You are on page 1of 11

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281467441

Consumer-based chain restaurant brand
equity, brand reputation, and brand trust
Article in International Journal of Hospitality Management · September 2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.06.010

CITATIONS

READS

3

92

3 authors, including:
Timothy Jeonglyeol Lee
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
75 PUBLICATIONS 237 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Timothy Jeonglyeol Lee
Retrieved on: 28 September 2016

it is argued. 2007). Lee). Nguyen). 2013). Scholars debate whether brand equity measures used in goods marketing can be applied to service-based brands. The results of the study contribute to improve understanding of the complex psychological processes involved in consumer selection criteria for a chain restaurant or relevant service industry.london@gmail.International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www. and brand trust Sung Ho Han a . and brand association. Lee c. Beppu 874-8577 Japan a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 5 October 2014 Received in revised form 29 June 2015 Accepted 29 June 2015 Keywords: Visit purpose Brand equity Chain restaurant Brand reputation Brand trust a b s t r a c t This study develops and tests a consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity(CBCRBE) model and investigates the mediating effects of brand reputation on the relationship between CBCRBE and brand trust. This development has an influenced the appearance of many chain restaurants ∗ Corresponding author. it was thought to be worth approximately £ 16. the study compares the differences among the groups according to the consumer visit purposes in relation to the CBCRBE dimensions. Timothy J.2015.K. Park et al. chain restaurants are now expected to grow to £ 22 billion (US$35 billion) over the next five years (Gerrard. Han). brand reputation. Johnson and Grayson. goods-based brand equity. requires adjustments to meet hospitality service brand evaluation requirements (Nam et al. Bang Nguyen b . it is demonstrated that brand reputation has a positive effect on brand trust. PR China Department of Tourism & Hospitality. the chain restaurants show a tendency to dominate the U. brand reputation.∗ a b c Oxford Edu Centre Ltd. 2014). brand affect. which frequently build strong brands in order to strengthen competitiveness and brand equity so that consumers are able to recognize the chain restaurant brand better (Kim and Kim.D. UK ECUST School of Business. Finally. 2005). © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Headington. Fax: +81 977 78 1121. All rights reserved. and brand awareness on brand trust.are found to have positive effects on brand reputation. and brand trust. The measurement of brand equity should accurately evaluate consumers’ perceptions of the brand in order to develop marketing strategies that align with consumers’ values (Isberg and Pitta.com (B. brand awareness. In addition. 2011).1016/j.Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU). Oxford. 2013. no study has. Introduction Creating and maintaining a brand is essential in today’s competitive marketing environment... Shanghai 200237. the evaluation of brand equity presents an efficient way to assess both consumers’ brand perceptions and marketing activity (So and King.K.H. In 2014. based on the result of the relationship between CBCRBE. examined the role of brand reputation . Hence. With the U. not only to consumers.food & service quality.K. 5 Shelford Place.doi.com/locate/ijhosman Consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity.. but also to managers and marketers who evaluate the performance of the brand and formulate powerful strategies (Yasin et al. 2011).’s eating out market continuing to grow.. while previous research has examined the relationship between brand reputation and brand trust (Chang. timlee7@apu. Although some researchers have studied the development of the chain restaurant market. who purchase a brand. All rights reserved. (Ph. a limited number of studies focus on consumer-based brand equity in the chain restaurant industry (Hyun and Kim. Moreover.org/10. 2005). http://dx. Kim and Kim. OX3 7NW. 2010). 1. Oxford Brookes University). Changes in consumer lifestyles have led to an increase in the demand for varied dining experiences and to the rapid growth in the fast-foodservice industry (Min and Min. 2011. bang. The results of study confirm that brand reputation partially mediates the effects of food & service quality. to the best of our knowledge. 2005. the four dimensions of CBCRBE.com (S. and brand equity is the outcome of efficient branding activity investments (Seetharaman et al. 2014). brand affect.elsevier. 2001). East China University of Science & Technology.ac. Using a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. 2013). Moreover. This is relevant. high street (Angelis.jp (T.g. intangibility and heterogeneity).06. E-mail addresses: sunghohan7@hotmail.. Due to the unique attributes of services (e. The study of CBCRBE offers insights into the efficient strategies that can be used to enhance brand reputation and secure brand trust in the restaurant industry. the effect of brand association on brand trust is fully mediated via brand reputation.010 0278-4319/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd.4 billion (US$26 billion) and U.J.ijhm. Perkins (2014) states that independent restaurants struggle because consumers are changing to chain restaurants.

