLY ONE QUESTIONNAIRE COULD BE lLLED IN FROM ONE )0 ADDRESS 4HE THIRD FORM of polling was made personally. the . serving as a starting point for the analyses. The analysis starts with 421 observations.10. It was used mostly in the case of those people OVERFORTYORlFTYWHOHADAGREEDTOlLLINTHEQUESTIONNAIREBUTBALKEDATTHE ELECTRONIClLL INORTHEUSEOFTHE)NTERNET4HERESPONSERATEINTHECASEOFTHE questionnaires sent to email addresses can be estimated to 60%.insse. and as missing data does not qualify as MCAR (Missing Completely at Random) the author uses Direct ML estimation in Amos to impute 3. During the analyses of the missing data.7% of missing data. We used quota sampling based on gender and age. Data referring to the statistical population were downloaded from the data service provider (Tempo) of the National Institute of Statistics of Romania (www. coming from a Romanian quota sampling.

33 25.29 23.28 6. we weighted our sample to match the distribution of the population. Based on this distribution.08 13.!#AUSAL-ODELOF#ONSUMER "ASED"RAND%QUITY 15 PROPORTIONOFTHEnAGECATEGORYSIGNIlCANTLYDECREASEDTOSUCHANEXTENTTHAT we should have used a quadruple factor in applying the weights. The decrease of this age-group in the sample is explained by the fact that in comparison to the other RESPONDENTSUNDERSTANDINGANDANSWERINGTHEQUESTIONSCAUSEDDIFlCULTIESTOITS members. our sample decreased to 315. 4ABLE illustrates the distribution of the sample according to age and gender.73 5. After deleting the 15–19-year-olds.06 100 3OURCEOWNCALCULATIONS "ECAUSE WEIGHTED DATA lLES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY !MOS.06 7. Table 1.7EIGHTINGDATAACCORDINGTOGENDERANDAGE Age Gender 20–29 Man 20–29 Woman 30–39 Man 30–39 Woman 40–49 Man 40–49 Woman 50–59 Man 50–59 Woman Total n% 13.96 5.

7% of iPhone).1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . against 16. WE GENERATED A correlation matrix of the measured variables of the model and used this matrix as an input for our structural model. 2008). we drop several indicators from . This study considers experiencebased data best for building the model. Boatwright et al. the assessment of causal SPECIlCATIONUSES. 2004. 4. During this process. 2004. Betts & Taran.. consumers have two great sources to rely on: abstract information originating in the brand name and the one that relates to detailed product attributes (Dillon et al. Tafani et al.. 2006. Multicollinearity is not likely to pose estimation problems as the maximum VIF 6ARIANCE)NmATION&ACTOR VALUEOFMEASUREDVARIABLESIS 4HElRSTSTEPINTHESEARCHFORTHESUITABLECAUSALSPECIlCATIONSISTHEASSESSMENT of the measurement model.10.2. Raggio & Leone.. consequently.9% of Samsung and 1.OKIADATAALMOSTFROMTHESAMPLEOWNS.OKIAAND has Nokia as a second mobile. Analyses The research design does not presume any experience of the interviewees WITHTHESPECIlCBRANDBUTPRESUPPOSESEXPERIENCEWITHTHEPRODUCTCATEGORY In assessing a brand. 2001.

16 !TTILA3:ő#3.





it does not enter THElNALMODELOFTHISSTUDY!CCORDINGTOTHECONCEPTUALDElNITION. 2001).83.82). The respondents use their trust in quality as a proxy in order to answer the questions related to perceived quality. but something that indicates the presence of this brand node. while others EXCLUDETHISDIMENSIONFROMTHElNALMODELASWELL!TILGANETAL. Awareness could not be seen as an association that is linked to the brand node. The high correlation between Trust and Perceived Quality (0. CFI 0. the study formulates the following conclusion. After an analysis of the problem. suggesting that the two dimensions measure the same thing in fact.95) indicates the lack of discriminant validity. THE MODEL lT GOT BETTER (TLI 0. awareness refers directly to the node in the associative network that stores information related to the brand name. Despite the fact that Awareness is part of conceptual models. they are able to respond the quality-related questions only by quickly examining how much trust they feel in the brand as the questions of quality confuse them. RMSEA 0. 4HE LOW FACTOR LOADINGS AND NON SIGNIlCANT PATH ESTIMATES ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE !WARENESS DIMENSION HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE MODEL )NDEPENDENT lT causes problems in some other researches (Yoo & Donthu.915.

