DSpace at VNU: Brand personality appeal, brand relationship quality and WOM transmission: a study of consumer markets in Vietnam

Asia Pacific Business Review

ISSN: 1360-2381 (Print) 1743-792X (Online) Journal homepage: />
Brand personality appeal, brand relationship
quality and WOM transmission: a study of
consumer markets in Vietnam
Nguyen Dinh Tho, Nguyen Thi Mai Trang & Svein Ottar Olsen
To cite this article: Nguyen Dinh Tho, Nguyen Thi Mai Trang & Svein Ottar Olsen (2015): Brand
personality appeal, brand relationship quality and WOM transmission: a study of consumer
markets in Vietnam, Asia Pacific Business Review, DOI: 10.1080/13602381.2015.1076655
To link to this article: />
Published online: 20 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 59

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
/>Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

Date: 02 December 2015, At: 16:00


Asia Pacific Business Review, 2015
/>
Brand personality appeal, brand relationship quality and
WOM transmission: a study of consumer markets in Vietnam

Nguyen Dinh Thoa,b, Nguyen Thi Mai Trangc and Svein Ottar Olsend
International School of Business, University of Economics HCM City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; bSchool
of Business, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia; cFaculty of Business Administration, University
of Economics and Law, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; dTromsø University Business
School, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

a

KEYWORDS

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the impact of brand personality appeal
on both brand relationship quality and word-of-mouth (WOM)
transmission in Vietnam. It also examines the role of consumer
attitudes toward advertising and public relations on brand
personality appeal as well as brand relationship quality. An empirical
test with a sample of 477 consumers by means of structural equation
modeling reveals that brand personality appeal has a positive impact
on both brand relationship quality and WOM transmission, and that
brand relationship quality has a positive effect on WOM transmission.
Furthermore, attitudes toward public relations have positive impacts
on both brand personality appeal and brand relationship quality.
Finally, attitudes toward advertising have a positive impact on brand
personality appeal but not on brand relationship quality.

Brand personality appeal;
brand relationship quality;

worth-of-mouth transmission;
Vietnam

Introduction
How to build strong brands is an issue that attracts academics and practitioners for several
decades (e.g. Erdem and Swait 1998; Keller 1993; Woodside and Walser 2007). Accordingly,
a number of approaches have been proposed by academics to characterize the strength of
a brand. Some stem from cognitive psychology, i.e. based on consumer cognitive processes,
such as brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand associations and recently
brand experience (e.g. Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Keller 1993). Others come
from information economics, i.e. based on the signal of the brand to the consumer such as
brand credibility, consistency and clarity (e.g. Erdem and Swait 1998). While based on different theoretical perspectives, their common focus is on what makes a brand become strong,
and establishing a high quality relationship between the brand and the consumer is among
the best strategies to build strong brands (Lin and Sung 2014; Woodside and Walser 2007).
As marketing has been moving from the traditional marketing (the marketing-mix) paradigm to the relationship-marketing paradigm (Bejou 1997), establishing quality brand-­
consumer relationships is crucial to the success of a brand. For that reason, scholars have

CONTACT  Nguyen Dinh Tho 
© 2015 Taylor & Francis

;    


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

2 

  N. D. Tho et al.

devoted their efforts in studying the relationship between the brand and the consumer (e.g.

Fournier 1998; Huang and Mitchell 2014; Pentina et al. 2013), and marketers are increasingly
trying to build good relationships between their brands and consumers, reflected in the
quality of such relationships, that is, brand relationship quality. Fournier (1998) offers a comprehensive model of brand relationship quality, which covers all aspects that contribute to a
high quality relationship between the brand and the consumer. Researchers in the area have
also suggested a number of antecedents and outcomes of brand-consumer relationships
(MacInnis, Park, and Priester 2009).
Among antecedents of brand relationship quality, brand personality is perhaps a potential one. After Aaker’s (1997) influential article on human characteristics associated with
a brand, a host of studies about brand personality based on personality psychology has
been published in marketing journals (e.g. Branaghan and Hildebrand 2011; Eisend and
Stokburger-Sauer 2013; Maehle, Otnes, and Supphellen 2011). However, the role of brand
personality in brand relationship quality is still under-investigated (Eisend and StokburgeSauer 2013). Further, although the literature on brand personality has rapidly evolved over
the past several years, its practical implications are still in question because consumers may
not in general regard brands as humanlike (Avis 2012). There is a need for transferring the
concept of brand personality into more accessible by consumers and the concept of brand
personality appeal is an appropriate one for this regard (Freling, Crosno, and Henard 2011).
In addition, research on brand personality has been mainly undertaken in the developed
world (e.g. Aaker 1997; Arsena, Silvera, and Pandelaere 2014; Freling, Crosno, and Henard
2011). Little has been known in Vietnam.
With a population of more than 80 million people, Vietnam provides an appropriate case
for the study of consumer brands in general and brand personality appeal in particular.
The movement toward a market economy together with the entry to the WTO has caused
Vietnamese firms to change their traditional ways of doing business. Instead of focusing
heavily on production and sales, Vietnamese firms have gradually been recognizing the
important role of branding in their business. Vietnamese consumers' shopping habits have
also shifted from buying unbranded products to buying branded ones (Nguyen, Nguyen,
and Barrett 2008). A recent survey of Vietnamese consumers undertaken by GfK, a foreign
market research agency in Vietnam, shows that Vietnamese consumers are becoming more
sophisticated in terms of making purchase decision; they always think twice before making
a purchase. The survey results also indicate that 55% of the Vietnamese consumers spend
quite a lot of time researching information on brands, 12% higher than the global average

(Viet Toan 2013).
During the last few years, several government-sponsored promotional campaigns have
been designed to encourage Vietnamese consumers to buy locally made products, such as
‘Vietnam’s High Quality Brands’ and ‘Vietnam’s Brands Week’. However, Vietnamese consumers
are still in love with foreign brands because, not only are they imported, they are also very
well established in the minds of consumers. While Vietnamese consumers are now ready to
pay for the brands that they love, Vietnamese brands have not yet built a strong position in
the minds of consumers, unlike competing well-known imported products (Duy Duy 2015).
This is because Vietnamese firms have not fully recognized the important role of brands
(Thuong hieu Viet 2015). Therefore, it is argued that building high brand personality appeal
to consumers plays an important role for the success of brands because brand personality
can serve as a tool for personal identification (Fennis and Pruyn 2007; Szmigin 2003). For that


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 3

reason, the present study contributes to the literature on brands by investigating the impact
of brand personality appeal on both brand personality appeal and word-of-mouth (WOM)
transmission in Vietnam. The study also tests the role of attitudes towards advertising and
public relations in brand personality appeal as well as brand relationship quality.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

