Antecedent factors that affect restaurant brand

trust and brand loyalty: focusing on US and

Korean consumers
June-Hyuk Kwon
Department of Business Administration, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Seung-Hye Jung
School of Dance, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Hyun-Ju Choi
Department of Cultural & Arts Management, Sangmyung University – Cheonan Campus, Cheonan, Republic of Korea, and
Joonho Kim
The Cultural Policy Laboratory, Sangmyung University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to empirically analyze the effects of marketing communications, such as advertisement/promotion and social network
service (SNS) content, on consumer engagement (CE), brand trust and brand loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – The study’s participants were 230 US and 376 Korean consumers who have used (i.e. contacted) a food service
establishment (i.e. family restaurant) at least once before and who continue to use an SNS (e.g. Facebook and Instagram). This study conducted a
hypothesis test using structural equation modeling analysis. In addition, hierarchical analysis was performed to further generalize and support the
statistical analysis results.
Findings – Advertisement/promotion and SNS content have a statistically significant positive effect on CE. Advertisement/promotion has a
statistically significant positive effect on brand trust, and SNS content has a statistically significant negative effect on brand trust. CE has a
statistically significant positive effect on brand trust, and CE and brand trust have a statistically significant positive effect on brand loyalty. No
statistically significant differences were shown between the US and Korean consumer groups (critical ratios for difference of path coefficient < 6
1.96). The hypothesis test results of the structural equation model analysis and hierarchical analysis were the same for the entire group.
Originality/value – The findings indicate that the overall mediating role of CE is important. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first
study to investigate which marketing communication channels are most effective in the restaurant sector.
Keywords Marketing communication, Brand trust, Brand loyalty, Consumer engagement, Cross-national, Restaurant, Americans,
Advertisement/promotion, Social network service content, South Koreans
Paper type Research paper

Introduction experience between a consumer and a certain object (e.g.

product, brand and store) (Brodie et al., 2011). Particularly, in
In a rapidly changing service marketing environment, a brand’s
the relationship between consumers and brands, the
relationship with consumers is very important. To achieve
consumer’s response is explained by the interactive dynamics of
brand performance, the relationship between the brand and
a certain brand. This idea has fueled the interest of CE-related
consumers must be stable and long term, and it should be
scholars and practitioners. Here, consumers are not passive
based on an in-depth understanding of the consumers. Because
consumer experience is an important variable in modern recipients of information (Schmitt, 2012); rather, participants
marketing, consumer engagement (CE) is of interest. CE are co-creators of experience and value (Brakus et al., 2009;
describes the interactions between consumers and brands. It is
based on the theory of service-dominant logic (Vargo and Authors’ contributions: All authors contributed to the content of this paper.
Lusch, 2004, 2008) and represents the motivation or All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
psychological state resulting from intensive interaction
Availability of data and material: There are no ethical issues.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Received 24 February 2020
30/7 (2021) 990–1015 Revised 9 June 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 5 August 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-02-2020-2763] Accepted 7 August 2020

