I: Topic and Author name

'Does brand tust matter to brand equity?"

- published by Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman

II: Objective
In the currently literary texts, the brand equity on competitive advantages views as
market-based benefit because it has connection with consumers love to use with that brand.
Thereforc, as mentioned above, hust of customers on one brand is the most important feature
for any business fields and the tlust is also the great desire in any relationship. The purpose of
this study is to interpret the significance of brand trust in bmnd equity developing action.
Particularly, this article surveys on the network relationships which driven in the brand trust.

III: Introduction
Crcation of a powerful brand in the market is the purpose of nr-rmerous organizations as
it gives large number of advantage to the firm, including less weakness to action of competitive
marketing, considerable amount of safety border or margins, large mediator collaboration and
provide brand extension golden oppotunities.

Stated this athactiveness in consftucting of brand, which instlument will produce a

powedul brand in reality? This question has been an outstanding and repeated topic in
branding literafure over the last two decades; as a result a lot of research on the important
conceptua.lization of brand equity. Neveftheless, since late 1990s, thete was a new flow or
method of research in ma.keting (e.g. long-term interconnection, the building of added value
based on knowledge and expedence, the main pedormance of the role ol marketing in firm,
etc.) have accepted for the new method of proceed towards the question what things produce a
powerful brand, by that means enhancilg our comprehension of b.and equity. Spe.ifically,
analyzing bra[d equity is within a resouce-based approach and marketing relationship
perspective.

The latest published works (Falkenberg, 1996; Hooley et al., 2005; Sdvastava et al.,
1998, 2001) think the brand as relational marketing based asset because it exists exterior to the
firm and occupies with the relationship of final usen with the brand. The weakness of
malketing relation is focus on the both marketing theorists and professional's suggestion which
is trusted the main factor on based rclationship. The relationship principles arc connection with
based resowce to braid. The main research question is: Does the brand hust matter connect or
relate to brand equity?

Brand trust studying is in the brand literatue has not developed. The interested in the
important mafter which has been conceptual or theorctical and therc has been little rcsearch
inlo the matter. The deficiency of research is pointed out by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
who trusts the brand in the processes of brand equity has not been clearly considered. The
importance of the research has been basically highlighted in the brand literature aurd in the
present brand managenent application (Bainbidge, 1997; Kamp, 1999; Scoft, 2000)

On the support of these re|ection or considemtion, and linking both of the

resource-based approach of the firm and literatures of rclationship maiketing, thc study
pupose is filling the gap by examining the main brand trust in development of equity of the
brand .

To mark this intention, the remainder of this article is assembled as follows. The paper
analyzing brirnd equity is from resourced based. The connection of mirket based bencfit lead to
view on bmnd trust. Accordingly, we meltioned a definition of the brand trust and talk about
the fashion that bland trust involved in success of brand equity. The data collection and method
used to lest with hypotheses and the rcsult are showed. Ultimalely, we talk about the
conclusion in terlrl,s of the suggestions for managedal practice and some limitations and
advices for upcoming resemch arc provided on branding literatue.

IV: Conceptual Framework

V: Theory
. Ovetull SatisfactiDn
Anderson indicated in i994 that overall satisfaction was an ovenll evaluation based on the
total purchase and consumptron experience with a product or service over a period of time
. Brand Trust
Brand trust is the confidence drat consumers have for a certain brand. and it is exhibited
through two dimensions:
1) Brand reliability shows an organization's ability and willingness to keep its promises
and satisfy customers needs and wants, which will bring a sense of worthy of
confidence to the customers
2) Brand intcntions reflect the extent that the customers desire to choose a bmnd with
their iltercsts. The customers' favor towards a bmnd can be a motive for their purchase
decision. At this point, two hypotheses are set up to prove the relationship between
ovemll satisfaction and brand reliabilitv and brand intentions
c Brund Inyahy
Brand loyalty reflects the extent to which consume$' attitudes and behaviors towards a certain
brand affect their purchasing decision over time and displays a brard-consumer relationship.
. Brand Equit!
Brand equity, as an intangible asset to an orgarfzation, has be€n displayed the qualities
required for creating a sustainable competitive- advantage. De Chematony and Macdooald
indicated that brand equity could build in value for customers, help to construct rock-solid
competitive positions, take time to develop, was inherently complex and couldn't be
fiansferred to another organization simply. Brand equity has been viewed as a rational
market-based asset, which shows its extemal relatioNhip with other market factors and
originates from a series of brand associations and behaviors that have been developed towards
a particular brand
In a word, brand equity finally originates in the market place from the set of braild associations
and behaviors that have been develop€d towards the brand

