The Moderating Effects of Product Involvement on Determinants of Brand Equity: Iranian Young Consumers Viewpoint

Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences Available online at www.tjeas.com 203 TJEAS Journal-203-3-22/305-3023 ISSN 205-0853 203 TJEAS The Moderating Effects of Product Involvement on Determinants of Brand Equity: Iranian Young Consumers Viewpoint Habibollah Danaee *, Zahra Andalib 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Payam-e Noor University, Tehran, Iran 2. Masters of M.A in GARMSAR Payam Nour University Corresponding author: Habibollah Danaee ABSTRACT: The main purpose of this study is to examine the consumer based brand equity model, based on Aaker well-known conceptual framework from Iranian young consumers viewpoint. Moreover secondary aim of research is survey moderating role of product involvement. To accomplish this, Aaker s conceptual framework was used. Data were collected from 602 Iranian students that owner selected brand of laptop and mobile phone. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling in LISREL. Exploratory factor analysis introduced three factor namely brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand association/awareness for brand equity dimensions. Results show that brand loyalty is the most influential dimension in brand equity formation; other dimensions include perceived quality, and brand association/awareness gain weak support. The results also indicate moderation effect of product involvement on relationships between variables. This study only investigates country of origin image effect at laptop and mobile phone in student s point of view and does not take into consideration other control variable (e.g. income, gender) and moderating factor (e.g. product familiarity). Keywords: Brand equity, Product Involvement, Structural Equation Modeling, Ir INTRODUCTION Many companies are trying to get target consumers attention (Kim et al., 200). One way to achieve this goal is differentiation. Due to the ease of imitation and difficulty of achieving a sustainable competitive advantage, differentiation has become a key priority of today s companies. In general companies can differentiate of their product offering from those the competition by focusing on any physical (e.g., taste, design) or unphysical (e.g., price, brand name and country of origin) characteristics of product (Roth et al., 2008). Branding is powerful means of differentiation (Pappu et al., 2005). Brand as a Basic of today s competitive game, must be carefully define, create and manage because branding enable a producer to obtain the benefits of offering products with unique or superior quality and provides an opportunity to transfer this identifiable relationships to other products or services (Motameni and Shahrokhi, 998). Strong brand cause competitive advantages (Lee and Back, 200), increase organization cash flow and liquidity has accelerated (Miller and Muir, 2004), provide offering premium price, profitability and customers that are more loyal (Madden, et al. 2006), and supports of brand extension opportunity (Yasin et al., 2007). Building brand equity is considered an important part of brand building (Pappu et al., 2005). Brand equity refers to the incremental utility or value added to a product form its brand name (Chen and Chang, 2008). In the few last decades brand equity concept flourished. One reason for its popularity is its strategic role and importance in gaining competitive advantage and in strategic management decisions. Brand equity is appropriate metric for evaluating the long-run impact of marketing decision (Atilgan et al., 2005). Appropriate management of brand equity consequences is more loyalty, less friability of marketing activity and marketing crisis, very flexible response to price changes, more business support and cooperation, effectiveness of marketing communications, licensing opportunities, Additional opportunities for brand extension, create more attraction for investors, gain more supports from investors (Aaker, 99; Keller, 998; Van Auken, 2005), grater profit margins (Kim and Kim, 2005), ability to attract good employees (DelVecchico, et al. 2007), protection of potential competitors entering while outsourcing (Lim and Tan, 2009). Brand equity is the result of consumers perception of it and which is influenced by many factors (Yasin et al., 2007). The main purpose of this study is to explore the effects of brand equity dimensions on overall brand equity formation. To achieve this goal, the brand equity of personal electrical goods particularity laptop and mobile phone between Iranian young