990
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Engaged consumers
participate in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) activities
(Chu and Kim, 2011) and play a vital role in the development
of new products and services (Hoyer et al., 2010;
Kothandaraman and Wilson, 2001; Nambisan and Nambisan,
2008). They also improve the level of new product
development (Chang and Taylor, 2016). This engagement
enhances business performance (Kumar et al., 2010) and
customer loyalty (Bowden, 2009a), leading to sales growth
(Neff, 2007) and increased profitability (Bijmolt et al., 2010;
Voyles, 2007).
CE not only serves an important role in the field, it has also
garnered considerable attention in marketing research. CE,
which scholars have deemed a key research priority, has become a
special issue in international academic journals (e.g. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 2014; Journal of Service Research,
2010; and Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2010). CE is rooted in
relationship marketing (Fournier, 1998) and further strengthens
current theories of the consumer–brand relationship.
Accordingly, CE expands existing ideas in relationship marketing
and provides a richer concept (Vivek et al., 2012).
The role of CE is especially important in the hospitality
industry, particularly in the restaurant sector. This is because
restaurants have high levels of interaction with consumers, and
the relationship between the service provider and consumers
develops based on these interactions. Providers must also
understand the process by which customers engage with the
restaurant, referred to as the experience product (Bowden,
2009b; Hudson et al., 2015). This means that to drive CE,
marketers must focus on establishing relationships between the
consumers and brands from the consumers’ experiential
perspective. In the restaurant sector, intimate and long-term
relationships with consumers are built through CE, and
customers rely on information generated by CE activities when
making purchases (Sashi, 2012). Ultimately, CE, which entails
interactive experiences, is the driving force behind trust and
loyalty; thus, it is crucial in the restaurant sector (Brodie et al.,
2013). When consumers frequently collaborate with other
members of the community, more intimate social connections
are formed, which increases trust in interpersonal relationships
(Shah, 1998). When consumers that engage with a business are
satisfied, they may interact with other consumers, spreading
brand trust (Vivek et al., 2012). Additionally, CE reinforces the
classic hierarchy-of-effects for loyalty proposed by Oliver
(1999). Namely, Oliver argued that consumers first process
information to form beliefs, use these beliefs as the basis for
attitudes and finally, make behavioral decisions. Thus, actively
engaging consumers helps them to form favorable attitudes
toward products, companies and brands, which subsequently
lead to better behavioral responses and greater brand loyalty
(Oliver, 1999; Vivek et al., 2012). Thus, identifying what
factors influence CE has become an important issue.
In the restaurant sector, interest in CE is growing because of
the emergence and use of internet and social media, including
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and blogs. Social network services
(SNS) impact consumers more strongly than the traditional
promotion mix (Muntinga et al., 2011; Villanueva et al., 2008).
Numerous scholars and researchers argue that SNS content
replaces traditional advertisement/promotion in integrated
marketing communication programs. SNS channels can be
991
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
considered user-controlled media (Chen et al., 2013), a form of
marketing communication that differs from advertisement/
promotion, which is firm-controlled media (Bacile et al., 2014).
CE has grown in importance because of the swift development of
SNS platforms. Thus, scholars and practitioners must now
discuss content based on SNS platforms, and firms must
examine new and different marketing communication channels
(Grace and O’Cass, 2005). Firms must compare CE processes
with traditional marketing channels to understand their impact.
This is because, while the usage frequency of SNS platforms has
risen, researchers question whether its effects are the same across
industries; thus, empirical research is necessary for accurate
marketing.
Examining the influences of advertisement/promotion and
SNS content on the brand performance variables of brand trust
and brand loyalty through CE, as well as their structural
relationships, will provide specific strategic directions for
building strong brand equity in the restaurant sector.
Therefore, research on this topic is highly necessary. Brand
trust is an important concept in brand management (Delgado-
Ballester et al., 2003; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
Marketers must approach brand trust from the consumer’s
perspective and make multi-faceted efforts to build it.
Consumers build trust through experience, which also builds
brand attitude and brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2001; Lau and Lee, 1999). Thus, customer loyalty to a brand is
the key to brand equity. Brand loyalty has long been an
important concept in marketing; it indicates the degree of
consumer attachment to a brand. By understanding a
company’s brand loyalty, managers can predict the likelihood
that a consumer will remain with the brand, even if prices or
product characteristics change. In so doing, firms can protect
their customers from competitor attacks. As such,
understanding how brand trust and brand loyalty can be
fostered through marketing communication and CE can
present management directions for a brand.
Despite the fact that SNS content, eWOM and
advertisement/promotion can promote and form CE in the
market, studies have not examined how or why CE is affected
in the context of restaurant-related brands. That is, studies
have not specifically identified which marketing
communication channels – SNS content (user-controlled
media) or traditional advertisement/promotion (firm-
controlled media) – are most effective in the restaurant sector.
Given the above discussion, few studies investigate the
effects of advertisement/promotion and SNS content – which
are distinct concepts in marketing communication – on CE in
the food service industry. Furthermore, few studies evaluate the
effects of advertisement/promotion and SNS content on brand
trust. Specifically, in regards to these effects, no study has
empirically analyzed CE’s mediating effect and the effect of CE
on brand trust and brand loyalty in a comprehensive and multi-
faceted way (Balakrishnan et al., 2014; Bhandari and Rodgers,
2018; Kim et al., 2019a, 2019b; Tatar and Eren-Erdo
gmus ,
2016). Moreover, no previous study has compared US and
Korean consumers in this context.
This study seeks to identify the structural relationship
between different marketing communications concepts,
specifically advertisement/promotion (firm-controlled media)
and SNS content (user-controlled media), and CE, brand trust
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
and brand loyalty. Additionally, by examining the service
marketing environment, which is affected by numerous
variables, the relationship between consumers and brands can
be explored in detail. The structure and direction of this
research contributes to services marketing by establishing a
deeper understanding of the relationship between consumers
and brands in studies that link marketing communications and
brand performance variables to CE, providing a basis for future
research. Furthermore, exploring how different marketing
communications concepts serve as vital stimuli for CE will
provide meaningful implications. This is also the first empirical
study to target consumers in the USA and Korea, which are
symbolic of the eastern and western regions and where
advertisement/promotion activities and SNS platforms are the
most active in the world. Thus, this study can be theoretically
and practically generalized and contribute to global marketing
communication strategy research.
Furthermore, understanding SNS content, advertisement/
promotion and CE mechanisms improves knowledge of the
drivers of brand trust and brand loyalty, providing important
insight into the consumer–brand relationship and restaurant
marketing strategies. Therefore, firms must identify what role
CE plays in the relationship between consumers and brands as
well as its antecedents and consequences.
As such, this study investigates the influence of marketing
communications on CE for consumers in the US and Korea,
and it compares and verifies the effects of different marketing
communications on CE. This study also examines how CE
affects brand trust and brand loyalty, and to more accurately
describe the relationship between marketing communications
and brand performance variables, investigates the mediating
effects of CE. To achieve these research goals, we formulated
the following research questions:
RQ1. What impact do marketing communications
(advertisement/promotion and SNS content) have on
CE?
RQ2. Which marketing communication channel
(advertisement/promotion vs SNS content) has a
greater impact on CE?
RQ3. What impact does CE have on brand trust and brand
loyalty?
RQ4. What is the mediating effect of CE in the relationship
between marketing communication and brand trust/
brand loyalty?
RQ5. Is there a statistical difference between US and Korean
consumers?
Theoretical background
Stimulus–organism–response theory
The theory underlying the research model in this study is
stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) theory. Mehrabian and
Russell (1974) initially proposed the S-O-R theory, which Jacoby
(2002) later modified. This model suggests that environmental
aspects stimulate specific emotional and cognitive states, thereby
inducing specific behaviors (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982). The
992
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
S-O-R model has been extended to consumer behavior as well as
website and computer experiences (Eroglu et al., 2003; Mollen
and Wilson, 2010; Rose et al., 2012). This study applies the three
components of the S-O-R framework to consumer behavior.
Each component of S-O-R theory can apply to the variables of
this study as follows.
The first component, stimulus, indicates the factors
stimulating an individual (Eroglu et al., 2003). The stimulus
caused by SNS content (user-controlled media) can be viewed as
the motivation for CE, which affects the internal state of
customers in brand communities on social media. Therefore,
SNS content is a stimulus (Wang and Fesenmaier, 2003).
Furthermore, advertisement/promotion (firm-controlled media),
which has a different nature from SNS content, is another
stimulus (Bacile et al., 2014).
The second component, organism, incorporates CE. When
the two marketing communication channels (the stimuli) are
presented, they are processed through the four dimensions
(emotional, cognitive, behavioral and interactive) of CE
(Brodie et al., 2013; Dessart et al., 2015; Vivek, 2009), and a
response is produced.
The third component, response, incorporates brand trust
and brand loyalty in the restaurant sector, the result of CE.
Given the nature of social media communities, CE positively
impacts brand trust and loyalty (Habibi et al., 2014; Laroche
et al., 2013; Laroche et al., 2012). Similarly, an important
consequence of consumer behavior is building loyalty to the
brand in the context of a brand community (McAlexander
et al., 2002; Schau et al., 2009).
To summarize the above discussion, advertisement/
promotion and SNS content, which are distinct marketing
communication tools by nature, substitute for S (stimulus) in
the S-O-R theory and affect CE and brand performance. Four
types of CE substitute for O (organism) and play a mediating
role in the relationships between marketing communication,
brand trust and brand loyalty, which ultimately affect brand
performance. Furthermore, brand trust and brand loyalty
substitute for R (response). Hence, based on this theoretical
basis and previous studies, this study tests the effect of
advertisement/promotion and SNS content on CE, the effect of
CE on brand trust and brand loyalty and CE’s mediating effect.
Advertisement/promotion
Marketing mix factors have an important influence on building
brand equity, and marketing activities conducted under firm
control enable the firm to maximize its brand equity (Pappu
and Quester, 2008; Yoo et al., 2000). The concept of the
marketing mix, which describes the marketer as a “mixer of
ingredients” (Culliton, 1948), was introduced by Borden
(1964). The marketing mix enters the specific planning stage
when a marketing strategy is determined; it is a set of
controllable and tactical marketing tools that companies can
use to generate the expected response from their target
customers (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010).
Researchers have studied the importance of advertisement/
promotion in the marketing mix, focusing on how advertising
and promotion have affected the formation of brand equity in
the short and long term (Ataman et al., 2010). High advertising
costs, excellent promotion strategies and distribution systems
positively impact brand awareness, brand association and
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
brand loyalty, leading to strong brand equity (Yoo et al., 2000).
Advertising and promotion strategies are important in the
marketing mix and substantially influence the formation of
brand equity (Buil et al., 2013).
For service brands in particular, when more information than
expected is collected through advertisement/promotion,
satisfaction with the related service brand increases and a
favorable brand attitude is formed (Grace and O’Cass, 2005).
Furthermore, advertisement/promotion raises purchase
recognition, starting in the pre-purchase decision stage, and
leads to a favorable brand attitude (Brodie et al., 2009).
Advertisement/promotion raises consumers’ recognition of the
service brand and also affects their evaluation of service quality
(Krystallis and Chrysochou, 2014). Particularly, restaurants
are service brands that deliver experience products (Hudson
et al., 2015), in which maintaining relationships with
consumers is paramount (Berry, 2000).
Meanwhile, sales promotion accounts for a larger share of
firm marketing activities because of reduced product
differentiation and differences in technology levels. Sales
promotion is an important component of a marketing
campaign, enabling firms to quickly sell large quantities of
certain products or services to consumers or middlemen. Sales
promotion is generally designed for short-term use and consists
of various stimulation methods (Dubey, 2014). Sales
promotion is divided into monetary sales promotion and non-
monetary sales promotion (Chandon et al., 2000). Although
studies have demonstrated that monetary sales promotions,
such as price discounts, are more effective than non-monetary
sales promotions (Chandran and Morwitz, 2006; Mishra and
Mishra, 2011), research suggests that non-monetary sales
promotions are preferred (Sinha and Smith, 2000). In
particular, the more frequently price discounts/monetary sales
promotions are applied, the more apt consumers are to
remember the price of the products (Vanhuele and Drèze,
2002). In addition, sales promotions are an effective stimulus of
consumer impulse buying (Zhang et al., 2006).
Based on the above discussion, this study defines
advertisement/promotion as the size of the effect of company-
controlled media advertisement/promotion (e.g. television
[TV] ads, printouts and sales promotions) on consumers. In
addition, this study measures the effect of advertisement/
promotion on consumers’ response to the brand by considering
food services that the consumers often use (Grace and O’Cass,
2005; Krystallis and Chrysochou, 2014).
Social network service content
A SNS is a service that enables users to build online
relationships with others. SNS content is “user-controlled
media” and can be viewed as a different concept from
advertisement/promotion (Chen et al., 2013). Recently, the
field of content marketing has been vitalized based on SNS
platforms. While in the past, customers accessed content
introduced through traditional media, customers in the digital
age have rich experiences through trustworthy and attractive
SNS content. Therefore, researchers have argued that SNS
content impacts consumers more strongly than a traditional
promotion mix including advertising (Muntinga et al., 2011;
Villanueva et al., 2008).
993
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
Social media is defined as interactive media that supports the
creation and transmission of video, audio, pictures and so on; it is
used to create and share various forms of expression, such as
information, ideas, interests and opinions, through virtual
communities and networks (Obar and Wildman, 2015;
Safko and Brake, 2009). Furthermore, eWOM, which is
conducted through SNS, is defined as positive and negative
statements of potential, real or former customers about
companies or products used by numerous people and institutions
through the internet (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). SNS users
seek to share their ideas, interests and events (Newson et al.,
2008). Unlike traditional media, in which one-way
communication is predominant, SNS enables two-way
communication that transcends time and space (Hodeghatta and
Sahney, 2016), and SNS has a greater social impact than
traditional media because of its efficiency of disseminating
information (Jansen et al., 2009). As a platform where people
share diversity, SNS can be considered a cornerstone of the age of
advanced connectivity, as well as a differentiated networking
concept that creates new relationships (Boyd and Ellison, 2007).
Social media has high accessibility and allows everyone to
easily create and engage with content (Berthon et al., 2012;
Bertot et al., 2010). Social media is also characterized by high
speeds, openness of information delivery and easy network
construction (Deng and Luo, 2007). It has changed the way
people collaborate and communicate with others, and marketers
have acknowledged that social media exhibits remarkable
capabilities to engage with customers (Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2010). Social media is an ideal environment for establishing a
brand community and provides marketers with a direct means for
interaction (Scarpi, 2010). The interaction characteristics of
social media platforms developed in the Web 2.0 era differ from
the static websites of the Web 1.0 era. Consumers have changed
their relationships with brands, which can be traced to the
environment of the Web 2.0 era, and they are actively engaged in
creating brand stories (Gensler et al., 2013). Thus, consumer
expectations for brands have increased as the use of social media
rises (Labrecque, 2014). SNS has become an essential tool for
consumers to engage online, and its use for marketing has
increased (DiPietro et al., 2012).
As a source of information, SNS contents are exposed on
SNS platforms and are akin to the general concept of content.
Digital contents, a similar context, refers to expressions
composed of a combination of text, sound, video and images
(Korea IT Industry Promotion Agency, 2008). The
characteristics of digital content are divided into design,
composition and scenario characteristics (Isler and Karnad,
2008; Karger and Jones, 2006; Ni et al., 2007). SNS is a non-
face-to-face channel that has rapidly grown into an online
eWOM tool, becoming a source of important information for
consumers; moreover, it plays a leading role as a consumer and
producer of information and further enables CE (Kim and
Ratchford, 2012; Shankar and Hollinger, 2007). The unique
aspects and enormous popularity of social media have ushered
revolutions into marketing patterns such as advertising and
promotion (Hanna et al., 2011). Social media influences
consumer behavior, from information collection to post-
purchasing behaviors such as complaint statements or
behaviors and internet usage patterns (Mangold and Faulds,
2009; Ross et al., 2009).
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Accordingly, this study defines SNS content as the size of the
effect of user-controlled media SNS content (e.g. videos,
images and text) on consumers. In addition, this study measures
the effect of SNS content on consumers’ response to the brand
by considering food services that the consumers often use
(Grace and O’Cass, 2005; Krystallis and Chrysochou, 2014).
Consumer engagement
Researchers have previously studied the concept of engagement
in the field of organizational psychology, and recently in the
field of consumer behavior. Academically, consumer brand
engagement (CBE) is defined in various ways, including a
consumer’s motivational, brand-related, and context-
dependent state of mind. In particular, the consumer’s state of
mind is characterized by a certain level of cognitive, emotional
and behavioral activity through direct interactions with brands
(Hollebeek, 2011a). The concepts of CE and CBE have
garnered much attention in recent research because of the
broader development of the concept of engagement in
marketing research.
CBE is gaining popularity among practitioners and scholars
primarily because of its potential to influence consumer
behavior (Gambetti and Graffigna, 2010). The results of CE
have positive or negative values related to loyalty, satisfaction
(Bowden, 2009b; Patterson et al., 2006), emotional bonds,
trust and immersion (Brodie et al., 2011; Vivek et al., 2012).
Developing CBE is one of the top priorities in marketing, and
academic interest in CE is also accelerating (Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek, 2011a: Hollebeek, 2011b; Vivek et al., 2012).
Most studies on CBE adopt a multidimensional structure
focusing on a specific brand. Hollebeek et al. (2014) adopted a
holistic perspective of brands that includes consumer
perceptions of the brand’s pragmatic, hedonic and symbolic
aspects; their study involves a multidimensional structure that
includes the dimensions of cognitive processing, affection and
activation. Generally, most studies on CE/CBE also investigate
them through a multidimensional structure of cognitive,
affective, behavioral and interactive dimensions. This study
now examines the operational direction of these structural
dimensions of CE/CBE based on previous studies on CBE.
First, Dwivedi (2015) defined CBE as a positive, fulfilling,
brand use-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication and absorption. Vivek et al. (2014) described it as a
multidimensional structure of consumer attention, enthused
participation and social connection, while Brodie et al. (2013)
described the CE of virtual brands as “a context-dependent,
psychological state characterized by fluctuating intensity levels
that occur within dynamic, iterative engagement processes.”
They also described it through a multidimensional structure
comprised of cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions.
Keller (2013) defined it as the consumer’s willingness to invest
in the brand beyond the resources consumed while purchasing
or using the brand and adopted a multidimensional structure of
cognition, participation and interaction. Gambetti et al. (2012)
proposed a multidimensional concept of attention, dialogue,
interaction, emotion, sensorial pleasure and activation; that is,
it is the activation of a holistic brand experience for consumers.
Hollebeek (2011a) defined CBE as “the level of an individual
customer’s motivational, brand-related, and context-
dependent state of mind characterized by specific levels of
994
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity in direct brand
interactions,” and described it through a multidimensional
structure comprising cognitive, emotional and behavioral
dimensions. In another study, Hollebeek (2011b) investigated
the level of cognitive, emotional and behavioral investments of
customers in their interactions with specific brands, and
suggested a multidimensional structure of immersion, passion
and activation. Mollen and Wilson (2010) defined it as “the
cognitive and affective commitment to an active relationship
with the brand as personified by the website or other computer-
mediated entities designed to communicate brand value,” and
suggested a multidimensional structure comprising dimensions
of cognitive, instrumental and experiential value. Bowden
(2009a) regarded customer engagement as a “psychological
process” consisting of cognitive and emotional aspects.
Algesheimer et al. (2005) argued that engagement in brand
communities leads to positive effects of brand community
identification through the intrinsic motivations of consumers
who interact and collaborate with community members, and
proposed a utilitarian, hedonic and social multidimensional
structure. Thus far, we have only mentioned studies that
investigate CE/CBC through a multidimensional structure;
however, Sprott et al. (2009) presented brand engagement in
self-concept (BESC) in a one-dimensional structure. In BESC,
consumers tend to include important brands as part of the way
they see themselves.
Taking the above discussion into account, this study defines
CE as consumers’ emotional, cognitive, behavioral and
interactive engagement with the brand. In addition, this study
measures the level of CE with the brand based on four types of
CE by considering food services that the consumers often use
(Brodie et al., 2013; Dessart et al., 2015; Dwivedi, 2015; Vivek,
2009).
Brand trust
A brand represents all intangible trust-generating activity, and
in the absence of human interaction, it can be a symbol of
quality and assurance that helps build trust (Bart et al., 2005).
Brand trust is expressed in the consumer’s belief that a brand
will perform a specific function (Singh et al., 2012), and
develops from past experiences and previous interactions
(Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). Brand trust is an important
factor in the interactions of consumer and business
relationships, and represents the extent that consumers believe
the functions specified by the brand can be properly carried out
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Furthermore, Moorman
et al. (1992) defined brand trust as “the willingness of the
average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform
its stated function.” Other definitions of trust also emphasize
the concept of reliance (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). While trust
