Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Mean
Std. Deviation
symbolic2
3.6115
.70954
function2
4.0031
.42587
social2
3.6581
.70054
experiential2
3.9360
.54965
SATISFACTION
3.9722
.49002
LOYALTY
4.0380
.48491
4.8
Descriptive Analysis
The mean and standard deviation values for all of the study variables are presented in Table 4.11.
All of the variables were measured using a five-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly
disagree or very unlikely) to 5 (strongly agree or very likely).
Results show that the mean scores for each of the four components of brand image
benefits varied from 3.94 to 4.00, indicating that respondents had a moderate perception of all
the dimensions of brand image benefits. The standard deviation for these components ranged
from 0.43 to 0.71. Similarly, overall customer satisfaction had a moderate mean value of 3.97,
with a standard deviation of 0.49. On the other hand, loyalty intention achieved a high mean
score of 4.04, indicating that respondents had high loyalty towards the brand.
In summary, the means and standard deviations for all four dimensions of brand image
benefits, overall satisfaction and loyalty intention in the study were found to be average (i.e.
based upon the scale of 1 to 5, the mean scores can be explained as: a mean score that is less than
2 is rated as low, a mean score between 2 to 4 is rated as average, and a mean score greater than
4 is rated as high (Yasin, 2004)).
Table 4.11
Mean and Standard Deviation for Variables in the Study
Variables
Functional benefits
Social benefits
Symbolic benefits
Experiential benefits
Overall customer satisfaction
Loyalty intention
Mean
Std. Deviation
4.00
0.43
3.66
0.70
3.61
0.71
3.94
0.55
3.97
0.49
4.04
0.48
Correlation Analysis
Pearson correlation coefficients were computed in order to examine the strength and the direction of the
relationship between all the constructs in the study. The Pearson correlation coefficient values can vary
from -1.00 to +1.00. A correlation value of +1.00 indicates a perfect positive correlation, while a value of
-1.00 represents a perfect negative correlation, and a value of 0.00 indicates no linear relationship
between the X and Y variables or between two variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Pallant, 2007).
Cohen (1988) interprets the correlation values as: small/weak when the correlation value is r = .10 to .29
or r = -.10 to -.29, medium/moderate when the value is r = .30 to .49 or r = -.30 to -.49, and large/strong
when the correlation value is r=0.5 to r=1.0 or r= -0.5 to r= -1.0.
As shown in Table 4.12, the results indicate that all of the brand image benefits dimensions were
positively correlated with loyalty intention. Functional benefits (r = .507, p < 0.01) was highly and
positively associated with loyalty intention. In addition, symbolic benefits and experiential benefits were
found to have a moderate significant correlation with loyalty intention. The correlation coefficient values
between the aforementioned brand image dimensions and loyalty intention ranged from 0.353 (p < 0.01)
to .388 (p < 0.01). However, one dimension of brand image benefits is significantly correlated with
loyalty intention but is slightly weak, namely social benefits (r = .260, p < 0.01).
All of the brand image benefits dimensions were found to be positively correlated with overall
satisfaction. The results show that functional benefits (r = .603, p < 0.01) was strongly and significantly
correlated with overall customer satisfaction. The rest of the brand image dimensions benefits such as
social benefits, symbolic benefits and experiential benefits were found to be moderately and positively
associated with overall customer satisfaction. The correlation coefficient values between these dimensions
of brand image benefits and overall customer satisfaction are between the ranged of 0.321 (p < 0.01) to
0.452 (p <0.01)
The results summarized in Table 4.12 indicate that overall customer satisfaction has a strong
positive correlation with loyalty intention (r = .621, p < 0.01).
Table 4.12
Pearson Correlations Matrix of Study Variables (N=583)
Variables
Symbolic Functional
Social
Experiential Satisfaction
Symbolic Benefits
Functional Benefits
.351**
Social Benefits
.550**
.320**
**
**
Loyalty
Experiential Benefits
.495
.388
.451**
Satisfaction
.452**
.603**
.365**
.420**
Loyalty
.353**
.507**
.260**
.388**
.621**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Model
1
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
Method
experiential2,
function2,
. Enter
social2,
symbolic2a
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: LOYALTY
Model Summaryb
Model
R
.560a
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Estimate
.313
.308
.40327
ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Regression
42.856
10.714
Residual
93.996
578
.163
136.852
582
Total
F
65.882
Sig.