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 3 (22): 305-3023, 203 consumers is examined. Secondary purpose of research is exploring potential effect of product involvement on brand equity dimensions and overall brand equity relationships. In the following section, research core constructs introduced and develop. Next we outline the study s methodology, focusing on data collection and measurement issues. Lastly we present data analysis and the main results and show the main conclusions of the study. Literature review In this section, we review the relevant literature on the concept of brand equity, brand equity dimensions, and product involvement. Brand equity The emerging of brand equity increases the importance of marketing strategies and provides focus point for researchers and managers (Chen, 2009), Because the idea of brand equity is related with the company's success, because when it is created, it has more profits and less expenses for the company (Myers, 2003; Na, Marshall, & Keller, 999; Agarwal and Rao, 997; Keller, 2003). The concept of brand equity covers a wide range, because consumers experiences, feelings and what they learn about the brand in long term, is relevant with the concept of brand equity. As Keller (2003) had expressed a positive brand equity can lead to more revenue, lower costs and higher profits, tending customer to seek new distribution channels, marketing communications effectiveness, and success in developing brand and selling licensing opportunities (sited in Atilgan et al., 2005). Farquhar (989) defined brand equity as the value added to the product. Similar definitions by scholars such as Aaker (99), Keller (993) and Yoo and Donthum (200) were presented. Brand equity is the key and central concept in brand management and has been considered in different perspectives. (Boo, Busser, & Baloglu. 2009) Three approaches have been proposed to evaluate the brand equity. The first one is financial and monetary value of brand in market. Second one is a multidimensional concept that includes added value of product or service which creates by awareness of consumers and perceptions of them from brand that conceptualized as consumer based brand equity (Keller, 993; Yang and Jun, 2002, Washburn and Plank, 2002; Aaker, 99). The third approach is a combination of financial and consumer approaches. Brand equity in the consumer-based approach concentrates on the knowledge of consumers about the brand. Brand equity dimensions Brand Awareness It is defined as a degree of the consumer familiarity with the brand. This component has been the same in the Aaker (99) and Keller (993) models and it indicates the probability and ease of brand reminding by consumers in a particular product category. Brand awareness is essential for existing brand equity in any product or service (Aaker, 99; Keller, 993). Brand awareness is the first step in developing brand equity, because it can affect the depth and development of brand association (Aaker, 996; Keller, 993).Finally, brand awareness can affect the associated form and power of the brand. Brand awareness should be formed before the creation of the brand image (Keller, 993). Brand awareness plays an important role in decision making due to many reasons. A brand without awareness is just like a spot on the product: without meaning and voice (Kapferer, 2005). Many studies (e.g., Lin and Chang, 2003, Jiang, 2004, Kalra and Murthi, 2008) had indicated, brand awareness acts as a component, which plays an important role in consumer brand choice. Brand Association It can include consumer image-making, profile of the product, consumer s conditions, corporate awareness, brand characteristics, signs and symbols (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). Brand association is the heart of brand equity, as well as a key component of competitive advantage. Chen (200) stated following reasons for confirmation of this statement: First of all, the brand awareness is a necessary condition to build brand equity but it is still not enough. Secondly, the other dimensions of brand equity can increase consumer s loyalty to the brand. Thirdly perceived quality is a kind of brand awareness. Eventually these associations create brand image. "To create brand equity, the uniqueness, desire and power of brand associations is necessary" (Keller, 998). A unique meaning association is worthless unless we have positive and desirable association, and if consumers could not be able to remind it, then it is useless. Empirical evidence (e.g., Yoo and Denthu, 200, 2002; Yasin et al., 2007, Baldauf et al., 2009) show that brand association and brand awareness can be combined into a single dimension that named brand awareness/association. Perceived Quality According to Aaker (996) and Keller (993) it is the main dimension of consumer based brand equity because it is related to brand choice and purchasing intention. Perceived quality can almost be defines as consumers judgment from the overall value according to the desired objectives of the products or services. It can be considered as the overall preference or superiority, quite the same as approach assessment. (Aaker, 306