VI: hypotheses:

Hl: Customea' Overall satisfaction has a positive relationship with Bmnd Intentions
H2: Customers' Overall satisfaction has a positive relationship with Brand Reliability
H3: Customers' Overall satisfactior has a positive relationship with Brand Loyalty
H4: Custome$'Brand Reliability has apositive relationship with Brand Loyalty
H5: Custome$'Brand Intentions has a positive relationship with Bmnd Iryalty
H6: Custome$' Brand Loyalty has a positive relationship with Brand Equity

l;,,-i*;-:-;..
_-__:.- ..........,-.f---_
YII: Research Methodologr
The survey was conducted in
Spain, and CAII (computer,aided telephone ilterviewilg
program) was used to administer fte questionnaire, in which two differcnt product categories
were provided: shampoo and beer The respondents first were assigned to one product and
asked which brands they used. Then they were interviewed with reference to one of the brands
mentioned. The researcher rc.eived 271 completed questionnaires, in which 134 were ftom
shampoo and 137 were frcm beer, and the rcsponse rate was 67 percent. The hypothesis was
testing through conventional maximum likelihood estimation techniques.

Findings
$tk ll toidtud rts{rldr indd
la.rer cl{ssie
'irnd.ldiad 6li$nrt€
o.x,rll !6Lbqdm * trsd relilb{lq
sErrll rrilltdid '. ttar{ ieitidr
{sBl! rdkrtdla -. }rat1 lotdrt
8n!rd 1.lti']6ry * tdd Lipnr
1r1., ,nt!n*@ - hoid byllry
0r!!d Loldrq- &nd .q!i9
{&rer'll!h)'.ri6rir.tleri'f i.o5r*,j - }3 !t rrr -0 3t tPr*t " rd*t, R$ts{ - oj)e trl " t er: ru 1 iri}- o9r

The hypotheses Hland H2 are supported by the finding above. Hl shows T=0.88 p<0.05 and
H2 shows y=0.55, p<0.05, so it means that the overall satisfaction have an influence on brand
rcliability and bmnd intentions
In addition, brand rcliability and brand intentions having a positive relationship with brand
loyalty (H4, H5) is supported by the statistics: 931=0.42, p<0.05 and B32=0.20, p<0.05
Finally, the positive relationship between bmnd loyalty and brand equity is proved by the
statistic as well with p43=0.87, p<0.05.

D cussion:
As an intangible asset to an organization, brand equity is exhibiting a relationship between the
brand and the customers. Thrcugh conceptual framework a positive connection among
customer, bmnd trust and brand equity is proved. The customer's overall satisfaction plays a
key role to generate brand equity, and the brand trust dimensions act as a mediator role to linL
customer and brand equity. It can be said that to create brand equity successfully, a firm should
serve customer well to gain their satisfaction first, and then the firm will be able to build a trust,
which will be produce and increase the firm's brand equity.

Concl sions
loyalty and trust are static and cannot be acquired but can form higher order resource such as
bra[d equity. Brald equity first should be added to the connection with other elements within

:-I:-- .
the value-chain especially in service industry. Afterward the organization should enhance the
relalionship between its brand and its key extemal stakeholders. What,s more the btand
distinctiveness is very important to a firm to differentiate its products ftom its compeurors rc
develop and shength its competitive position in customer,s minds and cultivate a lons_term
relationship with its custome$. Howevet this research has its limitations. For examol. rhe
sample is limited and is not rcpresentative of all consumers. A gender bias may occui in rhis
survey, so it could somewhat limit the external validity of the studv.