 4HE explanation of the phenomenon is that. owing to the great awareness of brand NAMES.

is part of the initial model even though the conceptual requirements demand clear differentiation of attitudinal constructs from behavioural ones. a behavioural construct. The authors conceptualized the dimensions (antecedents) of the focal construct as attitudinal constructs and the consequences as behavioural constructs. Activity.THEVARIABLESGETSOBIASEDEXTREMESKEWANDKURTOSIS THATlTWITHTHE help of ML is not possible. and its effect on Brand equity is IMPLICITLYNOTSIGNIlCANTASACONSEQUENCE. On the other hand.04). the authors introduced the Activity dimension wrongly in the initial model. the Activity dimension has almost no explanatory power (standardized estimate: 0. consequently.

the authors also eliminated the indicators of Uniqueness. the statement that the Nokia brand is unique IS DIFlCULT TO INTERPRET AS IT HAS BOTH REALLY UNIQUE AND EVERYDAY MODELS  This could be one of the main reasons that the Uniqueness dimension has no SIGNIlCANTEXPLANATORYPOWERANDITSINDICATORSDONOTLOADSIGNIlCANTLYONTOA more general Differentiation construct either. !S A lNAL RESULT. For example. For theoretical and methodological reasons.ITHASTOBEELIMINATEDFROMTHEMODEL Interpretation of the Uniqueness dimension at a high abstraction level proved to be problematic.


1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . IN WHICH THE two dimensions of the consumer-based brand equity (Trust (in quality) and .10.

4ABLE PROVIDES RESULTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL lT FOR THE THREE MOBILE PHONE BRANDS)NTHECASEOF.OKIA. thus being an intuitive solution for management. namely purchase intention and low search cost. the model does not estimate error at their level and they are allowed to correlate freely. therefore. 3OURCEOWNDESIGN Figure 2.4HEMODELOFTHECAUSALLYMEASUREDBRANDEQUITY Advantage and Trust (in quality) are exogenous variables. Results The model below (&IGURE   ILLUSTRATES THE lNAL MODEL 4HE TWO DIMENSIONAL structure will make measurement simple and economical.!#AUSAL-ODELOF#ONSUMER "ASED"RAND%QUITY 17 Advantage) determine the consumer-based brand equity. 5. explaining more than 70% of variance. In the case of Purchase Intention and Low Search Cost. and consumer-based brand equity has a positive effect on its two consequences. the model estimates the disturbance term which corresponds to the variance unexplained by Brand Equity as well as it also estimates measurement errors at the level of the indicators. The disturbance term at the brand equity level draws a clear picture of the extent to which the two dimensions explain the variance of the central concept.

10.THEGOODNESS OF lTINDICATORSAREEXCELLENT4HE4. the RMSEA .1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .95 boundary as well. (2009) formulate.) and CFI exceed the conservative 0. the relative chi-square corresponds to the requirement that Hair et al.





93 0.&ITSTATISTICS 'OODNESS OF lT Ȥ2 Nokia 198 Samsung 299 iPhone 420 DF 72 72 73 TLI 0.THEVALUEOFTHE32-2ALSOSHOWSAGOODlT Table 2. which is independent from the multivariate normality ASSUMPTION 3CHUMACKER  .96 0.92 RMSEA 0.10 0.OMAX.97 0.08 0. it is important to check the validity of the model with the parametric bootstrap procedure.13 3OURCEOWNESTIMATIONS 4HEDIRECTEFFECTSOFINDICATORSANDLATENTVARIABLESAREALLSIGNIlCANT3INCETHE data correspond to the univariate normality but not the multivariate normality assumption.95 0.90 CFI 0.

