Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
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 trị thương hiệu và thứ hai, kiểm định 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. Để hiểu rõ hơn mời các bạn cùng tham khảo nội dung chi tiết của bài viết này.
AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO INVESTIGATE ANTECEDENTS, MODERATORS AND CONSEQUENCES OF BRAND EQUITY TIẾP CẬN TÍCH HỢP NHẰM TÌM HIỂU CÁC NHÂN TỐ ĐIỀU TIẾT VÀ KẾT QUẢ CỦA GIÁ TRỊ THƯƠNG HIỆU Ying-Kai Liao, Ph D - Nanhua University, Taiwan Vu Minh Quan - Nanhua University, Taiwan Alfiyatul Qomariyah - Chinese Culture University, Taiwan Abstract Over 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 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 Tóm tắt Trong thập kỉ qua, giá trị thương hiệu chủ đề nhận quan tâm rộng rãi nhà nghiên cứu chuyên gia thực tế Tuy nhiên có khoảng trống nghiên cứu việc phát triển khung nghiên cứu nhân tố điều tiết giá trị thương hiệu Do đó, mục tiêu nghiên cứu là: thứ nhất, phát triển mơ hình nghiên cứu tồn diện nhân tố điều tiết giá trị thương hiệu thứ hai, kiểm định giả thuyết nghiên cứu phát triển Phương pháp nghiên cứu điều tra bảng hỏi thực với 323 khách hàng sử dụng mỹ phẩm Có nhân tố điều tiết đưa nghiên cứu (nhân tố trải nghiệm, nhân tố hành vi, nhân tố tâm lý, nhân tố nhân chủng nhân tố quan hệ) Kết cho thấy tất nhân tố có tác động điều tiết tới ảnh hưởng thuộc tính thương hiệu chất lượng cảm nhận thương hiệu tới giá trị thương hiệu Bên cạnh đó, mức độ tham gia, chi phí chuyển đổi thương hiệu, độ tuổi, thu nhập việc tham gia vào chương trình trung thành có tác 223 động điều chỉnh tới ảnh hưởng giá trị thương hiệu tới dự định mua Ngược lại, giới tính tuổi quan hệ với thương hiệu khơng có tác động điều tiết tới mức độ ảnh hưởng giá trị thương hiệu tới ý định mua Vì nghiên cứu trước nhân tố điều tiết giá trị thương hiệu hạn chế nên kết nghiên cứu tạo giá trị tham khảo tốt với nhà nghiên cứu chuyên gia phát triển chiến lược quản trị thương hiệu Từ khố: thuộc tính thương hiệu, giá trị cảm nhận, giá trị thương hiệu, nhân tố điều tiết, dự định mua 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 measurement 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 nonfinancial results (Romaniuk and Nenycz-Thiel, 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 224 of the moderators of brand equity; and second, to empirically test the developed hypotheses of the research model 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 customer-based It is well-known as customerbased 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 physiological, 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, 225 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 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 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 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 (Sanchez-Franco, et al., 2009) Pappu and Quester (2006) examined consumer-based 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 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 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 consumers are highly involved, highly associated, and have high 226 perceived quality with a brand, it is likely to enhance brand equity Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed: Hypothesis 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 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 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 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 227 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 Women consumers will strengthen the positive effects of (a) brand associations and (b) perceived quality on brand equity 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 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 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 228 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 below: Psychological Moderators • Invol veme nt • Switc hing Costs Experiential Moderators • Experiential Perception • Entertainment Value • Aesthetic Value H1H2 Antecedents • Brand Assoc iation • Perce H5H6 Relational Moderators • Relat ionsh ip Age • Loyal ty H10H11 Brand Equity H3H4 • • • • Purchase Intention H7H9 Demographic Moderators • Age • Gend er • Inco me Behavioral Moderators Brand Personality Brand Satisfaction Brand Trust Brand Figure Research Model 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 229 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 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 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 (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, 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 measurement item which adapted from Verhoef, Franses, and Hoekstra (2002) Results and discussions 4.1 Descriptive Analysis Table 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 230 respondents are students and have bachelor degree as education background 45.5% of the respondents have working experience less than years and 86.7% of the respondents have annual income less than 0.5 million NTD Table 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 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 – million NTD 1.1 – million NTD 2.1 – million NTD 3.1 – million NTD Frequency Gender 37 286 Age 245 51 17 Education 22 230 68 Working Experience 90 147 34 24 16 12 Current Career 233 11 7 15 8 15 Annual Income 280 32 231 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% 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 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 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 Number of items 8 5 5 Factor Loadings 0.6310.869 0.8750.893 0.7970.873 0.7010.885 0.6470.878 0.8020.849 0.8530.890 0.7740.868 0.7060.901 0.8450.891 0.7950.896 0.7510.834 0.8560.914 0.8320.893 Eigen value Percentage of Variance Explained Item to total correlation Cronbach's α 4.895 61.184% 0.547-0.803 0.908 3.145 78.624% 0.776-0.804 0.909 3.581 71.627% 0.689-0.790 0.901 5.594 69.928% 0.625-0.841 0.938 3.285 65.696% 0.496-0.781 0.866 4.056 67.604% 0.709-0.772 0.904 3.774 75.482% 0.769-0.819 0.919 4.726 67.519% 0.696-0.808 0.919 3.472 69.444% 0.582-0.814 0.888 3.828 76.560% 0.759-0.820 0.923 3.518 70.364% 0.678-0.823 0.894 2.565 64.124% 0.576-0.685 0.813 3.985 79.695% 0.780-0.858 0.936 3.784 75.683% 0.743-0.820 0.919 232 Brand Commitment Product Involvement Switching Costs Loyalty Program Participation Brand Commitment Behavioral Intention 5 5 0.8730.905 0.6410.930 0.8140.900 0.8450.931 0.8730.905 0.8800.912 3.960 79.194% 0.798-0.850 0.934 3.688 73.764% 0.521-0.863 0.906 3.682 73.636% 0.714-0.831 0.910 3.973 79.470% 0.763-0.886 0.935 3.960 79.194% 0.798-0.850 0.934 3.220 80.497% 0.788-0.836 0.919 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 value, and hedonic attitude), this study divided the respondents into four groups as the betweensubjects 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 (X̅=5.56), high entertainment value (X̅=5.63), high aesthetic value (X̅=5.62), high brand attachment (X̅=5.66), high enjoyment value (X̅=5.55), and positive hedonic attitude (X̅=5.58) tend to stimulate higher brand equity than customers with low brand associations (X̅=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 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 233 = 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 Moderating Effect of Experiential Moderators 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 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 (X̅=5.41), high brand satisfaction (X̅=5.43), high brand trust (X̅=5.37), and high brand commitment (X̅=5.57) tend to stimulate higher brand equity than customers with low brand association (X̅=4.564.94) In terms of brand trust, the result of cluster analysis shows only three groups of respondents 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 (X̅=5.06) and high brand trust (X̅=5.03) tend to stimulate higher brand equity than customers with low perceived quality (X̅=3.96 and 3.96, respectively) In terms of brand satisfaction and brand commitment, the result of cluster analysis shows only three groups of 234 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 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 = 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 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 higher 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 (X̅=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 customers (X̅=5.33) tend to stimulate higher brand equity In addition, when customers that switching cost is high, it tends to 235 lead into higher influences of brand association (X̅=5.48) and perceived quality (X̅=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, 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 (X̅=5.77) compare to highly involved customers in low brand equity product (X̅=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 (X̅=5.72) the current brand Thus, H5c and H6c are supported 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 F=42.855 p