is defined as the consumer’s confident belief that he or she can
rely on the seller to provide the promised service, relational
value is defined as the consumer’s perceptions of the benefits
enjoyed vs the cost incurred in maintaining an on-going
exchange relationship (Agustin and Singh, 2005).
The importance of establishing trust has already been
demonstrated in maintaining buyer and seller relationships
(Agustin and Singh, 2005; Amine, 1998; Bart et al., 2005;
Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Trustworthy brands continue to
deliver value to consumers through the manner in which the
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
products are developed, produced, sold, serviced and advertised,
and remain consistent even when faced with brand crises
(Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003; Doney and Cannon, 1997;
Ganesan, 1994). Consumers build brand trust based on
expectations of the organization’s behavior and positive beliefs
about the brand’s product performance (Ashley and Leonard,
2009). Brand trust also plays an important role in promoting
purchases over the internet (Corbitt et al., 2003) and positively
affects satisfaction and customer experiences (Papadopoulou
et al., 2001; Urban et al., 2000).
The process by which an individual builds a trust image of a
brand is based on his/her experiences with the brand. Thus,
consumers are affected by brands through their experience
attributes, direct contact (evaluation, use, consumer
satisfaction, etc.) and indirect contact (advertising, word of
mouth and brand reputation) (Keller, 1993; Krishnan, 1996).
Having contact with a brand, through a variety of consumer
experiences, is the source of brand trust, resulting in the brand
becoming more relevant and important to consumers. This
leads to the brand having higher “self-relevance” in the eyes of
the consumer; that is, consumers have more positive
associations with the brand (Dwyer et al., 1987; Krishnan,
1996). Brand consistency is achieved as the business’s promises
are fulfilled, leading to greater overall satisfaction for
consumers, and the brand creates trust by preserving the
consumer’s individual welfare and interests (Ganesan, 1994;
Selnes, 1998). Brand trust is the recognition that brand value
can be created, developed and managed beyond the
consumer’s satisfaction with the functional performance and
characteristics of the product (Aaker, 1996; Lassar et al., 1995).
Research on trust provides an appropriate schema for
conceptualizing and measuring qualitative brand value
(Blackston, 1995). Trust conceptualizes brand value between
consumers and brands and is one of the most important factors
in this relationship (Ambler, 1997). The characteristics of trust
include ability, benevolence and integrity (Suh and Han,
2003), and trust is one of the determinants of brand loyalty
because it forms a substantial bond between the brand and the
customer (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
In accordance with the above discussion, this study defines
brand trust as the level of overall trust in the brand. In addition,
this study measures consumers’ brand trust by considering
food services that the consumers often use (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
Brand loyalty
Brand loyalty is one of the most cited concepts in the field of
marketing, with both academics and practitioners recognizing
the range of benefits that accrue from it (Iglesias et al., 2011). In
the marketing literature, researchers often use the term loyalty
interchangeably with its other operational definitions,
including repeat purchasing, preference, commitment and
trustworthiness. Studies have addressed loyalty in various
market-specific contexts, reflecting service loyalty, store loyalty
and supplier loyalty, as well as customer and brand loyalty, as
units of measure (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Competitive
advantages deliver consistent brand value to consumers,
thereby increasing brand loyalty (Reichheld et al., 2000). Brand
loyalty is thus conceptualized as the level of intention to
repurchase the same strongly preferred brand in the future
995
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
despite situational influences and marketing efforts of
competitor brands (Oliver, 1999). Brand loyalty is also based
on consumer beliefs and sentiments and is described as
repeated purchases, or use, of a specific brand (Evanschitzky
and Wunderlich, 2006) and the manner in which consumers
express satisfaction with the performance of the product or
service (Bloemer and Kasper, 1995). Brand loyalty facilitates
efforts to retain customers (Reichheld and Schefter, 2000) and
helps prevent competitors from poaching loyal customers (Dick
and Basu, 1994). Ultimately, brand loyalty is a powerful tool to
help compete in a competitive environment (Amine, 1998).
Because of a brand’s high perceived value, customers are
willing to pay a premium (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001);
another positive outcome is favorable word of mouth (Dick and
Basu, 1994).
The shift to the relationship marketing paradigm has made
brand loyalty a key indicator of customer relationships (Oliver,
1999). Consequently, the issue of the antecedents of brand
loyalty is becoming a primary focus of research (Jang et al.,
2008; Kressmann et al., 2006). While previous studies on
loyalty focused on components such as perceived value, brand
trust and customer satisfaction, recent studies on brand loyalty
have gradually adopted an integrated approach (He et al.,
2012). The relationship between consumers and brands is
important in building brand loyalty (Fournier, 1998). In
particular, brand experience leads to brand loyalty, active
brand recommendations and improved brand profitability
(Morrison and Crane, 2007). Brand experiences form
emotional connections through engaging, persuasive and
consistent contexts, thereby increasing loyalty (Morrison and
Crane, 2007). Researchers have conceptualized brand
experience as a series of sensory, emotional, cognitive
and behavioral responses evoked when consumers directly or
indirectly interact with the brand (Brakus et al., 2009).
Therefore, marketers should propose brands in which both
functional and emotional elements of the product can be
controlled to provide a unique and differentiated experience
(Berry et al., 2002; Haeckel et al., 2003; Morrison and Crane,
2007). Brands that are consistent at all touch points between
the brand and customer can build brand loyalty and spread
(Meyer and Schwager, 2007; Pullman and Gross, 2004).
Generally, brands that provide excellent brand experiences are
differentiated from other brands and are more favored, thereby
building brand loyalty and promoting the spread of the brand
(Brakus et al., 2009).
On the basis of the above discussion, this study defines brand
loyalty as the level of overall loyalty toward the brand. In
addition, this study measures consumers’ brand loyalty by
considering food services that the consumers often use
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
Cross-national comparison (USA vs South Korea)
This study contributes to the literature investigating the various
factors that impact brand performance by examining the
influence of various marketing communications on brand
performance variables through CE. However, similar empirical
studies verifying this structural relationship have not analyzed
differences between countries. To fill this gap, this study also
examines previous research on the marketing communication
characteristics of the USA and Korea.
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
First, the current state of marketing communication in the
USA and Korea is as follows. The USA and South Korea have
the best rates of internet access and use worldwide
(Pearce, 2002); these are also the countries that most actively
use social media (NIA, 2011; Ostrow, 2009). Furthermore,
marketing communication is exceptionally active; among the
top ten contributors to global advertising growth in 2018–2021,
the USA is ranked first, and South Korea is ranked eighth.
Traditional media, including newspapers, magazines, radio and
TV, which ranks first in advertising media worldwide, will
decline by 2021 compared to 2018; however, media related to
the internet and social media are expected to show further
growth. It is important to note, however, that these two
categories of media do not compete with each other but are in
fact complementary (Zenith Media, 2019). Meanwhile, South
Korea is ranked 17th out of 53 countries for avoidance of
uncertainty, while the USA is ranked 43rd out of 53. The USA
is characterized by being highly individualistic, while South
Korea shows a strong preference for collectivism (Hofstede,
1991). The USA and South Korea also differ in
communication styles. While US culture tends to use more
logical and direct methods of communication, South Korea, a
collectivist culture, tends to communicate in a way that seeks
harmony rather than competition and prefers implicit
communication based on context (Mooji, 1998). As such, this
study is expected to provide deep insights by comparing
Americans and Koreans, who possess unique cultural traditions
and are exposed to highly active marketing communication
environments.
In a study of 206 Americans and 230 Koreans, Lee and Kang
(2018) investigated the influence of sharing brand experience
information. They also explored the suitability of brand image
on brand SNS usage intensity and brand performance (brand
word of mouth), based on the different cultures of the USA and
South Korea. According to their findings, the impact of sharing
brand experience information was greater for US consumers
than for Korean consumers. Conversely, the impact of the
brand image’s suitability was greater for Korean consumers
than for US consumers. Finally, they found that the impact of
brand SNS usage intensity on brand word of mouth was greater
for US consumers than for Korean ones. All variable
relationships showed statistically significant differences
between the two countries.
Research method
Research model
Based on the theoretical concepts and empirical results of the key
variables examined above, this study empirically analyzes the
effects of advertisement/promotion and SNS content on CE,
brand trust and brand loyalty. In this regard, advertisement/
promotion and SNS content are marketing communication tools
to attract consumers to the restaurant service. This study also
analyzes the magnitude of impact and indirect effects of the
independent variables (advertisement/promotion and SNS
content) on the parameters (CE and brand trust), and a cross-
national comparative analysis is also performed. The research
model of this study is shown in Figure 1.
996
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
Figure 1 Research model
Research hypotheses
Marketing communication and consumer engagement.
Engagement is the source of experiences (Higgins, 2006). That
is, it is the motivation to incite events (Kim et al., 2016). The
marketing communication adopted in this study is used as the
stimulus of CE. The degree of CE produced differs according
to the communication message, and the response of active CE
provides opportunities to psychologically own brand
communication (Folse et al., 2012).
Advertising (firm-controlled media) plays a pivotal role in
determining consumer expectations. It should be used to convey
a realistic service experience that includes an emotional
dimension, providing positive feelings about using the brand, and
a rational dimension, which makes consumers think more about
the brand. These dimensions of CE greatly influence customer
satisfaction, brand attitudes and reuse intention. Advertising
should be used to convey a realistic service experience. The
objective is to convey information to consumers; the better
the consumer’s feelings and attitudes toward the communication,
the more likely the communication effectively conveys the
meaning of the brand (Grace and O’Cass, 2005). Conversely,
user-controlled media, such as offline or online word of mouth
and media promotion, are perceived as more reliable than firm-
controlled media, so it has a stronger impact on brand attitudes
(Swanson and Kelley, 2001).
Consumers are viewed as active actors that input relevant
cognitive, emotional and physical resources to create value
from interactions with a certain brand (Higgins and Scholer,
2009). When consumers collect information through
advertisement/promotion, their satisfaction with the related
service brand and their motivation to engage with the brand can
be positively affected. Furthermore, advertisement/promotion
drives CE while instilling a favorable brand attitude and
increasing purchase recognition (Brodie et al., 2009; Grace and
O’Cass, 2005).
The main advantage of SNS is that it provides greater user
interaction capabilities than traditional media such as TV and
radio. Brand-related content is also delivered faster – and with
better response rates – from users via SNS than traditional media,
and it is offered at lower costs. As such, marketers should raise
brand awareness and induce engagement to increase conversions
to their brands (Phua et al., 2017). Information utilization of SNS
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
positively affects activities for CE (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012).
Furthermore, social media influences consumer behavior, from
information collection to post-purchasing behaviors (Mangold
and Faulds, 2009; Ross et al., 2009).
Lee et al. (2018) used Facebook data to explain the effect of
social media advertising on customer engagement. The
researchers investigated a method to content-code Facebook
messages and correlate user engagement with the marketing
content of various types of social media. The results
demonstrated that the inclusion of content related to brand
personality, such as humor, is related to the level of CE, and
that content providing direct information through sales
promotions also leads to click-through, a form of CE (Lee et al.,
2018). User motivation for online social networking influences
the response to social media marketing (Chi, 2011). In a similar
vein, if social media content becomes a marketing
communication stimulus and motivation, then the response to
social media marketing, which can be viewed as CE, is affected.
Particularly in brand communities, consumer communication
engagement is well established (Van Doorn et al., 2010). While
it is difficult to efficiently manage one-on-one relationships
with customers, brand communities perform important tasks
on behalf of the brand. These tasks include sharing information
about the history and culture of the brand and providing
support to consumers, thereby inducing CE (Muniz and
O’Guinn, 2001). Brand success is realized when the brand
community can express consumers’ characteristics through the
brand itself. As such, numerous businesses have developed
online brand communities that can be accessed through their
website or portal sites, and researchers have found that
advertisement/promotion through brand communities has a
significant influence (Oh and Kim, 2004).
Based on a comprehensive review of the literature related to
the emotional, cognitive, behavioral and interactive dimensions
of CE, as well as previous studies reporting that marketing
communication (advertisement/promotion and SNS content)
positively affects CE, this study formulated the following
research hypotheses:
H1. Advertisement/promotion will have a positive effect on CE.
H2. SNS content will have a positive effect on CE.
Marketing communication and brand trust
Orzan et al. (2016), Laroche et al. (2012) and Zehir et al.
(2011) have demonstrated that marketing communication
directly affects brand trust. Social media marketing
communication impacts consumer trust and loyalty to the
brand; as such, social media marketing has become popular
among marketers and integrated into firms’ marketing
strategies. Firms can also form close relationships with
customers in virtual environments, thereby enhancing CE
(Orzan et al., 2016). Zehir et al. (2011) found that brands are
the interface between consumers and businesses and that they
can improve consumer trust and loyalty. Moreover, the
researchers identified the significant effects of brand
communication when building brand loyalty through brand
trust. While emphasizing an understanding of the connection
between brand trust and loyalty, Zehir et al. (2011) argued that
building customer–brand relationships and excellent brand
997
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
performance stems from brand communication. Thus, brand
communication has been shown to positively influence
brand trust. Furthermore, Habibi et al. (2014) demonstrated
that social media-based brand communities and consumer
relationships influence brand trust. They argued that
community engagement strengthens consumers’ relationships
with brand community elements and influences brand trust.
To examine how CE affects brand trust and brand loyalty,
and to more accurately describe the relationship between
marketing communications and brand performance variables
by investigating the mediating effects of CE, this study
formulated the following research hypotheses:
H3. Advertisement/promotion will have a positive effect on
brand trust.
H4. SNS content will have a positive effect on brand trust.
Consumer engagement and brand trust
Numerous researchers have conducted studies considering the
results of CE; these results include trust (Casal o et al., 2007;
Hollebeek, 2011a), loyalty (Bowden, 2009a, 2009b),
satisfaction (Bowden, 2009a) and immersion, emotional
connections and attachment (Chan and Li, 2010). In
particular, CE accompanied by interactive experiences is an
important driver of trust (Brodie et al., 2013).
According to the data from Web surveys of virtual community
members, engagement in virtual community activities can increase
consumer trust to the mutual interest of the community.
Furthermore, the researchers demonstrated that this established
consumer trust has a substantial positive effect on loyalty (Casal
o
et al., 2007). Consumers who actively engage in virtual brand
communities become more familiar with the brand’s products.
Therefore, consumers can address issues related to the use of these
products (Flavian and Guinalíu, 2005; Muniz and O’Guinn,
2001). Consequently, consumers feel less uncertainty about the
use of the brand’s products, thereby increasing their trust in the
brand (Casalo et al., 2007).
Though studies investigating the relationship between CBE
and relationship quality are not widely available, Saks (2006)
confirmed the positive relationship between employee
engagement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
The nature of this relationship can be extended to that between
CBE and consumer satisfaction and commitment (Hollebeek,
2011a). CBE has a positive relationship with trust, and existing
consumers with a pre-determined level of trust, satisfaction and
commitment to a brand are prerequisites for brand engagement
(Hollebeek, 2011a). Brodie et al. (2011) found that the CE
process generates trust, consumer loyalty, satisfaction,
empowerment, connectivity and commitment, and trust and
commitment are expressed by CE. They also found that highly
engaged members reported trust in experts. According to this
comprehensive review of the literature, this study formulated
the following hypothesis:
H5. CE will have a positive effect on brand trust.
Consumer engagement and brand loyalty
Studies have found that CE/CBE enhances relationship
performance, such as retention of members, positive word of
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
mouth and loyalty through the co-creation of consumer value
(Verhoef et al., 2010). Numerous studies reported that CE
affects performance variables, including loyalty (Bowden,
2009a, 2009b; Brodie et al., 2013), and many studies have
found that loyalty is influenced by online brand communities
(Andersen, 2005; Casal o et al., 2007; Schouten et al., 2007).
Gummerus et al. (2012) divided CE into community
engagement behaviors (CEB) and transactional engagement
behaviors. Researchers have demonstrated that CEB affects
loyalty by moderating variables related to benefits. CEB focuses
on the behavioral aspects of relationships in customer and firm
relationships (Bolton et al., 2004; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001;
Verhoef, 2003). The integrated relationship between the
customer and brand, along with all the benefits inherent to
marketers, build strong brand loyalty. In particular,
transcendent customer experiences greatly contribute to
relationships between consumers and a brand or brand
community and strengthen overall brand loyalty (Schouten
et al., 2007). Social media-based brand communities
strengthen brand trust through value creation activities, thereby
building brand loyalty (Laroche et al., 2012). Furthermore,
engagement in social media is widely known as communication
or interaction between users on social media platforms
(Ibrahim et al., 2017), and represents psychological states and
processes that can be linked to customer loyalty (Brodie et al.,
2013). When consumers are satisfied, they may interact with
other consumers who then gain brand trust (Vivek et al., 2012).
Ultimately, satisfied, engaged consumers exhibit more
behavioral responses and loyalty to a brand or organization
(Oliver, 1999). Based on this literature review, this study
formulated the following hypothesis:
H6. CE will have a positive effect on brand loyalty.
Brand trust and brand loyalty
Brand trust is an important determinant of brand loyalty.
Particularly, the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty forms valuable relationships between firms and
consumers. Brand trust influences purchase and attitude
loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001), and trust is essential
to building strong relationships between consumers and brands
(Fournier, 1998; Urban et al., 2000). Brand trust positively
affects brand loyalty (Lau and Lee, 1999) and reflects the
cumulative effect on loyalty in service markets with high levels
of engagement (Chiou and Droge, 2006). For one-to-one
marketing relationships, brand trust is a major determinant of
brand loyalty and brand awareness. This is because trust drives
brand loyalty and commitment, thereby creating a high value
exchange relationship (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Because
loyalty is a relationship created by trust, it should be associated
with trust intention. In trust, the consumer must show
commitment to a valuable relational exchange, which leads to
purchase determination. Ultimately, brand trust contributes to
loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
Trust is essential for building strong brand relationships with
consumers (Urban et al., 2000). It reflects the cumulative effect
of loyalty in service product markets, leading to high
engagement over time (Chiou and Droge, 2006), and is
positively associated with brand loyalty (Sahin et al., 2011). In
addition, social media-based brand communities enhance
998
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
brand trust and brand loyalty (Laroche et al., 2012). Based on
this comprehensive review of the literature, this study
formulated the following hypothesis:
H7. Brand trust will have a positive effect on brand loyalty.
Survey respondents
The respondents to this study’s questionnaire are US and Korean
consumers who have used (i.e. contacted) a food service (i.e.
family restaurant) at least once before and continue to use an SNS
(e.g. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram). The questionnaire was
initially written in Korean. To survey US consumers using an
English questionnaire, we used the following procedure for
translation. First, a native English speaker (i.e. a Korean-American
who could speak both Korean and English) who was born in the
USA and earned a master’s degree in business administration
translated the questionnaire. Then, a native English speaker (i.e.
an American) who was born in the USA and earned a master’s
degree in business administration edited the English version of the
questionnaire. The questionnaire survey was conducted online via
two global market research firms: Embrain (www.embrain.com/
eng/) and Entrust Survey (http://entrustsurvey.com). Embrain
collected the questionnaire results from Korean consumers, and
Entrust Survey collected the results from US consumers. The
collected surveys were accessed online over 7 days, and after
removing non-applicable respondents, unfinished surveys and
unfaithful responses, a sample of 606 consumers (230 Americans
and 376 Koreans) was collected. Table 1 shows the demographic
characteristics of the survey sample.
In particular, this study used two types of post-test methods
to detect careless responses among the collected questionnaire
results: the unobtrusive method and the statistical method. For
the unobtrusive method, we used the response time (DeSimone
and Harms, 2018) and the long string/straight lining (Huang
et al., 2012; Meade and Craig, 2012) to detect careless
responses. Then, for the statistical method, we used the
consistency of individuals’ responses for detection. To examine
the consistency in an individual’s responses, we used odd–even
reliability, a method of assessing the correlation between two
groups by dividing the scale into odd-numbered and even-
numbered items (Curran, 2016).
Measurement of variables
All research units were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
“Not at all,” 5 = “Very much so”), and the survey metrics for all
variables consisted of 23 items (Table 2). Advertisement/
promotion and SNS content were measured through seven
items, which were based on Krystallis and Chrysochou (2014)
and Grace and O’Cass (2005) and were modified to fit the
purposes of this study. CE was measured through 11 items,
which were based on the items used in Dwivedi (2015), Dessart
et al. (2015), Brodie et al. (2013) and Vivek (2009) and were
modified to fit the purposes of this study. Brand trust was
measured through three items, which were based on Chaudhuri
and Holbrook (2001) and Morgan and Hunt (1994) and were
modified to fit the purposes of this study. Finally, brand loyalty
was measured through two items, which were based on
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) and were modified to fit the
purposes of this study.
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust Journal of Product & Brand Management
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015

