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

rand equity on pur- chase intention. Second, switching costs can be economic, psycho- logical, 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 inten- tion. 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 strength- en 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 demo- graphic moderators which will moderate the relation- ship 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 character- istics of which previous researches have been exam- ined (Homburg and Giering, 2001; Mattel and Kamakura, 2001; Yoshida and Gordon, 2012). Previous researches have showed that younger con- sumers' 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 moder- ate the relationship between brand associations, per- ceived 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 strength- en the positive effect of brand equity on purchase intention. The second variable is gender. Previous studies have also shown that gender has influence on con- sumer decision-making (Homburg and Giering, 2001; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001; Yoshida and Gordon, 2012). Similar to younger consumers, women con- sumers' 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 mod- erate the relationship between brand equity and pur- chase 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. 56 Journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS Hypothesis 8c. Women consumers will strength- en 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 informa- tion. Thus, this study proposes that income will mod- erate 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 pur- chase 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 conse- quences (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 associ- ations and (b) perceived quality on brand equity. Hypothesis 10c. Longer relationship age con- sumers will strengthen the positive effect of brand equity on purchase intention. The second moderator is loyalty program participa- tion. 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 con- sumers' 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 associ- ations and (b) perceived quality on brand equity. Hypothesis 11c. More loyalty program participa- tion 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 col- lected 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 meas- urement 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 57 journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS al. (2004). The measurement items of brand equity were adapted from Yoshida and Gordon (2012) and consists of value equity (5 items), psychological equi- ty (8 items), and relational equity (5 items). The con- sequence 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, psy- chological moderators, demographic moderators, and relational moderators. Experiential moderators consist of experiential perception (6 items), entertainment value (5 items), aesthetic value (7 items) which meas- urement items were adapted from Sheng and Teo (2012); brand attachment (5 items) which measure- ment 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 measure- ment 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, 58 Journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS Figure 1: Research Model Purchase Intention Psychological Moderators Involvement Switching Costs Demographic Moderators Age Gender Income Brand Equity Relational Moderators Relationship Age Loyalty Program Participation Behavioral Moderators Brand Personality Brand Satisfaction Brand Trust Brand Commitment Antecedents Brand Association Perceived Quality Experiential Moderators Experiential Perception Entertainment Value Aesthetic Value Brand Attachment Enjoyment Value Hedonic Attitude H1-H2 H3-H4 H5-H6 H7-H9 H10-H11 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 par- ticipation 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 con- structs. 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 equi- ty which is 0.496, and Cronbach's alpha of all the fac- tors are also higher than 0.8 (0.813-0.938). All the val- ues 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 fur- ther 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 mod- erators (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 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 experi- ential perception, high entertainment value, high aes- thetic 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 hedo- nic attitude do not experience on low perceived quali- ty, 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 influ- ence 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 moder- ators (e.g., brand personality, brand satisfaction, brand trust, and brand commitment), this study divided the 59 journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60 Journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS Table 1: Characteristics of Respondents Classification Respondents Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Male 37 11.5% Female 286 88.5% Age Less than 17 1 0.3% 18-25 years old 245 75.9% 26-35 years old 51 15.8% 36-45 years old 17 5.3% 45-55 years old 5 1.5% More than 55 years old 4 1.2% Education High school or lower 22 6.8% Bachelor degree 230 71.2% Master degree 68 21.1% Doctoral degree 3 0.9% Working Experience No working experience 90 27.9% Less than 3 years 147 45.5% 3-5 years 34 10.5% 6-9 years 24 7.4% 10-15 years 16 5% More than 16 years 12 3.7% Current Career Student 233 72.1% Official 9 2.8% Administration staff 11 3.4% Financial/accounting 7 2.2% Educational services 7 2.2% Medical services 15 4.6% R&D technological 3 0.9% Tourism and leisure industries 7 2.2% Doing own business 8 2.5% Unemployee 8 2.5% Others 15 4.6% Annual Income Less than 0.5 million NTD 280 86.7% 0.5 – 1 million NTD 32 9.9% 1.1 – 2 million NTD 6 1.9% 2.1 – 3 million NTD 4 1.2% 3.1 – 4 million NTD 1 0.3% 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 respon- 61 journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS Table 2. Factor Analysis and Reliability Variables Number of items Factor Loadings Eigen value Percentage of Variance Explained Item to total correlation Cronbach's á Brand Associations 8 0.631-0.869 4.895 61.184% 0.547-0.803 0.908 Perceived Quality 4 0.875-0.893 3.145 78.624% 0.776-0.804 0.909 Brand Equity Value Equity 5 0.797-0.873 3.581 71.627% 0.689-0.790 0.901 Psychological Equity 8 0.701-0.885 5.594 69.928% 0.625-0.841 0.938 Relationship Equity 5 0.647-0.878 3.285 65.696% 0.496-0.781 0.866 Experiential Perception 6 0.802-0.849 4.056 67.604% 0.709-0.772 0.904 Entertainment Value 5 0.853-0.890 3.774 75.482% 0.769-0.819 0.919 Aesthetic Value 7 0.774-0.868 4.726 67.519% 0.696-0.808 0.919 Brand Attachment 5 0.706-0.901 3.472 69.444% 0.582-0.814 0.888 Enjoyment Value 5 0.845-0.891 3.828 76.560% 0.759-0.820 0.923 Hedonic Attitude 5 0.795-0.896 3.518 70.364% 0.678-0.823 0.894 Brand Personality 4 0.751-0.834 2.565 64.124% 0.576-0.685 0.813 Brand Satisfaction 5 0.856-0.914 3.985 79.695% 0.780-0.858 0.936 Brand Trust 5 0.832-0.893 3.784 75.683% 0.743-0.820 0.919 Brand Commitment 5 0.873-0.905 3.960 79.194% 0.798-0.850 0.934 Product Involvement 5 0.641-0.930 3.688 73.764% 0.521-0.863 0.906 Switching Costs 5 0.814-0.900 3.682 73.636% 0.714-0.831 0.910 Loyalty Program Participation 5 0.845-0.931 3.973 79.470% 0.763-0.886 0.935 Brand Commitment 5 0.873-0.905 3.960 79.194% 0.798-0.850 0.934 Behavioral Intention 4 0.880-0.912 3.220 80.497% 0.788-0.836 0.919 _ _ _ _ _ dents without low brand trust and high brand associa- tions. 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 qual- ity, customers with high brand personality and high brand trust tend to stimulate higher influence of per- ceived 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 high- er 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 cluster analysis shows only three groups of respon- dents without high brand satisfaction and high brand commitment-low perceived quality respondents. This situation seems to suggest that respondents in high sat- isfaction 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) 62 Journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS Figure 2: Moderating Effect of Experiential Moderators = Brand association and high experiential moderators = Brand association and low experiential moderators = Perceived quality and high experiential moderators = Perceived quality and low experiential moderators _ _ _ 4.3.3 Moderating Effect of Psychological Moderators Psychological moderators consist of product involvement and switching costs. To test those moder- ating effects, this study divided the respondents into four groups as the between-subjects factors in ANOVA model based on two levels of each independent vari- able (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, respec- tively; 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 qual- ity 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 associa- tion-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 cus- 63 journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS Figure 3: Moderating Effect of Behavioral Moderators = Brand association and high behavioral moderators = Brand association and low behavioral moderators = Perceived quality and high behavioral moderators = Perceived quality and low behavioral moderators _ 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 associa- tion (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 respon- dents 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 vari- able (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 inten- tion 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 repur- chase (X = 5.72) the current brand. Thus, H5c and H6c are supported. (Figure 4) 64 Journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS _ _ _ _ _ _ Figure 4 : Moderating Effect of Psychological Moderators 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 BE= Brand Equity Note: = Low Product Involvement = Low Switching Costs = High Product Involvement = High Switching Costs 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 influ- ences 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 equi- ty 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 asso- ciation 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, respec- tively) 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 support- ed. Furthermore, this study also divided the respon- dents 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 cus- tomers (F=38.854; p=0.000) and high income cus- tomers (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- 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 equi- ty 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 moder- ating effects, this study divided the respondents into four groups as the between-subjects factors in ANOVA model based on two levels of each independent vari- able (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 influ- ences of brand association and perceived quality on brand equity compare to customers who less partici- pate in loyalty program and has shorter relationship with a brand. Customers whose join more loyalty pro- gram 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 respon- dents 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 65 journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ who less participate in loyalty program. When cus- tomers join more loyalty program in a high brand equi- ty product, they tend to have higher intention to pur- chase 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 pur- chase