Theoretical background and hypotheses
Social identity and the consumer-social identity-brand model
Social identity theory suggests that individuals tend to classify themselves as belonging
to a specific group, distinguishing from other groups (Hogg 2006). This is undertaken by ‘a
process of social categorization, social comparison, and social identification as ways in which

people actively define social reality and their own position relative to other in that reality’
(Ellemers and Haslam 2012, 382). Social identity theory is an appropriate approach to consumer research (Reed, Cohen, and Bhattacharjee 2009) and has been employed in the study
of brands. For example, Lam et al. (2010) use social identity theory to study brand-consumer
relationships and brand switching. Kim, Han, and Park (2001) employ social identity theory to
investigate the impact of brand personality on WOM reports and brand loyalty. Underwood,
Bond, and Baer (2001) apply social identity theory to building brand equity in services.
Applying the theory to brands, Reed, Cohen, and Bhattacharjee (2009) propose a ‘consumer-social identity-brand’ model illustrating the connection between brands and consumers,
between consumers and social identity, and between social identity and brands. The connection occurs when there is a congruity between consumers, their social identity and the
brands they own. Based on the ‘consumer-social identity-brand’ model, this present study
proposes a model, depicted in Figure 1. The model proposes that brand personality appeal
has a positive impact on both brand relationship quality and WOM transmission. The model
also hypothesizes a positive effect of brand relationship quality on WOM transmission. In
addition, attitudes toward advertising and attitudes toward public relations have positive
impacts on brand personality appeal as well as brand relationship quality.
Brand relationship quality
Although definitions of brand relationship quality and its components vary, scholars agree
that it is a multidimensional construct (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Fournier 1998; Smit,
Bronner, and Tolboom 2007). Fournier (1998), based on the results of her qualitative study,

Attitudes
toward
Advertising

Attitudes
toward
Public Relations

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

H4

H5
H6
H7

Brand
Personality
Appeal

H3

H2
Brand
Relationship
Quality

Word-of-Mouth
Transmission
H1


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

4 

  N. D. Tho et al.

proposes six different but related facets of brand relationship quality, i.e. love and passion,
self-connection, commitment, interdependence, intimacy, and brand partner quality. Love
and passion refer to the attachment and affection of the consumer for a specific brand

(Fournier 1998; Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom 2007). Self-connection reflects the extent to
which the brand assists the consumer in expressing a significant aspect of her or his self, i.e.
the brand is part of the consumer’s self and they have a lot in common (Aaker, Fournier, and
Brasel 2004; Fournier 1998; Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom 2007). Commitment refers to the
degree to which the consumer is loyal to the brand and willing to make efforts to continue
the relationship with the brand (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom
2007). Interdependence relates to the interaction and intermutual dependency between the
brand and the consumer (Fournier 1998; Kressmann et al. 2006). Intimacy reflects the psychological closeness between the brand and the consumer as well as consumers’ knowledge
about, and understanding of, the brand (Kressmann et al. 2006; Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom
2007). Finally, brand partner quality relates to the consumers’ evaluation of the brand as a
partner in the relationship (Fournier 1998; Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom 2007).
Several researchers have employed Fournier’s (1998) conceptualization in their research
on brand relationship quality with some modifications. For example, Aaker, Fournier, and
Brasel (2004) utilize four components, i.e. commitment, intimacy, self-connection, and satisfaction. Kressmann et al. (2006) also employ four dimensions, i.e. love and passion, intimacy,
interdependence, and partnership quality. Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom (2007) include trust in
the measure of brand relationship quality. This study, following Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom
(2007), defines brand relationship quality as the strength and depth of a relationship between
a brand and an individual consumer. It comprises six components, namely, interdependence, passion, self-connection, commitment, intimacy, and trust. Note that, the study uses
trust, instead of partner quality, as a component of brand relationship quality, because trust
plays an important role in the business relationship literature. In addition, trust and partner
quality are closely related, i.e. relationship partners are willing to fulfill their promises (Aaker,
Fournier, and Brasel 2004).
Besides providing consumers with utilitarian and emotional benefits, a brand-consumer
relationship can help consumers to develop and communicate something about themselves,
which is a critical purpose that initiates consumers to form the relationship with the brand
(MacInnis, Park, and Priester 2009). For that reason, what makes a relationship qualified and
what results from a quality relationship are questions that marketing scholars have tried to
answer for years. For example, Chang and Chieng (2006) find that brand association, brand
attitude and brand image are antecedents of brand relationship quality. However, the impact
of brand personality on brand relationship quality is significant in the Shanghai sample

but not significant in the Taipei sample. Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom (2007) find that brand
personality has an impact on brand relationship quality. These researchers also find that
brand relationship quality has a positive link with future use, willingness to share, openness
to contact, and has a negative connection with switch likelihood.
As previously discussed, scholars studying brand personality have questioned about the
consumers’ ability to assess the concept and there is a need for transferring it into more accessible. This may help explain the reason why the link between brand personality and brand
relationship receives partial support (e.g. Chang and Chieng 2006). In addition, whereas WOM
transmission has been suggested as an outcome of brand relationship quality (MacInnis,
Park, and Priester 2009), little empirical evidence has been provided, especially in Vietnam.


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 5

For that reason, the main attempt of this study is to empirically test the relationship between
brand personality appeal, a concept that is more accessible to consumers, brand relationship
quality and WOM transmission in Vietnam.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

WOM transmission
WOM transmission, compared to traditional marketing, is believed more credible and faster,
especially with the support of the Internet (Silverman 2001; Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels
2009). It refers to the ‘communication about products and services between people who are
perceived to be independent of the company providing the product or service, in a medium
perceived to be independent of the company’ (Silverman 2001, 25). WOM transmission is
generally regarded as an informal transfer of purchase-related and consumption-related
information on a brand between consumers, and it can be negative or positive (Soderlund
and Rosengren 2007). Positive WOM transmission is a valuable tool for promoting a brand

(Gremler, Gwinner, and Brown 2001). Thus, this study frames WOM transmission as a positive
behavioral response (e.g. as a recommendation).
A brand that has established a high quality relationship with the consumer will benefit
from positive WOM transmission. The quality relationship is formed when the consumer
has extensive knowledge and experiences about the brand and when the consumer highly
evaluates it through interactions between the brand and the consumer. These may result
in a discovery of a high fit between her/him and the brand as specified in the consumer-social identity-brand model. The consumer will become an active partner in the relationship
(File, Judd, and Prince 1992; Fournier 1998; Veloutsou and Moutinho 2009), which is likely
to produce consumer advocacy behaviors such as positive WOM transmission. Therefore,
H1: Brand relationship quality has a positive effect on WOM transmission.