Table 1 Demographic characteristics (N = 606) loading (standardized coefficient of at least 0.5) and average
variance extracted (AVE) values were at least 0.5, and the
Item N (persons) Share (%)
composite construct reliability (CCR) values were at least 0.7,
Gender indicating that convergent validity was secured (Bagozzi and
Male 298 49.2 Yi, 1988; Bandura, 1986; Hair et al., 2006). Statistical
Female 308 50.8 significance was also secured (CR > 1.965, p < 0.05). In the
reliability analysis, the Cronbach’s a for all factors exceeded
Marital status
0.8, indicating that the reliability of the measurement variables
Married 311 51.3
was secured (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
Single 295 48.7
Discriminant validity, which indicates the degree of
Age difference between latent variables, was also secured. This
20s 123 20.3 study compared the AVE value of each construct and the
30s 183 30.2 square of the correlation coefficient among the constructs
40s 182 30.0 (Tables 2 and 3). The AVE value obtained for each construct
50s 109 18.0 exceeded the square of the correlation coefficient with the
60s 9 1.5 highest correlation among the variables (0.504); as such,
discriminant validity was secured (Anderson and Gerbing,
Occupation
Agriculture/forestry/fishing 2 0.3
1988). In addition, after selecting two paired constructs, this
Civil servant 67 11.1
study analyzed the difference in x 2 value between the
Teacher/academic instructor 9 1.5
unconstrained model, which shows the correlation without
Professional 27 4.5
constraints between the two constructs, and the constrained
Office worker 216 35.6 model, which fixes the covariance between the two constructs
Self-employed 19 3.1 to 1. For the unconstrained model, x 2 = 287.323 (df = 94); for
Freelancer 12 2.0 the constrained model, x 2 = 385.721 (df = 95), and when df =
Housewife/housework 64 10.6 1, D x 2 = 98.398. Therefore, the difference in x 2 between the
Student 104 17.2 two models is significant (D x 2 = 3.84 or more/df = 1),
Unemployed/preparing for employment 7 1.2 indicating that there is discriminant validity. The goodness-of-
Part-time jobs and other 79 13.0 fit index for the measurement model of confirmatory factor
analysis indicated that it was suitable for analyzing the
Income level structural model.
Under $1,000 45 7.4
$1,000–$2,000 178 29.4 Correlation analysis
$2,001–$3,000 101 16.7 Table 3 shows the correlation coefficient, mean and standard
$3,001–$4,000 107 17.7 deviation values of the research units. This identifies the degree
$4,001–$5,000 99 16.3 of correlation and directions of the relationships for each
$5,000 over 76 12.5 research unit, for which unidimensionality was verified. The
Nationality directions of the relationships between the research units
USA 230 38.0 presented in the research model and the hypotheses are
South Korea 376 62.0 consistent with the correlation table, thus confirming
nomological validity. All correlation coefficients were
significant at p < 0.01. In addition, this study examined
Data analysis whether the confidence interval ( w 6 2
SE) of the correlation
This study conducted a statistical analysis using the programs coefficient, showing the correlation between the research units,
IBM SPSS Version 22.0 and AMOS Version 22.0; the data includes 1 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). As shown in
analysis procedure was as follows. First, this study conducted a Table 3, the correlation coefficient was 0.71 and the standard
frequency analysis to examine demographic characteristics, a error between the two latent variables was 0.044. Substituting
reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha to verify the this value into w 6 2
S.E., 0.71 6 2
0.044 = 0.798 to
reliability of the metrics and an exploratory factor analysis and 0.622; thus, discriminant validity is secured because it does not
confirmatory factor analysis to verify the validity. This include 1.
procedure also included a correlation analysis to examine the
closeness (i.e. correlation) of the variables. Finally, this study Testing of research hypotheses
conducted structural equation modeling to verify the causal This study conducted a hypothesis test using structural
relationship between the variables, the core of this study. equation modeling analysis. In addition, hierarchical
analysis was performed to further generalize and support the
statistical analysis results. Moreover, we controlled for the
Results
possible confounding effect of demographic characteristics
Reliability and validity tests (gender, age and income level) by creating dummy variables
To verify the convergent and discriminant validity of the for them (Choi et al., 2020; Choi et al., 2019a; Choi et al.,
metrics, this study conducted a measurement model analysis of 2019b; Choi et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2020a;
the research units. In terms of convergent validity, the factor Kim et al., 2019b; Kim et al., 2020b; Meng et al., 2018; Seok