72 0.200 with a minimum difference.78 0. Assessment of Reliability and Validity of Measurement Models !STHEMODELOPERATIONALIZESlRST ORDERLATENTVARIABLESINREmECTIVEMEASUREMENT models. 4HELOWVALUESALLWELLBELOW OFTHESTANDARDIZEDRESIDUUMMATRIXAFlRM THEEXCELLENTlTOFOURMODELASWELL 5.85 0.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access SMC 0.95 0.93 iPhone AVE SRW 0.91 0.73 0.77 0.10. according to which the study uses four indicators in assessing the convergent validity.79 0.’s (2009) indications.91 0.56 0.93 0.-AXIMUM. Table 3.8 SMC 0.86 0.62 0.6 0.64 CR 0.   4HE SIGNIlCANCE AND PARAMETERS OF -.75 0.67 CR 0.91 0. All these indicate that even in the absence of multivariate normality the study can accept the maximum likelihood estimates of the model.91 Nokia AVE SRW 0.69 .82 0.86 0.91 Samsung AVE SRW 0.82 SMC 0.92 0.IKELIHOOD ESTIMATIONCORRESPONDTOTHESIGNIlCANCELEVELSAND parameters of the parametric bootstrap procedure on a sample of 1. the assessment of reliability and validity is possible with the classical test theory.#ONVERGENTVALIDITYTEST Advantage AV1 AV2 AV3 AV4 CR 0.82 0. The assessment of reliability and validity (4ABLE ) follows Hair et al.1.83 .93 0.

72 0.9 0.72 0.92 0.81 0.90 0.75 0.80 0.86 intention PI1 PI2 PI3 Low search 0.71 0.91 Trust PQ1 PQ2 TR1 TR2 Purchase 0.72 0.66 0.84 0.82 0.59 0.81 0.92 cost LSC1 LSC2 LSC3 Nokia AVE SRW 0.88 0.81 0.76 0.58 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.71 0. (2009). the CR exceeds 0.81 0.78 0.5 VALUEANDTHESTANDARDIZEDCOEFlCIENTSALLEXCEEDTHEVALUEALLTHISINDICATES convergent validity.92 0.88 SMC 0.91 0.!#AUSAL-ODELOF#ONSUMER "ASED"RAND%QUITY CR 0.71 0.5. The assessment of discriminant validity involves different methods.85 0.88 0.82 0.63 0.9 0.9 0.88 0.77 0.86 0.75 0.77 0.66 0.92 0.82 0.79 0.82 0.92 0.92 iPhone AVE SRW 0.78 SMC CR 0.85 0. This study considers three of them: the AVE method.88 Samsung AVE SRW 0. whereas the composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) measure the reliability and validity of latent variables. indicating that the variables of the model correctly map the contents of the dimensions.74 0.81 0.8 0. similarly. the AVE exceeds 0.67 0.79 0.95 0.85 0. but we compute them based on the formulas from Hair et al.7 and.78 0.89 0.92 0.91 0.68 0.85 0.81 0. nested comparison test of #&!.51 0. Amos does not print in the output the latter two indicators.94 19 0.85 0.85 0.9 0.86 0. The squared multiple correlations for every indicator exceed the 0. In the case of all four latent variables.88 0.81 3OURCEOWNESTIMATIONS The standardized regression weights (SRW) and the squared multiple correlations (SMC) measure the reliability and validity of indicators.92 0.84 SMC CR 0.87 0.

the dimensions of brand equity do not pass the AVE test. then discriminant validity is supported.10. The assessment of the Nokia and iPhone models provides support for discrimination as all AVE are greater than the shared variance. AND CONlDENCE INTERVALS OF CORRELATION 4HE lRST APPROACH COMPARES the average variance extracted (AVE) of two constructs with shared variance measured with the square of the correlation between the two constructs (Fornell & Larcker. but they do pass the other two. 1981). If in the case of both variables AVE is greater than the shared variance. . The CONlDENCEINTERVALSOFCORRELATIONSFROMTHEBOOTSTRAPPINGESTIMATIONPROVETHAT THE CORRELATION   BETWEEN 4RUST IN QUALITY  AND !DVANTAGE IS SIGNIlCANTLY different from 1. The CFA comparison test indicates that two latent variables represent best the manifest variables in comparison with the one latent solution.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . In the case of the Samsung brand.

20 !TTILA3:ő#3.

a less important problem is the lack of discriminant validity between the consequences of Nokia’s brand equity.*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 The values of ECVI (.398<.799) and AIC (122. indicating evidence of discriminant validity.96) are evidently lower for the two-dimensional solution. From the perspective of the brand equity model.87<246. the problem disappears and the assessment of external validity offers another solution to this problem. By including the consequences as composite variables. )FTHECAUSALSPECIlCATIONOFBRANDEQUITYISTHEORETICALLYSOUND.


Yoo & Donthu. 2000). the model remains STABLE. Loyalty and OBE (Overall Brand Equity.