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 3 (22): 305-3023, 203 99, Netemeyer et al., 2004). Perceived quality is an assessment variable that helps to describe consumers behavioral intention. There is a significant relationship between consumers perceived quality and purchase intention (Kumar, Kim & Pelton, 2009). Syzmanski and Henard (200) claimed that the perceived quality is one of the requirements of satisfaction, and is the main requirement of the perceived value (Boo, et al, 2009). Low and Lamb (2000) mentioned that the perceived quality is essential for this theory which the strong brands add more value to the customers purchases. Brand Loyalty According to DeChernatony and McDonald (994) the aim of branding is to facilitate the task of companies in attracting and keeping loyal consumers based on cost effectiveness in order to achieve a high level of investment return. Brand loyalty reflects the desirability of products functionality and services (Kim et al, 200). Yoo and Donthum (200) claimed brand loyalty; indicate the intention to be loyal to a brand and it can be shown as consumers tend to buy the brand as the first choice. Loyal consumers are committed to a particular brand. This commitment led to permanent purchase of this brand during usage (Lee, Back, & Kim, 2009). Most of the time, brand loyalty is as a sample of brand equity, because consumers with strong brand equity are almost loyal to that brand. Many researches such as Yoo and Donthum (2000), Atilgan, et al, (2005), Yasin et al, (2007) and Tang and Hawley (2009) have confirmed this claim. Product involvement Involvement can be viewed as a construct linked to the interaction between an individual and an object, and it refers to the relative strength of a consumers cognitive structure to a focal object (Chen and Tsai, 2008). Zaichkowski (985) defines involvement as a person s perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests. Product involvement exerts a considerable effect on consumers behaviors (Quester and Smart, 998) and attitudes. Conceptualized and measured in a variety of ways, product involvement is generally related to relevance (Kwon and Chung, 200). Zaichkowsky (990) suggested that consumer s value, life goals, and life themes affect product involvement (sited Kwon and Chung, 200). The level of involvement that customers have with respect to a product, brand, or purchase decision is an important determinant of their behavior (Bennett et al., 2005). Zaichkowsky (986) suggested that the increased levels of involvement can lead to consequences such as more time and effort spent in search related activities (Petty and Cacioppo, 996), grater perceived differences in product attributes, and a greater likelihood of establishing brand preference. In other words subjects with a low level of personal involvement with respect to a particular product should be less risk-averse in marketing purchase decisions and more susceptible to secondary cues (Prendergast, et al, 200). In this research the level of product involvement from consumer s point of view is hypothesized as moderating role to examine the influence of product involvement on relationships of brand equity determinants and overall brand equity. Brand Loyalty Perceived Quality Brand Association Overall Brand Equity Brand Awareness Direct Effect Moderating Effect Product Involvement Figure. Conceptual framework 307

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 3 (22): 305-3023, 203 Conceptual framework The framework of this research has been shown in figure. In conceptual model, brand equity dimensions is treated as the independent variables, and overall brand equity dimensions treated as the dependent (outcome) variables, also product involvement considered as moderated variable. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Sample selection and data collection Since the purpose of this study is exploring laptop and mobile phone in Iran. Having considered the fact that buying likelihood of this kind of electrical goods was strongly linked to 8-35 age segment in Iran are very high than other age segments. So target population was defined as students of public universities. Among public universities using random sampling three universities include Shahid Beheshti, Tabriz and Semnan were selected and 700 questionnaires randomly distributed among students who have laptops or mobile phones with studied names. Response rate was 96% that between those 602 proved usable for further analysis. The profile of respondents is depicted in Table. Table. Description of respondents Item Description Frequency Percentage Gender Female 95 32.4 Male 407 67.6 Below 20 years 90 4.95 Age 2to 23 years 380 63.3 26to 30 years 22 20.26 Upper 3 years 0.66 STP 43 7.5 Education Bachelor s degree 282 46.85 Masters/PhD 277 46 Nokia 83 30.4 Brand Sony Ericsson 5 25. Dell 56 25.9 Sony 2 8.6 Questionnaire development We operationalised the constructs in study by employing reflective scale. Expect respondent profile, a five-point response format from strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree was used. Brand equity dimensions Based on Aaker s well-known conceptual model, brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand association, and brand awareness are the four dimensions of brand equity. To measure brand loyalty, two items were adopted from Yoo and Donthu (200), and an item from Tong and Hawley (2009). Perceived quality was measured by two items adopted from Yoo, et al. (2000) and an item adopted from Netemayers, et