Brand personality appeal
Brand personality, a combination of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker
1997; Freling, Crosno, and Henard 2011), is an area of brands that researchers have devoted
their effort in the past several years (Aaker 1997; Arsena, Silvera, and Pandelaere 2014; Eisend
and Stokburger-Sauer 2013; Ha and Janda 2014; Kim and Sung 2013). Within a consumer-social identity-brand framework (Reed, Cohen, and Bhattacharjee 2009), a brand is no longer
an object of economic exchange but it helps consumers identify themselves (Szmigin 2003).
Consumers use the brand when its personality assists them in personal identification and
positioning; based on the information about the brand they integrate over the time (Fennis
and Pruyn 2007).
Consumers use a brand’s personality as a means for their personal identification and
positioning when they perceive a fit between the brand personality and their ­personality.
Such a fit depends on the ability of the brand to make it appealing to consumers. To
perform this role, the personality of the brand should be distinctive (i.e. novel and unique
to consumers), attractive (i.e. favorable to consumers) and recognizable (i.e. apparent and
accessible to consumers; Freling, Crosno, and Henard 2011; Kim, Han, and Park 2001). These
characteristics of the brand can be represented by the concept of brand personality appeal,
which is defined as ‘a brand’s ability to appeal to consumers through the combination of
human characteristics associated with it’ (Freling, Crosno, and Henard 2011, 293).

6 

  N. D. Tho et al.

Empirical research on brand-consumer relationships has shown that brand personality
enables consumers to express their self, forming and strengthening the relationship between
brands and consumers (e.g. Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004). This is because when the
personality of a brand is able to appeal to consumers, they will perceive a good fit between
their personality and the brand personality and tend to regard the brand as a member of
their group as suggested by social identity theory (Reed, Cohen, and Bhattacharjee 2009).
For that reason, consumers tend to build, develop and strengthen their relationship with
the brand. In addition, as a member of the group, the brand will be introduced to other
members within the group as explained by social identity theory. Thus,

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

H2: Brand personality appeal has a positive effect on brand relationship quality.
H3: Brand personality appeal has a positive effect on WOM transmission.

Attitudes toward advertising and public relations
The attitude of consumers toward advertising refers to ‘a learned predisposition to respond
in a consistently favorable manner toward advertising in general’ (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989,
53–54). Advertising is a means to communicate a brand’s appeal to the consumer. The appeal
of a brand can be rational (e.g. quality, value, performance, etc.), emotional (e.g. love, joy,
humor etc.) and moral (e.g. right and proper) (Kotler and Armstrong 2014). Advertisers
attempt to consistently communicate brand claims reflecting some key aspects of brand personality, which helps consumers reinforce their perception of brand personality (Puzakova,
Kwak, and Taylor 2013). It is therefore well documented in the literature that advertising is
heavily employed by marketers to create and promote brand personality and brand relationships (Aaker and Biel 1993; Kim and Sung 2013; Mehta 2000; Puzakova, Kwak, and Taylor
2013). Because attitude is evaluative in nature (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010), favorable attitudes

of consumers toward advertising programs of a brand will encourage them to learn more
about the brand and its personality traits, assisting them in evaluating the fit between the
brand personality and themselves (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989; Puzakova, Kwak, and Taylor
2013). For that reason, such advertising programs will make the personality of the brand to
be more appealing to consumers.
H4: Attitudes toward advertising have a positive effect on brand personality appeal.

Furthermore, when forming a relationship with a brand, consumers tend to behave in a
manner similar to what they do with people. They tend to apply rules of social interaction
to the brand (Fournier 1998; Puzakova, Kwak, and Taylor 2013). Consumers who hold favorable attitudes toward a brand’s advertising programs are therefore likely to have a positive
evaluation of the brand (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989; Mehta 2000). This will strengthen their
relationships with the brand. Thus,
H5: Attitudes toward advertising have a positive effect on brand relationship quality.

Public relations refers to the establishment of long-term interactions between brands, consumers and the public’s, aiming to establish their mutual understanding, goodwill and support, thus enhancing their relationships (Smith 2005). Public relations is believed to be more
authentic and credible to consumers than advertising (Smith 2005), and is an effective tool
for building strong brands (Ries and Ries 2004). As in the case of advertising, favorable attitudes of consumers toward the public relations programs of a brand will reinforce long-term
interactions between the brand and consumers. Those consumers are likely to strengthen


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 7

their relationships with the brand, as they do with humans. In addition, such long-term
interactions will assist consumers in discovering the fit between their personality and the
brand personality. And, when consumers recognize such a fit between their personality and
the brand personality, they will perceive the brand personality to be more appealing. Thus,
H6: Attitudes toward public relations have a positive effect on brand personality appeal.
H7: Attitudes toward public relations have a positive effect on brand relationship quality.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

Method
Procedure and sample
The research was conducted in Ho Chi Minh City, the principal business center of Vietnam.
Two phases of study, a pilot study and a main survey, were undertaken to collect data for
testing the proposed model. Respondents were users of various brands of consumer products including high-involvement products such as cars, and low-involvement products such
as detergents, local as well as international brands. Brands under study were those that
respondents had used in the last six months. When approaching a respondent for interview,
the interviewer asked the respondent to list three brands that he or she had used in the
last 6 months. The interviewer randomly chose one brand out of three and then, asked the
respondent to answer the questions on that chosen brand.
The pilot study comprised two steps: a qualitative study and a quantitative pilot survey.
Although most of the measures of constructs in the model are available in the literature, it
is important to ensure they are appropriate for the Vietnamese context, especially for the
measure of brand personality appeal. Therefore, the study first, conducted a series of in-depth
interviews with 11 part-time graduate students of the University of Economics in HCM City.
Theoretical sampling (Coyne 1997) was employed in this step and the saturated point was 11.
Next, the quantitative pilot survey was undertaken by means of face-to-face interviews with a
convenience sample of 102 consumers. The data collected from this study was used to refine
the measures by means of Cronbach’s alpha reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
The main survey was also undertaken by using face-to-face interviews with a convenience sample of 477 consumers. A team of interviewers was hired to do the interviewing
at the respondents’ home. When a respondent completed a questionnaire, the interviewer
immediately checked it for any missing values. The sample comprised 242 (50.7%) female
consumers and 235 (49.3%) male consumers. There were 303 (63.5%) consumers who were
30 years of age or younger, and 174 (36.5%) consumers who were older than 30 years of
age. Finally, the sample included 311 (65.2%) consumers had a monthly income lower than
or equal to US$ 400, and 166 (34.8%) consumers had a monthly income higher than US$
400. The data collected from this main survey was used to validate the measures by means

of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and to test the structural model by means of structural
equation modeling (SEM).
Measurement
Five constructs were examined: brand personality appeal, brand relationship quality, WOM
transmission, attitudes toward advertising and attitudes toward public relations. Brand personality appeal was measured by a global scale consisting of three items, borrowed from