999
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust Journal of Product & Brand Management
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015

Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis results

Research unit and item
(Please respond to the questionnaire by considering the food service [family restaurant] brand Standardized
that you often use) coefficient CCRa AVEb Cronbach’s a
Advertisement/promotion 0.919 0.739 0.892
1. The advertising and promotion of my favorite restaurant brand evokes a favorable 0.835
impression
2. The advertising and promotion of my favorite restaurant brand evokes positive emotions 0.863
3. The advertising and promotion of my favorite restaurant brand evokes pleasant thoughts 0.823
4. The advertising and promotion of my favorite restaurant are informative 0.764
SNS contents (limited to user-generated content such as comments/reviews) 0.894 0.739 0.881
1. Social media content (including texts, videos and images) is an important source of 0.859
information for choosing my favorite restaurant brand
2. Social media content (including texts, videos and images) helps me choose my favorite 0.855
restaurant brand
3. Social media content (including texts, videos and images) tells me things I was not aware of 0.818
about my favorite restaurant brand
CE 0.875 0.636 0.899
(Emotional dimension) 0.752
1. Frequenting my favorite restaurant gives me a positive feeling
2. Frequenting my favorite restaurant makes me happy
3. Frequenting my favorite restaurant makes me feel good
(Cognitive dimension) 0.741
1. I feel thrilled when I interact with my favorite restaurant brand
2. I feel generally absorbed when I frequent my favorite restaurant
3. I forget about everything else when I frequent my favorite restaurant
(Behavioral dimension) 0.708
1. I prefer my favorite restaurant among other dining products or services
2. My preference with respect to restaurants does not change
(Interactive dimension) 0.672
1. Visitors to my favorite restaurant actively share their opinions
2. Visitors to my favorite restaurant react to postings and express their opinions actively
3. Visitors to my favorite restaurant actively use bulletin boards, question and answer pages
and live chats
Brand trust 0.884 0.718 0.861
1. I always trust my favorite restaurant 0.830
2. My favorite restaurant never disappoints me 0.819
3. My favorite restaurant brand gives me peace of mind 0.813
Brand loyalty 0.867 0.766 0.837
1. I will continue to visit my favorite restaurant 0.845
2. I will recommend my favorite restaurant to others 0.852
Notes: aCCR; and bAVE. x 2 = 287.323 (df = 94, p-value = 0.000), x 2/df = 3.057, GFI = 0.944, NFI = 0.953, CFI = 0.967 and RMSEA = 0.058

Table 3 Correlation matrix, mean standard deviation

et al., 2018). The results of the hierarchical analysis are
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 included in the Appendix.
This study tested the research hypotheses using SPSS 22.0/
1. Advertisement/promotion 1
2. SNS contents 0.399 1
AMOS 22.0. According to the results shown in Table 4, the
3. CE 0.638 0.456 1 model fit x 2 = 289.838, df = 96, x 2/df = 3.019, p-value =
4. Brand trust 0.595 0.307 0.675 1 0.000, goodness-of-fit index = 0.944, normed fit index =
5. Brand loyalty 0.543 0.271 0.613 0.710 1 0.952, comparative fit index = 0.967 and root mean square
Mean 3.43 3.43 3.34 3.45 3.64 error of approximation = 0.058; as such, the analysis results
Standard deviation 0.75 0.84 0.62 0.80 0.82 were appropriate. In terms of explanatory power (R2), CE was
0.614 (61.4%), brand trust was 0.680 (68.0%) and brand
Note: All correlations were significant at p < 0.01
loyalty was 0.722 (72.2%) (Figure 2).

