An integrative approach to investigate antecedents, moderators and consequences of brand equity

Editor in chief
NGUYEN BACH KHOA
Deputy Editor in Chief

SECTRETARY OF EDITORIAL OFFICE
PHAM MINH DAT
Editor in English
NGUYEN THI LAN PHUONG
Editorial SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL
Dinh Van SON - Thuong mai University, Vietnam - President
Pham Vu LUAN - Thuong mai University, Vietnam - Vice President
Nguyen Bach KHOA - Thuong mai University, Vietnam - Deputy President
THE Members

Vu Thanh Tu ANH - Fulbright University in Vietnam, USA
Le Xuan BA - Centural Institude for Economic Managerment, Vietnam
Hervé B. BOISMERY - University of La Reuinion, France
H. Eric BOUTIN - Toulon Var University, France
Nguyen Thi DOAN - Vietnam Learning Promotion Association, Vietnam
Haasis HANS - Dietrich - Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (isl) Bremen - Germany
Le Quoc HOI - National Economic University, Vietnam
Nguyen Thi Bich LOAN - Thuong mai University, Vietnam
Nguyen Hoang LONG - Thuong mai University, Vietnam
Nguyen MAI - Vietnam Economist Association, Vietnam
Duong Thi Binh MINH - University of Economics HoChiMinh City, Vietnam
Hee Cheon MOON - Korean Trade Research Association, South Korea
Bui Xuan NHAN - Thuong mai University, Vietnam
Luong Xuan QUY - Vietnam Economicst Association, Vietnam
Nguyen Van Song - Vietnam National University of Agriculture
Nguyen TAM - California State University, USA
Truong Ba THANH - University of Danang, Vietnam

Dinh Van THANH - Institude for Trade Research, Vietnam
Do Minh THANH - Thuong mai University, Vietnam
Le Dinh THANG - University of Québec à Trois Riviéres, Canada
Tran Dinh THIEN - Vietnam Institute of Economics, Vietnam
Nguyen Quang THUAN - Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, Vietnam
Le Nhu TUYEN - Grenoble École de Managment, France
Washio TOMOHARU - Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
Zhang YUJIE - Tsinghua University, China


Journal of
Trade Science
Volume 5

Number 1

April 2017

CONTENTS

1. Nguyen Thi Phuong LIEN - Solutions to Develop Government Bond Market in Vietnam
2. Nguyen Tran HUNG - Attract Online Customers to Job Websites in Vietnam

Page

3
13

3. Nguyen Thi Kim OANH - Research Factors Affecting Hanoi Consumers Buying Decisions of
Fashion Products

24

4. Chu Viet CUONG - Trade development in the mountainous region of northern Vietnam: Lessons
from Chongqing and Yunnan, China

33

5. Dang Thi Minh NGUYET - Factors Affecting Productive Efficiency of Vietnam Joint Stock
Commercial Bank for Industry and Trade

41

6. Ying-Kai LIAO and Vu Minh QUAN and Alfiyatul Qomariyah - An Integrative Approach to
Investigate Antecedents, Moderators and Consequences of Brand Equity

53


journal of Trade Science 5:1 (2017) 53 - 72

’S JTS

Ying-Kai Liao
Nanhua University, Taiwan
Email:
Vu Minh Quan
Nanhua University, Taiwan
Email:
Alfiyatul Qomariyah

Chinese Culture University, Taiwan
Email:
Received: 16th January 2017

Revised: 15th February 2017

Approved: 20th February 2017

ver the past decade, brand equity has been extensively discussed by academicians and practitioners. But,
there is still a research gap in the development of a comprehensive research framework of the moderators of brand equity. Therefore, the objectives of this study are first, to develop a comprehensive research model
of the moderators of brand equity; and second, to empirically test the developed research hypotheses.
Methodology of this study is questionnaire survey from 323 cosmetics users. There are 5 major moderators that
included in this study (e.g., experiential moderators, behavioral moderators, psychological moderators, demographic moderators, and relational moderators). The results show that all moderators have moderating effect on
the influences of brand association and perceived quality on brand equity. Furthermore, involvement, switching
costs, age, income, and loyalty program participation have moderating effect on the influence of brand equity on
purchase intention. In contrast, gender and relationship age with brand have no moderating effect on the influence of brand equity on purchase intention. Since previous studies regarding the moderators of brand equity are
limited and none of these studies has integrated these moderators into a more comprehensive model, the results
of this study can provide an important reference for academicians and professionals to develop brand management strategies.
Keywords: brand association, perceived quality, brand equity, moderators, purchase intention.
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the past decades, brand equity has been extensively discussed by academicians and practitioners. It
becomes one of the most popular and important marketing concepts (Atilgan, et al., 2005), because strong

brand equity may lead to higher business success
(Shamma and Hassan, 2011). Brand equity is a strategic role in gaining competitive advantages and helping
managers to make strategic management decisions
(Buil, et al., 2013). It can be an appropriate measureJOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

53

Journal of Trade Science

ment to evaluate long-term impact of marketing decisions.
Strong brand equity can distinguish a brand from
its competitor because it shows a signal of favorable
consumer associations and further affects both financial and non-financial results (Romaniuk and NenyczThiel, 2013). Positive customer-based brand equity
will lead to greater revenues, lower costs, and higher
profits. It also has direct implications for company to
achieve premium price, consumers' willingness to seek
out new distribution channels, the effectiveness of
marketing communications, and the success of brand
extensions and licensing opportunities (Keller, 2003).
Moreover, strong brand equity can enhance consumers'
positive evaluation toward the brand and repurchase
behaviors (Buil, et al., 2013).
Moderating effect is important because it systematically modifies either the form and/or strength of the
relationship between independent variable and
dependent variable (Sharma, et al., 1981). Previous
studies regarding moderating effects of brand equity
are limited (e.g., Gammoh, et al., 2011; Chen, et al.,
2012). Evanschitzky and Wunderlich (2006) stated
that there are three potential moderating variables
widely used in consumer behaviors research, including
demographic (e.g., gender, age, etc.), relational (e.g.,
relationship age, etc.), and psychological (e.g., product
involvement, commitment, etc.) moderators (Davis
and Mentzer, 2008; Madrigal and Chen, 2008;
Raimondo, Miceli, and Costabile, 2008; Lee and

Ferreira, 2011; Sartore-Baldwin and Walker, 2011;
Chen, et al., 2012; Yoshida and Gordon, 2012; etc.).
However, an integration of relevant moderators of
brand equity is yet to be developed.
However, all of the previous studies tended to
examine moderating variables individually. They didn't focus on developing a comprehensive model related with all possible moderators of brand equity. This
study attempts to fill that research gap. Therefore, the
objectives of this study are first, to develop a comprehensive research model of the moderators of brand
equity; and second, to empirically test the developed