8 

  N. D. Tho et al.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

Freling, Crosno, and Henard (2011) and modified based on the results of the qualitative pilot
study. Note that the scale developed by Freling, Crosno, and Henard’s (2011) comprised
items measuring three dimensions of brand personality appeal, i.e. favorability, originality,
and clarity. This study employed a global scale to measure brand personality appeal. The
global items covered all three facets of the construct, i.e. favorability (attractive), originality (distinctive), and clarity (recognizable). Results from the qualitative pilot study indicate
that the personality of a brand is appealing when it is distinctive, attractive, and easy to
recognize. For example, a respondent expressed his own opinion about the personality of
a brand as follows:
I see some brands are different but nothing unique and attractive to me; this brand is attractive
and unique compared to others; the personality of this brand … I don’t know; I can’t realize
… I like this brand because it looks rugged like me; it is not difficult for me to recognize its
ruggedness …

Brand relationship quality was conceptualized as a second-order construct consisting of six
components: interdependence, passion, self-connection, commitment, intimacy, and trust.
The 18 items measuring these components were borrowed from Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel
(2004) and Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom (2007). WOM transmission was measured by three

items adapted from File, Judd, and Prince (1992). Finally, attitudes toward adverting were
measured by two items, and two items measured attitudes toward public relations. These
measures were based on Fishbein and Ajzen’s (2010) who believe that attitudes are evaluative
in nature. However, following Mehta (2000), this study employed Likert-type scaling instead
of semantic differential scaling to measure attitudes.
All items were seven-point Likert scales, anchored by 1: strongly disagree and 7: strongly
agree (see Table 1 for the means, standard deviations, and CFA factor loadings of scale items).
We initially prepared the questionnaire in English. Then, an academic who is fluent in both
languages translated the questionnaire into Vietnamese. This procedure was undertaken
because English is not well understood by all consumers in this market. Back translation
was undertaken to ensure the equivalence of meanings. Note that the order of the items
measuring these constructs was randomly distributed in the survey questionnaire to reduce
acquiescence bias (Chang, van Witteloostuijn, and Eden 2010).

Measurement refinement
Cronbach’s alpha reliability and EFA were employed to refine the measures of constructs
based on the data collected in the quantitative pilot study (n = 102). The Cronbach alpha’s
results indicate that all Cronbach’s alphas of the scales were greater than .70, satisfying
the requirement for internal consistency. Note that one item measuring brand personality
appeal (No other brands can be compared with X) was deleted due to its low item-total
correlation (<.30). EFA (principal components with varimax rotation) extracted five factors,
corresponding with the five constructs used in the theoretical model. In addition, all factor
loadings were greater than .50 and total variance extracted was greater than 50%. These EFA
results indicate that all the measures of constructs satisfied the requirements for the factors
extracted, factor loadings and total variance extracted. As a consequence, these measures
were used in the main survey.


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 9

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and standardized CFA loadings of items.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

Items
Interdependence: Composite reliability ρc = .80; Average variance extracted ρvc = .58
Id1. The success of X is my success
Id2. I feel embarrassed when someone criticizes X
Id3. When someone criticizes X, I feel insulted
Passion: ρc = .89; ρvc = .72
Ps1. I feel very lovely when talking about X
Ps2. I feel great affection for X
Ps3. I feel very peaceful when mentioning about X
Self-connection: ρc = .93; ρvc = .83
Sc1. X helps me to express myself
Sc2. X reflects my personality
Sc3. X enhances myself
Commitment: ρc = .86; ρvc = .67
Cm1. I always stick with X
Cm2. To me, X is an irreplaceable brand
Cm3. I am very loyal to X
Intimacy: ρc = .83; ρvc = .61
It1. I have a deep understanding of X
It2. I deeply sympathize with X
It3. I become very knowledgeable about X
Trust: ρc = .87; ρvc = .69
Tr1. X is capable of delivering what it promises
Tr2. I always receive what X promises to provide

Tr3. My experiences with X show that X never promises what it doesn’t have
WOM transmission: ρc = .82; ρvc = .61
Wo1. I recommend to others that X should be their choice as soon as possible
Wo2. I talk to others that X is the best brand of this kind
Wo3. I talk directly to others about my experience of X
Brand personality appeal: ρc = .86; ρvc = .67
Bp1. Compared to other brands, the personality of X is very attractive
Bp2. Compared to other brands, the personality of X is very distinctive
Bp3. Compared to other brand, it is very easy to recognize the personality of X
Attitudes toward advertising: ρc = .92; ρvc = .84
Ad1. The advertising programs of X are very attractive
Ad2. I like the advertising programs of X
Attitudes toward public relations: ρc = .92; ρvc = .86
Pr1. The public relations programs of X are very valuable for society
Pr2. I highly value the public relations programs of X

M

SD

λ

3.48
3.51
3.12

1.75
1.69
1.70

.57
.83
.86

4.68
4.56
4.48

1.55
1.47
1.58

.87
.86
.82

4.45
4.51
4.27

1.88
1.86
1.80

.94
.96
.82

4.52
3.31

4.71

1.83
1.85
1.72

.70
.85
.89

4.02
4.18
4.16

1.53
1.56
1.61

.83
.78
.74

4.93
4.86
5.10

1.53
1.60
1.54

.90
.86
.72

4.38
5.18
5.00

1.64
1.45
1.46

.71
.86
.75

5.31
5.28
5.03

1.46
1.38
1.59

.90
.87
.66

4.79
4.69

1.67
1.63

.90
.94

3.96
4.09

1.71
1.78

.96
.90

Note: M: mean, SD: standard deviation, λ: standardized CFA loading, X: researched brand.

Data analysis and results
Measurement validation
As previously presented, five constructs were examined: brand personality appeal, brand
relationship quality, WOM transmission, attitudes toward advertising, and attitudes toward
public relations. The scales measuring these constructs were refined via Cronbach’s alpha and
EFA using the data-set (n = 102) collected in the pilot study. These scales were then assessed
via CFA using the data-set (n = 477) collected in the main survey. Two steps were undertaken
in validating measures. First, a CFA model was used to assess the second-order construct
(brand relationship quality). Next, the four first-order constructs (WOM transmission, brand


10 

  N. D. Tho et al.

personality appeal, attitudes toward advertising, and attitudes toward public relations) were
incorporated into the first CFA model to form a saturated model (final measurement model).

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

Brand relationship quality
As discussed earlier, brand relationship quality was a second-order construct comprising
six components: interdependence, passion, self-connection, commitment, intimacy, and
trust. The CFA results indicate that the measurement model of brand relationship quality
2
received an acceptable fit: 𝜒(120)
= 407.65 (p = .000), GFI = .916, IFI = .951, CFI = .951, and
 
RMSEA = .071. All CFA factor loadings were equal or greater than .57 (p < .001). These findings
indicate that the scales measuring the components of brand relationship quality satisfied
the requirement for unidimensionality and within-method convergent validity. Further, all
factor correlations were significantly below unity (p < .001), supporting the within-construct
discriminant validity between the components of brand relationship quality (Steenkamp
and van Trijp 1991).