.000a
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
1.331
.171
symbolic2
.095
.030
function2
.453
social2
experiential2
Coefficients
Beta
Sig.
7.774
.000
.140
3.162
.002
.044
.397
10.359
.000
-.016
.030
-.023
-.545
.586
.155
.037
.176
4.172
.000
Loyalty Intention.
The first hypothesis (H1) examined whether there is a positive relationship
between brand image benefits and loyalty intention. Results in Table 4.13
indicated that 31.3% variances in loyalty intention can be explained by brand
image based benefits (R2 = 31.3, p < 0.01). Detail regression results of the
aforementioned hypotheses are discussed below.
The first hypothesis (H1) suggested that there is a positive relationship
between brand image benefits and loyalty intention. Results shown in Table
4.13 illustrated that three of the dimensions of brand image benefits; namely
functional benefits ( = .397, p < 0.01), symbolic benefits ( = .140, p <
0.01) and experiential benefits ( = .176, p < 0.01) were found to have a
positive effect on loyalty intention. Therefore, hypotheses H1a, H1c and H1d
are supported. The effect of social benefits on loyalty intention is not
significant (p > 0.05), hence hypothesis H1b is rejected. Overall, the first
hypothesis H1 is also partially supported.
Table 4.13
Regression Analysis of Brand Image Benefits with Loyalty Intention
Dependent
Variable
Loyalty intention
Independent Variable
Brand Image benefits
:
Functional benefits
Social benefits
Symbolic benefits
Experiential benefits
R2
.313
Adjust R2
.308
Sig. F
.65.88**
Std. Coefficient
Beta ()
t-value
10.359
-.545
3.162
4.172
.397**
-.023
.140**
.176**
Std. Error
(Constant)
1.331
.171
symbolic2
.095
.030
function2
.453
social2
experiential2
a. Dependent Variable: LOYALTY
Coefficients
Beta
Sig.
7.774
.000
.140
3.162
.002
.044
.397
10.359
.000
-.016
.030
-.023
-.545
.586
.155
.037
.176
4.172
.000
Model
1
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
Method
experiential2,
function2,
. Enter
social2,
symbolic2a
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: SATISFACTION
Model Summaryb
Model
R
.665a
Adjusted R
Square
Estimate
R Square
.442
.438
.36729
ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Regression
61.778
15.444
Residual
77.972
578
.135
139.750
582
Total
F
114.488
Sig.
.000a
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
.766
.156
symbolic2
.139
.027
function2
.542
social2
experiential2
Coefficients
Beta
Sig.
4.912
.000
.202
5.063
.000
.040
.471
13.619
.000
.036
.027
.052
1.336
.182
.102
.034
.115
3.021
.003
The
Relationship
between
Brand
Image
Benefits
and
Overall
Customer Satisfaction
Hypothesis 2 posited that there is a positive relationship between brand
image benefits and overall customer satisfaction. The results in Table 4.14
revealed that 44.2% of the total variances in overall satisfaction were
explained by brand image benefits (R 2 = 44.2, p > 0.01). Results in Table
4.14 demonstrated that functional benefits ( = .256, p < 0.01), symbolic
benefits ( = .100, p < 0.01) and experiential benefits ( = .221, p < 0.01)
have significant influences on overall satisfaction. However, the effect of
social benefits on customers overall satisfaction with the brand is not
significant (p > 0.05). Thus, H4a, H4b, and H4d are supported while H4c is
rejected. This concludes that H4 is partially accepted.
Table 4.14
Independent Variables
Brand Image benefits :
Functional benefits
Social benefits
Symbolic benefits
Experiential benefits
R2
.629
Adjust R2
.621
Sig. F
77.66**
Note: Significant levels: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
Std.
Coefficient
Beta ()
.256**
.039
.100**
.221**