2011). namely. suggesting that emotional attachment to the brand leads to a positive attitudinal response (Evanschitzky et al... Due to the unique characteristics of services. such as brand loyalty. 1993). Researchers have demonstrated that good reputation is perceived as a signal of reliability (Suh and Houston.. atmosphere. 2009). Lassar et al. the current study excludes brand loyalty as a dimension of CBCRBE. Aaker (1991) lists four dimensions of brand equity. brand reputation and bran d trust in the chain restaurant industry. 2007). 2008. Researchers consider brand trust as an important factor in the restaurant industry mainly due to food safety... 1995. brand image and brand loyalty. et al. 2010. In contrast. Nam et al. the study adopts brand affect as a dimension of CBCRBE. 2010) and acts as an antecedent to trust (Alam and Yasin. 2011). and Hyun and Kim (2011) by incorporating self-congruence. the study posits that to be a successful brand. 2013. To fill this important gap. investigating the mediating role of brand reputation on the relationship between CBCRBE and brand trust. That is. restaurants invest heavily in developing a reputation that is considered trustworthy (Fandos and Flavian. brand reputation and brand trust in the chain restaurant industry. The effects of the CBCRBE dimensions on brand trust are fully mediated via brand reputation.. 2000).. In the service sector. 1984). therefore. food taste and health (Afzal et al. 2006. 2006). reputation is also a valuable intangible asset of a brand (Dolphin. 2005. service quality becomes a tool that can indicate a good or bad reputation (Wirtz et al. Madanoglu. Nam et al. researchers have studied adjusted measures of service brand equity. (1995) view brand loyalty as a consequence of brand equity and not a part of it. and may be a crucial indicator for brand equity (Alam and Yasin. perceived quality. Thus. highly effective targeting strategies can be established in the current study. perceived quality. Researchers suggest that service quality is associated with brand reputation. With regard to this. Based on the above arguments. The results should demonstrate how CBCRBE can be effectively used to attract consumers and to improve understanding of the differential application of CBCRBE dimensions according to consumer visit purposes. given the services’ intangible character and the difficulty in evaluating its quality without having experienced it (Herbig and Milewicz. Building on this. thus excluding behavioral dimensions. They consider only perceptual dimensions as brand equity. that is.. 2010). selfcongruence. Ekinci et al. and brand reputation. brand reputation and brand trust in the restaurant industry. In the restaurant industry. is found to be more valid in the hospitality industry (Brady and Cronin. However.1. brand awareness.. this study hypothesizes that: .. brand affect. Brand trust is one of the most important characteristics of the chain restaurant brand because it increases consumers’ associations with intangible attributes such as taste. In the present study. Kim and Kim (2005) used brand awareness. (1985). Consequently. Jin and Leslie (2009) support this relationship by showing that chain restaurants have better food hygiene quality than independent restaurants because of the reputational incentives of the chain. the authors extend previous brand equity models proposed by Aaker (1991).S. suggested by Grönroos (1984). Torres-Moraga et al. to date. Han et al. 2001). the current study further includes brand reputation and brand trust. Fig. Yoo and Donthu. 2001.. Herbig and Milewicz.. increased brand trust reduces consumers’ perceived risk when choosing a service (Herrera and Blanco. 1996). 2. 2007. 2010. the study proposes the following five CBCRBE dimensions: food & service quality... 2 present the two research models used to investigate the relationship between CBCRBE. brand association and brand loyalty. Finally. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 on the relationship between Consumer-Based Chain Restaurant Brand Equity (CBCRBE) and brand trust in the restaurant industry. due to the present study’s contextual focus on the restaurant industry. Song et al. 2001. consumers frequently choose reputable restaurants based on trust. Having a good reputation ensures growth in popularity via word of mouth (Walsh et al. 2012). 1) suggests that the five dimensions of CBCRBE have an effect on brand trust through brand reputation. 1 and Fig. In addition. Kumar et al. Fig. When consumers choose service brands such as restaurants. it is important to analyze further the relationship among brand equity. 2009. Research models and hypotheses A considerable amount of research is directed towards identifying the dimensions of brand equity and establishing a common basis for further study (Buil et al.. 2002). 2004). consumers try to reduce uncertainty and anxiety by taking into account the overall brand equity. brand trust. ambiguous product quality may have a negative effect on building a brand reputation (Selnes. Thus the current study adopts brand reputation as a mediating variable between CBCRBE and brand trust. 2008). Food quality consists of important items related to food freshness (Soriano. 2008. 85 To demonstrate CBCRBE’s relationship to other branding elements. brand awareness and brand association. they also consider risk reduction (Lacey et al. however.H. Hyun and Kim (2011) added a food quality item to their perceived quality dimension in the chain restaurant context. Yasin et al. Madanoglu. 2011). The original research model (Fig. have found that this model is insufficient to capture a specific service area (Buttle. 2 presents an alternative model – a partial mediation model – to investigate the direct effects of CBCRBE dimensions on brand trust. Consequently. The effects of food & service quality on brand reputation The majority of service quality studies have. reliable hygiene. Kim and Kim (2005). Thus. 1995). the authors posit that consumers tend to favor restaurants which create strong emotional ties (Chaudhuri and Holbrook. To examine the brand equity of luxury hotels and chain restaurants. Ekinci. used the SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman. The Nordic European model of service quality. Thus. trust is the most popular measure of brand-consumer relationships. whereas functional quality is a subjective evaluation of how the consumer receives the service (Grönroos. the study examines the significance of visit purpose in relation to brand equity. Some researchers. (2) to empirically examine the relationship between CBCRBE. 2005). 2008). Thus. and food hygiene (Dutta et al. The Nordic European model identifies two dimensions of service quality: Technical quality is an objective evaluation of the outcome of service performance. and (3) to compare the evaluation of the dimensions of CBCRBE between different consumer visit purposes. 2010). 2001. 2001). and the results supported previous studies in that corporate reputation has an influence on trust. this research aims to: (1) to identify the underlying dimensions of CBCRBE. The present research uses self-congruence to capture symbolic consumption as researchers agree on the importance of symbolic consumption in consumer behavior (Kwak and Kang. staff behavior and physical quality in order to meet the consumers’ expectations (Brady and Cronin. Rijswijk and Frewer. In addition. As most consumers rely on the restaurant’s reputation to infer food quality. 2009). brand affect and food quality. restaurant chains need to understand a consumer’s purpose for the visit. etc. 2. Scholars agree that service quality in the restaurant industry must be evaluated from various perspectives such as food quality. the current study emphasizes food quality in our evaluation to assess overall service quality in the CBCRBE (Hoare and Butcher. Chang (2013) explored the role of trust as a mediating variable between corporate reputation and brand loyalty in the restaurant sector. reputation is particularly important.

Ekinci et al. Han et al. Consumers have a positive attitude and buying intention towards brands that are consistent with their self-image (Graeff. 1997). beliefs. 2. Full mediation model. (2013) found that tourists revisit a tourism destination because the image of destination Food& Service Quality H1 Brand Affect H7a H2 SelfCongruence H7c H3 Brand Awareness Brand Association Brand Trust H7b H7d H7e H4 H6 Brand Reputation H5 CBCRBE Fig. 2000). researchers direct much attention towards the affective factors in marketing (Keller.g. Hence. the current study hypothesizes that: 2. 82) define brand affect as “a brand’s potential to elicit a positive emotional response in the average consumer as a result of its use”. . p. 1996). Scholars hold that consumers tend to prefer brands with images that match their own self-concept. 2012). in addition to the functional aspect of the product (Zohra.H. Yu and Dean (2001) propose that the affective element of consumer satisfaction is a better component for predicting positive wordof-mouth than cognitive elements (e. 2. 325). hate. Research shows that consumption is governed by consumers’ feelings and emotions. The effects of brand affect on brand reputation Emotional feelings such as love. 2011). The effects of self-congruence on brand reputation Self-concept is the “thoughts. Behavioral decision theorists investigate affective reactions that influence the decision-making process (Garbarino and Edell. pity and anger provide the energy that stimulates and sustains a particular attitude towards a brand (Wright. For example. Thus.3. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 Food & Service Quality H1 Brand Affect SelfCongruence H2 H3 H6 Brand Reputation Brand Trust H4 Brand Awareness H5 Brand Association CBCRBE Fig. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001. Brand affect has a positive effect on brand reputation. ----------------- Direct effects indirect effects. 1. which expresses the self-concept through consumption (Hosany and Martin. and selfcongruence is referred to as this process of matching (Sirgy and Su. 2006. Self-congruence is related to symbolic consumption. (2009) found that emotional satisfaction has a positive effect on behavioral intentions such as loyalty and recommendation in hospitality industry. Research demonstrates that consumer satisfaction and purchase intention are directly influenced by positive affect (Oliver et al. price and quality). and concerns that individuals hold about their own attributes and characteristics” (Wright. Based on these arguments. Partial mediation model. Food & service quality has a positive effect on brand reputation. 1997). H1. 2006). pleasing consumers and securing their preferences will form a positive brand reputation.. Ladhari H2. 2008).86 S. p.2.