Saturated model
The saturated model (final measurement model) was formed by incorporating the four
first-order constructs, which included WOM transmission, brand personality appeal, attitudes
toward advertising, and attitudes toward public relations, into the CFA model of brand rela2
tionship quality. The CFA results of this model also received an acceptable fit: 𝜒(334)
= 1255.47
 

(p  =  .000), GFI  =  .847, IFI  =  .906, CFI  =  .906, and RMSEA  =  .076. All factor loadings were
substantial (≥.57) and significant (p < .001; Table 1). These findings further indicate that the
scales measuring all first-order constructs (WOM transmission, brand personality appeal,
attitudes toward adverting, attitudes toward public relations) were unidimensional and the
within-method convergent validity was achieved (Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991). In addition, all construct correlations were significantly below unity (p < .001; Appendix 1), thus,
supporting the across-construct discriminant validity. Furthermore, all measures satisfied
the requirement for composite reliability (ρc ≥ .80) and average variance extracted (ρvc ≥ .58;
Fornell and Larcker 1981; Table 1). Table 1 shows the composite reliability and average variance extracted of the scales and the means, standard deviations, and standardized CFA
loadings of the scale items. Appendix 1 presents the correlations between constructs and
Appendix 2 shows the correlations between items.

Common method variance
This study employed a data-set collected from a single respondent, raising the possibility
of common method biases (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Following a procedure proposed by
Podsakoff et al. (2003), the present study undertook a series of steps to remedy these
effects if they existed. As previously discussed, in the design step, a pilot study was used
to make the meaning of the items measuring the constructs used in the study clear to
the respondent. Also, the items were randomly assigned in the questionnaire to avoid
agreement tendency bias. In the statistical control procedure, a CFA Harman’s single factor
model test was firstly conducted. The one-factor model received a very poor fit to data
2
[𝜒(350)
= 4801.85 (p = .000), GFI = .583, IFI = .546, CFI = .545, and RMSEA = .163], compared
 


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 11

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

2
to the trait factor model [𝜒(334)
= 1255.47 (p = .000), GFI = .847, IFI = .906, CFI = .906, and
 
RMSEA = .076). Next, an unmeasured latent variable that was allowed to load on each
item into the trait model was included. In order to achieve reliable estimates in regards
to sample size, the model was divided into two parts for the test. The first part comprised
four constructs; they were attitudes toward advertising, attitudes toward public relations,
brand personality appeal, and brand relationship quality. The second part consisted of
brand relationship quality and WOM transmission. The test results of these two parts indicate that the size and statistical significance of the loadings were almost identical to those
reported in the measurement model. In addition, all the loadings on the unmeasured
latent variable were not significant. As a result, the common method variance was not a
pervasive problem in this study.

Structural results
SEM was used to test the theoretical model and hypotheses. The results indicate that the
2
model received an acceptable fit: 𝜒(336)
= 1258.87 (p = .000), GFI = .847, IFI = .906, CFI = .906,
 
and RMSEA = .076. Note that no improper solution was found in any model: Heywood cases
were absent; all error-term variances were significant; and, all standardized residuals were
less than |2.58|. The structural coefficients are shown in Table 2.

Hypothesis testing
The SEM results (Table 2) show that six out of seven hypotheses received support from the
data. The supported hypotheses were H1, H2, H3, H4, H6, and H7. The unsupported ­hypothesis
was H5 (Attitudes toward advertising → Brand relationship quality). A closer examination

of the structural paths indicates that, consistent with hypothesis H1, brand relationship
­quality had a positive effect on WOM transmission (β = .50, p < .001). Hypothesis H2 proposed a
positive relationship between brand personality appeal and brand relationship quality. This
hypothesis also received support (β = .70, p < .001) from the data. Hypothesis H3 proposed
a positive effect of brand personality appeal on WOM transmission. This hypothesis was
­supported (β = .30, p < .01). Further, attitudes toward advertising had a positive impact on
brand personality appeal (γ = .47, p < .001), supporting hypothesis H4. However, the relationship between attitudes toward advertising and brand relationship quality was not significant
(γ = .07, p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis H5 was not supported. Finally, attitudes toward public
relations had positive impacts on both brand personality appeal (γ = .17, p < .001) and brand
relationship quality (γ = .12, p < .01), thus supporting hypotheses H6 and H7 (Table 2).

Discussion
Realizing that brand personality plays an important role in the success of a brand, this study
investigates the impact of brand personality appeal on brand relationship quality and WOM
transmission, and to the best of our knowledge, it is among the first research on the issue
in Vietnam. The study also explores the role of consumer attitudes toward advertising and
public relations in brand personality appeal and brand relationship quality. The SEM results,
based on a data-set collected from 477 consumers in Vietnam, reveal that brand personality
appeal and brand relationship quality are key drivers of WOM transmission. Brand personality


12 

  N. D. Tho et al.

Table 2. Structural paths in the model.
Estimate
Hypothesis

Path

H1

Brand relationship quality → WOM
transmission
Brand personality appeal → Brand
relationship quality
Brand personality appeal → WOM
transmission
Attitudes toward advertising 

H2
H3
H4

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

H5
H6
H7

→ Brand personality appeal

Attitudes toward advertising 

→ Brand relationship quality

Attitudes toward public relations 

→ Brand personality appeal

Attitudes toward public rela-

Unstandardized
.83

Standard
error
.151

Standardized
.50

t-value
5.47

p-value
.000

.39

.045

.70

8.58

.000

.27

.070

.30

3.87

.000

.37

.042

.47

8.72

.000

.03

.021

.07

1.49

.135

.12

.037

.17

3.32

.000

.05

.018

.12

2.76

.006

tions → Brand relationship quality

appeal also enhances brand relationship quality. In addition, attitudes towards public relations help improve both brand personality appeal and brand relationship quality. However,
attitudes toward advertising significantly enhance brand personality appeal but not brand
relationship quality. These findings offer a number of implications for theory and practice.

Implications for theory and research
In terms of theory, firstly, the study results indicate that brand personality appeal plays a
fundamental role in building brand-consumer relationships as well as WOM transmission
because brand personality can provide emotional benefits for consumers. Prior research
suggests a transfer effect from salient brand personality traits to consumer personality (Fennis

and Pruyn 2007). In this study, consumers participating in the survey were not informed about
brand personality of any brand. Instead, they evaluated a brand based on their information
on and experience of that brand personality. The evaluation of the brand reveals the level
of fit between the brand personality and consumers’ personality. This is because the brand
serves as a relationship partner of consumers. The possession of the brand is consumers’
self-identifier (who they are and where they belong). Thus, the study findings verify the
consumer-social identity-brand link proposed by Reed, Cohen, and Bhattacharjee (2009) in
Vietnam. Note that the test of the measure of brand relationship quality also supports the
multidimensionality of the construct proposed by Fournier (1998) and tested by several
researchers in advanced economies (e.g. Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Kressmann et al.
2006; Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom 2007). Therefore, researchers who want to conduct research
in Vietnam can employ measures developed in advanced economies in their research.
Further, there is extant literature on brand personality; however, the focus is mainly on the
importance of establishing a brand personality (Freling, Crosno, and Henard 2011). Although
the existence of brand personality is necessary for a brand, what makes it more impactful
than others is crucial for the success of the brand. This issue is a key concern by academics
as well as practitioners about brand personality (Avis 2012; Freling, Crosno, and Henard