al. (2005). Two items that were adopted from Yoo and Donthu (200), brand awareness measured. To measure brand association 4 items were used that two items adopted from Washburn, et al. (2004), an item adopted from Tong and Hawley (2009), and one item adopted from Lee and Back (2008, 200). Brand equity Since Yoo, et al. (2000) developed overall brand equity scale. Four items from this scale were adopted form Yoo and Donthu (200) to measure overall brand equity. Product involvement Product involvement was measured by three items that adopted from Zaichkowsky (994) and Xue (2008). Measurements reliability and validity Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on brand equity dimensions construct. Principal component factor analysis using Varimax rotation produced three factors with Eigen value greater than, contributing 67.52 percent to items variance. We used Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) test and Bartlett s Test of Sphericity. Since KMO = 0.8 and this amount is greater than 0.60, therefore Bartlett s Test is significant and it indicates that the factor analysis is appropriate. These factors labeled as brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand abscission/awareness that showed in Table 2. Due to two items factor loading be less than 0.50 during this process this two items were deleted. 308

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 3 (22): 305-3023, 203 BLOY BLOY2 BLOY3 PERQUA PERQUA2 PERQUA3 BAW2 BASS BASS2 BASS3 Table 2. Results of Exoplatory factor analysis Constructs Brand Loyalty 0.856 0.889 0.82 0.059 0.005 0.024 0.95 0.720 0.724 0.92 Perceived Quality 0.056 0.023 0.023 0.658 0.868 0.82 0.02-0.002 0.037 0.83 Brand Association/ Awareness 0.095 0.00 0.29 0.44 0.00 0.047 0.843 0.280 0.330 0.777 Table 2 lists the extracted factor, but two item of brand association were grouped in the brand loyalty dimension. According Atilgan, et al. (2005) when correlations of items were surveyed, a high correlation detected between these items (BASS, BASS2) and brand loyalty, Table 3 show that. BLOY BLOY2 BLOY3 PerQua PerQua 2 PerQua 3 BASS BASS2 BAW2 BASS3 BLOY 0.77 0.62 0.05 0.008 0.07 0.5 0.56 0.25 0.29 BLOY2 0.64 0.03 0.0 0.02 0.55 0.53 0.8 0.2 Table 3. Correlation matrix for statement PerQua PerQua PerQua BLOY3 BASS 2 3 0.04 0.2 0.004 0.54 0.55 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.3 0.08 0.09 0.3 0.9 0.56 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.2 0.0 0.02 0.05 0.8 0.58 0.3 0.27 BASS2 0.37 0.32 BAW2 0.45 BASS3 Based on the EFA results, hypotheses were stated as follows: H. Brand loyalty has positively impact on overall brand equity. H2. Perceived quality has positively impact on overall brand equity. H3. Brand association/awareness has positively impact on overall brand equity. H4. Moderation effect of product involvement on the paths brand equity dimensions (brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness/association) - overall brand equity does exist. The validity and reliability of the measurement were estimated via some approaches following guidelines suggested by Shook, et al. (2004) for management research. This research applied Gerbing and Anderson (988) two-stage approaches to test the model shown in Fig.. In first stage measurement model was examined. Confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.54 for measure reliability performed. The overall model fit index include chi-square/degree of freedom (X 2 /d.f.), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis-index (TLI), goodness of fit index (GFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) indicated acceptable model fits that shown in table 4. 309

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 3 (22): 305-3023, 203 Constructs Items Table 4. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (n = 602) Brand Loyalty (α= 0.87, AVE= 0.557, CR= 0.863) BLOY When I buying electronic goods, X would be my first choice BLOY2 I will not buy other brands if X is available at store BLOY3 Compared to other brands that have similar features, I am willing to pay a premium price for X BASS I respect and admire people who use X BASS2 Strong characteristics of X come to my mind quickly Association/Awareness (α= 0.76 AVE= 0.45, CR= 0.62) BAWA2 I am familiar with X brand BASS3 I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X Perceived Quality (α=0.87, AVE=0.578, CR=0.80) BPQ Products from X offer excellent feature BPQ2 Products from X would be of very good quality BPQ3 I trust the quality of product form X Overall brand equity (α= 0.82, AVE= 0.55, CR= 0.88) OBE Even if another brand has the same feature as X, I would prefer to buy X OBE2 If I have to choose among brand of Laptop or mobile phone, X is definitely my choice OBE3 If another brands is not different from X in any way, it seems smarter to purchase OBE4 It makes sense to buy X instead of any other brands, even if they are the same X 2 =70.0, d.f = 59, RMSEA = 0.056, GFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.96, TLI= 0.99 Note: α = Cronbach s alpha, CR = Composite reliability, AVE = Average variance extracted, - means