2001). Consumers who are loyal to a brand often associate a company with a positive reputation (Roberts and Dowling. Scholars have demonstrated that brand awareness is related to brand reputation (Maltz. Thus by increasing food safety. creates a good brand reputation. Researchers highlight that trust reduces uncertainty and risk (Chaudhuri and Holbrook.8. 2010). and it enables consumers to recognize and recall the brand. 2. 2005. The establishment of a brand image through advertising. self-congruence is one of the main factors that influence a restaurant visit. Krishnan and Hartline. menu. Researchers have studied the relationship between brand trust and consumer-based brand equity (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán. Brand associations are regarded as one of the most important factors in creating a brand image (Keller. 1993). the extent of the congruence between consumers’ self-concept and a brand’s image significantly influences consumers’ evaluation of the brand (Graeff. they believe that the food is of high quality reducing uncertainties like lack of hygiene and freshness. Trust of consumers towards a special brand thus enhances brand reputation. suggests that self-congruence creates positive brand attitudes (Ekinci and Riley.. 2001). Kim (2014) explains that improving service quality is positively related to improving brand trust. When consumers trust a brand... Brand awareness and brand association are considered to be the main components of reputation (Davies and Miles. logo and brand advertising. trust is a vital factor in buying behavior (Bredahl. the current study hypothesizes that: H5. This is because the image of a service brand signals that the brand should be able to keep its promises to the consumers. interior design. p. 2003) and influences brand preference (Jamal and Goode.7. p. 1995). Brand awareness has a positive effect on brand reputation. The informational nodes contain specific details of a product. 2006). therefore. 1995). reputation is more important due to the services’ uncertainty (Cretu and Brodie.. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 matches their self-image and symbolic meanings. 2006). Researchers have demonstrated that brand reputation has a positive effect on brand trust (Suh and Houston. Brand reputation has a positive effect on brand trust. Therefore. 1993). the current study posits that brand awareness has an impact on brand reputation and the study hypothesizes that: H4. 2010. Brand awareness is linked to brand name. 3) defines brand associations as “the other informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory and contain the meaning of the brand for consumers”. Positive brand image. Aaker (1991) asserts that the cornerstone of brand equity is the familiarity of a brand name which can create positive associations for consumers. As consumers visit a restaurant to meet varying purposes. 2001). Hence. 1998). hypothesizes that: H7a – H7e. 2004). 2. social meetings and business. (2014) found that brand awareness contributes to create credibility. Therefore. 1993). and staff behavior (Berry et al. Some researchers highlight the importance of brand awareness in the service context (Kayaman and Arasli. Therefore. the image of a restaurant (e. logos and symbols determines a product’s position. 2008). Restaurants are places for dining. Reputation thus conveys increased trust in the service quality (Herbig and Milewicz.6. Kumar et al... Han et al. In a competitive marketing environment. 2010. brand awareness. 1991). 2002).. which in turn. 2008). Evaluation of CBCRBE and the purpose of a visit A consumer’s satisfaction with a restaurant can be described as the subjective evaluation (Meyer and Schwager. the present study hypothesizes that: H6. The effects of CBCRBE on brand trust We test the direct effect of CBCRBE on brand trust to investigate the partial mediation impact of brand reputation on the relationship between CBCRBE and brand trust. Therefore. 2. This study. and investments in brand awareness can lead to sustainable competitive advantage and long-term brand value (Macdonald and Sharp. When reputation is considered as the overall evaluation of a brand. the present study suggests that: H3. 2002. and the service ability of staff in the restaurant. brand association—has a positive effect on brand trust. self-congruence. The effects of brand associations on brand reputation Keller (1993. 2000) because a person’s specific behavior patterns are frequently determined by the image that he/she has about himself/herself (Onkvisit and Shaw.g. to eat casually. 2003). The effects of brand awareness on brand reputation Brand awareness is related to the strength of the brand in the minds of consumers. Ross et al. Brand reputation ˇ ˙ has the ability to reduce uncertainty and create trust (Smaiˇ ziene. and staff dress and behavior) must match the selfconcept of its target consumers. 2008. 2007). Smaiˇ ziene˙ (2008) suggests that a positive reputation expresses a low level of risk and stimulates buying decisions. atmosphere. they evaluate it with diverse criteria based on their specific visiting purpose (Noone and Mattila. Romaniuk and Nenycz-Thiel (2013) note that a strong memory effect reinforces a brand image. in turn. the trust in the restaurant brand is elevated (Bredahl. A brand name serves to reduce the risks of buying and consuming an alternate service brand (Bharadwaj et al. 2010). in addition to word-of-mouth and the consumers’ past experience (John et al. Attitudes are feelings and beliefs about a brand on the basis of the knowledge and information obtained from a consumer’s experiences (Wright. 2006). Brand awareness is an important goal of marketing efforts because brand image and brand attitude cannot be formed in its absence (Macdonald and Sharp.S. 2007. Namkung and Jang. 2013). Phan and Ghantous (2013) shows that brand association is the strongest driver of brand trust in service brands. Mathew et al. Researchers use the self-concept to explain consumer behavior (Quester et al. In the restaurant industry. 45). Ponnam and Balaji (2014) found that the various visiting motives affect the evaluation of a restaurant’s attributes.5. it denotes the probability that a particular brand name comes to the consumers’ mind (Keller. For example. The consumers’ satisfaction towards the chain restaurants is based on the . brand affect. or to save time. a consumer might visit a restaurant to enjoy atmosphere. Therefore. scholars consider trust as a crucial component (Elliott and Yannopoulou. to attend a social meeting.H. Moreover. 87 Brand association has a positive effect on brand reputation. The effects of brand reputation on brand trust Researchers agree that reputation is related to attitudes (Schwaiger. in maintaining a positive relationship between consumers and providers. 2001). 2001).. In the context of chain restaurants. TorresMoraga et al. Consumer-based Chain Restaurant Brand Equity (CBCRBE)—Food & service quality. These motives play an important role in the consumers’ overall satisfaction. food quality. 1989). thus enhancing brand equity (Keller. Self-congruence has a positive effect on brand reputation. and successful positioning reinforces a strong brand image (Pitta and Katsanis.4.. creates loyalty intensions. in turn. For example. such as price. 2007). 2003). music. 1996). 2007) of the restaurant according to situational factors as well as food-related attributes. This. In a service sector such as chain restaurants. 2. “a brand’s reputation refers to the attitude of consumers that the brand is good ˇ and reliable” (Afzal et al. 2.

56(0. Brand awareness. this study measured brand trust using three items from DelgadoBallester (2004). service.88. The sample and data collection Prior to the main survey activities. the confidence interval (ϕ ± 2 × standard error) around the correlation estimate between the food & service quality and brand trust does not include 1..52 0.13) 7 – – – – – – 1 AVE 0. Structural models’ results (full mediation model and partial mediation model) Using structural equation modeling (SEM). Pizza Hut. 4. this study adopted three items from Yoo et al.80(0. TLI = 0.95.11) 0.6% over 65.0%). 1988) which meet the requirements for convergent validity. the restaurant managers should further investigate the CBCRBE in relation to the consumers’ actual visiting purpose in order to satisfy their underlying needs (Ha and Jang. GFI = 0. RMSEA = 0. 2007). Starbucks.11) -0. ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Self-Congruence 4.5 and 0.00. value they want from visiting the restaurant (Holbrook.) prior to filling in the questionnaire. p = 0.6% between 26 and 35.88 S. 4. 31. p = 0. Self-congruence.70 (Hair et al. the study estimated factor loadings’ significance. (2004). Thus. As some questions were obscure and difficult for participants to understand.7 respectively (Bagozzi and Yi. Table 3 provides the results for the two models (full and partial mediation models). two research models were tested to examine the mediating effect of brand reputation. and three items from Gladden and Funk (2002). Food & service quality measures consisted of two food quality. focused on British consumers. Brand Awareness 6.I Friday’s. they were revised. 4. There is a difference in CBCRBE between different consumer groups based on the purpose of a visit. This supports the notion of factorability of the correlation matrix.13) 0. a total of 328 questionnaires was collected and of these 15 were excluded due to incomplete or missing items. Brand Association 5.2.93. this study hypothesizes that: H8.8% between 56 and 65.09) 0.g.50(0. All factor loadings are greater than 0.064.G.6 (Pallant..30 (0. Three items developed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) were employed to measure brand affect. The validity of Model 2 (partial mediation model) shows an adequate model fit (2 = 542.69(0. 3. TLI = 0.13) 0. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 Table 1 Construct correlations and average variance extracted (AVE)..1.2. p = 0. Brand Affect 3. However. To measure brand awareness and brand associations. two physical quality. Impact of consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity (CBCRBE) on brand reputation As shown in Table 3. In addition. AVE and CR are above 0.10) 0. 4.H. Barlett’s Test of Sphericity is shown to be statistically significant (p = 0. RMSEA = 0. In this testing.00. (2007). was employed.90.09) 0. and facilities (the restaurant’s fundamental attributes).94). Each pilot was conducted with 30 respondents.08) 0. Measurements To measure the constructs.09(0. an exploratory factor analysis was performed.85. The result of the factor analysis suggests a five factor solution: Food & service quality. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin) value is .17(0.85 0.11) 5 – – – – 1 0. which exceeds the recommended value of 0. Respondents were asked if they had any experience with chain restaurant brands (e. TLI = 0. conducted in the South East of England.34 (0. 2006). Brand association. atmosphere. the results show an appropriate model fit (2 = 710.000). and two staff behavior items adopted from Dutta et al. a seven point-Likert type scale. (2000) and Netemeyer et al.12) 0. managers can develop a variety of customized marketing strategies more elaborately and also elevate the brand equity of restaurant.73 Standard errors are in parentheses. RMSEA = 0. 2007).09) 6 – – – – – 1 0. 19. AVEs are higher than the squared correlations between constructs except for food & service quality and brand trust. 4. brand reputation and brand trust using SPSS. 17.14(0. By identifying the differences based on the visiting purposes. To measure models. Brand affect. Therefore.12) 2 – 1 0.00. While these restaurants offer food. Table 2 presents the information on the measurement of models. GFI = 0.33 (0.082).94.31(0.1.2. However. Using a convenience sampling method.12) 4 – – – 1 0.76 0. T.3% between 46 and 55.63. GFI = 0. the present research posits that food & service quality has a positive effect on brand reputation.15) 0.3% between 36 and 45. Brand Reputation 7. Soriano (2002) and Ekinci (2001). In order to test convergent validity.1.34(0.5 and statistically significant. Hypothesis testing 3.08) 0. McDonald’s.30. two pilot studies were conducted. 1.067).14) 0. CFI = 0. In the specification of the research Model 1 (full mediation model). df = 224.92.75(0. This study further assessed the mean and reliability of consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity (CBCRBE). The main survey. Findings 4.4% were between 16 and 25 years old. etc. 1999). Results of the structure analysis confirm the models’ goodness of fit and hypothesized paths of this study. this is less meaningful as the sample size in this study is large (Hair et al. 2006. Brand Trust 1 1 0.32(0. Han et al.59(0.866. Food & Service Quality 2.66(0.16) 3 – – 1 0.11) 0.88. the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicate a good model fit (2 = 506. Such evaluation of value can also have an effect on the brand equity of the chain restaurant.42(0.50(0. Three items proposed by Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009) were used to measure brand reputation.80 0. 2013).46(0.88. The respondents were males (49.2.45(0. 25. the .0 (Table 1).63 0. 1988).76 0.2. Self-congruence was measured with three items adopted from Sirgy and Su (2000). Hence.65(0.13) 0. average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS. Of the respondents. CFI = 0.14) 0. the 2 statistic suggests an inadequate fit. Finally. and 1. Pallant. Validity and reliability of the measures Before testing the model. Methodology 3. Results reveal that Cronbach’s alphas for reliability are above the acceptable levels of . this supports discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing. CFI = 0.0%) and females (51.