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 13

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

2011). This study is an attempt to elaborate on and clarify the link between brand personality
appeal, a concept that has more practical implications for the concept of brand ­personality,
and brand-consumer relationships in Vietnam. Thus, the study findings further confirm
the role of brand personality appeal in Vietnam. Finally, prior research has frequently used
attitudes toward brands and purchase intentions as outcomes of brand personality (Freling,

Crosno, and Henard 2011). This current study extends the outcome of brand personality by
investigating its impact on both brand relationship quality and WOM transmission. In other
words, the study findings highlight the importance of brand personality appeal in enhancing
both brand relationship quality and WOM transmission.

Implications for managers
In practice, WOM transmission from existing consumers to potential consumers is the most
credible tool of stimulating new consumers for a brand (Gremler, Gwinner, and Brown 2001;
Silverman 2001). This study empirically demonstrates that brand personality appeal and
brand relationship quality play an important role in enhancing WOM transmission. These
findings suggest that firms in Vietnam should establish and nurture quality relationships
between their brands and consumers. In so doing, the construction of brand personality is
crucial. A brand personality that holds strong appeal for consumers will be of great advantage as indicated by the results of this study: brand personality appeal has a strong effect
on both brand relationship quality and WOM transmission. As such, this research would
help brand managers to understand the role of brand personality appeal in strengthening
brand-consumer relationships and WOM transmission. Also, brand managers should pay
close attention to the formation of brand relationship quality in order to have appropriate
measures and to keep track of their brands’ consumers.
In addition, attitudes toward public relations have positive impacts on both brand personality appeal and brand relationship quality. Attitudes toward advertising have a positive
impact on brand personality appeal but not on brand relationship quality. These findings
imply that adverting is losing its effectiveness in building strong brands compared to public
relations as Ries and Ries (2004) argue in their book entitled The fall of advertising and the rise
of PR. For that reason, brand managers need to utilize appropriate communication tools, i.e.
focusing more on public relations, to create a strong brand personality appeal for consumers
to establish high quality brand-consumer relationships. Public relations programs should
be perceived to be valuable for the community and link to the personality of the brand. In
so doing, the brand will attract more consumers through WOM transmission, enhancing the
performance of the brand (Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels 2009).

Conclusions

In conclusion, the literature on brand personality and on brand-consumer relationships has
expedited over the past several years and scholars and managers alike are now in need of
its practical implications (Avis 2012; Freling, Crosno, and Henard 2011; Reed, Cohen, and
Bhattacharjee 2009). This is because consumers may not in general regard brands as humanlike (Avis 2012). Consequently, there is a need to transfer the concept of brand personality
into other concepts that are more accessible by consumers and brand personality appeal is
a suitable one in this regard. However, research on these issues is largely ignored in Vietnam
and the current study makes an attempt to bridge this gap.


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

14 

  N. D. Tho et al.

The study documents a significant role that brand personality appeal plays in building
high quality brand-consumer relationships and in enhancing WOM transmission. Because
brand-consumer relationship quality and WOM transmission play a crucial role in the success
of a brand, marketers should design and implement marketing strategies that are able to
build high quality consumer-brand relationships and to enhance WOM transmission. In so
doing, as found in this study, marketers must spend their effort to make the personality of
their brands more appealing to their target consumers. Traditional marketing-mix elements
such as advertising and public relations still work. Public relations, however, is more effective.
This study has a number of limitations. Firstly, the model was tested with consumers in
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The model should be tested with consumers in other markets
to enhance the generalizability of the results. Secondly, the study examined only two elements of the marketing mix, i.e. advertising and public relations. Additional components
of the marketing mix, such as pricing, promotion, and product quality, etc. and relationship
related factors, such as relationship investments (Palmatier et al. 2009), could be added
as antecedents of brand personality appeal and brand relationship quality. These are also
directions for future research. Thirdly, this study measured brand personality appeal by a

global scale. Global items are easier to administer, however, they may be less precise than
facet items (Kumar, Stern, and Anderson 1993). Future research should use facet scales to
measure the three components of brand personality appeal (i.e. favorability, originality, and
clarity; Freling, Crosno, and Henard 2011), and should compare the results with global scales.
Finally, this study focused on the tangibles. An examination of services to compare and contrast the results with those found in this study will be another direction for future research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the UEH International School of Business [grant number
UEH.ISB.13.002].

Notes on contributors
Nguyen Dinh Tho is Chair of Research and Doctoral Program, International School of Business,
University of Economics HCM City, Vietnam, and Adjunct Professor, University of Western Sydney,
Australia. His works have been published in Asia Pacific Business Review, International Business Review,
Journal of Business Research, Journal of Happiness Studies, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of
Macromarketing, among others.
Nguyen Thi Mai Trang is Associate Professor in Marketing, University of Economics and Law, Vietnam
National University, HCM City. Her works have been published in Asia Pacific Business Review, Journal
of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Macromarketing, Management Research
Review, among others.
Svein Ottar Olsen is Professor of Marketing at the University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. His works
have been published in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Journal of International Business Studies, Psychology & Marketing, among others.


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 15

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

References
Aaker, D. A., and A. L. Biel. 1993. “Brand Equity and Advertising.” In Brand Equity and Advertising:
Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, edited by D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel, 1–8. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aaker, J. 1997. “Dimensions of Brand Personality.” Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3): 347–356.
Aaker, J., S. Fournier, and S. A. Brasel. 2004. “When Good Brands Do Bad.” Journal of Consumer Research
31 (1): 1–16.
Arsena, A., D. H. Silvera, and M. Pandelaere. 2014. “Brand Trait Transference: When Celebrity Endorsers
Acquire Brand Personality Traits.” Journal of Business Research 67 (7): 1537–1543.
Avis, M. 2012. “Brand Personality Factor Based Models: A Critical Review.” Australasian Marketing Journal
(AMJ) 20 (1): 89–96.
Bejou, D. 1997. “Relationship Marketing: Evolution, Present State, and Future.” Psychology & Marketing
14 (8): 727–736.
Brakus, J. J., B. H. Schmitt, and L. Zarantonello. 2009. “Brand Experience: What is It? How is It Measured?
Does It Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing 73 (3): 52–68.
Branaghan, R. J., and E. A. Hildebrand. 2011. “Brand Personality, Self-Congruity, and Preference: A
Knowledge Structures Approach.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10 (5): 304–312.
Chang, P.-L., and M.-H. Chieng. 2006. “Building Consumer-Brand Relationship: A Cross-Cultural
Experiential View.” Psychology & Marketing 23 (11): 927–959.
Chang, S.-J., A. van Witteloostuijn, and L. Eden. 2010. “From the Editors: Common Method Variance in
International Business Research.” Journal of International Business Studies 41 (2): 178–184.
Coyne, I. T. 1997. “Sampling in Qualitative Research. Purposeful and Theoretical Sampling; Merging or
Clear Boundaries?” Journal of Advanced Nursing 26 (3): 623–630.
Duy Duy 2015. “Consumption Trend 2015: Vietnamese Are Ready to Pay.” DatViet, January 22.
/>Eisend, M., and N. E. Stokburger-Sauer. 2013. “Measurement Characteristics of Aaker’s Brand Personality
Dimensions: Lessons to Be Learned from Human Personality Research.” Psychology & Marketing