2. The study realizes an assessment of validity following the recommendations of Diamantopoulos et al. 2000). contrary to skepticism related to the applicability of statistical procedures. stresses the importance of establishment of validity (Edwards & Bagozzi. This study.OW Search Cost and OBB as consequences. Assessment of Reliability and Validity of Causal Relationships Validity assessment of causal measures is a controversial topic (Diamantopoulos et al. the differences between AVE values and shared variance provide evidence of discriminant validity in the case of every latent variable. 5. 2008). The present model determines the causal relationships at the level of structural RELATIONSHIPS..THEINDICATORSSHOWEXCELLENTlT)NTHECASEOFTHEMODELVARIANTWITH. (2008) and Bollen (2011).


 4ABLE provides EVIDENCEFOREXCELLENTlTFORTHE.OKIABRAND For the assessment of external validity. Bollen (2011) suggests embedding the construct in a more complex model with a full set of relationships (determinants ANDCONSEQUENCES .

RMSEA=. testing the model with other latent variables. dimension variance in the case of the Nokia brand supports construct validity.10. Following certain recommendations of Diamantopoulos et al.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .075). The standardized value of the disturbance provides information about the variance explained.THUSlNDINGTHEEXPECTEDEFFECTSPROVIDEEVIDENCEFOREXTERNAL validity. CFI=. df=88.955.963. this study considers the disturbance term ȗ) one of the most important indicators of construct validity. provides further evidence of external validity ASTHElTINDICES REPRESENT AVERYGOODlTȤ2=244. The positive sign of high values of path estimates (&IGURE) supports external validity for every model. (2008). Moreover. as Loyalty and OBE. . TLI=. The two-dimensional structure is able to explain 70% of the brand equity.

namely.3TANDARDIZEDESTIMATESOFBRANDEQUITYMODEL. with a two-dimensional model. Conclusions This research answers the main question of the present study. which are those brand-related concepts that can enter an associative structure where they are simultaneously causing something.OKIABRAND 6.!#AUSAL-ODELOF#ONSUMER "ASED"RAND%QUITY 21 3OURCEOWNESTIMATIONS Figure 3.1. Discussion 6. The lNDINGSINDICATETHATINTHISCASEONLYTWOCONCEPTS.

. /WING TO THE CAUSAL SPECIlCATION. Jensen & Klastrup. Netemeyer et al. 2000.. can be built into a causal structural model.NAMELYTRUSTINABRANDAND the advantages that a brand offers. 2004. Atilgan et al. The result of the present paper and other empirical results (Yoo & Donthu. 2009) propose a simpler structure. 2009.

consumer-based brand equity is a two-dimensional construct. this dimension represents the rational dimension of brand equity. thus. the Trust dimension contains the brand-related emotional element. Advantage is what a brand provides a consumer with.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . In this sense. According to this result.10. Trust (in quality) in this context represents something that connects a consumer to a brand. THIS STUDY lNDS BOTH A THEORETICALLY AND practically useful result. The study offers plausible theoretical and methodological arguments why awareness could not be included in a CBBE model. The authors consider that awareness actually refers directly to the node in the associative network that .

22 !TTILA3:ő#3.

if the authors correctly interpret loyalty as a consequence. 4HE PRESENT MODEL STARTS IN A DIFFERENT WAY STILL.*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 stores information related to the brand name. (2004). In the Yoo and Donthu (2000) model. )MPORTANT EMPIRICAL RESULTS CONlRM THE SIMPLER STRUCTURE )N .ETEMEYER ET al. Jensen and Klastrup (2009) accept two models with four and three dimensions respectively. it cannot be regarded as an association. the two dimensions of brand equity cause willingness to pay price premium. consequently. this will also result in two dimensions.

 THE lNAL DIMENSIONS OF THE model resemble the dimensions of the mentioned studies. while the credibility of a brand is one of the central elements of the Erdem and Swait (1998) model. (2004). In Netemeyer et al. 4HIS STUDY MANAGES TO HIGHLIGHT AN ESSENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THE REmECTIVE SPECIlCATION OF CONSUMER BASED BRAND EQUITY 5SING REmECTIVE SPECIlCATION. one component of which is trust. Differentiation. Jensen and Klastrup (2008) accept two models and estimate one of them with the following three dimensions: Product Quality. Trust and Credibility. PQ/PVC (Perceived Quality/Perceived Value for the Cost) and Uniqueness together determine the willingness to pay premium price.