05 1.98*** 2. p < 0.87 – – – – – .28 . *** p < 0.02 0.07 1. brand affect.22 5.03 5.77.55 1.23* 2.12 0.90 – – .15* 11. t = 11.21.43 1.30 1.64 1.3 231 0. t = 3.20 0. food & service quality (ˇ = 0.88 0.11.15 −0.H.16 4. p < 0.13 0.67*** 8.50 −0. 4.92 – – .37.27 3.75 . p < 0.22*** −0.02.91 .92 6. p > 0. self-congruence has a negative effect on brand trust (␤ = −0. t = −2.001).90 .83 – – Brand awareness I am aware of this brand I am familiar with this restaurant brand I can recognize this brand among other restaurant brands 6.45 0.26 1. these results indicate that the CBCRBE dimensions (food & service quality.3. t = 8.001).001) have positive effects on brand trust.42 3. Taken together.30*** −0.64 .53 4. brand affect (ˇ = 0.2.90 – – . indicating that brand awareness has a positive influence on brand reputation.65 1.90 GFI: goodness of fit index.21 0.55 1.44 0.22.88 226 0.40.40 .77 .05).27.73 – – – – – Brand affect I feel good when I dine in this restaurant brand This restaurant brand makes me happy This restaurant brand gives me pleasure 4.82 .001).08*** 4. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 89 Table 2 Reliability and validity of constructs.33 .19** −0.00 1. H5 predicts brand association has an effect on brand reputation.75 – – Brand association This brand has an attractive logo I like the logo of the brand I like the colours of building or interior 4.30* 5. p < 0.47 1.82 – – Brand trust I can rely on this brand to solve the service dissatisfaction This brand guarantees satisfaction I have confidence in this brand 4.60 1.43 .74 . However.77 4.78 4.67. results of the study support H1 (ˇ = 0.42.44 1.45 1. However. p < 0.94 .75. p < 0.93 – – . p < 0.77*** – – – – – 0.67 . RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.40 0.27 −0. The result of the model testing supports this proposition (ˇ = 0. t = −0.001).79 . t = 6. The results of the analysis also support H2 (ˇ = 0.45. which the results support (ˇ = 0.15.30.77 .05).12.78 . TLI: Tucker–Lewis index. brand awareness.01 5. brand associ- .51 1.98.49 .22 −0.85 0. H4 is supported (ˇ = 0.37.52 2.05. Impact of consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity (CBCRBE) and brand reputation on brand trust H6 suggests that brand reputation has a positive effect on brand trust.94 0.75 – – – – – 6.89 .88 – – .86 .63 542.71 1.37*** −2.11 0.11 4.50.64 1. ** p < 0.94 .52 1.56 .97 . The result of the analysis for H3 reveals that self-congruence does not have a statistically significant effect on brand reputation (ˇ = −0. t = 5.001) and confirm that brand affect has a positive effect on brand reputation.08.93 – – – – – – 710.067 0.16 4. t = 2. Therefore.68 . and brand awareness on brand trust.37* 3.47 1.87 1. t = 4.93 .92 .90 .78 . Han et al.56 4.10 2.01.43 4.082 0.27 1. brand affect.05).80 – – Table 3 Structural models results (full mediation model and partial mediation model).S.84 – – .68*** 2. CFI: critical fit index.001).62 4.46 1.66 .91 .86 – – Self-congruence The customers who dine in this restaurant are very much like me The customers who dine in this restaurant reflect the type of person I would like to be The customers who dine in this restaurant are very much like the person I admire 3.57 4. t = 3.02 0.56 1.45 3.70 .60 4.92 0. and brand association) are important antecedents of brand reputation.91 .38 1. Furthermore.13 0. * p < 0. Construct Items Mean SD Loadings Cron bach’s alpha CR Food & service quality The staff of this restaurant brand is helpful and friendly This restaurant brand offers a tidy environment This restaurant brand provides comfortable seats and tables The staff of this restaurant brand is talented and displays a natural expertise This restaurant brand offers fresh foods This restaurant brand prepares food and drinks according to hygiene standard 4. and brand awareness (ˇ = 0. Hypothesized paths H1:Food & service quality → brand reputation H2:Brand affect → brand reputation H3:Self-congruence → brand reputation H4:Brand awareness → brand reputation H5:Brand association → brand reputation H6:Brand reputation → brand trust H7a:Food & service quality → brand trust H7b:Brand affect → brand trust H7c:Self-congruence → brand trust H7d:Brand awareness → brand trust H7e:Brand association → Brand trust Model fit statistics X2 Df RMSEA GFI CFI TLI Full Mediation Partial Mediation Standardized path coefficient t-Value Standardized path coefficient t-Value 0.001. p < 0. H7a–H7e predict that CBCRBE has a positive effect on brand trust. p < 0.15.80 – – Brand reputation This brand is trustworthy This brand is reputable This brand makes honest claims 4. The results of the partial model testing can be seen in Table 3. brand reputation partially mediates the effects of food & service quality.57*** 3.