54

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

’S JTS

hypotheses of the research model.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Brand Equity
Brand equity is the additional value to a product
(good or service) by a brand name (Farquhar, 1989).
According to M'zungu, et al. (2010), there are two perspectives of brand equity. The first perspective came
from North American scholars such as Aaker, Keller,
and Berry which emphasized the cognitive customerbased. It is well-known as customer-based view of
brand equity. Aaker (1991, 1992) conceptualized brand
equity as five components of sources such as brand
loyalty, brand awareness, perceived brand quality,
brand associations (or brand image), perceived quality,
and other proprietary assets (e.g., patents, trademarks,

and channel relationships). Furthermore, Keller (1993)
viewed brand equity as the level of awareness and
familiarity; and the strength, favorability, and uniqueness of brand associations that consumers hold in
memory. In the service industry context, the company
often represents the brand itself (M'zungu et al., 2010).
Berry (2000) suggested that in addition to brand
awareness, brand meaning also contributes to brand
equity. Brand meaning is the customer's dominant perceptions of the brand. Consumer's perception brand
meaning is derived from the presented brand, external
brand communications, and consumer's experience
with the company.
2.2. Hypotheses Development
2.2.1 The Moderating Effect of Experiential
Moderators
This study proposes that there are six variables of
experiential moderators which will moderate the influences of brand association and perceived quality on
brand equity. Experiential moderators consist of experiential perception, entertainment value, aesthetic
value, brand attachment, enjoyment value, and hedonic
attitude. Experiential perception is the interactions
between a customer and a brand's product which provokes a reaction (LaSalle & Britton, 2003; Shaw &
Ivens, 2005). Entertainment value can be defined as a
pleasant experiential state which includes physiologi-


journal of Trade Science

cal, cognitive, and affective components (Vorderer et
al., 2004). Aesthetic value is the appreciation of the
formal, expressive, and symbolic quality of a brand's
product (Fiotre and Kimle, 1997). Brand attachment is

the strength of the cognitive and affective bond's connection of the brand and customers themselves (Park et
al., 2006). Enjoyment value is the extent to which the
shopping activity is perceived to provide reinforcement in its own right, apart from any anticipated performance consequences (Childers et al., 2001).
Hedonic attitude is the consumption of a brand's product which involves emotional arousal (Holbrook &
Hirschman, 1982).
Several previous studies have examined the role of
experiential variables as moderating variables (e.g.,
Bennett, et al., 2005; Rodgers, et al., 2005; Lee and
Murphy, 2008; Polo-Pena, et al., 2013; Yoon, et al.,
2013; Frank, et al., 2014). Thus, this study proposes
that experiential moderators (e.g., experiential perception, entertainment value, aesthetic value, brand
attachment, enjoyment value, and hedonic attitude)
will moderate the influences brand association and perceived quality on brand equity. Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed:
Hypothesis 1. Experiential moderators such as (a)
experiential perception, (b) entertainment value, (c)
aesthetic value, (d) brand attachment, (e) enjoyment
value, and (f) hedonic attitude have moderating effect
on the positive influence of brand association on brand
equity.
Hypothesis 2. Experiential moderators such as (a)
experiential perception, (b) entertainment value, (c)
aesthetic value, (d) brand attachment, (e) enjoyment
value, and (f) hedonic attitude have moderating effect
on the positive influence of perceived quality on brand
equity.
2.2.2 The Moderating Effect of Behavioral Factors
Behavioral moderators consist of brand personality, brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand commitment. Brand personality can be defined as human characteristics which associated with a brand (Aaker,
1997). Brand satisfaction is the favorable affective

’S JTS

response of customer toward a brand, brand trust is
customers' confidence about a brand's reliability and
integrity, and brand commitment is customers' desire
to maintain a relationship with a brand (SanchezFranco, et al., 2009).
Pappu and Quester (2006) examined consumerbased retailer equity would vary according to consumer satisfaction levels with the retailer. They found
that brand awareness, brand associations, and perceived quality vary significantly according to consumer satisfaction levels with the retailer. Ha (2009)
examined the moderating effect of brand loyalty on the
relationship between physical and overall retail service
quality and brand equity. Thus, this study proposes that
brand personality, brand satisfaction, brand trust, and
brand commitment will moderate the influences of
brand association and perceived quality on brand equity. Therefore, following hypotheses are developed:
Hypothesis 3. Behavioral moderators such as (a)
brand personality, (b) brand satisfaction, (c) brand
trust, and (d) brand commitment have moderating
effect on the positive influence of brand association on
brand equity.
Hypothesis 4. Behavioral moderators such as (a)
brand personality, (b) brand satisfaction, (c) brand
trust, and (d) brand commitment have moderating
effect on the positive influence of perceived quality on
brand equity.
2.2.3 The Moderating Effects of Psychological
Moderators
This study proposes that there are two variables of
psychological moderators which will moderate the
relationship between brand association, perceived
quality, and brand equity as well as between brand
equity and purchase intention. Those variables are

involvement and switching costs. First, involvement is
important for consumers' purchasing behavior because
it's based on their needs, values, and interests (Seiders,
et al., 2005). Chen, et al. (2012) posited that the
involvement moderates the relationship between brand
equity and purchase intention, but the result was not
significant. Thus, this study argues that when conJOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

55


Journal of Trade Science

sumers are highly involved, highly associated, and
have high perceived quality with a brand, it is likely to
enhance brand equity. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 5. High involvement consumers will
strengthen the positive effects of (a) brand association
and (b) perceived quality on brand equity.
Hypothesis 5c. High involvement consumers will
strengthen the positive effect of brand equity on purchase intention.
Second, switching costs can be economic, psychological, and emotional terms (Yang and Peterson,
2004; Aydin et al., 2005). In the psychological term, it
has effect on the consumers' psychology of becoming
new consumer of a new brand, and on the time and
effort involved in buying a new brand (Kim et al.,
2003). Results of previous studies have showed that
switching costs has a significant moderating effect on

customer loyalty through satisfaction (e.g., Lee, Lee,
and Feick, 2001); on customer satisfaction through
customer sensitivity (e.g., Hauser, Simester, and
Wernerfelt, 1994); on relationship commitment
through trust and satisfaction (Sharma and Patterson,
2000); and on purchase intention through brand equity
(Chen and Chang, 2008). This study thus proposes that
switching costs will moderate the relationship between
brand association, perceived quality, and brand equity
as well as between brand equity and purchase intention. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 6. High switching costs will strengthen
the positive effects of (a) brand association and (b)
perceived quality on brand equity.
Hypothesis 6c. High switching costs will strengthen the positive effect of brand equity on purchase
intention.
2.2.4 The Moderating Effects of Demographic
Moderators
This study proposes that there are three demographic moderators which will moderate the relationship between brand association, perceived quality,
and brand equity and the relationship between brand
equity and purchase intention. The first variable is

56

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

’S JTS

age. Age is one of important demographic characteristics of which previous researches have been examined (Homburg and Giering, 2001; Mattel and
Kamakura, 2001; Yoshida and Gordon, 2012).