6. Limitations and Further Research The present research has some limitations. the sample is not randomly DRAWN. in Lehman et al.2. causing something together. (2008). the 27 constructs shared more than 60% of variance due to the common method bias. Consequently. For example. IT MAKESPOSSIBLETOlTANEVENHIGHERNUMBEROFCONSTRUCTSINTOTHEMODELASTHEY will share variance due to the halo effect and the common method. a high number of consumer-based brand equity models can be built without knowing which are the dimensions capable of determining. First of all.

and it does not provide cultural validity. The model is valid for one product category and a restricted number of brands. BUT THE SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION OF AGE AND GENDER REmECTS THE POPULATION distribution of these two variables. The study considers every provided solution of the base brand (private label. lCTIVEBRAND.

1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . the study assumes that brand equity measurement is possible among non-users as well. As a consequence. on the basis of the respondents’ answers . but it considers testing the possibility of introducing the market leader brand as a base brand as a possible future research problem. there are no PRIVATE LABELS TO USE AS BASE BRAND n IT IS HARD TO lND AN APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR SELECTING THE WEAKEST BRAND 5SING A lCTIVE BRAND WILL RESULT IN IRRELEVANT answers.WEAKESTBRAND COMPARISONPROBLEMATIC/NECANNOTSURELYSTATE that private labels do not have brand equity. in many industries.10. While devising the model. the study does not deal with the base brand issue. However.


THESTUDYFORMULATESTHENEEDFORACERTAIN degree of awareness and knowledge among respondents to assure model stability. #ONSEQUENTLY.




. Kaynak. Berács. 4HE1UARTERLY*OURNALOF%CONOMICS 84(3): 488–500. (1996). Bauer. Akerlof.. V. A.. P. K. In: Lewis. Achenbaum. Neslin. Ian M. (2003).PROJECTNUMBER0. Diamantopoulos. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. A. C. Pennysilvania: The New York Hilton. Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand equity. (1970). A. Customer-based brand equity for global brands: a multinational approach. An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity. -ARKETING. The mismanagement of brand equity. D. (2009). Atilgan. Managing assets and skills: the key to a sustainable competitive advantage. *OURNALOF2ETAILING 85(4): 437–452. !2& &IFTH !NNUAL !DVERTISING AND 0ROMOTION 7ORKSHOP. Taran. (ed. J. S.. (2009).. (2006). Zeugner-Roth. G. S. Rao. *OURNALOF%UROMARKETING 18(2): 115–132. K. Lehman. !CADEMY OF -ARKETING 3TUDIES *OURNAL 8(1): 7–18. Baldauf. (1991). M. "OATWRIGHT. The ‘brand halo’ effect on durable goods prices: brand reliability and the used car market.. (1996).). A. R. Aksoy. New York: Free Press. S. -ARKETING. L. S. *OURNALOF-ARKETING 67(4): 1–17. Budapest: Aula. Betts. (1989). -ANAGING BRAND EQUITY #APITALIZING ON THE VALUE OF A BRAND NAME. D. E. #ALIFORNIA -ANAGEMENT2EVIEW 38(3): 102–120.. R. The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. K.. #ALIFORNIA-ANAGEMENT2EVIEW 31(2): 91–106. E... )) )$ 0#%    References Aaker. A. Cravens. The impact of product-country image and marketing efforts on retailer-perceived brand equity: an empirical analysis. Akinci. Agarwal. K. Ailawadi. Alvin A.ETTERS 7(3): 237–247. (2004). (1993).. Z. S.



1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .10.7 3HOULDCONSUMERSUSETHEHALOTOFORM product evaluations. . -ANAGEMENT3CIENCE 54(1): 217–223.

24 !TTILA3:ő#3.