VIII: Questionnaire
A - Brand liability
I - Is brand name meeting my experience?
2- Is brand name that never disappoints me?

B -Brand intention;
I Does brand name would be honest?
2-Does brand name would make any effort to satisfy me?
3 - Does brand name would compensate me with brand loyalty problem?

C - Brand loyalty:
I - I-oyalty to what brand? (Name)
2 - I will buy another brand for these reasons only?
3 - If my brand is finished in that stor, will I go somewhere else?
4 - It another brand is in touch, would I buy my brand?

D - Brand equity:
1 - Why I buy my brand instead of other even
when they are the same?
2 - When other brandies exacdy the, why I buy my brand?
3 - When other has same quality, why I buy my brand?
4 - Why when another brand is not different, it is smarter to buy m y brand?

';:'*-l ";,7."
 Does brand trust matter to brand equity?
Elena Delsado-Balestzr and. Josi Luis M n1eft-AhnAn
l4arketing Deparmen! Unive6ity of Murcia, [4urcia, Spain

Purpose - fte mGt recent literature on compelitive advantage vieM brand equity as a relational markel-based $sel bmuse ii a ses lrom the
GlationshipsthatcoNume6 have wilh brands. civen the lact ihat trust is viewed as fre co.neFsrone aswellas one of tre mostdesirab e qualities in
any relalionship.lhe objective oflhis study is lo ana[2e the imponance oI brand irust in the d€velopment of bEnd equity. Specifrcally $e papet
examines the realionships nerwo* n whkh bhnd lrust k embedded.
Detign/melhodology/approach A quanlllalive methodology was adopbd.11'e data are based on a suruey conducted ii a region in fie south-
emten part of spain, resurinq in 271 surueys-
Findings - fte flndings revealthat brand tust is rooted in lhe.$ulto{ past experience wiih he bbnd, and it is aho positvet asso.iated with bEid
loyalty. which in lum mainhins a positiverclalionshipwith brand equ ty. F!fthemore, th€ resuls sugg6tlhat ahhough brand t.ud does not play a tull
m€diaiing roe as suggened ry Morgan and Hunt it contributes 10 a better explanation of b6nd equity.
originality/value ftese resuLl5 have signilicant mplications.Ire fad lhat brand equity is besl explained when bmnd trun is taken inlo account
rclnforces the idea thal brand equityi5 a re alional market-based a$et Tlerelore, bmnding literatue may be enrkhed $roughrhe inbgration with rhe
ilerature on the Bource-based-view ollhe lim. Frcm a practicalpoinl of view companies musl blild bland tust in odslo enjoy the substantial
compditive and economk ad€ntiges prcvided by brand equity as a rclational, ma*et-based assel.