Previous researches have showed that younger consumers' choice decisions rely more on process-based
service evaluations than on outcome-based product
evaluations (Homburg and Giering, 2001) and the
influences of brand equity and relationship equity
were stronger for younger consumers than for older
consumers because younger consumers are more
influenced by brand image (Yoshida and Gordon,
2012). Thus, this study proposes that age will moderate the relationship between brand associations, perceived quality, and brand equity as well as between
brand equity and purchase intention. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 7. Younger consumers will strengthen
the positive effects of (a) brand associations and (b)
perceived quality on brand equity.
Hypothesis 7c. Younger consumers will strengthen the positive effect of brand equity on purchase
intention.
The second variable is gender. Previous studies
have also shown that gender has influence on consumer decision-making (Homburg and Giering, 2001;
Mittal and Kamakura, 2001; Yoshida and Gordon,
2012). Similar to younger consumers, women consumers' purchasing behaviors are strongly influenced
by the personal interaction process (Homburg and
Giering, 2001). Previous studies results have shown
that the relationship between consumer satisfaction
and loyalty is stronger for men than for women
(Homburg and Giering, 2001; Mittal and Kamakura,
2001). This study thus proposes that gender will moderate the relationship between brand equity and purchase intention. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
developed:
Hypothesis 8. Women consumers will strengthen
the positive effects of (a) brand associations and (b)
perceived quality on brand equity.

journal of Trade Science

Hypothesis 8c. Women consumers will strengthen the positive effect of brand equity on purchase
intention.
The last variable is personal income. On previous
studies, personal income has been examined to have
strong effect on purchasing decisions (Homburg and
Giering, 2001). Consumers with higher income tend to
engage more in information processing and seeking
new information about a product and their purchasing
decision are based on the evaluation of that information. Thus, this study proposes that income will moderate the effect of brand equity on purchase intention.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 9. High income consumers will
strengthen the positive effects of (a) brand associations
and (b) perceived quality on brand equity.
Hypothesis 9c. High income consumers will
strengthen the positive effect of brand equity on purchase intention.
2.2.5 The Moderating Effects of Relational
Moderators
Previous studies have identified two relational
moderators which will moderate the relationship
between brand equity and purchase intention. The first
moderator is relationship age. Previous studies also
suggested that relationship age enhances the predictive
power of consumer satisfaction on behavioral consequences (Yoshida and Gordon, 2012; Raimondo et al.,
2008; Seiders, et al., 2005; Verhoef, et al., 2002).
Verhoef (2003) and Verhoef, et al. (2002) found that
relationship age can moderate the relationship between
satisfaction and retention and the number of serviced

purchased. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
developed:
Hypothesis 10. Longer relationship age consumers
will strengthen the positive effects of (a) brand associations and (b) perceived quality on brand equity.
Hypothesis 10c. Longer relationship age consumers will strengthen the positive effect of brand
equity on purchase intention.
The second moderator is loyalty program participation. Loyalty program is company initiatives which

’S JTS

targeting consumers who agree to exchanges that may
be complementary to their purchase transactions
(Seiders, et al., 2005). This loyalty program can
increase consumers' retention by increasing consumers' trust and commitment and by enhancing the
perception of consumers of the relationship investment
(Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml, 2004).. De Wulf et al.
(2001) found that relationship programs promote
retention by enhancing consumers' perceptions of a
firm's relationship investment. This study proposes
that relationship program participation can moderate
the relationship between brand equity and purchase
intention.. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
developed:
Hypothesis 11. More loyalty program participation
will strengthen the positive effects of (a) brand associations and (b) perceived quality on brand equity.
Hypothesis 11c. More loyalty program participation will strengthen the positive effect of brand equity
on purchase intention.
Based on the above hypotheses development, a
comprehensive research model is shown in Figure 1
below: (Figure 1)

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Collection
The data were collected through both paper-based
survey and online survey. Totally, 361 data were collected from cosmetics users in Taiwan and Indonesia.
Among them, 301 are from Taiwan and 60 are from
Indonesia. Online questionnaire was conducted only
for Indonesian respondents. Due to some missing data,
only 323 usable questionnaires were used for further
analysis.
3.2 Construct Measurement
This study operationalized 8 major constructs. All
measurement items used 7-point Likert Scale from
1="strongly disagree" to 7="strongly agree". The
antecedents of brand equity are brand awareness,
brand associations, and perceived quality. The measurement items of brand awareness (5 items), brand
associations (7 items), and perceived quality (5 items)
were adapted from Yoo et al. (2000) and Netemeyer et
JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

57


Journal of Trade Science

’S JTS

Experiential Moderators
Experiential Perception
Entertainment Value

Aesthetic Value
Brand Attachment
Enjoyment Value
Hedonic Attitude

Psychological
Moderators
Involvement
Switching Costs

H1-H2

Relational Moderators
Relationship Age
Loyalty Program
Participation

H5-H6

Antecedents
Brand Association
Perceived Quality

H10-H11

Brand Equity

H3-H4

Purchase Intention

H7-H9

Demographic
Moderators
Age
Gender
Income

Behavioral Moderators
Brand Personality
Brand Satisfaction
Brand Trust
Brand Commitment

Figure 1: Research Model
al. (2004). The measurement items of brand equity
were adapted from Yoshida and Gordon (2012) and
consists of value equity (5 items), psychological equity (8 items), and relational equity (5 items). The consequence of brand equity is purchase intention. The
measurement items of purchase intention (5 items)
were adapted from Yoshida and Gordon (2012).
The moderator variables of this study consist of
experiential moderators, behavioral moderators, psychological moderators, demographic moderators, and
relational moderators. Experiential moderators consist
of experiential perception (6 items), entertainment
value (5 items), aesthetic value (7 items) which measurement items were adapted from Sheng and Teo
(2012); brand attachment (5 items) which measurement items were adapted from Corroll and Ahuvia

58

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

(2006); enjoyment value (5 items) which measurement
items were adapted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001), and Childers et al. (2001); and hedonic attitude
(5 items) which measurement items were adapted from
Sarkar (2011). Behavioral moderators consist of brand
personality (11 items) which measurement items
adapted from Geuens et al. (2009) and Emari et al.
(2012); brand satisfaction (5 items) which measurement items were adapted from Ragunathan and Irwin
(2001); brand trust (5 items) which measurement items
adapted from He, Li, and Harris (2012); and brand
commitment (5 items) which measurement items were
adapted from Coulter, Price, and Feick (2003).
Psychological moderators consist of involvement
and switching costs. The measurement items of
involvement (5 items) were adapted from Trijp, Hoyer,


journal of Trade Science

amd Inman (1996), and Malär et al. (2011) and the
measurement items of switching costs (5 items) were
adapted from Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2000).
Relational moderators consist of loyalty program participation and relationship age. The measurement
items of loyalty program participation (5 items) were
adapted from Rosenbaum, Ostrom, and Kuntze (2005)
and relationship age has 1 measurement item which
adapted from Verhoef, Franses, and Hoekstra (2002).