1000
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust Journal of Product & Brand Management
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015

Table 4 Results of research hypothesis testing

Path Standardized coefficients t p Result
H1 AD·Promotion ! CE 0.644 13.257 0.000 Supported
H2 SNS content ! CE 0.243 5.780 0.000 Supported
H3 AD·Promotion ! Brand trust 0.165 2.663 0.008 Supported
H4 SNS content ! Brand trust 0.132 3.059 0.002 Not supported
H5 CE ! Brand trust 0.756 9.694 0.000 Supported
H6 CE ! Brand loyalty 0.201 2.805 0.005 Supported
H7 Brand trust ! Brand loyalty 0.679 9.048 0.000 Supported
SMC (R2)
CE 0.614 (61.4%)
Brand trust 0.680 (68.0%)
Brand loyalty 0.722 (72.2%)
Fit indices
x2 289.838
df 96
x 2/df 3.019
p 0.000
GFI = 0.944, NFI = 0.952, CFI = 0.967 and RMSEA = 0.058
Note: p < 0.05

Figure 2 Estimates of the structural model
The following discussion summarizes the results of the seven
hypotheses in this study:
 Advertisement/promotion has a statistically significant
positive effect on CE (t = 13.257, p < 0.01).
 SNS content has a statistically significant positive effect on
CE (t = 5.780, p < 0.01).
 Advertisement/promotion has a statistically significant
positive effect on brand trust (t = 2.663, p < 0.01).
 SNS content has a statistically significant negative effect
on brand trust (t = 3.059, p < 0.01)
 CE has a statistically significant positive effect on brand
trust (t = 9.694, p < 0.01).
 CE has a statistically significant positive effect on brand
loyalty (t = 2.805, p < 0.01).
 Brand trust has a statistically significant positive effect on
brand loyalty (t = 9.048, p < 0.01). In summary, H1, H2,
H3, H5, H6 and H7 are supported, whereas H4 is not
supported.
Finally, to test the hypothesis that one path has a bigger (or
smaller) effect than the other path, we conducted a relative
effect analysis of the path coefficient. To examine the effect
sizes of the two independent variables, advertisement/
promotion and SNS content, for the two mediating variables,
CE and brand trust, we performed a relative effect analysis of
the path coefficient (Table 5).
 The “advertisement/promotion ! CE” path has a greater
effect than the “SNS content ! CE” path, and this result
is statistically significant (4 x 2 > 3.84, 4df = 1).

Table 5 Relative effect analysis of path coefficient

Unconstrained model Constrained model
Path v2 df x2 df Dx 2 Ddf p
AD·Promotion ! CE 289.838 96 323.647 97 33.809 1 0.000
SNS content
AD·Promotion ! Brand trust 289.838 96 304.479 97 14.641 1 0.000
SNS content
Notes: 4 x 2 > 3.84 (4df = 1): statistically significant

1001
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust Journal of Product & Brand Management
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015

 The “advertisement/promotion ! brand trust” path has a Figure 3 Results of the effect decomposition
greater effect than the “SNS content ! brand trust” path,
and this result is also statistically significant (4 x 2 > 3.84,
4df = 1).
The hypothesis test results of the structural equation model
analysis and hierarchical analysis were the same for the entire
group.

Effect decomposition
Structural equation modeling has the advantage of easily
deriving the direct, indirect and total effects between variables.
This study examined the direct, indirect and total effects of the
exogenous variables, advertisement/promotion and SNS
content, on the final dependent variable brand loyalty through
the parameters CE and brand trust. This analysis used the
bootstrapping method to examine the significance of the
indirect effect. The results are shown in Table 6 and Figure 3.
The following discussion describes the results of the effect
decomposition for this study’s model:
 The mediating variables CE and brand trust have an paths “SNS content ! CE (Dpath coefficient = 0.150),”
indirect effect (p < 0.05) on the effects of advertisement/ “advertisement/promotion ! brand trust (Dpath coefficient =
promotion and SNS content on brand loyalty. In
0.094)” and “brand trust ! brand loyalty (Dpath coefficient =
particular, the mediating roles of CE and brand trust are
0.084),” the USA showed a larger path coefficient than South
important. The reason is that the indirect effects of
Korea. However, in both groups, there was no statistically
advertisement/promotion and SNS content ! CE !
significant difference between all paths (critical ratios for
brand trust are greater than the direct effects of
difference of path coefficient < 6 1.96). In particular, the “SNS
advertisement/promotion and SNS content ! brand trust
content ! brand trust” path is not statistically significant (in both
(p < 0.05).
 The indirect effect of CE ! brand trust ! brand loyalty is groups). In the Korean group, neither the “advertisement/
greater than the direct effect of CE ! brand loyalty (p < promotion ! brand trust” nor the “SNS content ! brand trust”
0.05). paths were statistically significant, and CE played a full mediation
 The total effect of advertisement/promotion on brand role; in the American group, the “SNS content ! brand trust”
trust is statistically significant (p < 0.05). path was not statistically significant, indicating the overall
importance of the role of CE (Figures 4 and 5).
However, the total effect of SNS content on brand trust is not
statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
Analysis of cross-national differences Summary of research
This study performed multiple group analysis to verify the mean Service marketing is affected by a variety of environments and
difference between the USA and South Korea and the situations. In other words, a close relationship between a
significance of the path coefficient of each group (Table 7). In the company and its consumers is an important factor affecting
paths “advertisement/promotion ! CE (Dpath coefficient = brand performance. Thus, because of the significant importance
0.241),” “CE ! brand trust (Dpath coefficient = 0.080)” and of consumer experience, this study examined CE, which explains
“CE ! brand loyalty (Dpath coefficient = 0.229),” South Korea the interaction between consumers and a brand. In particular,
showed a larger path coefficient than the USA. Conversely, in the this study comprehensively investigated consumers’ engagement

Table 6 Effect decomposition

Path Total effect p Direct effect p Indirect effect p
AD·Promotion ! CE 0.644 0.003 0.644 0.003
SNS content ! CE 0.243 0.005 0.243 0.005
AD·Promotion ! Brand trust 0.652 0.005 0.165 0.047 0.487 0.003
SNS content ! Brand trust 0.052 0.267 0.132 0.027 0.184 0.005
CE ! Brand trust 0.756 0.005 0.756 0.005
CE ! Brand loyalty 0.714 0.005 0.201 0.024 0.514 0.003
Brand trust ! Brand loyalty 0.679 0.004 0.679 0.004
AD·Promotion ! Brand loyalty 0.572 0.005 0.572 0.005
SNS content ! Brand loyalty 0.084 0.022 0.084 0.022
Note: p < 0.05

1002
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust Journal of Product & Brand Management
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015

Table 7 Group coefficient comparison (Korean vs American)

Korean (n = 376) American (n = 230)
Path SC t p SC t p Critical ratios for difference (1.96)
H1AD·Promotion!CE 0.670 11.365 0.000 0.429 5.379 0.000 1.576
H2SNS content !CE 0.288 5.481 0.000 0.438 5.488 0.000 1.180
H3AD·Promotion!Brand trust 0.096 0.898 0.369 0.190 2.171 0.030 0.502
H4SNS content !Brand trust 0.119 1.752 0.080 0.122 1.385 0.166 0.434
H5CE !Brand trust 0.806 5.824 0.000 0.726 5.536 0.000 1.626
H6CE !Brand loyalty 0.350 4.023 0.000 0.121 0.977 0.328 1.773
H7Brand trust !Brand loyalty 0.576 6.482 0.000 0.660 4.906 0.000 1.133
Model fit x2 = 229.789 (df = 96), p = 0.000, x 2/df = x2 =182.947 (df = 94), p = 0.000, x 2/df =
2.394, GFI = 0.925, AGFI =0.894, NFI = 1.946, GFI = 0.912, AGFI =0.873, NFI =
0.943, CFI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.061 0.910, CFI = 0.953, RMSEA = 0.064
Notes: p < 0.05; SC = Standardized coefficients; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index

Figure 4 Results for the Korean consumer group
Figure 5 Results for the US consumer group
with a restaurant brand, as a product that they experience, as well
as marketing communication and brand performance variables.
The verification results indicated that, first, advertisement/
promotion and SNS content had a statistically significant
positive effect on CE. According to these results,
advertisement/promotion and SNS content play an important
role in achieving brand performance by influencing CE.
Advertisement/promotion drives CE while instilling a favorable
brand attitude (Brodie et al., 2009; Grace and O’Cass, 2005).
Furthermore, the use of information from SNS platforms, such
as brand communities, positively affects CE activities (Gil de
Zúñiga et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2018; Muniz and O’Guinn,
2001). In particular, the “advertisement/promotion ! CE”
path showed a larger impact than the “SNS content ! CE”
path. This result suggests that to attract CE in the restaurant
industry, marketers must consider the role of advertisement/
promotion, a traditional firm-controlled media, and that
advertisement/promotion is an important factor that influences
brand equity in the restaurant industry in both the short and
long term (Brodie et al., 2009; Buil et al., 2013; Grace and
O’Cass, 2005; Krystallis and Chrysochou, 2014; Yoo et al.,
2000).
Second, while advertisement/promotion had a statistically
positive effect on brand trust, SNS content did not have a
positive effect on brand trust. In addition, in the effect
decomposition results, the total effect of advertisement/
promotion on brand trust was statistically significant; however,
the total effect of SNS content on brand trust was not.
Moreover, the “advertisement/promotion ! brand trust” path
showed a larger impact than the “SNS content ! brand trust”
path. Orzan et al. (2016), Laroche et al. (2012) and Zehir et al.
(2011) demonstrated that marketing communication affects
brand trust. According to the results of the present study,
however, when performing service marketing for the restaurant
industry, it is unreasonable to assume that user-generated SNS
content alone will make consumers trust and feel reassured by
the brand, and advertisement/promotion can play an important
role in influencing brand trust. In a similar study on the
restaurant industry, advertisement/promotion had a statistically
significant effect on both affectivity trust and cognitive trust,
while eWOM did not have a statistically significant effect on
cognitive trust (Kim et al., 2019a, 2019b). Kim et al.’s (2019a,
2019b) research supports the present study’s results: SNS
content does not have a statistically significant positive effect on
brand trust.
Third, CE had a statistically significant positive effect on
brand trust and brand loyalty. These results are supported by
studies in which CBE has a positive relationship with trust
(Brodie et al., 2011; Casal o et al., 2007; Hollebeek, 2011a;