*** p < 0. This is supported by the views of Bujisic et al. p > 0.. This study suggests that food & service quality.13 B 41 4.79 1.14 1. appropriate for chain restaurant brands.17 B 43 2. Conclusion 5. Consumers consider the importance of the CBCRBE dimensions differently according to purpose of visit. Post-hoc test 55 4. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 Table 4 Analysis of CBCRBE by the purpose of visit: ANOVA with the post-hoc test. this study conducts one-way ANOVA using all the CBCRBE dimensions in order to confirm the difference of CBCRBE according to consumer purpose of visit.008)** – – – Brand affect N Mean S. indicating that the effects of brand association on brand trust is fully mediated by brand reputation. self-congruence.09 1. both the full and partial mediation models. there is a significant difference among two categories: “Social Meeting”. “Enjoy Atmosphere (interior design. ANOVA with the post-hoc test (Duncan’s multiple range test) was employed to examine the perceptional differences of groups according to the purpose of visit on CBCRBE at the 0. and “Others”.050) – – – The Duncan’s multiple range test was used as the post-hoc test. it is evident that all the CBCRBE dimensions have an effect on brand trust. and focuses on its dimensions as represented by chain restaurants’ consumption psychology.001.04 – 20 5. the consumers’ purpose of visit can be another important factor in assessing brand trust. there has been no research model in the context of chain restaurant brands that includes the following all three dimensions: food & service quality.001 levels.408 (0. (2014) and Mattila (2001) who indicate the importance of food & service quality dimension in all the restaurant types. ation is insignificant (ˇ = −0.1.59 A 90 4. For this reason. Of great importance to chain restaurant is the ability to attract consumers and satisfy the consumers’ needs.70 1.07 – 78 5.61 1. the present study highlights that the service quality dimension needs to be extended by incorporating food quality.47 1.35 A 91 4. 0. As shown in Table 4.03. This test shows a statistical significance for three dimensions of CBCRBE but not ‘Brand Awareness’ and ‘Brand Association’.D. with regard to food & service Quality (p < 0.4. Consumers choose restaurants with multi-attributes and both factors. “Enjoy Eating”. In addition to this. CBCRBE/ Purpose of visit Social meeting Enjoy atmosphere Enjoy eating Saving time Others F (p-value) Food & Service quality N Mean S.49 1.2.519 (0.583 (0. selfcongruence captures symbolic aspects of brand equity (Nam et al. ** p < 0. and selfcongruence.42 – 21 4. The study demonstrates that it is desirable to build brand strategies using the improved dimensions of CBCRBE which can provide brand trust with consumers.16 – 82 3.49 A 90 2.90 1.05). In terms of Brand Affect (p < 0.18 A 82 3.36 A 21 3.05). in the restaurant sector. Notably.38 – 3.313 (0.71 1.62 1. this research centers on the development of a brand equity model.001). Second.49 – 81 2. brand awareness and brand association are components of CBCRBE.01.D.45 1.011)* – – – Brand awareness N Mean S.18 1.29 – 88 5.17 – 41 5. in the dimensions of food & service Quality and Self Congruence.D. this study is the first to examine the impact of brand reputation on the relationship between CBCRBE dimensions and brand trust in the restaurant industry. “Social Meeting ”. “Saving Time”.000)*** – – – Self-congruence N Mean S.01). Post-hoc test 54 4.22 – 20 4. The group “Enjoy Eating” has the highest perception of Brand Affect (Mean = 4.63. and brand affect captures attitudinal aspects of brand equity.60 B 21 4.85 1.01 and 0.H. . this study added one-way ANOVA to compare the differences among varying groups according to their visit purpose in relation to the CBCRBE. Post-hoc test 55 3. “Enjoy Atmosphere ” groups. Following the analysis results above.05.D. 5. * p < 0. Han et al.D.33 1. While past research indicates that brand equity directly influences brand trust. Although many researchers have studied on the development of brand equity models. five groups can be categorized into two different groups of visit purpose: “Enjoy Atmosphere”.53 B 41 3.87 – 0. while “Saving Time” group has the lowest mean score.56 B 12. based on SEM results. brand reputation and brand trust. Contributions The present study contributes to the growing literature on CBCRBE. t = −0. Evaluation of CBCRBE by the consumer purpose of visit According to the results of the analysis using SEM. the dimensions of CBCRBE and consumer purpose of visit need to be compared with each other. the “Enjoy Atmosphere ” group represents the highest mean score.96). the findings suggest that the effects of CBCRBE on brand trust are partially mediated by brand reputation. Table 4 illustrates the result of the ANOVA.56 0. brand affect. 4.)” and “Saving Time”. First.03 – 3. Specifically. In addition.70 1.14 1. celebrating Event etc.26 – 41 4. With regard to Self Congruence (p < 0.44 – 83 4.90 S.08 1.96 1. 2011). Post-hoc test 55 5. since only adopting physical quality and staff behavior is insufficient to cover all aspects of the restaurant sector.59 1.05. the current study further developed and explored the CBCRBE.076 (0.989) – – – Brand association N Mean S. “Saving Time” groups. In the restaurant sector.77 1.32 1.46 – 2.70 1. thus. In the subsequent attempt.56 – 92 4. the Duncan multiple range test confirms significant differences between the groups.21 1.91 1. Post-hoc test 53 4. brand affect.