the path parameter was set to, therefore no t-value was given Standard Loading 0.79 0.76 0.76 0.69 0.73 0.66 0.68 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.79 0.75 0.67 t-value - 25.65 20.2 7.84 9.30-8.06-8.9 8.89-8.2 5.83 4.35 Convergent validity was assessed by examining the magnitude and significance of the factor loading and their associated t-values. All items significantly and positively loaded on their corresponding construct. All AVEs except association/awareness were above 0.50 (see in table 4), approving adequate convergent validity. As association/awareness were measured with scales that established in the literature and inspecting also other psychometric properties, the measurement properties for association/awareness should be acceptable (Baldauf, et al. 2009). All composite reliabilities were more than 0.70, this show that reliability estimates were satisfactory. Research findings We have done correlation analysis for identifying the relationship between model variables; therefore we used the mean of items point for this case. Table 3 shows the means, standard deviation and correlation coefficients for variables. Table 5. Descriptive statictics and correlation Variable 2 3 Mean 3.5 3.6 3.90 Standard deviation.07 0.97 0.95.Brand loyalty 2. Perceived quality 0.79 a 3.Association /Awareness 0.38 a 0.3 a 4.Overall brand equity 0.79 a 0.7 a 0.34 a a Correlation is significant at the 0.0 level 4 3.24.02 For hypotheses testing, structural equation modeling (SEM) by LISREL version 8.53 was used. Results of Goodness of fit were measured and with results of rejection or acceptance of hypotheses gathered in Table 6. Table 6. Constructs hypotheses, standardized coefficient, t-value, and finding Constructs/Paths Hypotheses Std coefficient (t-value) Brand loyalty Overall brand equity H 0.67 (4.55) Perceived quality Overall brand equity H2 0.07 (0.57) Brand Association/Awareness Overall brand equity H3 0.0 (0.2) Chi-square (X 2 ) = 245.23, df= 70, RMSEA= 0.08, TLI = 0.98, CFI= 0.98, GFI= 0.92 Findings Supported Unsupported Unsupported As table 6 results shows, brand loyalty (β=0.67, t = 4.55) has direct and positive on overall brand equity this result supported H and also signs of coefficient were in the hypothesized direction. But brand association/awareness (β= -0.0, t = -0.2) had very low and negative parameter estimate and were deemed not statistically significant, these estimated coefficients don t support the H3. Perceived quality like brand 3020

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 3 (22): 305-3023, 203 association/awareness (β=0.07, t = 0.57) don t positively and significantly affected overall brand equity, then H2 unsupported. To examination the moderating effect of product involvement, the sample divided in two groups, high involvement and low involvement and more than 97% of laptop owners grouped in high involvement product group. This finding approves Cochrane and Quester (2005) and Drossos, et al. (2007) that laptop is high involvement product. For each group structural equations modeling was done separately, table 7 shows results for each group. Table 7. Moderating effects of product involvement Constructs/Paths Std coefficient (t-value) Std coefficient (t-value) High involvement Low involvement Brand loyalty Overall brand equity 0.94 (3.29) 0.63 (2.77) Perceived quality Overall brand equity 0.07 (0.43) 0.05 (0.4) Brand Association/Awareness Overall brand equity 0.02 (0.2) -0.04 (-0.66) Goodness of fit indexes Chi-square = 240.87, d.f.= 7 RMSEA= 0.095, TLI = 0.96, CFI= 0.97, GFI= 0.89 Chi-square = 272.88, d.f.= 70 RMSEA= 0.093, TLI = 0.97, CFI= 0.98, GFI= 0.90 As seen in table 7, for the high-involvement product, while the effect of brand loyalty on overall brand equity is significant, the effects of perceived quality and brand awareness/association on overall brand equity aren t significant. Also for high-involvement product the fit index, RMSEA, CFI and GFI respectively are 0.095, 0.97 and 0.89. His supported for both products, but H2 and H3 aren t supported. The results indicate that moderation effect of product involvement on the path brand loyalty-overall brand equity does exist as the coefficient for high-involvement product (0.94) is greater than for low-involvement (0.63). Also results show that coefficient of brand awareness/association-overall brand equity path for low-involvement is negative where this coefficient for high-involvement is positive, then H4 partial supported. CONCLUSION This research not only indicates determinants of brand equity from Iranian young consumers viewpoint, but also shows moderating effects of product involvement on the relationships between brand equity dimensions (brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness/association) and overall brand equity. Results of this studies show, three factors namely brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand association/awareness introduced for brand equity dimensions. This also indicates that these three dimensions have significant effects on brand equity. In other words, these dimensions apart from the