|(eywoids Brand equity, Bland management Trust Consumer behaviour

?aper type Research paper

An executive sl,''''r@y for mdage$ od qeutive
readeE car be foud at tne end of tnis trtide.
lntroduction
Building a stNng bnnd in the market is the soai of many
orsmizarions because iI !rcvides ! host of benetus ro a tm,
ir"luding le\s nlDdbiliry _o (olpehuve markebng a.rion..
larser mdsins, sreat€r int@edr!ry co-operatjon lnd support
ud brdd endsion oppoirEides.
Givm rhis intftsr in brand building, whlt acrurlly mates a
brmd strong? This quesdon has been a significet snd
recur$t theme in the btuding lilerarurc over lhe plst two
in a vlsr body of.eseaich on rhe sllent
decades) resultins
concept of b@d €quity. However, since the bte 1990s, new
r$earch stems nr markedq (e.9. lodg-te@ .e1.!iodships,
the creation of added lzlue based on tnowledge lnd
experieDce, the role of marketha rdouices in 6rm
perfo.mlnce, etc.) have allowed for a new way of
.pprolchjns the qustion of what makes a blmd strons,
thereby enrichins oE understldding of brand equity,
Slecifically) iI is wthrn . resouce based apprcach and
relatio8hip mdkerbg lerspective that we anllyE brand
The Emdald Resedrch Regi*d for thk jounal is avlilable ar
**w.dreraldinisht.cob/r.e.Nhagbter
The ffient issne md tull reF archive ol tnis joumal is available at
**w.€meE1diEighicont106l-(M2l.hh
Joud dlodEr & MtullFdr
o kdd &oF cubllhis LhtEd 0sN 10d{1rl
tDor r0.1Ddr0d01r0r60rst
The oost recst liten1rn ..Falkenbers, 1996, Hooley dr aJ,,
2005: SriE:rava 4 al., lao8, 2001) consideA brand equi y aq
a relational ma.ket based aset because ir exists ouiside the
tum snd resides in the relationships ofinal users wirn brm.ls.
At the sme rime, the emersmce of relationship mrrl€iine !s
. dominant focus of both msrketing rheorists and
practironers suggests that trust is rhe roin fador on which
a relationship is b$ed. Comecting, then, the relationship
principles with a resourc*based approach to brdd equty, we
propose the foUowing r$ea.ch quesdon: Does b.ud tros
matter to brsd equity?
The study of bnDd tros in the brodins lir@rrE has nor
flouished. Much of lhe interest in this issue h4 beeD
conceprual or theoretical n1 @ruq and rhea has bem litde
empirical res€rch into it. This hck ofrse.rch is pointed out
by Chaudhuj md Holbrcok (200t) who affirm that the rcle
of brard irust in the braDd equiry processes has not been
eiplicitly consi.lered. Neverrhele$, ns impoftmce has been
theoretically hishlighted in the br.dins literatue Gee
Ambler, r997j Sheth ed Pwativar, 1995) and in the
cunet brand mmas€menr practices Gee Bainbridse, 199?;
K@pj 1999; S@n, 2000).
On the basis or Uese consideEtions, md comecting borh
rhe .$ource based apprcach of lhe fm ud lhe .elationship
marketins lireEtusj rhis srudy aims to 6ll this cap by
e&miniog ihe impotuce of b.ard rn$ nl rhe dwelopment
'Ib addre$ rhis objecrive, the resr of this paps is th*fo.e
orglniad as folloqs. We besin by aDllrzins brmd equity nom
a resouce-blsed apFoach. Irs cotridehiioo as a rclation.l
market b.sed asset lqds us to fo@s on brand trust.
Consequ@tlt we presedt a defnirioD of brud trust, and
Thir r.earch ms nnd.d by em.t SEC2002 0432lCO2 Ol fton dE
Spsish Mjni:dy ol Sciene rnd Technolqs.