marketers of such brands should focus on upgrading physical environments as well as staff behaviors in order to satisfy consumers. service excellence. which indicates that chain restaurants have a better food hygiene quality than independent restaurants because of the reputation of chain affiliation. brand affect. According to Grisaffe and Nguyen (2011. This is supported by Jin and Leslie’s study (2009). Further. As self-congruence is associated with symbolic consumption. spatial layout. relies on both consumer perception (brand awareness. well-trained staff with good manners and a high level of expertise play an important role in enhancing the image of a service brand. Thus. The first important difference comes from food & service quality. Service providers can increase patronage by enhancing consumers’ positive feelings and emotions towards the brand. Specifically. we notice a significant difference between groups. consumers visit the chain restaurant not for their symbolic values but for their functional values. and brand association have positive effects on brand reputation. tourists can experience the same quality of foods and environment anywhere without hesitation. and brand awareness on brand trust. in terms of chain restaurant brands. 2011).S. This result is in line with Jang et al. a chain restaurant brand should provide hygienic and fresh food and drink. 2010). Interestingly. In the service sector. the present research contributes to the literature by improving understanding of the complex psychological processes that consumers go through when visiting a chain restaurant. and employee factors. we note that a chain restaurant brand with high quality satisfies consumers. We notice that “enjoy atmosphere” and “enjoy eating” groups have more brand affect towards a particular restaurant brand than other groups with other visit purposes (“social meeting”. Last.H. Han et al. 1997). brand affect. we confirm the mediating role of brand reputation on the relationship between these CBCRBE dimensions and brand trust. As far as self-congruence is concerned. of a good reputation in service brands is consumer satisfaction (Fomburn and van Riel.” Marketers should consider how to . another significant difference appears in brand affect. These findings deepen the understanding regarding the consumers’ selection criteria for a chain restaurant. pp. findings also show that self-congruence has no effect on brand reputation but has a negative effect on brand trust. trust towards the chain brands comes from the ability to deliver and keep the promise of quality. 2005). and socialization can evoke emotional attachment. consumers who visit a restaurant for a “social meeting” want to show themselves as a member of a special social group and choose a restaurant. Many of the consumers who visit chain restaurant brands believe that whenever and wherever they offer higher quality food and prestige (Kotabe and Helsen. Groups focusing on “social meeting” and “enjoy atmosphere” perceive self-congruence more positively compared to the “saving time” group. amusement park. the more positive emotions can be increased. In addition. 2008). Therefore.. In addition.. Thus. brand affect. There have been no studies about the difference of CBCRBE according to the purpose of visit. managers of chain restaurants need to create a positive perception of the brand through a good reputation (Lee and Carter. As perceived quality is an important factor for creating a positive brand reputation and brand trust in service brands. However. People sometimes visit a restaurant to celebrate special events or relieve their stress. identity construction. Brand reputation. the examination of the relationship between brand equity and consumer visiting purpose is important because brand equity has an influence on the service brand’s selection as it reduces risk (Kumar et al. 1055–1057). and that brand reputation has an influence on brand trust. 2012). in service industries like a hotel. 5. The important element tion in the service sector (Smaiˇ ziene. ambience. The findings demonstrate that food & service quality. consumers who visit the chain restaurants do not want to have congruence with other consumers who are in the chain restaurant. we found an interesting relationship in that the effect of brand association on brand trust is fully mediated via brand reputation. Thus. Thus. Thus. Therefore. 2013). and food & service quality) and positive emotional responses. 2012). 2001). This could be because most British consumers tend to regard chain restaurant brands as non-luxurious. the current study supports previous studies suggesting that a good brand reputation affects consumers’ trust in the brand in a positive way (Veloutsou and Moutinho. the more positive and authentic atmospherics 91 there are. When a consumer’s self-concept matches with the restaurant’s atmospheric elements including facility. “saving time”. emotional memories. marketers should consolidate consumer satisfaction through solving existing service issues (Delgado-Ballester. Our study also examines the direct effects of the CBCRBE dimensions on brand trust. Service is intangible and it is difficult to assess it without experiencing it (Herrera and Blanco. this leads many tourists to visit chain restaurant. brand reputation. the “enjoy atmosphere” group seeks emotional pleasures through visiting a restaurant. reputation acts as safeguard against deficient informaˇ ˙ 2008).2. we note that brand reputation partially mediates the effects of food & service quality. This finding highlights that brand association has an impact on brand trust only via brand reputation. These visiting purposes are related to their emotion (Ha and Jang. brand awareness. The result of study confirms that there is difference between groups according to their purpose of visit relating to the CBCRBE dimensions. Practical and managerial implications This study offers important implications for marketers in the service sector including restaurants. In particular. effective advertising. managers of chain brands always need to examine if service quality is kept according to the criteria. consumers can evaluate the food & service quality level based on a restaurant’s atmosphere. restaurant. Consumers who visit a restaurant in order to enjoy the atmosphere consider food & service quality as an important attribute of a chain restaurant compared to consumers who visit a restaurant in order to save time. a consumer feels satisfaction (Heung and Gu. to maintain the brand’s good reputation. From the findings. this leads to greater reliability (Song et al. Thus. For example. 2012) and commitment (Chaudhuri and Holbrook. Our finding is consistent with Ha and Jang’s study (2012) that atmosphere has a positive relationship with food & service quality in the restaurant sector. Thus. this study applied the ANOVA analysis based on the result of the relationship between CBCRBE. 2009). 2012) and the atmosphere of restaurant has an influence on the consumer’s emotion. (2011) that when consumers are dining in a restaurant. This increases the consumers’ trust towards the chain restaurants’ brands. The findings also confirm that brand affect drives brand reputation and brand trust. “superior quality. Moreover.. self-expression. and “others”). people choose a restaurant as a way to express their self-concept (Ekinci et al. With the elaborate comparison of the differences among the groups. That is. leading to increased reputation of the chain restaurant brand. Therefore. 2004) in order to get a positive evaluation from consumers. and brand trust in order to elicit more in-depth knowledge. this research further reveals that reputation is a decisive factor in defining brand trust. this finding also suggests that when consumers feel emotional ties to the service brand. the study establishes a model to assist in the development of appropriate marketing strategies. and brand awareness have positive effects on brand trust. which can be congruent with their self-concept. That is. Consumers trust the service brand based on the emotional connections with the service provider after experiencing a service (Johnson and Grayson. Thus. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 The findings show that food & service quality. brand association.