1003
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Saks, 2006), as well as those on the importance and role of CE
for achieving brand loyalty (Andersen, 2005; Bowden, 2009a,
2009b; Brodie et al., 2013; Casal o et al., 2007; Schouten et al.,
2007; Verhoef et al., 2010).
Fourth, brand trust had a statistically significant positive
effect on brand loyalty. This finding is supported by studies
reporting that the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty produces a valuable correlation between firms and
consumers and that brand trust contributes to brand loyalty
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Fournier, 1998; Laroche
et al., 2012; Lau and Lee, 1999; Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
Sahin et al., 2011; Urban et al., 2000).
Fifth, according to the effect decomposition results, the
indirect effect of advertisement/promotion and SNS content on
brand trust through CE was more significant than the direct
effect of advertisement/promotion and SNS content on brand
trust. Furthermore, the indirect effect of CE on brand loyalty
through brand trust was more statistically significant than the
direct effect of CE on brand loyalty. Additionally, according to
the comparison of the American and Korean groups, in the
Korean group, neither advertisement/promotion nor SNS
content had a statistically significant effect on brand trust, and
CE played a full mediation role. In the American group, the
“SNS content ! brand trust” path was also not statistically
significant. These results indicate that CE and brand trust play
a crucial mediating role for both groups. Rather than achieving
brand performance in the restaurant industry through
marketing communications alone, marketers should build a
marketing structure that plays a more effective mediating role
by deeply implementing the processes of CE and brand trust.
Research implications
This study hypothesized that different marketing
communication channels would affect CE, brand trust and
brand loyalty differently, with a focus on US and Korean
restaurant consumers who use SNS. The results indicate that
for both Americans and Koreans, CE and brand trust play a
crucial mediating role in restaurant marketing. Consequently,
the study has the following theoretical and practical
implications.
First, the structural analysis results of the effects of the
different marketing communication types (firm-controlled and
user-controlled media) and CE expand on the existing research
in the field and provide a foundation for further research in
other industries and brands. This study also linked the
effectiveness of marketing communication with brand loyalty
measurements that consider the mediating role of CE and
brand trust, which differs from previous studies that have
investigated the direct relationship between marketing
communication and purchase measurements (e.g. sales and
purchase intention) (Chang, 2012; Gefen et al., 2003). In
particular, as the present study empirically investigated
American and Korean consumers, who respectively represent
the eastern and western worlds and are two of the most active
nationalities with regards to advertisement/promotion activities
and SNS platforms, the results can be theoretically and
practically generalized.
Second, this study presented the direct and indirect effects of
CE, measured in multiple dimensions, on brand loyalty, as well
as the influence of brand trust. The structure of this study
1004
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
provides a basis for future research to derive numerous
implications from linking marketing communication, CE and
brand performance variables. In particular, as this structure was
based on empirical research comparing US and Korean
consumers, it provides a basis for comparative research among
more varied countries or ethnicities.
The practical implications drawn from the analysis are as
follows. First, both marketing communication channels
exhibited statistically significant effects on CE. These findings
imply that both advertisement/promotion and SNS content are
important stimuli of CE and should be properly managed to
enhance brand performance. When crafting integrated
marketing strategies to improve brand performance, marketers
should implement a marketing mix that has a suitable ratio of
firm-controlled and user-controlled media. Recently, the share
of traditional communication channels such as TV, radio and
print media advertising has decreased, while the share of SNS
content has risen sharply. However, as the suitability of the
marketing communication channel depends on the industry,
placing too much focus on SNS content is not an optimal
strategy. For most industries, focusing entirely on SNS content
can lead to missteps in producing effective brand performance.
Marketers must, therefore, exercise more caution when setting
marketing directions and use optimal marketing
communication strategies suitable for the characteristics of
their particular industry. To further explain why the various
marketing communications that affect CE and brand
performance are important, marketing should enable one to
properly select and concentrate consumer data by continuously
accumulating and analyzing them through various channels of
firm- and user-controlled media. In other words, it is important
to take a broad look at firm- and user-controlled media because
it is necessary to select and combine the optimal factors for
achieving brand performance. This is also evidenced in current
trends in digital marketing, with the vitalization of big data and
the rapid development of data analysis technology, as well as
thorough personalized marketing and the many marketing tools
available to discover and measure the impact of numerous
micro-influencers.
Second, advertisement/promotion and SNS content had a
statistically significant effect on CE, which this study measured
through four dimensions. In terms of the impact of marketing
communication channels on CE, the “advertisement/
promotion ! CE” path showed a larger impact than the “SNS
content ! CE” path. These findings suggest that restaurant
brand marketers should input more effective marketing
capabilities into advertisement/promotion channels, such as
TV and print media, and that marketers should not blindly
reduce the scale of traditional advertisement/promotion
channels. Unlike other industries, marketers must continuously
expand their marketing capabilities without reducing the total
volume of communication in traditional media (i.e. firm-
controlled media). It is important for marketers to take a closer
look at action items required to determine the extent to which
consumers want to participate emotionally, cognitively,
behaviorally and interactively with restaurant brand, and
connect this with brand performance. In particular, they should
remember that firm-controlled media such as advertisements
and promotions can increase CE and lead to consumption
behavior in the restaurant sector of the food service industry.
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
There have been various studies on the importance of
advertisements and promotions in the marketing mix.
(Danaher et al., 2020; McAlister et al., 2016; Krystallis and
Chrysochou, 2014; Buil et al., 2013; Ataman et al., 2010; Yoo
et al., 2000).
There are, however, several points to keep in mind. Though
SNS content showed a smaller impact on CE than
advertisement/promotion, marketers in the restaurant sector
should more effectively apply their capabilities to content
marketing based on SNS platforms and implement this strategy
alongside firm-controlled media. Marketers should also devote
efforts to creating synergies that generate CE and brand
performance. Content marketing already plays a vital role in
practice, and its utilization and applicability are greatly
expanding as marketing representatives seek to focus on
advertisements and promotions along with SNS content; they
should also seek to expand such SNS content, which is “user-
controlled media” in this study, to “firm-controlled media”
such as a Facebook fan pages. In this case, it is important to
achieve brand performance through a content strategy that is
consistent with the advertisement/promotion strategy. It is also
crucial never to overlook content marketing based on active
SNS platforms. In particular, marketing frameworks have
changed extensively because of technological innovations,
personalization and connectivity, and with social media
increasing the impact of influencers’ reviews, firms must
implement authentic content marketing. Firms must pay
careful attention to strengthening content planning,
production, channel management and data analysis
capabilities, as well as forming brand advocacy. These efforts
will encourage consumers to voluntarily produce and distribute
friendly and positive content about their brands, thereby
building trust and loyalty.
Third, advertisement/promotion had a statistically positive
effect on brand trust. However, SNS content did not show this
positive effect on brand trust, and the results of the total effect
analysis showed no statistical significance. Moreover, the
“advertisement/promotion ! brand trust” path showed a
larger impact than the “SNS content ! brand trust” path.
These analyses results imply that a company’s overall content
marketing should be carried out with sincerity for SNS content
(user-controlled media) to take effect. Consumers distrust
marketing from companies that lose authenticity (Leigh et al.,
2006); thus, if a firm or organization’s content marketing
extends beyond the domain of user-controlled media to
controlled communications, they must ensure continued
authenticity in the SNS environment and focus on inducing
brand trust. In particular, with extensive developments in big
data utilization technology, firms and organizations should
devote efforts to positively influencing consumers’ brand trust
by analyzing SNS content.
Fourth, CE had a statistically significant effect on both brand
trust and brand loyalty, while the effect decomposition
demonstrated that the mediating role of CE and brand trust
was important. These findings suggest that brand performance
can be easily achieved when the brand goes through the CE
stage, and brand loyalty can be formed through the process of
faithfully building brand trust. Marketers must strive to
reassure consumers about the brand so they believe it is honest
and trustworthy. In the restaurant sector, brand trust develops
1005
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
from past experiences and interactions, and it is an important
factor in consumer and brand relationships. Therefore,
marketers in this sector should consider trust when planning
and should implement marketing communications and CE.
The mediating role of CE in the relationship between
marketing communication and brand performance is crucial.
To improve CBE, marketers must adopt an active approach to
examining all touchpoints at which consumers experience the
brand. Furthermore, marketers should always consider the
level of CE needed to build brand trust and loyalty when
implementing marketing communications.
Research limitations and future directions
Though this study provides numerous constructive
implications, it features the following limitations, which
provide scope for future research tasks. First, as the study
investigated only the restaurant sector, it is difficult to say
whether its structure applies to all service industries. In the
future, researchers should conduct multi-phase studies on
other service industries, including medicine and health care,
education, finance and aviation; should apply this structure to
other industries, such as manufacturing; and perform
comparative analyses through multi-group analysis. Second,
content on SNS platforms is divided into positive, neutral and
negative content; as the effects on CE vary depending on
context, dividing SNS content into these categories and then
measuring them should provide further implications. As such,
future research is needed to study the effects on CE in detail by
dividing SNS content into positive, neutral and negative
dimensions. Third, it is necessary to consider additional
research methods to complement this study’s empirical
approach. As advertising appeals to consumers in various forms
and SNS activities have numerous operating methods, it is
difficult to accurately investigate them. As such, future studies
should involve complementary research methods, which will
help derive specific implications for marketing communication,
CE and brand performance.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products
and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 102-120, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
41165845
Agustin, C. and Singh, J. (2005), “Curvilinear effects of
consumer loyalty determinants in relational exchanges”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 96-108,
available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.96.56961
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005),
“The social influence of brand community: evidence from
European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 19-34, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.69.3.19.66363
Ambler, T. (1997), “How much of brand equity is explained by
trust?”, Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 283-292,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749710169666
Amine, A. (1998), “Consumers’ true brand loyalty: the Central
role of commitment”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 305-319, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/
096525498346577
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Andersen, P.H. (2005), “Relationship marketing and brand
involvement of professionals through web-enhanced brand
communities: the case of Coloplast”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 285-297, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.07.002
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural
equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-423, available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.103.3.411
Ashley, C. and Leonard, H.A. (2009), “Betrayed by the buzz?
Covert content and consumer–brand relationships”, Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 212-220,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.28.2.212
Ataman, M.B., Van Heerde, H.J. and Mela, C.F. (2010), “The
long-term effect of marketing strategy on brand sales”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 866-882,
available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/20751549
Bacile, T.J., Ye, C. and Swilley, E. (2014), “From firm-
controlled to consumer-contributed: consumer co-
production of personal media marketing communication”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 117-133,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.001
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of
structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Balakrishnan, B.K., Dahnil, M.I. and Yi, W.J. (2014), “The
impact of social media marketing medium toward purchase
intention and brand loyalty among generation Y”, Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 148 No. 25, pp. 177-185,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.032
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A
Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F. and Urban, G.L. (2005), “Are
the drivers and role of online trust the same for all web sites
and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 133-152, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.133
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 128-137, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/
0092070300281012
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P. and Haeckel, S.H. (2002),
“Managing the total customer experience”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 85-89.
Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K. and Shapiro, D. (2012),
“Marketing meets web 2.0, social media, and creative
consumers: implications for international marketing
strategy”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 261-271,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.01.007
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T. and Grimes, J.M. (2010), “Using
ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-government and
social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for
societies”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 264-271, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2010.03.001
Bijmolt, T.H., Leeflang, P.S., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M.,
Hardie, B.G., Lemmens, A. and Saffert, P. (2010),
1006
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
“Analytics for customer engagement”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 341-356, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1177%2F1094670510375603
Bhandari, M. and Rodgers, S. (2018), “What does the brand
say? Effects of Brand feedback to negative eWOM on brand
trust and purchase intentions”, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 125-141, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1349030
Blackston, M. (1995), “The qualitative dimension of Brand
equity”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 2-7.
Bloemer, J.M. and Kasper, H.D. (1995), “The complex
relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand
loyalty”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 311-329, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-
4870(95)00007-B
Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2004), “The
theoretical underpinnings of customer asset management: a
framework and propositions for future research”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 271-292,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070304263341
Borden, N.H. (1964), “The concept of the marketing mix”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 2-7.
Bowden, J.L. (2009a), “The process of customer engagement:
a conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74, available at: https://doi.
org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170105
Bowden, J.L. (2009b), “Customer engagement: a framework
for assessing customer-brand relationships: the case of the
restaurant industry”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 574-596, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620903024983
Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007), “Social network sites:
definition, history, and scholarship”, Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-230, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009),
“Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 52-68, available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52
Brodie, R.J., Whittome, J.R. and Brush, G.J. (2009),
“Investigating the service brand: a customer value
perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3,
pp. 345-355, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2008.06.008
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011),
“Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013),
“Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an
exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 105-114, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusres.2011.07.029
Buil, I., De Chernatony, L. and Martinez, E. (2013),
“Examining the role of advertising and sales promotions in
brand equity creation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 115-122, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2011.07.030
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
o, L., Flavian, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2007), “The impact
Casal
of participation in virtual brand communities on consumer
trust and loyalty: the case of free software”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 775-792, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520710841766
Chan, K.W. and Li, S.Y. (2010), “Understanding consumer-
to-consumer interactions in virtual communities: the
salience of reciprocity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63
Nos 9/10, pp. 1033-1040. No10, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.009
Chandon, P., Wansink, B. and Laurent, G. (2000), “A benefit
congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 65-81, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.65.18071
Chandran, S. and Morwitz, V.G. (2006), “The price of ‘free’-
dom: consumer sensitivity to promotions with negative
contextual influences”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 384-392, available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/
508439
Chang, C. (2012), “Effectiveness of consensus information in
advertising: the moderating roles of situational factors and
individual differences”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 483-494, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10869-012-9258-5
Chang, W. and Taylor, S.A. (2016), “The effectiveness of
customer participation in new product development: a Meta-
analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 47-64,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0057
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255
Chen, A., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Zhao, L. and Li, M. (2013),
“What drives content creation behavior on SNSs? A
commitment perspective”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 66 No. 12, pp. 2529-2535, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.045
Chi, H.H. (2011), “Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual
Brand community: exploratory study of user motivation and
social media marketing responses in Taiwan”, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 44-61, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2011.10722190
Chiou, J.S. and Droge, C. (2006), “Service quality, trust,
specific asset investment, and expertise: direct and indirect
effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 613-627,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070306286934
Choi, O.J., Lee, K.S., Lee, K.T. and Kim, J.H. (2017),
“Influences of stereotype and social distance on prejudice
toward African Americans”, Journal of Psychology in Africa,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 13-17, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1080/14330237.2016.1268262
Choi, H.J., Ahn, J.C., Jung, S.H. and Kim, J.H. (2020),
“Communities of practice and knowledge management
systems: effects on knowledge management activities and
innovation performance”, Knowledge Management Research
& Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-68, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1598578
1007
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
Choi, I.Y., Choi, H.J., Lee, J.Y., Jung, S.H., An, B.J. and
Kim, J.H. (2019a), “Quality of Olympics opening
ceremony: tourism behavioural intention of international
spectators”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 126-134, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/
14330237.2019.1568082
Choi, I.Y., Choi, H.J., Lim, J.H., Jung, S.H., Kim, J.K. and
Kim, J.H. (2019b), “Predictors of life satisfaction among
multicultural African families in South Korea”, Journal of
Psychology in Africa, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-12, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2019.1569301
Chu, S.C. and Kim, Y. (2011), “Determinants of consumer
engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social
networking sites”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 47-75, available at: https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-
30-1-047-075
Corbitt, B.J., Thanasankit, T. and Yi, H. (2003), “Trust and e-
commerce: a study of consumer perceptions”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 203-215, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1567-
4223(03)00024-3
Culliton, J.W. (1948), The Management of Marketing Costs,
Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Curran, P.G. (2016), “Methods for the detection of carelessly
invalid responses in survey data”, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 4-19, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006
Danaher, P.J., Danaher, T.S., Smith, M.S. and Loaiza-
Maya, R. (2020), “Advertising effectiveness for multiple
retailer-brands in a multimedia and multichannel
environment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 57
No. 3, pp. 445-467, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022243720910104
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L. and Yague-
Guillen, M.J. (2003), “Development and validation of a
Brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-56, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1177/147078530304500103
Deng, Z. and Luo, L. (2007), “An exploratory discuss of new
ways for competitive intelligence on web 2.0”, Integration and
Innovation Orient to E-Society, Vol. 2, pp. 597-604, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75494-9_72
DeSimone, J.A. and Harms, P.D. (2018), “Dirty data: the
effects of screening respondents who provide low-quality
data in survey research”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 559-577, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10869-017-9514-9
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015),
“Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a
social media perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 28-42, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an
integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222001
DiPietro, R.B., Crews, T.B., Gustafson, C. and Strick, S.
(2012), “The use of social networking sites in the restaurant
industry: best practices”, Journal of Foodservice Business
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 265-284, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1080/15378020.2012.706193
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the
nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224299706100203
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere:
an environmental psychology approach”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Dubey, J. (2014), “Personal care products: sales promotion
and Brand loyalty”, Journal of Contemporary Management
Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 52-71.
Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer Brand
engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24, pp. 100-109.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing
buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51
No. 2, pp. 11-27, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2015.02.007
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2003),
“Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics
and shopper responses”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 139-150, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.10064
Evanschitzky, H. and Wunderlich, M. (2006), “An
examination of moderator effects in the four-stage loyalty
model”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 330-345, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670506286325
Flavian, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2005), “The influence of virtual
communities on distribution strategies in the internet”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 405-425, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1108/09590550510600843
Folse, J.A.G., Moulard, J.G. and Raggio, R.D. (2012),
“Psychological ownership: a social marketing advertising
message appeal?”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 291-315, available at: https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-
31-2-291-315
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1086/209515
Gambetti, R.C. and Graffigna, G. (2010), “The concept of
engagement”, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 801-826, available at: https://doi.org/
10.2501/S147078531020166
Gambetti, R.C., Graffigna, G. and Biraghi, S. (2012), “The
grounded theory approach to consumer-brand engagement:
the practitioner’s standpoint”, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 659-687, available at: https://doi.
org/10.2501/IJMR-54-5-659-687
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation in
buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 1-19, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224299405800201
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles
of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2,
1008
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
pp. 70-87, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224299906300205
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust
and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90, available at: https://doi.
org/10.2307/30036519
Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y. and Wiertz, C.
(2013), “Managing brands in the social media
environment”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 242-256, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2013.09.004
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N. and Valenzuela, S. (2012),
“Social media use for news and individuals’ social
Capital, civic engagement and political participation”,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 319-336, available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
Grace, D. and O’Cass, A. (2005), “Examining the effects of
service brand communications on Brand evaluation”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 106-116, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
10610420510592581
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E. and Pihlström, M.
(2012), “Customer engagement in a Facebook brand
community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9,
pp. 857-877, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
01409171211256578
Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M. and Richard, M.O. (2014), “The
roles of brand community and community engagement in
building brand trust on social media”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 152-161, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.016
Haeckel, S.H., Carbone, L.P. and Berry, L.L. (2003), “How to
lead the customer experience”, Marketing Management,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 18-23.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and
Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V.L. (2011), “We’re all
connected: the power of the social media ecosystem”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 265-273, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007
He, H., Li, Y. and Harris, L. (2012), “Social identity
perspective on Brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 648-657, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.007
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E.C., Friege, C., Gensler, S.,
Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A. and Skiera, B. (2010), “The
impact of new media on customer relationships”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 311-330, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375460
Higgins, E.T. (2006), “Value from hedonic experience and
engagement”, Psychological Review, Vol. 113 No. 3,
pp. 439-460, available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295x.113.3.439
Higgins, E.T. and Scholer, A.A. (2009), “Engaging the
consumer: the science and art of the value creation
process”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 100-114, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcps.2009.02.002
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Hodeghatta, U.R. and Sahney, S. (2016), “Understanding
twitter as an e-WOM”, Journal of Systems and Information
Technology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 89-115, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-12-2014-0074
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011a), “Demystifying customer brand
engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011b), “Exploring customer brand
engagement: definition and themes”, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 555-573, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014),
“Consumer Brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-165,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M. and Singh,
S.S. (2010), “Consumer cocreation in new product
development”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 283-296, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670510375604
Huang, J.L., Curran, P.G., Keeney, J., Poposki, E.M. and
DeShon, R.P. (2012), “Detecting and deterring insufficient
effort responding to surveys”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 99-114, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8
Hudson, S., Roth, M.S., Madden, T.J. and Hudson, R.
(2015), “The effects of social media on emotions, brand
relationship quality, and word of mouth: an empirical study
of music festival attendees”, Tourism Management, Vol. 47,
pp. 68-76, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2014.09.001
Ibrahim, N.F., Wang, X. and Bourne, H. (2017), “Exploring
the effect of user engagement in online brand communities:
evidence from Twitter”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 72, pp. 321-338, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2017.03.005
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2011), “The
role of brand experience and affective commitment in
determining Brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 570-582, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1057/bm.2010.58
Isler, V. and Karnad, N. (2008), “The role of information in
the cop-robber game”, Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 399
No. 3, pp. 179-190, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tcs.2008.02.041
Jacoby, J. (2002), “Stimulus-organism-response
reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modeling
(consumer) behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 51-57, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1207/S15327663JCP1201_05
Jang, H., Olfman, L., Ko, I., Koh, J. and Kim, K. (2008),
“The influence of on-line brand community
characteristics on community commitment and brand
loyalty”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 57-80, available at: https://doi.org/
10.2753/JEC1086-4415120304
1009
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K. and Chowdury, A. (2009),
“Twitter power: tweets as electronic word of mouth”, Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
Vol. 60 No. 11, pp. 2169-2188, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1002/asi.21149
Karger, D.R. and Jones, W. (2006), “Data unification in
personal information management”, Communications of the
Acm, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 77-82, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1145/1107458.1107496
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224299305700101
Keller, K.L. (2013), “Strategic brand management: building”,
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, 4th ed., Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kim, J.S. and Ratchford, B.T. (2012), “Consumer choice and
use of multiple information sources for automobile
purchases”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 7-40, available at: https://doi.org/10.2753/
jec1086-4415160301
Kim, E.J., Kim, S.H. and Lee, Y.K. (2019a), “The effects of
brand hearsay on brand trust and brand attitudes”, Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 28 No. 7,
pp. 1-20, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/
19368623.2019.1567431
Kim, J.E., Lloyd, S. and Cervellon, M.C. (2016), “Narrative-
transportation storylines in luxury brand advertising:
motivating consumer engagement”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 304-313, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.002
Kim, J.H., Jung, S.H., Yang, S.Y. and Choi, H.J. (2019b),
“Job security and workaholism among non-permanent
workers: the moderating influences of corporate
culture”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 443-451, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/
14330237.2019.1667148
Kim, J.H., Jung, S.H., Yu, J.P. and Kwon, J.H. (2020b),
“Fund managers’ investment considerations for K-IFRS-
adopted corporates: impact on investment and
reinvestment intentions”, Journal of Sustainable Finance &
Investment, pp. 1-23, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/
20430795.2020.1727723
Kim, J.H., Lee, K.T., Seok, B.I., Choi, H.J. and Jung, S.H.
(2018), “Competitive factors of electronic dance music
festivals with social networking service (SNS) citizenship
behaviour of international tourists”, Journal of Psychology in
Africa, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 116-121, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1080/14330237.2018.1453987
Kim, J.H., Choi, H.J., Yu, J.P., Lim, J.H., Lee, H.J. and
Jung, S.H. (2020a), “Argumentum ad hominem and
coercive company culture influences on workaholism:
results and implications of a cross-cultural South Korea
study”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 135-142, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/
14330237.2020.1744277
Korea IT Industry Promotion Agency (2008), “Digital content
industry”, white paper, Jinhan M&B, Seoul.
Kothandaraman, P. and Wilson, D.T. (2001), “The future of
competition: value-creating networks”, Industrial Marketing
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 379-389, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00152-8
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2010), Principles of Marketing,
Pearson Education, London.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber,
S. and Lee, D.J. (2006), “Direct and indirect effects of self-
image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 955-964, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.001
Krishnan, H.S. (1996), “Characteristics of memory
associations: a consumer-based brand equity perspective”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 389-405, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
8116(96)00021-3
Krystallis, A. and Chrysochou, P. (2014), “The effects of
service Brand dimensions on brand loyalty”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 139-147, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2013.07.009
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R.,
Wiesel, T. and Tillmanns, S. (2010), “Undervalued or
overvalued customers: capturing total customer
engagement value”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 297-310, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1177/1094670510375602
Labrecque, L.I. (2014), “Fostering consumer–Brand
relationships in social media environments: the role of
parasocial interaction”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 134-148. V0l. available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.003
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R. and Richard, M.O. (2013), “To be
or not to be in social media: how brand loyalty is affected by
social media?”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 76-82, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.003
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O. and
Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012), “The effects of social
media based brand communities on brand community
markers, value creation practices, brand trust and Brand
loyalty”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 1755-1767, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2012.04.016
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring
customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1108/07363769510095270
Lau, G.T. and Lee, S.H. (1999), “Consumers’ trust in a brand
and the link to Brand loyalty”, Journal of Market-Focused
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 341-370, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1009886520142
Lee, D., Hosanagar, K. and Nair, H.S. (2018), “Advertising
content and consumer engagement on social media:
evidence from Facebook”, Management Science, Vol. 64
No. 11, pp. 1-41, available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.2017.2902
Lee, T.M. and Kang, J.S. (2018), “The effects of brand SNS
characteristics on brand performance in mobile SNS
environments: focused on the influence of brand experience
information sharing and brand image congruence between
Korea and US”, The E-Business Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1,
1010
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
pp. 57-76, available at: https://doi.org/10.20462/
tebs.2018.2.19.1.57
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C. and Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer
quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of meanings within the
MG subculture of consumption”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 481-493, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070306288403
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002),
“Building Brand community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 38-54, available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.66.1.38.18451
McAlister, L., Srinivasan, R., Jindal, N. and Cannella, A.A.
(2016), “Advertising effectiveness: the moderating effect of
firm strategy”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 207-224, available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmr.13.0285
Mangold, W.G. and Faulds, D.J. (2009), “Social media: the
new hybrid element of the promotion mix”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 357-365, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002
Meade, A.W. and Craig, S.B. (2012), “Identifying careless
responses in survey data”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 437-455, available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0028085
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to
Environmental Psychology, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Meng, H.Y., Jung, S.H., Yu, J.P., Bae, K.H., An, B.J. and
Kim, J.H. (2018), “Perceived tourist values of the museum
of African art”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 375-381, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/
14330237.2018.1501915
Meyer, C. and Schwager, A. (2007), “Understanding customer
experience”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 2,
pp. 116-126.
Mishra, A. and Mishra, H. (2011), “The influence of price
discount versus bonus pack on the preference for virtue and
vice foods”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 196-206, available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkr.48.1.196
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), “Satisfaction,
repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: investigating the
moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-142, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.131.18832
Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010), “Engagement, telepresence
and interactivity in online consumer experience: reconciling
scholastic and managerial perspectives”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 63 No. 9-10, pp. 919-925. No10, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014
Mooji, M. (1998), Global Marketing and Advertising:
Understanding Cultural Paradoxes, SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992),
“Relationships between providers and users of market
research: the dynamics of trust”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 314-328, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224379202900303
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1177/002224299405800302
Morrison, S. and Crane, F.G. (2007), “Building the service
Brand by creating and managing an emotional brand
experience”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 410-421, available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.
bm.2550080
Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand
community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 412-432, available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/319618
Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M. and Smit, E.G. (2011),
“Introducing COBRAs: exploring motivations for brand-
related social media use”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 13-46, available at: https://doi.org/
10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046
Nambisan, S. and Nambisan, P. (2008), “How to profit from a
better ’virtual customer environment’”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 53-61.
Neff, J. (2007), “OMD proves the power of engagement”,
Advertising Age, Vol. 78 No. 27, pp. 3-4.
Newson, A., Houghton, D. and Patten, J. (2008), Blogging and
Other Social Media: Exploiting the Technology and Protecting the
Enterprise, Gower Publishing, Farnham.
Ni, Q., Yarlagadda, P.K. and Lu, W.F. (2007), “A
configuration-based flexible reporting method for enterprise
information systems”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 58 No. 5,
pp. 416-427, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compind.2006.09.016
NIA (2011), Social Media Policy for Health Korean Society IT
Policy Series, National Information Society Agency (NIA),
Daegu/Seoul, p. 15.
Obar, J.A. and Wildman, S.S. (2015), “Social media definition
and the governance challenge: an introduction to the special
issue”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39 No. 9,
pp. 745-750, available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.2637879
Oh, Y.S. and Kim, S.H. (2004), “Strategy of Brand marketing
using on-line community”, Journal of Information Society,
Vol. 16 No. 12, pp. 20-37.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4_suppl1, pp. 33-44, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s105
Orzan, G., Platon, O.E., Stef
anescu, C.D. and Orzan, M.
(2016), “Conceptual model regarding the influence of social
media marketing communication on Brand trust, Brand
affect and Brand loyalty”, Economic Computation & Economic
Cybernetics Studies & Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 141-156.
Ostrow, A. (2009), “Twitter now growing at a staggering 1,382
percent”, available at: http://mashable.com/2009/03/16/
twitter-growth-rate-versus-facebook/ (accessed 14 August
2011).
Papadopoulou, P., Andreou, A., Kanellis, P. and Martakos, D.
(2001), “Trust and relationship building in electronic
commerce”, Internet Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 322-332,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240110402777
Pappu, R. and Quester, P.G. (2008), “Does brand equity vary
between department stores and clothing stores? Results of an
empirical investigation”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 425-435, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420810916335
1011
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
Patterson, P., Yu, T. and de Ruyter, K. (2006),
““Understanding customer engagement in services”,
Advancing theory, maintaining relevance, proceedings of
ANZMAC 2006 Conference, Brisbane, pp. 4-6.
Pearce, J. (2002), “Australia third in internet usage”, available
at: www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/communications/story/
0,2000048620,20264752,00.htm (accessed 22 April 2002).
Phua, J., Jin, S.V. and Kim, J.J. (2017), “Gratifications of using
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat to follow brands:
the moderating effect of social comparison, trust, tie
strength, and network homophily on brand identification,
Brand engagement, Brand commitment, and membership
intention”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 412-424, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2016.06.004
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation
experiences: the next practice in value creation”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
Pullman, M.E. and Gross, M.A. (2004), “Ability of experience
design elements to elicit emotions and loyalty behaviors”,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 551-578, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-7315.2004.02611.x
Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2000), “E-loyalty: your secret
weapon on the web”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78
No. 4, pp. 105-113.
Reichheld, F.F., Markey, R.G. Jr. and Hopton, C. (2000),
“The loyalty effect – the relationship between loyalty
and profits”, European Business Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3,
p. 134.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P. and Hair, N. (2012), “Online
customer experience in e-retailing: an empirical model of
antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88
No. 2, pp. 308-322, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretai.2012.03.001
Ross, C., Orr, E.S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.
G. and Orr, R.R. (2009), “Personality and motivations
associated with Facebook use”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 578-586, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
Safko, L. and Brake, D.K. (2009), The Social Media Bible:
Tactics, Tools, and Strategies for Business Success, John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C. and Kitapçı, H. (2011), “The effects of
Brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on building
Brand loyalty: an empirical research on global brands”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 24,
pp. 1288-1301, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2011.09.143
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of
employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1108/02683940610690169
Sashi, C.M. (2012), “Customer engagement, buyer-seller
relationships, and social media”, Management Decision,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 253-272, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1108/00251741211203551
Scarpi, D. (2010), “Does size matter? An examination of small
and large web-based brand communities”, Journal of
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 14-21, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.10.002
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M., Jr,. and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How
Brand community practices create value”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30
Schmitt, B. (2012), “The consumer psychology of brands”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7-17,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.005
Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H. and Koenig, H.F. (2007),
“Transcendent customer experience and brand
community”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 357-368, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11747-007-0034-4
Selnes, F. (1998), “Antecedents and consequences of trust and
satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3/4, pp. 305-322, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/03090569810204580
Seok, B.I., Han, M.P. and Kim, J.H. (2018), “Knowledge and
quality-management activities’ influences on technology
communication and innovation with African foreign
investment experience”, Journal of Psychology in Africa,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 310-315, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1080/14330237.2018.1501900
Shah, D.V. (1998), “Civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and
television use: an individual-level assessment of social
capital”, Political Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 469-496,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00114
Shankar, V. and Hollinger, M. (2007), “Online and mobile
advertising: current scenario, emerging trends, and future
directions”, Marketing Science Institute, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 206-207.
Singh, J.J., Iglesias, O. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2012), “Does
having an ethical Brand matter? The influence of consumer
perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 541-549, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1216-7
Sinha, I. and Smith, M.F. (2000), “Consumers’ perceptions
of promotional framing of price”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 257-275, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200003)17:
33.0.CO;2-P
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The
importance of a general measure of brand engagement on
market behavior: development and validation of a scale”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2003), “The impact of customer trust and
perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic
commerce”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 135-161, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1080/10864415.2003.11044270
Swanson, S.R. and Kelley, S.W. (2001), “Service recovery
attributions and word-of-mouth intentions”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1/2, pp. 194-211, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560110363463
Tatar, S B. and Eren-Erdo
gmus , (2016), “The effect of social
media marketing on brand trust and brand loyalty for
hotels”, Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 3,
1012
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
pp. 249-263.I. _ available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-
015-0048-6
Urban, G.L., Sultan, F. and Qualls, W.J. (2000), “Placing trust
at the center of your internet strategy”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D.,
Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and
research directions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 253-266, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670510375599
Vanhuele, M. and Drèze, X. (2002), “Measuring the price
knowledge shoppers bring to the store”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 72-85, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkg.66.4.72.18516
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new
dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68
No. 1, pp. 1-17, available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic:
continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
Verhoef, P.C. (2003), “Understanding the effect of customer
relationship management efforts on customer retention and
customer share development”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 4, pp. 30-45, available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.67.4.30.18685
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J. and Krafft, M. (2010),
“Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer
management”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 247-252, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670510375461
Villanueva, J., Yoo, S. and Hanssens, D.M. (2008), “The
impact of marketing-induced versus word-of-mouth
customer acquisition on customer equity growth”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 48-59, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.1.048
Vivek, S.D. (2009), “A scale of consumer engagement”,
doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,
available at: https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/603
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E. and Morgan, R.M. (2012),
“Customer engagement: exploring customer relationships
beyond purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-146, available at: https://doi.org/
10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Dalela, V. and Morgan, R.M.
(2014), “A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring
customer engagement”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 401-420, available at: https://doi.
org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679220404
Voyles, B. (2007), “Beyond loyalty: meeting the challenge of
customer engagement”, Economist Intelligence Unit, Vol. 1,
pp. 1-15, available at: https://graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/
eiu_AdobeEngagementPt_I_wp.pdf
Wang, Y. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2003), “Assessing motivation
of contribution in online communities: an empirical
investigation of an online travel community”, Electronic
Markets, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 33-45, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1080/1019678032000052934
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of
selected marketing mix elements and brand equity”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 195-211, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/
15252019.2004.10722087
Zehir, C., S ahin, A., Kitapçı, H. and Özs ahin, M. (2011),
“The effects of Brand communication and service quality in
building brand loyalty through brand trust: the empirical
research on global brands”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 1218-1231, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.142
Zenith Media (2019), “Advertising expenditure forecasts
March 2019”, available at: www.zenithmedia.com/product/
advertising-expenditure-forecasts-march-2019/ (accessed
March 2019).
1013
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
Zhang, X., Prybutok, V.R. and Koh, C.E. (2006), “The role of
impulsiveness in a TAM-based online purchasing behavior”,
Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 54-68, available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.
2006040104
Further reading
Choi, H.J., Ahn, J.C., Jung, S.H. and Kim, J.H. (2020),
“Communities of practice and knowledge management
systems: effects on knowledge management activities and
innovation performance”, Knowledge Management Research
& Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-68, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1598578
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust Journal of Product & Brand Management
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015