30 (11): 950–958.
Ellemers, N. E., and S. A. Haslam. 2012. “Social Identity Theory.” In Handbook of Theories of Social
Psychology, edited by P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins, Vol. 2, 379–398. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 1998. “Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon.” Journal of Consumer Psychology
7 (2): 131–157.
Fennis, B. M., and A. T. H. Pruyn. 2007. “You Are What You Wear: Brand Personality Influences on
Consumer Impression Formation.” Journal of Business Research 60 (6): 634–639.
File, K., B. Judd, and R. Prince. 1992. “Interactive Marketing: The Influence of Participation on Positive
Word-of-Mouth and Referrals.” Journal of Services Marketing 6 (4): 5–14.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach.
New York: Psychology Press.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.
Fournier, S. 1998. “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research.”
Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 343–373.
Freling, T. H., J. L. Crosno, and D. H. Henard. 2011. “Brand Personality Appeal: Conceptualization and
Empirical Validation.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39 (3): 392–406.
Gremler, D. D., K. P. Gwinner, and S. W. Brown. 2001. “Generating Positive Word-of-Mouth Communication
through Customer-Employee Relationships.” International Journal of Service Industry Management
12 (1): 44–59.
Ha, H.-Y., and S. Janda. 2014. “Brand Personality and Its Outcomes in the Chinese Automobile Industry.”
Asia Pacific Business Review 20 (2): 216–230.
Hogg, M. A. 2006. “Social Identity Theory.” In Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by P. J.
Burke, 111–136. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

16 

  N. D. Tho et al.

Huang, H. H., and V.-W. Mitchell. 2014. “The Role of Imagination and Brand Personification in Brand
Relationships.” Psychology & Marketing 31 (1): 38–47.
Keller, K. L. 1993. “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.” Journal
of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22.
Kim, C. K., D. Han, and S.-B. Park. 2001. “The Effects of Brand Personality and Brand Identification on
Brand Loyalty: Applying the Theory of Social Identification.” Japanese Psychological Research 43 (4):
195–206.
Kim, D. H., and Y. Sung. 2013. “Gucci versus Old Navy: Interplay of Brand Personality and Regulatory
Focus in Advertising Persuasion.” Psychology & Marketing 30 (12): 1076–1087.
Kotler, P., and G. Armstrong. 2014. Principles of Marketing, 2nd Global ed. Essex: Pearson.
Kressmann, F., M. J. Sirgy, A. Herrmann, F. Huber, S. Huber, and D. J. Lee. 2006. “Direct and Indirect Effects
of Self-Image Congruence on Brand Loyalty.” Journal of Business Research 59 (9): 955–964.
Kumar, N., L. W. Stern, and J. C. Anderson. 1993. “Conducting Interorganizational Research Using Key
Informants.” Academy of Management Journal 36 (6): 1633–1651.
Lam, S. K., M. Ahearne, Y. Hu, and N. Schillewaert. 2010. “Resistance to Brand Switching When a Radically
New Brand is Introduced: A Social Identity Theory Perspective.” Journal of Marketing 74 (6): 128–146.
Lin, J.-S., and Y. Sung. 2014. “Nothing Can Tear Us Apart: The Effect of Brand Identity Fusion in ConsumerBrand Relationships.” Psychology & Marketing 31 (1): 54–69.
MacKenzie, S. B., and R. J. Lutz. 1989. “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude
toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context.” Journal of Marketing 53 (2): 48–65.
MacInnis, D. J., C. W. Park, and J. Priester. 2009. “Introduction: Why Brand Relationships?” In Handbook of
Brand Relationships, edited by D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, and J. R. Priester, ix–xxi. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Maehle, N., C. Otnes, and M. Supphellen. 2011. “Consumers’ Perceptions of the Dimensions of Brand
Personality.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10 (5): 290–303.
Mehta, A. 2000. “Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness.” Journal of Advertising Research
40 (3): 67–72.
Nguyen, T. D., T. T. M. Nguyen, and N. J. Barrett. 2008. “Consumer Ethnocentrism, Cultural Sensitivity,
and Intention to Purchase Local Products: Evidence from Vietnam.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour

7 (1): 88–100.
Palmatier, R. W., C. B. Jarvis, J. R. Bechkoff, and F. R. Kardes. 2009. “The Role of Customer Gratitude in
Relationship Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 73 (5): 1–18.
Pentina, I., B. S. Gammoh, L. Zhang, and M. Mallin. 2013. “Drivers and Outcomes of Brand Relationship
Quality in the Context of Online Social Networks.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce
17 (3): 63–86.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.
Puzakova, M., H. Kwak, and C. R. Taylor. 2013. “The Role of Geography of Self in ‘Filling in’ Brand
Personality Traits: Consumer Inference of Unobservable Attributes.” Journal of Advertising 42 (1):
16–29.
Reed II, A., J. B. Cohen, and A. Bhattacharjee. 2009. “When Brands Are Built from Within.” In Handbook
of Brand Relationships, edited by D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, and J. R. Priester, 124–150. New York: M.E.
Sharpe.
Ries, A., and L. Ries. 2004. The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR. New York: Harper Business.
Silverman, G. 2001. The Secrets of Word-of-Mouth Marketing: How to Trigger Exponential Sales through
Runaway Word of Mouth. New York: American Management Association.
Smit, E., F. Bronner, and M. Tolboom. 2007. “Brand Relationship Quality and Its Value for Personal
Contact.” Journal of Business Research 60 (6): 627–633.
Smith, R. D. 2005. Strategic Planning for Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Söderlund, M., and S. Rosengren. 2007. “Receiving Word-of-Mouth from the Service Customer: An
Emotion-Based Effectiveness Assessment.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2): 123–136.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and H. C. M. van Trijp. 1991. “The Use of Lisrel in Validating Marketing Constructs.”
International Journal of Research in Marketing 8 (4): 283–299.
Szmigin, I. 2003. Understanding the Consumer. London: Sage.