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Descriptive Analysis
Table 1 shows the characteristics of respondents
such as gender, age, education, working experience,
current career, and annual income. More than 85% of
the respondents are female with more than 75%
between 18-25 years old. More than 70% of the
respondents are students and have bachelor degree as
education background. 45.5% of the respondents
have working experience less than 3 years and 86.7%
of the respondents have annual income less than 0.5
million NTD. (Table 1)
4.2 Factor Analysis and Reliability
This study conducted factor analysis, item-to-total
correlation, and Cronbach's alpha tests to ensure the
dimensionality and reliability of the research constructs. Table 2 shows that factor loadings of all the
questionnaire items are higher than 0.6 (0.631-0.931),
all item-to-total correlation coefficients are higher than
0.5 (0.547-0.886) except one item of relationship equity which is 0.496, and Cronbach's alpha of all the factors are also higher than 0.8 (0.813-0.938). All the values exceed the generally accepted guideline from Hair,
et al. (2010) which we can conclude that all of the
questionnaire items are appropriated to be used for further analysis because it shows high degree of internal
consistency. (Table 2)
4.3 Hypotheses Results
4.3.1 Moderating
Effects
of
Experiential
Moderators
To test the moderating effect of experiential moderators (e.g., experiential perception, entertainment
value, aesthetic value, brand attachment, enjoyment

’S JTS

value, and hedonic attitude), this study divided the
respondents into four groups as the between-subjects
factors in ANOVA model based on two levels of each
independent variable (high vs. low) and two levels of
each experiential moderator (high vs. low). Based on
Figure 2, customers with high experiential perception,
high entertainment value, high aesthetic value, high
brand attachment, high enjoyment value, and positive
hedonic attitude tend to stimulate higher influence
brand association (F=61.961-79.288 all with p=0.000)
on brand equity.
Customers with high_ brand association and high
experiential
_ perception (X = 5.56), high_entertainment
value (X = 5.63), high
_ aesthetic value (X = 5.62), high
brand
attachment
(X
= 5.66), high enjoyment
value
_
_
(X=5.55), and positive hedonic attitude (X = 5.58) tend
to stimulate higher brand_equity than customers with
low brand associations (X = 4.76-4.92). In terms of
perceived quality, the result of cluster analysis shows

only three groups of respondents without high experiential perception, high entertainment value, high aesthetic value, high brand attachment, high enjoyment
value, and positive hedonic attitude-low perceived
quality respondents. This situation seems to suggest
that respondents in high experiential perception, high
entertainment value, high aesthetic value, high brand
attachment, high enjoyment value, and positive hedonic attitude do not experience on low perceived quality, they always perceived the brand product as high
quality. Customers with high experiential perception
(F=103.424, p=0.000), high entertainment value
(F=102.732, p=0.000), high aesthetic value
(F=122.608, p=0.000), high brand attachment
(F=144.011, p=0.000), high enjoyment value
(F=111.367, p=0.000), and positive hedonic attitude
(F=114.818, p=0.000) tend to stimulate higher influence of perceived quality on brand equity. Thus, H1
and H2 are supported. (Figure 2)
4.3.2 Moderating Effects of Behavioral Moderators
To test the moderating effect of behavioral moderators (e.g., brand personality, brand satisfaction, brand
trust, and brand commitment), this study divided the
JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

59


Journal of Trade Science

’S JTS

Table 1: Characteristics of Respondents

Classification

Male
Female
Less than 17
18-25 years old
26-35 years old
36-45 years old
45-55 years old
More than 55 years old
High school or lower
Bachelor degree
Master degree
Doctoral degree
No working experience
Less than 3 years
3-5 years
6-9 years
10-15 years
More than 16 years
Student
Official
Administration staff
Financial/accounting
Educational services
Medical services
R&D technological
Tourism and leisure industries
Doing own business
Unemployee
Others
Less than 0.5 million NTD

0.5 – 1 million NTD
1.1 – 2 million NTD
2.1 – 3 million NTD
3.1 – 4 million NTD

60

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

Frequency
Gender
37
286
Age
1
245
51
17
5
4
Education
22
230
68
3
Working Experience
90
147
34

24
16
12
Current Career
233
9
11
7
7
15
3
7
8
8
15
Annual Income
280
32
6
4
1

Respondents
Percentage (%)
11.5%
88.5%
0.3%
75.9%
15.8%
5.3%

1.5%
1.2%
6.8%
71.2%
21.1%
0.9%
27.9%
45.5%
10.5%
7.4%
5%
3.7%
72.1%
2.8%
3.4%
2.2%
2.2%
4.6%
0.9%
2.2%
2.5%
2.5%
4.6%
86.7%
9.9%
1.9%
1.2%
0.3%

journal of Trade Science

’S JTS

Table 2. Factor Analysis and Reliability
Variables
Brand
Associations
Perceived
Quality
Brand Equity
Value Equity
Psychological
Equity
Relationship
Equity
Experiential
Perception
Entertainment
Value
Aesthetic Value
Brand
Attachment
Enjoyment Value
Hedonic Attitude
Brand
Personality
Brand
Satisfaction
Brand Trust

Brand
Commitment
Product
Involvement
Switching Costs
Loyalty Program
Participation
Brand
Commitment
Behavioral
Intention

Number
of items

Factor
Loadings

Eigen
value

Percentage of
Variance
Explained

Item to total
correlation

Cronbach's á

8

0.631-0.869

4.895

61.184%

0.547-0.803

0.908

4

0.875-0.893

3.145

78.624%

0.776-0.804

0.909

5

0.797-0.873

3.581

71.627%

0.689-0.790

0.901

8

0.701-0.885

5.594

69.928%

0.625-0.841

0.938

5

0.647-0.878

3.285

65.696%

0.496-0.781

0.866

6

0.802-0.849

4.056

67.604%

0.709-0.772

0.904

5

0.853-0.890

3.774

75.482%

0.769-0.819

0.919

7

0.774-0.868

4.726

67.519%

0.696-0.808

0.919

5

0.706-0.901

3.472

69.444%

0.582-0.814

0.888

5

0.845-0.891

3.828

76.560%

0.759-0.820

0.923

5

0.795-0.896

3.518

70.364%

0.678-0.823

0.894

4

0.751-0.834

2.565

64.124%

0.576-0.685

0.813

5

0.856-0.914

3.985

79.695%

0.780-0.858

0.936

5

0.832-0.893

3.784

75.683%

0.743-0.820

0.919

5

0.873-0.905

3.960

79.194%

0.798-0.850

0.934

5

0.641-0.930

3.688

73.764%

0.521-0.863

0.906

5

0.814-0.900

3.682

73.636%

0.714-0.831

0.910

5

0.845-0.931

3.973

79.470%

0.763-0.886

0.935

5

0.873-0.905

3.960

79.194%

0.798-0.850

0.934

4

0.880-0.912

3.220

80.497%

0.788-0.836

0.919

respondents into four groups as the between-subjects
factors in ANOVA model based on two levels of each
independent variable (high vs. low) and two levels of
each behavioral moderator (high vs. low). Based on
Figure 3, customers with high brand personality, high
brand satisfaction, high brand trust, and high brand
commitment tend to stimulate higher influence of
brand association (F=57.384-113.863 all with

p=0.000) on brand equity.
Customers with_high brand association and high
brand
_ personality (X = 5.41),_ high brand satisfaction
(X = 5.43), high
_ brand trust (X = 5.37), and high brand
commitment (X = 5.57) tend to stimulate higher brand
equity
than customers with low brand association
_
(X=4.56-4.94). In terms of brand trust, the result of
cluster analysis shows only three groups of responJOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