SERVQUAL: review. service brands need to invest in advertising in order to enhance the familiarity of brand. J. Bujisic.. 147–158. 187–196.. Munuera-Alemán. The Free Press.. Y.. Symbolism consumption of tourism destination brands. Alam. which may lead them to prefer one restaurant over another. K. 43 (3). 2004.S. and adjust it accordingly based on societal trends and target consumers’ preferences. comparing consumers’ perception differences of CBCRBE according to visit purpose offers practical implications for managers.. 8 (6). Eur. if the statistics on chain restaurants in the survey area are provided. J. Garbarino. employing unique marketing strategies can be the most effective means of increasing association. advertising. 2013.. J. E. 2004. New York. Bredahl. 103 (3). 54–81. Ekinci. 1–9.... Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. yahoo. 1 (1 and 2). I. J. H. Br. 230–240.G.J. 10 (4). H. Plassmann. 34–49. Chaudhuri. Market. marketers should focus on developing a favourable image for the brand by using fair trade foods. Thus. Ser. Buttle... S.H. Dutta. Yoo et al. it is necessary that consumers feel emotionally congruent with the restaurant. Brand Manage. Manage. Chernatony de. (2014). color. 311–324. 2010. Brady. M. and music) needs to be designed according to the consumer’s symbolic needs.. 66 (6)..A. Buil. 1993. 81–93. On the evaluation of structural equation models. The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value perspective.K. 2000).. 2007. Sport Manage. S. 2006. Evanschitzky. L. Bull. E. J.A. Afzal. P. and letters. Rev. a brand can show consumers that it takes a keen interest in social and environmental issues. managers should regularly check whether consumers are satisfied with the overall restaurant. Eur. 2004. K. the respondents may not be representative of the total population of restaurant consumers. Res. Int. 2010.. and the demeanor of staff need to be standardized in the restaurant sector. Retrieved from https://uk. 411–423.. Rev.R. 17 (6). Yi. In addition. Market. An extended model of the antecedents and consequences of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services.. may direct their focus to the main attributes in order to strengthen their brand equity. 1991.. C. Cognitive effort. Ekinci. For example. 41 (9/10). L. Hosp. J.A. In conclusion. 2001. J. Ali. Market. Contemp. Y. Eur. L. I. Hence. 14 (3).. J. However. J. Int. Fahy. Haeckel. The validation of the generic service quality dimensions: an alternative approach.. MIT Sloan Manage. 74–94. Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. 2007. staff uniforms. Market.R.. H. J. A cross-national validation of the consumer-based equity scale. Res. Bus. 16 (1). 988–998. Serv.E. public exposure to advertizing through the mass media is ubiquitous and continues to increase (Buil et al. A. Fandos. Grisaffe. affect. Consum. research agenda. 1988. Consum. 38 (5/6). Niessing.. 43–49. Despite best efforts. 536–557.H. Nguyen. J.. Reputation management: theory versus practice. Restaurant & casual dining insight report. Y. L. C. This study owns limitations with the use of non-probability sampling (convenience sampling). M. J. Dawes. Hosp. 2008. J. and goals.. 59.com Gladden. Int. N.92 S... 16 (1). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? J. as suggested by this study. 4 (3). the atmosphere of service companies (e. Manage. loyalty and buying intention: analysis for a PDO product. Gerbing. Yannopoulou. 36. T.. Contemp. C. 351–363. J.. Cretu. Riley. The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. Yasin. K. Retrieved from www. Prod. Consumer trust in the brand: can it be built through brand reputation. Manage.. such materials will provide a strong case for the generalization of the result of research. Sirakaya-Turk. Our findings reveal the importance of why managers should learn which CBCRBE dimensions are related to the consumer visit purpose.-C. It is important for staff of service companies to develop emotional links with consumers by understanding their personality and providing customized service to consumers. interior.. Brodie. Graeff. 77–92. As the “enjoy atmosphere” and “social meeting” groups are interested in self-congruence. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty.P.. J. J. Market. Bus. one of the most important considerations is to balance the standardization and customization of chain restaurant brands to enhance brand reputation. gender.M. D. On the one hand. Carbone. 2001. Parsa.finance. J. G. 2001. R. 1207–1213.. Parsa.g. Meffert. D. events. Varadarajan. 23–61.. trust.. 16–27. L. 210–226. S. Elliott. 2002. Hosp. Consum. the “enjoy atmosphere” group recognizes food & service quality. Corp.. 2013. Massey. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. How reputation creates loyalty in the restaurant sector.L. 2013. The reputational landscape.. the quality of foods. J.. Hutchinson. Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories: a multigroup invariance analysis. lighting.. 2006.L. J. Martinez.. Market. knowing a consumer visit purpose.. 2008. E. Service failure and recovery strategies in the restaurant sector: an Indo–US comparative study. H. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods: results of a cross-national survey. Preciado. Pol. E. as the evaluation of food & service quality is often subjective. through the use of a unique logo. N. M.. 711–718. Corp.. Rehman. R. Contemp. For example.. future research needs to consider employing probability sampling design in order to elevate its external validity.B.. Econ. H. layouts.. environment. managers need to develop marketing strategies to improve these factors to satisfy these groups. 573–596. 201–214. Brand awareness relates to familiarity with the brand (Netemeyer et al. Market. 3 (1). 2003. service providers should understand the consumer’s culture value.. Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes. Delgado-Ballester. J. J.. 1270–1291. Corporate reputation-value creating strategy. Corp. or charities. . 2002. Prod.. H. Also. 8–32.C. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach.B.R. Holbrook.. Retail. R. in order to meet the subjective desires of a diverse range of consumers.... A.M. 2008). J. Reput.. 11 (2). 65 (2).R. Scholars note that in modern society... Rev. 13 (3). Res.R. A. In this case. Res. D. 4–18. 25 (4). D.J.. brand competence and brand predictability. 1997. Delgado-Ballester. 64. The antecedents of online brand trust: Malaysian evidence. J. 24 (1). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: empirical evidence from consumers of professional sports. 2011. On the other hand. Thus.. J. 1997. 2007. critique. Dolphin. J.. van Riel. 42 (1/2). Bharadwaj. 85–89. Han et al. The consumer’s personal memory can also stimulate their emotion. 1996. it is essential to comprehend the purpose of visit and improve CBCRBE based on the purpose of visit in the service sector to enhance the reputation and trust of the service companies. for example. Manage. Market. P. Res...W. 2008). C. M. Sustainable competitive advantage in service industries: a conceptual model and research propositions.B. G. 26 (8).G. Y. E. 24 (2). Ekinci.C.D. Bus.. 108 (8). Int. 2001. 65 (3). Reput. S. H. Acad. Chang. J. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 stimulate consumers’ emotional attitudes based on their age. Y.. Davies. 1998. and social status in order to provide service. Brand Manage. and choice. Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self-image on brand evaluations. marketers need to conduct extensive and in-depth examinations of the target markets. R. 384–392. Retail. Miles. Funk.J.. 35–68. The effects of restaurant quality attributes on customer behavioral intentions. Also. Khan. 19 (5).. For managers of service brands. Eur. Iyer. For example. Market. 2 (1). and so on (Ekinci et al. Cronin Jr. which is congruous with their selfconcept. N. 2005.. 1988.P. Govern. An investigation of self-concept: actual and ideal self-congruence compared in the context of service evaluation. Ind. U. Anderson... Thus. Bus... Psychol. M. Angelis. 1052–1059. Food J. Venkatesh. In addition. so some hotels and restaurants encourage their customers to bring and decorate the place with their personal photographs. physical environment. 1996.L. 83–99. Gerrard. J. J. The nature of trust in brands: a psychosocial model. 646–662. F.. Edell. gender. Bus. and specialized menus. G. Manage. Flavian. brand affect and self-congruence as essential factors while the “social meeting” group only considers self-congruence as the important factor. J. Importantly. recycling campaigns. this study highlights that brand awareness and brand association contribute significantly to brand reputation.. S. References Aaker. UK restaurant industry.. Consum. Consum. Ekinci. cards. 57.G. 30 (1). Sci. Market. Berry. Wajahat. 2014. J..P. Fomburn.com/news/uk-restaurant-industry Bagozzi. Managing the total customer experience..thecaterer...