. on: 02. K. (2006).. M. composite.. *OURNALOF!DVERTISING 24(3): 25–40. Baloglu. $IAMANTOPOULOS. downloaded from: http://www. M. Munuera. J.. T.yrbav.. Boo. de Chernatony. (2005). S.*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 Bollen. Chaudhuri. )NTERNATIONAL*OURNALOF-ARKETING2ESEARCH 45(1): 35–54.. E. Delgado. *OURNAL OF -ARKETING 65(2): 81–93. Christodoulides. and purchase intent. Yagüe. (2008). J. Delgado. C. O. (2009). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Does brand trust matter to brand equity? *OURNALOF0RODUCTAND"RAND-ANAGEMENT 14(3): 187–196. -)31UARTERLY 35(2): 359–372... E. Evaluating effect... Development and validation of a brand trust scale. on: 02. downloaded from: http://www. Conceptualizing and measuring the equity of online brands. L. J. Ho. Abimola. (2003).2012. (2001).wpp.. L. "RAND:. *OURNAL OF -ARKETING-ANAGEMENT 22(7–8): 799–825. B. Chau. J. and causal indicators in structural equation models. 4OURISM-ANAGEMENT 30(2): 219– "RAND!SSET6ALUATOR. Beal C. J. S. G. Cobb-Walgren. L..25. Brand equity. A. Holbrook. P.25. Munuera. E. A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations. Shiu. Busser. (2011). *OURNAL OF /RGANIZATIONAL AND%LECTRONIC#OMMERCE 18(3): 197–223. brand preferences. C. Developing consumer-based service brand equity via the Internet: the role of personalization and triability. Furrer.. Donthu (1995).

 ! 2IEmER.

 0 2OTH.

 + 0   !DVANCING FORMATIVE measurement models. $ILLON. *OURNALOF"USINESS2ESEARCH 61(12): 1203–1218.

 7 2 -ADDEN.

 4 * +IRMANI.


*OURNALOF-ARKETING 70(1): 34–49. Structural equation modeling. 3   5NDERSTANDING what’s in a brand rating: a model for assessing brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand equity. P. J. (2000).1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .edu/garson/pa765/statnote. Farquhar. Brands as signals: a cross-country validation study.ncsu. H. (2006). T. *OURNALOF #ONSUMER0SYCHOLOGY 7(2): 131–157. Valenzuela. T. -ARKETING2ESEARCH 1(3): 24–33. Garson. (1998).htm. R.10.. Statnotes: topics in multivariate analysis. (1981).. Erdem. Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Larcker. J. Swait. (1989).. J. D. *OURNALOF-ARKETING2ESEARCH 18(1): 39–50. Erdem.. F. Edwards. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. R. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. G. . A. (2011). C. Swait. Bagozzi. North Carolina State University. on: 1/18/2011. downloaded from: http://faculty. Fornell. 0SYCHOLOGICAL-ETHODS 5(2): 155–174. D. *OURNALOF-ARKETING2ESEARCH 38(4): 415–430.chass.. Managing brand equity.

Black. W. R.!#AUSAL-ODELOF#ONSUMER "ASED"RAND%QUITY 25 Hair. J. F. (OOLEY.. -ULTIVARIATE$ATA!NALYSIS. R.. New York: Prentice Hall. (2009).. Anderson. Tatham.






+3NOJ" .

repeat purchase product. Market orientation in the transition economies of central Europe: tests of the Narver and Slater market orientation scales. D. Towards a B2B customer-based brand equity model. Hoyer. M. Jensen. *OURNALOF4ARGETING. *OURNAL OF "USINESS 2ESEARCH 50(3): 273–285. D.. Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common. An examination of consumer decision making for common repeat purchase product.. brand equity. B. Hoyer. P. (2012). Klastrup. E. Huang. S. How brand awareness relates to market outcome. K. *OURNALOF#ONSUMER2ESEARCH 17(2): 141–148. *OURNALOF"USINESS2ESEARCH 65(1): 92–99. Brown. and the marketing mix. (1990). W. *OURNALOF#ONSUMER2ESEARCH 11(3): 822–829. (2008). W. R. (1984). Sarigöllü..

-EASUREMENTAND!NALYSISFOR-ARKETING 16(2): 122–128. K. K. The new Strategic brand management. and managing customer-based brand equity. Lehmann. D. R. Kapferer. measuring. Keller. (2008). N. *OURNALOF-ARKETING 57(1): 1–22. L. L. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page. (1993) Conceptualizing. (2003). J.. +IM. Keller. How do brands create value? -ARKETING -ANAGEMENT 12(3): 26–31.

 * (YUN.

AROCHE. 9 *   ! MODEL TO INVESTIGATE THE INmUENCE OF MARKETING mix efforts and corporate image on brand equity in the IT software sector. . )NDUSTRIAL-ARKETING-ANAGEMENT40(3): 424–438.

 - +IM.