61


Journal of Trade Science

’S JTS

= Brand association and high experiential moderators
= Brand association and low experiential moderators
= Perceived quality and high experiential moderators
= Perceived quality and low experiential moderators

Figure 2: Moderating Effect of Experiential Moderators
dents without low brand trust and high brand associations. It is suggested that respondents who have low
trust toward a brand, they tend to always have low
association with that brand. In terms of perceived quality, customers with high brand personality and high
brand trust tend to stimulate higher influence of perceived quality (F=38.553 and 40.173, respectively
with p=0.000) on brand equity. Customers with
_ high
perceived quality and _high brand personality (X=5.06)
and high brand trust (X = 5.03) tend to stimulate higher brand_equity than customers with low perceived
quality (X = 3.96 and 3.96, respectively). In terms of
brand satisfaction and brand commitment, the result of

62

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

cluster analysis shows only three groups of respondents without high brand satisfaction and high brand
commitment-low perceived quality respondents. This
situation seems to suggest that respondents in high satisfaction and high commitment do not experience on
low perceived quality, they always perceived the brand
product as high quality. Customers with high brand
satisfaction (F=121.386, p=0.000) and high brand
commitment (F=177.294, p=0.000) tend to stimulate
higher influence of perceived quality on brand equity.

Thus, H3 and H4 are supported. (Figure 3)


journal of Trade Science

’S JTS

= Brand association and high behavioral moderators
= Brand association and low behavioral moderators
= Perceived quality and high behavioral moderators
= Perceived quality and low behavioral moderators

Figure 3: Moderating Effect of Behavioral Moderators
4.3.3 Moderating Effect of Psychological
Moderators
Psychological moderators consist of product
involvement and switching costs. To test those moderating effects, this study divided the respondents into
four groups as the between-subjects factors in ANOVA
model based on two levels of each independent variable (high vs. low) and two levels of each moderator
variable (high vs. low). Based on Figure 4, customers
with high involvement (F=72.475, 119.450, respectively; p=0.000) and high switching cost (F=70.702,
47.539, respectively; p=0.000) tend to stimulate high-

er influences of brand association and perceived quality on brand equity than customers with low switching
costs.
When customers are highly
_ involved and perceived
a brand has high quality (X = 5.52) tend to stimulate
higher brand equity. In terms of brand association and
involvement, the result of cluster analysis shows only

three groups of respondents without low brand association-high association respondents. This situation seems
to suggest that respondents in high involvement, they
tend to always have high association with a brand.
Highly involved customers and highly associated cusJOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

63


Journal of Trade Science
_

tomers (X = 5.33) tend to stimulate higher brand equity.
In addition, when customers that switching cost is high,
it tends
_ to lead into higher influences of brand
_ association (X = 5.48) and perceived quality (X = 5.14) on
brand equity. Thus, H5a-b and H6a-b are supported.
Furthermore, this study also divided the respondents into four groups as the between-subjects factors
in ANOVA model based on two levels of brand equity
(high vs. low) and two levels of each moderator variable (high vs. low). Based on Figure 4, customers with
high product involvement (F=112.650, 59.465;
p=0.000) and high switching costs (F=110.114,

’S JTS

42.855; p=0.000) tend to stimulate higher influence of
brand equity on purchase intention than customers
with low product involvement and low switching
costs. When customers are highly involved in high

brand equity product, they tend_to have higher intention to purchase that product (X = 5.77) compare to
highly
_ involved customers in low brand equity product
(X=5.11). In addition, in high brand equity product,
when customers think that to change into another
brand is
_ costly, they are likely more intent to repurchase (X = 5.72) the current brand. Thus, H5c and H6c
are supported. (Figure 4)

Psychological Moderators

= Brand association and high psychological moderators
= Brand association and low psychological moderators
= Perceived quality and high psychological moderators
= Perceived quality and low psychological moderators

Note:
Costs

= Low Product Involvement

= Low Switching

= High Product Involvement

= High Switching

Costs
BE= Brand Equity
Figure 4 : Moderating Effect of Psychological Moderators

64

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE


journal of Trade Science

4.3.4 Moderating Effects of Demographic
Moderators
Demographic moderators consist of age, gender,
and income. To test those moderating effects, this
study divided the respondents into four groups as the
between-subjects factors in ANOVA model based on
two levels of each independent variable (high vs. low)
and two levels of each moderator variable (age: old vs.
young, gender: male vs. female, income: high vs. low).
Based on Figure 5, older customers (F=45.425, 29.393,
respectively; p=0.000) tend to stimulate higher influences of brand association and perceived quality on
brand equity. _When older customers highly associated
with a brand
_ (X = 5.66) and perceived a brand has high
quality (X = 5.30), tend to lead into higher
_ brand equity comparing with young customers (X = 5.35, 4.9,
respectively). In addition, there are moderating effects
of gender and income on the influences of brand association and perceived quality on brand_ equity. There
are no big differences between
male (X = 5.41, 5.01,
_

respectively) and female (X = 5.37, 5.01,
_ respectively)
customers as well as high income
(X
= 5.51, 5.24,
_
respectively) and low income (X = 5.38, 5.00, respectively) customers in terms of the influences of brand
association and perceived quality on brand equity.
Thus, hypotheses 7a-b, 8a-b, and 9a-b are not supported. Furthermore, this study also divided the respondents into four groups based on two levels of brand
equity (high vs. low) and two levels of each moderator
variable (age: old vs. young, gender: male vs. female,
income: high vs. low). Based on Figure 5, older customers (F=38.854; p=0.000) and high income customers (F=39.035; p=0.000) tend to stimulate higher
influence of brand equity on purchase intention than
young customers and low income customers.
When older customers use a high brand equity
product, they tend
_ to have higher intention to purchase
that
product
(X
= 5.93) compare to young customers
_
(X=5.66). Furthermore, high income customers who
use a high brand equity product, they then _to have
higher intention to purchase that _product (X=6.31)
compare to low income customers (X = 5.68). In addi-

’S JTS

tion, gender has no moderating effect on the effect of

brand equity on purchase intention To see customers'
purchase intention, there are no big differences
between female
_ customers who use a high brand equity_ product (X = 5.69) or a low brand equity product
(X=4.65) and male
_ customers who use a high brand
equity
product
(X
= 5.69) or a low brand equity prod_
uct (X = 4.55). Thus, H7c and H8c are not supported
and H9c is supported. ((Figure 5)
4.3.5 Moderating Effects of Relational Moderators
Relational moderators consist of loyalty program
participation and relationship age. To test those moderating effects, this study divided the respondents into
four groups as the between-subjects factors in ANOVA
model based on two levels of each independent variable (high vs. low) and two levels of each moderator
variable (loyalty program participation: more vs. less,
relationship age: long vs. short). Based on Figure 6,
customers who participate more in loyalty program
(F=79.761, 99.684, respectively; p=0.000) and has
longer relationship with a brand (F=47.455, 33.670,
respectively; p=0.000) tend to stimulate higher influences of brand association and perceived quality on
brand equity compare to customers who less participate in loyalty program and has shorter relationship
with a brand. Customers whose join more loyalty program
_ and they are highly associated with a brand
(X=5.59)
and perceived a brand has high quality
_
(X=5.48) tend to lead into higher brand equity.