intention. To see customers' purchase intention, there are no big differences between customers who 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 66 Journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS Figure 5: Moderating Effect of Demographic Moderators = 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: = Young = Male = Low Income = Old = Female = High Income BE= Brand Equity _ _ _ __ _ 67 journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS Figure 6: Moderating Effect of Relational Moderators Relational Moderators = Perceived quality and less loyalty program and short relationship age = 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 BE= Brand Equity Note: = Less Loyalty Program Participation = Short Relationship Age = More Loyalty Program Participation = Long Relationship Age 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 per- sonality, brand satisfaction, brand trust, and brand commitment) have moderating effect on the influ- ences 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 stimu- late 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 inten- tion. 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 cus- tomers 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 cur- rent brand has high value and they think if switch to another brand is costly, they tend to have higher inten- tion 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 pur- chase intention. The result shows that when older cus- tomers are highly involved with a brand and perceived a brand has high quality, it will lead into higher brand 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 prod- uct 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 rela- tionship between brand association and perceived quality on brand equity. In contrast, income has mod- erating 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, relation- ship age has moderating effect on the relationship between brand association, perceived quality and brand equity but has no moderating effect on the rela- tionship 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 prod- uct (Seiders, et al., 2005), so they have more knowl- edge about that brand and when they are highly asso- ciated with a brand and perceived a brand has high quality, it will lead into higher brand equity. In addi- 68 Journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS 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 consid- ered as one of the most important variables to facilitate and accelerate the influences of the independent vari- able to dependent variable. Specifically, the modera- tors 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, demo- graphic moderators, relational moderators, and other moderators. It can be used to classify or to segment consumers from low repurchase group to high repur- chase group. Managers can identify old, higher income, and high involved customers to foster long- term 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 con- sumers, 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 research model, it does not guarantee that all variables are included. Future research may include more vari- ables. Second, this study used just one product catego- ry, 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 conse- quences, 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 insignif- icant 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 off- set performance failures: The role of brand equity?" 69 journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS 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. 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. 70 Journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS 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 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 71 journal of Trade Science JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE ’S JTS ’S JTS JOURNAL OF TRADE SCIENCE Journal of Trade Science 72 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? 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 moät thaäp kæ qua, giaù trò thöông hieäu laø chuû ñeà nhaän ñöôïc söï quan taâm roäng raõi bôûi caùc nhaø nghieân cöùu vaø caùc chuyeân gia thöïc teá. Tuy nhieân vaãn coù khoaûng troáng nghieân cöùu trong vieäc phaùt trieån moät khung nghieân cöùu veà caùc nhaân toá ñieàu tieát giaù trò thöông hieäu. Do ñoù, muïc tieâu cuûa nghieân cöùu naøy laø: thöù nhaát, phaùt trieån moät moâ hình nghieân cöùu toaøn dieän veà caùc nhaân toá ñieàu tieát giaù trò thöông hieäu vaø thöù hai, kieåm ñònh caùc giaû thuyeát nghieân cöùu ñaõ ñöôïc phaùt trieån. Phöông phaùp nghieân cöùu laø ñieàu tra baûng hoûi ñöôïc thöïc hieän vôùi 323 khaùch haøng söû duïng myõ phaåm. Coù 5 nhaân toá ñieàu tieát cô baûn ñöôïc ñöa ra trong nghieân cöùu naøy (nhaân toá traûi nghieäm, nhaân toá haønh vi, nhaân toá taâm lyù, nhaân toá nhaân chuûng vaø nhaân toá quan heä). Keát quaû cho thaáy taát caû caùc nhaân toá naøy ñeàu coù taùc ñoäng ñieàu tieát tôùi aûnh höôûng cuûa thuoäc tính thöông hieäu vaø chaát löôïng caûm nhaän cuûa thöông hieäu tôùi giaù trò thöông hieäu. Beân caïnh ñoù, möùc ñoä tham gia, chi phí chuyeån ñoåi thöông hieäu, ñoä tuoåi, thu nhaäp vaø vieäc tham gia vaøo caùc chöông trình trung thaønh coù taùc ñoäng ñieàu chænh tôùi aûnh höôûng cuûa giaù trò thöông hieäu tôùi döï ñònh mua. Ngöôïc laïi, giôùi tính vaø tuoåi quan heä vôùi thöông hieäu khoâng coù taùc ñoäng ñieàu tieát tôùi möùc ñoä aûnh höôûng cuûa giaù trò thöông hieäu tôùi yù ñònh mua. Vì caùc nghieân cöùu tröôùc ñaây veà caùc nhaân toá ñieàu tieát giaù trò thöông hieäu coøn haïn cheá neân keát quaû cuûa nghieân cöùu naøy coù theå taïo ra giaù trò tham khaûo toát vôùi caùc nhaø nghieân cöùu vaø caùc chuyeân gia veà phaùt trieån chieán löôïc quaûn trò thöông hieäu.