 # :HOU.

G. C. U. F... Pullig. McDonald. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common. Ricks. (1993). R. A. Consumer decision making for common. L. P. Keller... Lehmann. Yagci. D. repeat purchase product: a replication.. Leong..   "RAND FAMILIARITY AND CONlDENCE AS determinants of purchase intention: an empirical test in a multiple brand context. (2002).. J. R. repeat purchase products: a dual replication. Macdonald. G.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access . . M. *OURNALOF)NTERNATIONAL-ARKETING 16(4): 29–56. Wang. Netemeyer. 0SYCHOLOGICAL-ETHODS 7(1): 64–82. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Gronholdt. Wirth. B. Sharp B. (2004). The structure of survey-based brand metrics. *OURNALOF"USINESS2ESEARCH 37(2): 115–120.10. L.. Farley. *OURNALOF#ONSUMER0SYCHOLOGY 2(2): 193–208. (2004)... (2000). K. Krishnan.. M. R. Ho. Martensen. J. (2008). R. S. D. Developing and validating measures of facets of customerbased brand equity. *OURNALOF"USINESS2ESEARCH 57(2): 209–224. E. M. Building brand equity: a customer-based modeling approach. *OURNAL OF "USINESS2ESEARCH 48(1): 5–15.. . Dean. *OURNALOF-ANAGEMENT3YSTEMS 16(3): 37–51.

26 !TTILA3:ő#3.

(2012). Bowen. Patterson. Social-networkers of the world. (1994)..*×ZSEF"%2ª#3 Pashigian. unite and take over: a metaintrospective perspective on the Facebook brand. B. 0ERES. The rising cost of time of females. %CONOMIC)NQUIRY 32(1): 33–65. the growth of national brands. and the supply of retail services. P. B. A. *OURNALOF"USINESS2ESEARCH 65(4): 527–534.


4OMARKEN. Chang. J. V. The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value: managerial implications for strategic planning. Srinivasan. V. E. Dawes. C. R.. R.. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sharp.. P. D. and prediction of brand equity and its sources. Dynamics of brand competition: effects of unobserved social networks. R. B. G. D. Park. D. -ANAGEMENT3CIENCE 51(9): 1433–1448. (2001). A. (2010). What is differentiation and how does it work.. *OURNALOF"RAND -ANAGEMENT 14(5): 380–395. Greetham. R. Schumacker. Ramello. *OURNAL OF%CONOMIC3URVEYS 20(4): 547–565.. (2005). An approach to the measurement. *OURNAL OF-ARKETING-ANAGEMENT 17(7–8): 739–759. R. *OURNAL OF %CONOMIC $YNAMICS AND #ONTROL 34(12): 2391–2406. !BEGINNERSGUIDETOSTRUCTURAL%QUATION MODELING. (2006). )NTERNATIONAL*OURNAL OF2ESEARCHIN-ARKETING 27(2): 91–106. analysis. (2010). Leone. Raggio. Su. Lomax. (2006). G. What’s in a sign? Trademark law and economic theory.%-AHAJAN6 )NNOVATIONDIFFUSIONANDNEWPRODUCT growth models: A critical review and research directions. Sengupta.

 ! * 7ALLER.

H. B. E.. (2006). Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward. Plank. (2006). Berthon. Yoo. 34(4): 397–405. '   0OTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH hWELL lTTINGv models. Donthu. *OURNALOF"USINESS2ESEARCH 52(1): 1–14. J. Paper Presented at AMA Summer Educators Conference. /MEGA4HE )NTERNATIONAL*OURNALOF-ANAGEMENT3CIENCE.10. Ullman. An experimental study of brand signal quality of products in an asymmetric information environment. R. P. Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale.. *OURNALOF-ARKETING4HEORYAND0RACTICE 10(1): 46–62. (2002). H. . L. B. J. N.1515/auseb-2015-0001 Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/28/2016 08:42:33AM via free access .. $EVELOPINGANDVALIDATINGACONSUMER BASEDOVERALL BRANDEQUITYSCALEFOR!MERICANSAND+OREANSANEXTENSIONOF!AKERSAND +ELLERS CONCEPTUALIZATIONS. Tsao. *OURNALOF0ERSONALITY!SSESSMENT 87(1): 35–50. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Chicago.. (2000). Pitt. (1997). *OURNALOF!BNORMAL0SYCHOLOGY 112(4): 578–598. Washburn. F. .