Customers who have longer relationship with_a brand
and they are highly associated with a brand
_ (X=5.51)
and perceived a brand has high quality (X=5.20) tend
to lead into higher brand equity. Thus, H10a-b and
H11a-b are supported.
Furthermore, this study also divided the respondents into four groups based on two levels of brand
equity (high vs. low) and two levels of each moderator
variable (loyalty program participation: more vs. less,
relationship age: long vs. short). Based on Figure 6,
customers who participate more in loyalty program
(F=53.529; p=0.000) tend to stimulate higher influence
of brand equity on purchase intention than customers
JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

65


Journal of Trade Science

’S JTS

= Brand association and old, female, and high income
= Brand association and young, male, and low income
= Perceived quality and old, female, and high income
= Perceived quality and young, male, and low income

Note:
Income

= Young

= Old
Income BE= Brand Equity

= Male

= Low

= Female

= High

Figure 5: Moderating Effect of Demographic Moderators
who less participate in loyalty program. When customers join more loyalty program in a high brand equity product, they tend _to have higher intention to purchase that product (X=5.81) compare to customers
who join _more loyalty program in a low brand equity
product (X=5.29). In addition, relationship age has no
moderating effect on the effect of brand equity on purchase intention. To see customers' purchase intention,
there are no big differences between customers who

66

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

_

are longer use a high brand equity
_ product (X=5.66) or

a low brand equity product (X=4.74) and customers
who
_ are shorter use a high brand equity _product
(X=5.71) or a low brand equity product (X=4.59).
Thus, H10c is not supported and H11c is supported.
V. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Conclusions
First, experiential moderators (e.g., experiential
perception, entertainment value, aesthetic value, brand


journal of Trade Science

’S JTS

Relational Moderators

= Brand association and more loyalty program and long relationship age
= Brand association and less loyalty program and short relationship age
= Perceived quality and more loyalty program and long relationship age
= Perceived quality and less loyalty program and short relationship age

Note:

= Less Loyalty Program Participation

= Short Relationship Age

= More Loyalty Program Participation

= Long Relationship

Age

BE= Brand Equity
Figure 6: Moderating Effect of Relational Moderators
JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

67


Journal of Trade Science

attachment, enjoyment value, and hedonic attitude)
have moderating effect on the influences of brand
association and perceived quality on brand equity.
When customers have more experience with a brand
and they are highly associated with a brand as well as
perceived a brand has high quality, it is likely to lead
into higher brand equity.
Second, behavioral moderators (e.g., brand personality, brand satisfaction, brand trust, and brand
commitment) have moderating effect on the influences of brand association and perceived quality on
brand equity. In terms of brand association, when
customers perceives high brand personality, high
brand satisfaction, high brand trust, and high brand
commitment, their level of brand association will
result in significantly higher brand equity (Ha, 2009).
In terms of perceived quality, customers with high
brand personality and high brand trust tend to stimulate higher influence of perceived quality on brand

equity (Sanchez-Franco, et al., 2009).
Third, psychological moderators which consist of
involvement and switching costs moderate the effects
of brand association and perceived quality on brand
equity and the effect of brand equity on purchase intention. When customers highly involved with a brand,
they tend to know more information about the product
of the brand, whether it is good or not. So, when customers are highly associated and perceived a brand has
high quality, it will lead into higher brand equity and
when the brand has high value (or high brand equity)
they will have higher intention to purchase the brand's
product. In addition, when customers see that their current brand has high value and they think if switch to
another brand is costly, they tend to have higher intention to purchase the current brand's product.
Fourth, in terms of demographic moderators, age
has moderating effect on the relationship between
brand association, perceived quality and brand equity
and the relationship between brand equity and purchase intention. The result shows that when older customers are highly involved with a brand and perceived
a brand has high quality, it will lead into higher brand

68

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

’S JTS

equity; when a brand has high equity, older customers
tend to have higher intention to purchase that brand
than younger customers. It might be because the product category in this study is cosmetics product which
has so many different brands. Even though a brand has
high equity, younger customers tend to always try and

buy different brand.
In terms of gender, the result shows that men and
women customers have no differences in influencing
the effects of brand association and perceived quality
on brand equity as well as in their intention to purchase
a brand with high equity. In addition, in terms of
income, income has no moderating effect on the relationship between brand association and perceived
quality on brand equity. In contrast, income has moderating effect on the relationship between brand equity
and purchase intention. When a brand has high equity,
high income customers tend to have higher purchase
intention. They tend to spend more time to seek new
information and tend to be more image-oriented.
Fifth, in terms of relational moderators, relationship age has moderating effect on the relationship
between brand association, perceived quality and
brand equity but has no moderating effect on the relationship between brand equity and purchase intention.
In terms of cosmetics products, although customers
have used a product for many years, it doesn't mean
they will not buy from different brands because there
are many brands of cosmetics in the market. But once
customers use cosmetics products for a longer time and
they are highly associated and perceived that brand has
high quality, it will lead into higher brand equity.
Furthermore, loyalty program participation has
moderating effect on the relationship between brand
association, perceived quality, and brand equity as well
as the relationship between brand equity and purchase
intention. When customers often join loyalty program
they can get more information about the brand's product (Seiders, et al., 2005), so they have more knowledge about that brand and when they are highly associated with a brand and perceived a brand has high
quality, it will lead into higher brand equity. In addi-

journal of Trade Science

tion, when they know that the brand has high value,
they tend to have higher commitment and intention to
purchase that brand.
5.2 Implications
From many aspects, moderators have been considered as one of the most important variables to facilitate
and accelerate the influences of the independent variable to dependent variable. Specifically, the moderators as identified in this study are very important to
amplify the influence of antecedents on brand equity
(Sharma, et al., 1981). This study contributes to the
marketing literature, especially to the brand equity
research context, with developing a more solid
research model related to all potential moderators of
brand equity and giving the empirical evidence. This
model should provide an important reference for both
academicians and practitioners to develop optimum
branding strategy of the company.
For brand managers, the first important thing to
design an effective brand management (e.g., leverage
brand equity) in order to increase brand value. It is
important because strong brand equity significantly
enhanced the positive evaluation of the brand and the
repeated purchasing. Second, managers should have a
better understanding about moderating variables which
would benefit them, such as psychological, demographic moderators, relational moderators, and other
moderators. It can be used to classify or to segment
consumers from low repurchase group to high repurchase group. Managers can identify old, higher
income, and high involved customers to foster longterm relationships with members of that group.
Managers can invest resources in offering marketing

programs (e.g., reward program, charitable campaigns,
etc.) to promote brand equity. Furthermore, having
strong brand equity and strong relationship with consumers, managers can increase the barriers to prevent
consumers switching into competitors' brand.
5.3 Limitations and Future Research Directions
There are several limitations of this study which
could be point to the need for further research. First,
although this study developed a comprehensive