Appendix

Table A1 Hierarchical regression analysis result of measurement model

(CE)
Model I Model II
Variable b t b t
Gender 0.033 0.805 0.029 0.960
Age 0.046 1.080 0.005 0.169
Income level 0.059 1.390 0.011 0.348
AD·Promotion 0.540 16.289
SNS content 0.242 7.320
F-value 1.006 100.885
R2 0.005 0.457
Notes:  p < 0.1;  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01. Control variables include
gender (female = 0, male = 1), age (below 40 years = 0, 40 years and
above = 1) and income level (below $3,000 = 0, $3,000 and above = 1)

Table A2 Hierarchical regression analysis result of measurement model (brand trust)

Model I Model II Model III
Variable b t b t b t
Gender 0.002 0.042 0.009 0.275 0.024 0.826
Age 0.093 2.214 0.043 1.249 0.040 1.325
Income level 0.076 1.797 0.029 0.865 0.024 0.794

AD·Promotion 0.556 15.464 0.279 7.355
SNS content 0.086 2.398 0.038 1.150
CE 0.512 13.114
F-value 2.146 67.967 101.445
R2 0.011 0.362 0.504
Notes:  p < 0.1;  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01. Control variables include gender (female = 0, male = 1), age (below 40 years = 0, 40 years and above = 1) and
income level (below $3,000 = 0, $3,000 and above = 1)

Table A3 Hierarchical regression analysis result of measurement model (brand loyalty)

Model I Model II Model III Model IV
Variable b t b t b t b t
Gender 0.055 1.357 0.065 1.910 0.079 2.537 0.067 2.428
Age 0.120 2.853 0.073 2.042 0.070 2.167 0.050 1.747
Income level 0.102 2.435 0.060 1.692 0.055 1.700 0.043 1.501
AD·Promotion 0.508 13.597 0.255 6.237 0.116 3.056
SNS content 0.068 1.818 0.046 1.294 0.027 0.855
CE 0.469 11.203 0.214 5.079
Brand trust 0.499 12.844
F-value 4.403 53.688 74.944 105.389
R2 0.021 0.309 0.429 0.552
Notes:  p < 0.1;  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01. Control variables include gender (female = 0, male = 1), age (below 40 years = 0, 40 years and above = 1) and
income level (below $3,000 = 0, $3,000 and above = 1)

1014
 Factors that affect restaurant brand trust
June-Hyuk Kwon, Seung-Hye Jung, Hyun-Ju Choi and Joonho Kim
About the authors
June-Hyuk Kwon holds a PhD in Business Administration.
June-Hyuk&s areas of interest are marketing strategy,
marketing mix and consumer behavior. He has published
research papers in multiple journals including Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Journal of Sustainable Finance
and Investment and Journal of Psychology in Africa.
Seung-Hye Jung holds a PhD in Dance. Seung-Hye’s areas of
interest are culture and art management, planning management
and culture content management. She has published research
papers in multiple journals including Journal of Open
Innovation, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Journal of
Sustainable Finance and Investment, Knowledge Management
Research & Practice and Journal of Psychology in Africa.
Hyun-Ju Choi holds a PhD in Culture Contents. Hyun-Ju’s
areas of interest are culture and arts management, festival
management and creative industry. She has published
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1015
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 7 · 2021 · 990–1015
research papers in multiple journals including Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, Journal of Psychology in Africa and Social
Behavior and Personality.
Joonho Kim holds a PhD in Business Administration.
Joon-Ho’s areas of interest are brand image, brand loyalty,
brand luxury, brand performance and brand promotion.
He has published research papers in multiple journals
including Asian Academy of Management Journal, Global
Business and Finance Review, Journal of Management &
Organization, Journal of Open Innovation, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Journal of Sustainable Finance and
Investment, Knowledge Management Research & Practice,
Journal of Psychology in Africa, Social Behavior and
Personality and Tourism and Hospitality Research. Joonho
Kim is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
126r3bn@hanmail.net and kshy4u@naver.com