John.A. J. J. Dimensions of brand equity in the chain restaurant industry. Contemp. J.. 1–11. Netemeyer. 47–57. S.. V. M. C.. 311–336. Travel Res. Dean. 56.S. NJ. Yasin. Nenycz-Thiel.. In: Holbeook. J. S. Acad. Indian Bus. B. B.E. L. A. 142–155.J. 2001. W. 2006. Market... Prod. Market. Y. 18 (2).. Hoare.S. 429–437. R. Tatham. 204–215. W.. Meyer. Kwak. Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. 209–224. 2010. Ponnam. F. 2006. Bus. Milewicz. Song. Gunalan.R. D... M.. K. The role of perceived risk in wine purchase decisions in restaurants. Kim.-J. C. Upper Saddle River. 195–211. familiarity.. Consumers and brands: a study of the impact of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction.. Kim. Ser.. Mittal. J. Sirgy.. Service quality. Bus. branding. 159–177. 19 (8/9). B.. Anderson. R. Soocheong.N. Kim. measuring. Carter. Market. 36–44. 2011. Pearson Prentice Hall. King. J. C. 110 (10). Zeithaml. 67 (3). 549–560. Marketing Science Institute.. 2005. Kang. 14 (6). J. Namkung.. and competition. Consum.. consequences. 1997.. Ladhari. Manag. Horiz.. 20 (2). Sci. J. J. Market. Veloutsou. S. Mattila. 20 (2). A. Manage. Behavioral brand loyalty and consumer brand associations. Kayaman. R. 37 (February). Ali. Understanding customer experience. Rev. and consumer values a means-end chain approach across restaurant segments... Lee. Intell..F. Retail.J. The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success. Hosp. 29. K. 168–177. H.. Mitchell.. Ricks. Li. Bull. Berry.. 2010. R. Noone. V.. E. 141–159. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Kim.L. 2009. 2014. Intell.R. Contemp. The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants.. John Wiley & Sons. 26 (3). D. Brand Manage. Soriano. Torres-Moraga. 2008.. 295–302. Econ. J. Manage. Eur. Bus. 1995. Madanoglu. Quality 17 (1). S.. Jamal. Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research.. Am. Reputational incentives for restaurant hygiene.H... R.H. N. C.. Qual.. and behavioural intentions. Krishnan. Black.. 28 (2).T. Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really different? A quality perception perspective.). J. Brand concept maps: a methodology for identifying brand association networks. Manage. 2005. Gu. 13. Heung.. M. C. Pallant.. Ser. Antecedents of donor trust in an emerging charity sector: the role of reputation..C. M. Market.M. 38 (3). Development of a scale to measure team brand associations in professional sport. Tourism Res. Jang. 685–691. Afr. G. 12 (4). J. Market.M. Service marketing image. 525–537. J. 2012. Wright. Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. London..B.. S. Market.. Do Chinese cultural values affect customer satisfaction/loyalty? Int. 2011.. 2000. J.. emotional satisfaction. 187–203. 2013. 93 Nam. 31 (6). credibility and awareness vary across consumers with low and high involvement? J. (Ed.. Bus. M. Pitta. Int. C. Kim. J..... R..... Harvard Bus. self-congruity. 73–79. J. 127–147. E. 243–256. Cambridge. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 84–93 Grönroos. Goh.. S. 14 (2). 1991.. E. 23 (12). Y. Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability. S. Isberg. J. Kumar. Y. 39 (5)...M. Int. Oliver.. C. Res.. Manage. Moutinho. Sci. 718–723. 32 (1). Selnes.. 19 (7)..S.E. 2007. M.. Lee. Johnson. So. 46–71. 4–19. The nature and antecedents of brand equity and its dimensions...S. Hosp.. 12 (3). Soc. Int.. Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotel industry. 282–300. J. Wine Bus. J. British Food J. When experience matters: building and measuring hotel brand equity. J. Global Marketing Management.. 1–22. Manage. 2002. Y.. J. 2008. Z. Hosany. K. 26 (4). findings. J. D.G. Quart. 20 (4). Wang. An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputation. Hosp. B. Int. Schwager. Int.. Transylvanian Rev. G. 2005. Report.. M. Res.. D. V. Ross. . 502–512. Ser. 22 (1).. Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Walsh. 2003. 5–10.. 20 (2). A. 73 (3).R.L. 7 (4). Components and parameters of corporate reputation: an empirical study. brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Y.. and travel behaviour: toward an integrative model. 31 (4). Hosp. 2007. Self-congruity and product evaluation: a cross-cultural study. 662–680. Bus. A. P.. 2004.. Consequences of consumer trust in PDO food products: the role of familiarity. Dowling. Corporate social responsibilities. Ha.. S. Brand equity: is it more important in services? J. J.G. J. Res 62... London..L.. Res. 1009–1030. 340–352. 21 (2). L.B. V. 13–18..F. Distinguishing supplier reputation from trust in buyer–supplier relationships. 65–78.. Suh.S. 85–99. Maidenhead.J. D.. 2000. Purwar...K. Customer delight: foundations. 2008. Monga. Wirtz. Qual.. Applying service profit chain model to the Korean restaurant industry. 500–507. Rev. 1 (1). Using financial analysis to assess brand equity.. 31 (2). 18 (4). K. Kum.... 1985. 2009. Prod. Market. Int.. Hosp. Multivariate Data Analysis. opportunism and communication. Effects of authentic atmospherics in ethnic restaurants: investigating Chinese restaurants. Consum. 57.T. 2010. 456–480.A.. Hosp. Manage. J. The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty.-W. In: Global Marketing Management. Res.. 2004. T.. 3 (8).C. Varki. J. 2000. Min.. Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance.. Jackson. Yagci. Consumer Behviour. A. 2009. Market.B. Jang. Microecon. S.. Mathew. G. J.. J. Quester. 17 (6). Leslie. 2012. Sharma. Hyun. 65 (5). Pitta. 1077–1093.Z. E. Res 6 (3). Park. J. Yu. Quart. Beatty.J. Dean... Foodser. A conceptual study on brand valuation.. Lacey. Donthu. 2013. B. J. 549–563. R. J. Manage.. J.K. J. S. 38–48. Karunaratna. A service quality model and its marketing implications. Consum. 23 (5).D. 308–331. 58 (4).H.bighospitalty. P.F. J. Manage. 2014. Measuring. Bus. K. N. Influence of restaurant atmospherics on patron satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Bus. Martin. R. Market. Shaw.. 2009. Attributes. 52 (4). Contemp. Brand trust and affect in the luxury brand-customer relationship. Market. M.. Hartline.C. Min. 260–279. 25 (3). 15 (5).: An Int. F. K. N. 234–250. 1989. 2001. P. 40 (2).. Strategic Brand Management: Building. Measuring the consumer based brand equity. Cornell Hotel Restaurant Admin. S. Seetharaman. A. P.. Eur... Market.N. Decis. Barra. Babin. 247–268. Y. B. Manage. 2011. B. H. M. J. Vásquez-Parraga. 2012. 2012... 2001. James... 2009. 5th ed. 2010. Behav. W. Manage. Revealing the value of corporate reputation for increasing Smaiˇ ziene..M. Destination image. Manage. Hur.. ˇ ˙ I. S. MA. 1167–1177.L. Sport Manage. Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism. H. Ind. Herrera. A. Macdonald.. C. Oxford. Manage.. Hair. Keller. 34 (2). Vargas. Pearson/Prentice Hall.. P. M. 2013. K. Manage. Symbolic purchase in sport: the role of self-image congruence and perceived quality.. 2011. Ser... Parasuraman. M. J. Res. 19 (3).A. 1055–1067. Mohamad. J.G. Admin. Consumer goals and the service encounter: evaluating goal importance and the moderating effect of goal progress on satisfaction formation. 2009. R. Kim. Benchmark. J. Loken. Plann.. 16 (1). Bank Market. Su.. Validating restaurant service quality dimensions. Hosp. 589–608.uk/Venues Phan. 2007. 331–338. 2002. satisfaction and loyalty. 1–14. 12 (4)... Maltz. G. Market.. J. 36.M. J. Romaniuk. Tour. 2008.. Conceptualizing. Lassar. J. Brand equity. Yoo. 156–171.. Sharp. K. J. Market. Blanco. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows. Managing Brand Equity: A Conference Summary. Katsanis. 1995.. 51–64. O.co. L. Thomas. 24 (9). Bus..J.D. Jang.J. Kotabe. (2014). Rust. 237–267.. Consum. Zohra.. A. J. Ser. Int. Econ. Roberts. Prod. J. Arasli.. 2010. Retrieved from http://www. Mattila. Contemp. Thomson. Butcher. Pullig. Rijswijk. Krishnan.. J. 1993. Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants: the situation in Spain. Res. Brand Manage. Ser. 12 (4). Lee. Brand Manage. 2012. 2011. McGraw-Hill.. K. Managing brand association to drive customers’ trust and loyalty in Vietnamese banking. Plann. 2013. 41–50. A. Han et al. Benchmarking the service quality of fast-food restaurant franchises in the USA. and managing customer-based brand equity. Helsen. Dash. Goode. W.. Market. Donthu. Independent restaurants could suffer as eating out market grows.B. 1999. 52 (1).W. D. H. 482–492. W. D. 67–72. Kim. A longitudinal study. N.. 213–230. J. C..M. The effects of dining atmospherics on behavioral intentions through quality perception. J. R. S.S.. J. Herbig. Namkung. 92–109. J.B.D. B.Z.. Res.P. A. Int. 2011. Ha. Int.. Tourism Res. Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. Manage. 2014. S.. Grayson. W. J. M.S. Res. Bruwer. Contemp. Int.. Jin... 20 (2). J. 383–409. Ann.. C. H. 2013. 22 (5). The role of the emotion felt towards a brand in the development of the behavior of loyalty: an application in the sector of mobile phones in Tunisia.T...R. D. Management perceptions of the importance of brand awareness as an indication of advertising effectiveness. Houston. Noor. Onkvisit.F. Strategic Manage. S. A. 314–322. Hosp. 57 (1). 49 (4). 47 (1). Market. 328–342. Hosp. Manage. 282–296. 2008. Loyalty intentions: Does the effect of commitment. Prod. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity.. Nadzir. J. L. consumer trust and corporate reputation: South Korean consumers’perspectives. Manage. 1993. D. S. 2014.. A. G. 2001. 1984.. K. 99–117. 2000. competitiveness. Frewer... Examining the antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: a customer perspective. Market.. J. Oxford University Press.. J. J. Market. L. 1034–1046.. 2006. Brand Manage. Ghantous. Res. Routledge. and Managing Brand Equity. 42 (6). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. P. Reliab. Keller. 2006.. Wirth. M. Lee. R. Manage. Perkins C. Br. 2001.L. and managerial insight. Jang. 19–35. J. 117–126. B. P.. 1–13. Schwaiger.C. Ind. 66. 744–751. Int. Should a firm with a reputation for outstanding service quality offer a service guarantee. J. Holbrook. G.S. Self-image congruence in consumer behavior. 2001. T. Bus. 2007. 10 (4). M. J. Cornell Hosp. 43. Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity? J. 85 (2). Liu. Balaji. G. Personal.. 1995. 99–110. Yoo. 38 (4). Whyatt. Schmalenbach Bus. Ekinci.H. N. Matching visitation-motives and restaurant attributes in casual dining restaurants..