’S JTS

research model, it does not guarantee that all variables
are included. Future research may include more variables. Second, this study used just one product category, which is cosmetics brand. Future research may
extend to the different product category to verify the
generalizability of the results. Third, this study just
examined the moderator variables affecting brand
equity relationship with its antecedents and consequences, but does not cover brand equity as moderator
variable. Future research may try to examine brand
equity as moderator variable. Lastly, this study had
tried to test whether those moderators included in this
study are quasi moderators. The results show insignificant results. Future research may try to examine these
relationships with different context.
References
Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity:
Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
Aaker, David A. (1992), "The Value of Brand
Equity," Journal of Business Strategy, 13, 4, 27-32.
Aaker, David A. and Kevin L. Keller (1990),
"Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions," Journal

of Marketing, 54, 1, 27-41.
Atilgan, Eda, Safak Aksoy and Serfan Akinci
(2005), "Determinants of the Brand Equity: A
Verification Approach in the Beverage Industry in
Turkey," Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23, 2/3,
237-248.
Aydin, Serkan, Ozer Gokhan and Omer Arasil
(2005), "Customer Loyalty and the Effect of Switching
Costs as a Moderator Variable: A Case in the Turkish
Mobile Phone Market," Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 23, 1, 89-103.
Berry, Leonard L. (2000), "Cultivating Service
Brand Equity," Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science, 28, 1, 128-137.
Brady, Michael K., J. Joseph Cronin Jr., Gavin L.
Fox and Michelle L. Roehm (2008), "Strategies to offset performance failures: The role of brand equity?"
JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

69


Journal of Trade Science

Journal of Retailing, 84, 2, 151-164.
Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Joseph W. Alba (1994),
"The importance of the brand in brand extension,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 2, 214-28.
Buil, Isabek, Eva Martínez and Leslie de
Chernatony. (2013). "The Influence of Brand Equity on

Consumer Responses." Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 30, 1, 62-74.
Chahal, Hardeep and Madhu Bala (2010),
"Confirmatory Study on Brand Equity and Brand
Loyalty: A Special Look at the Impact of Attitudinal
and Behavioural Loyalty," Vision: The Journal of
Business Perspective, 14, 1/2, 1-12.
Chen, Chih C., Ping K. Chen and Chiung E. Huang
(2012), "Brands and Consumer Behavior," Social
Behavior and Personality, 40, 1, 105-114.
Chen, Ching F. and Yu Y. Chang (2008), "Airline
Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase
Intentions-The Moderating Effects of Switching Costs,"
Journal of Air Transport Management, 14, 40-42.
Corkindale, David and Markus Belder (2009),
"Corporate Brand Reputation and the Adoption of
Innovations," Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 18, 4, 242-50.
Davis, Donna F., Susan L. Golicic and Adam J.
Marquardt (2008), "Branding a B2B Service: Does a
Brand Differentiate a Logistics Service Provider?"
Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 218-227.
Davis, Donna F. and John T. Mentzer (2008),
"Relational Resources in Interorganizational
Exchange: The Effects of Trade Equity and Brand
Equity," Journal of Retailing, 84, 4, 435-448.
Evanschitzky, Heiner and Maren Wunderlich
(2006), "An Examination of Moderator Effects in the
Four-Stage Loyalty Model," Journal of Service
Research, 8, 4, 330-345.

Farquhar, Peter H. (1989), "Managing Brand
Equity," Marketing Research, 24-34.
Feldwick, Paul (1996), "What is Brand Equity
Anyway, and How You Measure It?" Journal of the
Market Research Society, 38, 2, 85-104.

70

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

’S JTS

Franka, B., Boris H. Torricob, Takao Enkawaa, and
Shane J. Schvaneveldt. (2014). "Affect versus
Cognition in the Chain from Perceived Quality to
Customer Loyalty: The Roles of Product Beliefs and
Experience." Journal of Retailing, (In Press).
Gammoh, Bashar S., Kevin E. Voss and Ryan
Skiver (2011), "Consumer Evaluation of Continuous
and Discontinuous Innovation: The Effects of Brand
Equity and Product Category Knowledge," American
Journal of Business, 26, 1, 65-79.
Glynn, Mark S. (2010), "The Moderating Effect of
Brand
Strength
in
Manufacturer-Reseller
Relationships," Industrial Marketing Management, 39,
1226-1233.

Ha, Hong Y. (2009), "Effects of Two Types of
Service Quality on Brand Equity in China: The
Moderating Roles of Satisfaction, Brand Associations,
and Brand Loyalty," Seoul Journal of Business, 15, 2,
59-83.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin
and Rolph E. Anderson (2010), Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective. Pearson Education, Ltd.
Hauser, John R., Duncan I. Simester and Birger
Wernerfelt (1994), "Customer Satisfaction Incentives,"
Marketing Science, 13, 327-350.
Homburg, Christian and Annette Giering (2001),
"Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the
Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and
Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis," Psychology &
Marketing, 18, 1, 43-66.
Johnson, Michael D., Andreas Herrmann and Frank
Huber (2006), "The Evolution of Loyalty Intentions,"
Journal of Marketing, 70, 2, 122-132.
Kapferer, Joen N. (2004), The New Strategic Brand
Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity
Long Term. London: Kogan Page.
Keller, Kevin L. (1993), "Conceptualizing,
Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57, 1, 1-22.
Keller, Kevin L. (2003), Strategic Brand
Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

journal of Trade Science

Keller, Kevin L. (2008), Strategic Management:
Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,.
Kim, Moshe, Doron Kliger and Bent Vale (2003),
"Estimating Switching Costs: The Case of Banking,"
Journal of Financial Intermediation, 12, 1, 25-56.
Lee, Jaedock and Mauricio Ferreira (2011),
"Cause-Related Marketing: The Role of Team
Identification in Consumer Choice of Team Licensed
Products," Sport Marketing Quarterly, 20, 157-169.
Lee, Richard and Jamie Murphy (2008), "The
Moderating Influence of Enjoyment on Customer
Loyalty," Australasian Marketing Journal, 16, 2, 11-21.
Lee, Jonathan, Janghyuk Lee and Lawrence Feick
(2001), "The Impact of Switching Costs on the
Customer Satisfaction-Loyalty Link: Mobile Phone
Service in France," Journal of Services Marketing, 15,
35-48.
Liao, Shuling and Colin C. Cheng (2013),
"Consumer Evaluation of Self-Service Innovation
Failure: The Effect of Brand Equity and Attribution,"
The Service Industries Journal, 33, 5, 467-485.
Liao, Shuling and Colin C. Cheng (2014), "Brand
Equity and the Exacerbating Factors of Product
Innovation Failure Evaluations: A Communication
Effect Perspective," Journal of Business Research, 67,
1, 2919-2925.
M'zungu, Simon D. M., Bill Merrilees and Dale