brand equity dimensions or the value-added and by using these three dimensions we can evaluate the brand equity. In other words, the amount of brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand association/awareness indicate brand equity. Since the relations of three dimensions of brand equity with brand equity is positive, therefore, it can be said that whatever the brand loyalty be higher, it can leads to the increasing of their brand equity. This study results was supported by previous research such as Atilgan et al. (2005), Yasin et al. (2007) and Tong and Hawley (2009) that brand loyalty is influential dimension of brand equity. This paper shows that brand managers and marketer should concentrate on brand loyalty, because if it increases, it will positively contribute to firm s brand equity. This finding can be helpful for them to allocate resources across the dimensions since they have limited resource to implement branding strategies. Despite of lots of effort in this research, it has also many limitations. Some of them are: This study is merely on the basis of comments and opinions provided by Shahid Beheshti, Semnan, Tabriz universities and therefore the results derived from these three universities. Therefore we should consider this point for extending the results to other r students and consumers. The current study limited its evaluation on the product involvement, other external effective factors such as advertising, brand personality and reputation has not considered. Also Internal factors such as price is not considered in this study. Considering the above points, following suggestions can be conducted for future research: Similar research in other product categories and compared them with this study. Evaluating the effect of external variables with long-term effects such as brand personality, and the effect of short-term factors such as advertising as moderating variable. Evaluating the concept of brand equity in the services sector, particularly tourism and hospitality industry and identifying the determinant factors of brand equity in these industries. 302

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 3 (22): 305-3023, 203 REFERENCES Aaker DA, Joachimsthaler E. 2000. Brand leadership, London: Free Press Aaker DA. 996. Buildings strong brands, New York, NY, Free Press. Aaker DA.99. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press Agarwal MK, Rao VR.997. An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity, Marketing Letter, Vol. 7, pp.237-247 Atilgan E, Akinci S, Aksoy S, Kaynak E.2009. Customer-Based Brand Equity for Global Brands: A Multinational Approach, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.5-32 Baldauf A, Cravens K, Diamantopoulos A, Zeugner-Roth KP.2009. The impact of product-country image and marketing effort on retailerperceived brand equity: An empirical analysis, Journal of Retailing, Bennett R, Hartel CEJ, McColl-Kennedy JR. 2005. Experience as moderator of involvement and satisfaction on brand loyalty in Businessto-business setting 02-34R, Industrial Marketing Management, 34: 97-07 Boo S, Busser J, Baloglu S.2009. A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 29-23 Chen C, Chang Y. (2008. Airline brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intentions-the moderating effects of switching costs, Journal of Air Transport Management, 4: 40-42 Chen CF, Tsai MH. 2008. Perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty of TV travel product shopping: Involvement as a moderator, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 66-7 Chen CH. 200. Using free association to examine the relationship between the characteristics of brand associations and brand equity, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 0, No. 7, pp. 439-45 Chen YS.2009. The drivers of green brand equity; green brand image, green satisfaction and green trust, Journal of Business Ethics, De Chernatony L, McDonald MHB.994. Creating powerful brands, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 3rd edition. DelVecchio D, Jarvis CB, Klink RR, Dineen BB.2007. Leveraging brand equity to attract human capital, Marketing Letter, 8: 49-64 Farquhar P. 989) Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, Vol., pp. 24-33. Gerbing D, Anderson J.988. An updated paradigm for sale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 86-92 Jiang P.2004. The role of brand name in customization decision: a search vs. experience perspective, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 73-83 Kalra A, Murthi BPS. 2008. When Old Is Gold: The Role of Business Longevity in Risky Situations, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72, No., pp. 95-07 Kapferer JN.2003. the new strategic brand management, Creating and sustaining brand equity long term, London, Kogan-Page Keller KL. 993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. -22 Keller KL. 2003. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education Inc. Keller KL.998. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Kim CK, Han D, Park SB. (200). the effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification, Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 95-206 Kim HB, Kim WG.2005. The relationship between brand equity and firms performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants, Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 549-560 Kumar A, Kim Yk, Pelton L.2009. Indian consumers purchase behavior toward US versus local brands, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 50-526 Kwon SJ, Chung N.200. The moderating effects of psychological reactance and product involvement on online shopping recommendation mechanisms based on a causal map, Electronic Commerce Research and Application, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 522-536 Lee JS, Back KJ.200. Reexamination of attendee-based brand equity, Tourism Management, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 395-40 Lee YK, Back KJ, Kim JY. 2009. Family restaurant brand personality and its impact on consumer s emotion, satisfaction, and band loyalty, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 305-328 Lim WS, Tan SJ.2009. Using brand equity to counter outsourcing opportunism: A game theoretic approach, Marketing Letter, Vol. 20, pp. 369-383 Lin MY, Chang LH.2003. Determinant of habitual behavior for national and leading brands in chain, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 94-07 Low GS, Lamb CW. 2000. The measurement and dimensionality of brand association, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9, No.6, pp. 350-368 Madden TJ, Fehle F, Fournier S.2006. Brands matter: An empirical demonstration of the creation of shareholder value through branding, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 224-235 Miller J, Muir D.2004. The Business of Brands, John Wiley & Sons, UK Motameni R, Shahrokhi M.998. Brand equity valuation: a global perspective, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 275-290 Myers C.2003. Managing brand equity: a look at the impact of attributes. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 2, pp. 39-5 Na WB, Marshall R, Keller KL.999. Measuring brand power: validating a model for optimizing brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8, pp. 70-84. Netemeyer RG, Krishnan B, Pullig C, Wang G, Yagci M, Dean D, Ricks J, Wirth F.2004. Developing and validating measures of facets of customer based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 209-224 Pappu R, Quester PG, Cooksey RW.2005. Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement - empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 43-54 Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. 996. Attitudes and persuasion: classic and contemporary approaches, 2ed Ed, Colorado, Westview Press. Prendergast GP, Tsang ASL, Chen CNW.200. The interactive influence of country of origin of brand and product involvement on purchase intention, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 80-88 Quester P, Smart J.998. The influences of consumption situation and product involvement over consumers use of product attribute, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(3): 220-238 Roth KP, Diamantopoulos A, Montesinos A.2008. Home country image, country brand equity and consumers product preferences: An empirical study, Management International Review, Vol. 5, pp. 576-602 Shook CL, Ketchen DJ, Hult GTM, Kacmar MK. 2004. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 397-404 Syzmanski DM, Henard DH.200. Customer satisfaction; a Meta analysis of the empirical evidence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Vol. 29, No., pp. 6-35 3022

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 3 (22): 305-3023, 203 Tong X, Hawley JM.2009. Creating brand equity in the Chinese clothing market, The effect of selected marketing activities on brand equity dimensions, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 566-58 VanAuken B.2005. The brand management checklist: proven tools and techniques for creating winning brands, London, Kogan-Page Washburn JH, Plank RE. 2002. Measuring brand equity: An evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 0, pp. 46-62 Xue F.2008. The moderating effect of product involvement on situational brand choice, Journal of Consume Marketing, 25(2): 85-94 Yang Z, Jun M. 2002. Consumer perception of service-quality: from Internet purchaser and non purchaser perspectives, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9, pp. 9-4 Yasin N, Nasser Noor M, Mohamad O. 2007. Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6, No., pp.38-48 Yoo B, Donthu N, Lee S.2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 95-2 Yoo B, Donthum N.200. Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Customers-Based Equity Scale, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, No., pp. -4 Zaichkowski JL.985. Measuring the Involvement Construct, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 34-352 Zaichkowsky J. 986. Conceptualizing involvement, Journal of Consumer Advertising, 5(2): 4-34 Zaichkowsky JL.994. The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to advertising, Journal of Advertising, 23(4): 59-70 3023