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 17

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

Thuong hieu Viet 2015. “The Process of Building Vietnamese Brands”. />Content/Qua-trinh-xay-dung-thuong-hieu-Viet-Nam/119/98.html.
Trusov, M., R. E. Bucklin, and K. Pauwels. 2009. “Effects of Word-of-Mouth versus Traditional Marketing:
Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site.” Journal of Marketing 73 (5): 90–102.
Underwood, R., E. Bond, and R. Baer. 2001. “Building Service Brands via Social Identity: Lessons from
the Sports Marketplace.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 9 (1): 1–13.
Veloutsou, C., and L. Moutinho. 2009. “Brand Relationships through Brand Reputation and Brand
Tribalism.” Journal of Business Research 62 (3): 314–322.
Viet Toan. 2013. “Vietnamese Consumers More Careful than Global Peers: GfK.” Tuoitrenews.Vn,
November 22. />Woodside, A. G., and M. G. Walser. 2007. “Building Strong Brands in Retailing.” Journal of Business Research
60 (1): 1–10.

Appendix 1. Covariances and correlations between constructs
Estimate

1.17

Standard
error
.141

Correlation
.48

t-value
8.33

.53
.74

.070
.107

.73
.39

7.51
6.92

.62
.52
.75
1.00
.90
.68
.44

.078
.075
.099
.108
.091
.102
.072

.79
.51

.45
.55
.69
.39
.42

7.99
6.90
7.59
9.26
9.86
6.63
6.14

Covariance
Attitudes toward advertising ↔ Attitudes toward public
relations
Brand relationship quality ↔ WOM transmission
Attitudes toward public relations ↔ Brand personality
appeal
Brand relationship quality ↔ Brand personality appeal
Brand relationship quality ↔ Attitudes toward advertising
Attitudes toward advertising ↔ WOM transmission
Attitudes toward advertising ↔ Brand personality appeal
Brand personality appeal ↔ WOM transmission
Attitudes toward public relations ↔ WOM transmission
Brand relationship quality ↔ Attitudes toward public
relations

Id1

3.074
.436**
.466**
.453**
.456**
.412**
.456**
.488**
.416**
.333**
.367**
.347**
.387**
.354**
.465**
.238**
.203**
.203**
.414**
.356**
.255**
.311**
.259**
.282**
.216**
.267**
.283**
.302**

 
2.860
.730**
.395**
.369**
.395**
.242**
.256**
.204**
.421**
.369**
.374**
.407**
.373**
.493**
.320**
.355**
.297**
.444**
.417**
.317**
.303**
.231**
.195**
.159**
.244**
.364**
.298**

Id2

 
 
2.887
.406**
.379**
.349**
.340**
.346**
.292**
.415**
.437**
.397**
.426**
.385**
.468**
.262**
.323**
.229**
.443**
.346**
.228**
.298**
.231**
.202**
.137**
.239**
.243**
.222**

Id3

 
 
 
2.399
.733**
.704**
.481**
.458**
.463**
.519**
.585**
.548**
.564**
.484**
.555**
.391**
.400**
.325**
.334**
.428**
.360**
.513**
.468**
.387**
.293**
.373**
.275**

.304**

Ps1

 
 
 
 
2.155
.730**
.408**
.420**
.387**
.420**
.553**
.500**
.486**
.425**
.479**
.393**
.387**
.321**
.328**
.452**
.338**
.473**
.457**
.389**
.301**
.319**

.278**
.277**

Ps2

 
 
 
 
 
2.507
.332**
.349**
.314**
.390**
.499**
.447**
.512**
.421**
.501**
.389**
.388**
.344**
.330**
.435**
.331**
.450**
.396**
.317**
.268**

.336**
.288**
.233**

Ps3

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.525
.900**
.767**
.372**
.453**
.464**
.372**
.380**
.416**
.344**
.268**
.255**
.335**
.315**
.366**
.419**
.394**
.408**

.337**
.345**
.058
.108*

Sc1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.465
.792**
.345**
.422**
.465**
.355**
.322**
.368**
.321**
.275**
.265**
.325**
.342**
.331**
.452**
.398**
.387**

.313**
.333**
.057
.116*

Sc2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.252
.330**
.432**
.422**
.328**
.309**
.342**
.363**
.302**
.207**
.267**
.265**
.340**
.395**
.400**
.439**

.290**
.291**
.060
.125**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.355
.605**
.598**
.425**
.380**
.448**
.433**
.385**
.371**
.411**
.315**
.305**
.530**
.434**
.300**
.209**

.258**
.266**
.280**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.952
.767**
.443**
.429**
.494**
.495**
.490**
.389**
.476**
.541**
.439**
.648**
.603**
.500**
.323**
.397**

.304**
.309**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.121
.439**
.440**
.483**
.430**
.468**
.444**
.482**
.434**
.456**
.584**
.524**
.417**
.334**
.346**
.264**

.268**

Sc3 Cm1 Cm2 Cm3

**

*

Correlation is significant at the .05 level; numbers on the diagonal are variances; n = 477.
Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

Id1
Id2
Id3
Ps1
Ps2
Ps3
Sc1
Sc2
Sc3
Cm1
Cm2
Cm3
It1
It2
It3
Tr1
Tr2
Tr3
Wo1

Wo2
Wo3
Bp1
Bp2
Bp3
Ad1
Ad2
Pr1
Pr2

Appendix 2. Correlations between items
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.350
.691**
.596**
.459**
.404**
.351**
.314**

.345**
.364**
.420**
.393**
.295**
.327**
.377**
.279**
.272**

It1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.435
.553**
.404**
.402**
.352**
.373**

.316**
.411**
.349**
.359**
.283**
.280**
.274**
.246**
.297**

It2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.608
.486**
.399**
.376**
.419**

.390**
.380**
.337**
.337**
.398**
.224**
.293**
.232**
.190**

It3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.329
.773**
.648**
.312**

.402**
.398**
.472**
.480**
.438**
.338**
.346**
.289**
.273**

Tr1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.547
.611**
.282**

.390**
.366**
.484**
.415**
.421**
.282**
.295**
.346**
.310**

Tr2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.386
.295**

.352**
.369**
.476**
.434**
.367**
.246**
.295**
.307**
.274**

Tr3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.699

.625**
.509**
.436**
.370**
.337**
.275**
.321**
.305**
.281**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.113

.662**
.597**
.478**
.414**
.301**
.376**
.343**
.295**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.134

.457**
.438**
.358**
.350**
.342**
.232**
.184**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.122

.786**
.559**
.408**
.438**
.332**
.302**

Wo1 Wo2 Wo3 Bp1

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
1.913
.586**
.457**
.441**
.291**
.258**

Bp2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
2.306
.408**
.398**
.367**
.340**

Bp3

Ad2

Pr1

Pr2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.794  
 
 
.844** 2.672  
 
.425** .421** 2.914  

**
**
**
.396 .398 .860 3.180

Ad1

18 
  N. D. Tho et al.