Miller (2010), "Brand Management to Protect Brand
Equity: A Conceptual Model," Journal of Brand
Management, 17, 605-617.
Madrigal, Robert and Johnny Chen (2008),
"Moderating and Mediating Effects of Team
Identification in Regard to Causal Attributions and
Summary Judgments Following a Game Outcome,"
Journal of Sport Management, 22, 6, 717-733.
Mittal, Vikas and Wagner A. Kamakura (2001),
"Satisfaction, Repurchase Intention, and Repurchase
Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of
Customer Characteristics," Journal of Marketing
Research, 38, 1, 131-142.
Moradi, Hadi and Azim Zarei (2011), "The Impact
of Brand Equity on Purchase Intention and Brand

’S JTS

Preference: The Moderating Effects of Country of
Origin Image," Australian Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences, 5, 3, 539-545.
Oliver, Richard L. (1997), A Behavioral
Perspective on the Consumer. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Olsen, Svein O. (2002), "Comparative Evaluation
and the Relationship between Quality, Satisfaction,
and Repurchase Loyalty," Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 30, 3, 240-9.
Pappu, Ravi and Pascale Quester (2006), "Does
Customer Satisfaction Lead to Improved Brand

Equity? An Empirical Examination of Two Categories
of Retail Brands," Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 15, 1, 4-14.
Raggio, Randle D. and Robert P. Leone (2007), "The
Theoretical Separation of Brand Equity and Brand
Value: Managerial Implications for Strategic Planning,"
Journal of Brand Management, 14, 5, 380-395.
Raimondo, Maria A., Gaetano N. Miceli and
Michele Costabile (2008), "How Relationship Age
Moderates Loyalty Formation: The Increasing Effect
of Relational Equity on Customer Loyalty," Journal of
Service Research, 11, 2, 142-160.
Romaniuk, J. and Magda Nenycz-Thiel. (2013).
"Behavioral Brand Loyalty and Consumer Brand
Associations." Journal of Business Research, 66, 1, 67-72.
Roy, Donald P. and T. Bettina Cornwell (2004),
"The Effects of Consumer Knowledge on Responses to
Event Sponsorships," Psychology & Marketing, 21, 3,
185-207.
Sartore-Baldwin, Melanie L. and Matthew Walker
(2011), "The Process of Organizational Identity: What
Are the Roles of Social Responsiveness,
Organizational Image, and Identification?" Journal of
Sport Management, 25, 489-505.
Seiders, Kathleen, Glenn B. Voss, Dhruv Grewal
and Andrea L. Godfrey (2005), "Do Satisfied
Customers Buy More? Examining Moderating
Influences in a Retailing Context," Journal of
Marketing, 69, October, 26-43.
Seo, Soobin and Soo C. Jang (2013), "The Roles of

Brand Equity and Branding Strategy: A Study of
JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

71


Journal of Trade Science

Restaurant Food Crises," International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 34, 192-201.
Shamma, Hamed M and Salah S. Hassan (2011),
"Integrating Product and Corporate Brand Equity into
Total Brand Equity Measurement," International
Journal of Marketing Studies, 3, 1, 11-20.
Sharma, Neeru and Paul G. Patterson (2000),
"Switching Costs, Alternative Attractiveness and
Experience as Moderators of Relationship
Commitment in Professional Consumer Services,"
International Journal of Service Industry Management,
11, 470-490.
Sharma, Subhash, Richard M. Durand and Oded
Gur-Arie (1981), "Identification and Analysis of
Moderator Variables," Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 3, 291-300.
Sloot, Laurens M., Peter C. Verhoef and Philip H.
Franses (2005), "The Impact of Brand Equity and the
Hedonic Level of Products on Consumer Stock-Out
Reactions," Journal of Retailing, 81, 1, 15-34.
Verhoef, Peter C., Philip H. Franses and Janny C.

Hoekstra (2002), "The Effect of Relational Constructs
on Customer Referrals and Number of Services
Purchased From a Multiservice Provider: Does Age of
Relationship Matter?" Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 30, 3, 202-216.
Wang, Hui M. D. (2010). "Corporate Social
Performance and Financial Based Brand Equity," Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 19, 5, 335-345.
Wakefield, Kirk L. and Julie Baker (1998),
"Excitement at the Mall: Determinants and Effects on
Shopping Response," Journal of Retailing, 74, Fall,
515-539.
Yang, Zhilin and Robin T. Peterson (2004),
"Customer Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty:
The Role of Switching Costs," Psychology &
Marketing, 21, 10, 799-822.
Yoo, Bonghee and Naveen Donthu (2001),
"Developing and Validating a Multidimensional
Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale," Journal of
Business Research, 52, 1, 1-14.
Yoshida, Masayuki and Brian Gordon (2012),
"Who is More Influenced by Customer Equity Drivers?

72

JOURNAL OF
TRADE SCIENCE

’S JTS

A Moderator Analysis in a Professional Soccer
Context," Sport Management Review, 15, 389-403.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988). "Consumer
Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End
Model and Synthesis of the Evidence," Journal of
Marketing, 52, 3, 2-22.
Zhang, Hao, Eunju Ko and Euntaik Lee (2013),
"Moderating Effects of Nationality and Product
Category on the Relationship Between Innovation and
Customer Equity in Korea and China," Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 30, 1,s 110-122.
Summary
Trong một thập kỉ qua, giá trò thương hiệu là chủ
đề nhận được sự quan tâm rộng rãi bởi các nhà
nghiên cứu và các chuyên gia thực tế. Tuy nhiên vẫn
có khoảng trống nghiên cứu trong việc phát triển
một khung nghiên cứu về các nhân tố điều tiết giá trò
thương hiệu. Do đó, mục tiêu của nghiên cứu này là:
thứ nhất, phát triển một mô hình nghiên cứu toàn
diện về các nhân tố điều tiết giá trò thương hiệu và
thứ hai, kiểm đònh các giả thuyết nghiên cứu đã được
phát triển. Phương pháp nghiên cứu là điều tra bảng
hỏi được thực hiện với 323 khách hàng sử dụng mỹ
phẩm. Có 5 nhân tố điều tiết cơ bản được đưa ra
trong nghiên cứu này (nhân tố trải nghiệm, nhân tố
hành vi, nhân tố tâm lý, nhân tố nhân chủng và nhân
tố quan hệ). Kết quả cho thấy tất cả các nhân tố này
đều có tác động điều tiết tới ảnh hưởng của thuộc
tính thương hiệu và chất lượng cảm nhận của thương
hiệu tới giá trò thương hiệu. Bên cạnh đó, mức độ

tham gia, chi phí chuyển đổi thương hiệu, độ tuổi, thu
nhập và việc tham gia vào các chương trình trung
thành có tác động điều chỉnh tới ảnh hưởng của giá
trò thương hiệu tới dự đònh mua. Ngược lại, giới tính
và tuổi quan hệ với thương hiệu không có tác động
điều tiết tới mức độ ảnh hưởng của giá trò thương
hiệu tới ý đònh mua. Vì các nghiên cứu trước đây về
các nhân tố điều tiết giá trò thương hiệu còn hạn chế
nên kết quả của nghiên cứu này có thể tạo ra giá trò
tham khảo tốt với các nhà nghiên cứu và các chuyên
gia về phát triển chiến lược quản trò thương hiệu.