147
 tE3 br.nd ttut nrner to hr.nd equrty?
n44 Detsadh a&eld aid lai Lu^
we disds the mms in which bad trust contributs to the
developmerr of brmd equiry. Ba.ed or Lhi. disrus.ion. a
theoretical model of brdd equity is proposed and the main
hlporhes$ ofrhis study de pres$ted. Subsequ{dy, the data
collection, the nethod used ro test the hlporheses md th€
re\ulrq m deqribed. FituU\. $e di.cus\ rhe resulL in Lem.
of their implicatiods for n@ge.ial practice, their Imilsrions
and direcdoG for turthcr resedch on the bredins literatue.
Brand equig as a relatioral market'based asset
A nm's srriql ud wealr! is determined by iis abillty to
creat€ a snp€rior value to the market. From a resource based
view of the nrm, the souces of weelth c.e.rion are foEd in
the resources endowms! lhar sable rhe tum to efficiendy
and/or etrectively produce a ndket otrerjng that hss value for
sone mdket secmmts (Hut and Moree, 1995). By doins
sor ihe nrm achiwes supdior fmcial performmce that is
rcflected in higher dividends md value of srocts (Falkenbery,
1996).
There n a srowins re.osnidoD, rqardins Lhe re$ur!e. in
which $is superior nnancial performance lies, that a
\rsDr6!rnr propor'ron of organr/alonal per{ormanLe i\
deremined by intmeible asse$ such ss: the qual,ty md
experimce ofpersomel) cot?orate cdtue) knowledge, brand
equity, md so forth (F.[renbe.g, 1996; Lusch and Harvey,
19S4j Srivastava,t at, 1998). As sith other intmsible a$eb,
b'rd equrq elhibs t5e qL,lile. requRd ior .'parre r
sustainable competitive advantage. It adds value for
astomersj heips to crete defmsible competitive positions)
€kes time to develop, js inhercndy conplex, sd c@ot be
easily rusferred to other or8anizatioE @e Chermtony and
MacDoncld, loo2). TheRfore, it \alue s. s aset i.
in superior nnancial perfor@nce in so ir leads ro
reflecred
hider marsins (!trqxnar, 1S8S), areter sales md market
sharq Glooley et al.,2l05, Pttk ud Srinivllm, 19S4),
advertisiDs ed prodotio$ thlt are more responsive (Kellerj
19S3), eulier market penetation (Robertson, 1993) Dd
cheaper product line extensions (Kelle. ed Alter, 1992). A!
a conseqnmce, a posidve influence of b@d equity on the
lrmvahehas also beq fomd by S'mon and Stnlvm (1eel).
The most recmt lite.atu (Hut, 199?; Srivasta€ ,r al.,
1998, 2001) specificllly chancterizes brMd equly as a
relational market-based $set. t is primarily relational
because, accordins to the branding literature (Aaker, l99li
Keller, 1993), much of its value is a resdt of the brud!
drernal .elalionshi!! wilh olher m@bers of the value chain
(e.s. the distibution system add ihe nml users). This
relational mtue makes brand equity be m dslal aset to
the 6rm because ii is often merelv "a€ihble" ud not
"owned" by the 6m. In other wordq brud equity ultimately
derjves in the mlrket phce hon the set of bed a$octluo$
ed behavioE rhat have been developed row{ds the lr@d.
In sdmary, as a relationll maiket based !set, brlnd
equity may be expressed as a fiDdion of brmd-conslmer
rebrionshils (Asblelj 1997), ud !s such the Etroducuon of
rust as a key relatiotul vinable uiches ou udebtandins of
brmd equity ud may prcvide beiter performoce predictioB
dd a$esment of brand equity.
Whd is brmd trut?
TtuBt has receiv.d a great deal of atl@don iom scholar! in
re\eral drrdplue< such a( p(Jchology. sociolog). economic<.
188
loun.l of Produii & Srad M.nagement
t6hne 11 Nrhba 3 2405 147 196
ss well .s in morc applied eas such as mmaaement md
Iuketins. This mdtidiscipli@ry inlercsl hls added nclmes
ro the con$rucrJ bur has also made it diftialt to intes.ate the
rlr.J. ler.peoLer on hsr dd ro frnd a .Dnqerlu oD ir.
Dtue. Nevenheles\ ! carefrrl review of the exter lteralure
reveals thar conndent erpedarions and risk e critical
compons$ of ! deinition of trust. Ttust therefore is
denned as the corndence lhar one will fmd whar is desired
6om mo$er, rather that whar is fered (Deusd! 1973). It
repre.srr |he cotrfdo(e Lhsl r5e rel,ti^rel purt'n m
*chuse w not er.!,loit anothels ralneEbility. Accordingln
io r4sl ! bred implicidy mems that rhtre is a high
probability or expedmcy ths! the bnnd wil resdl in positive
outcomes for the consEq,
Considerins brmd tros as e4eclancy, n is based on the
consMel! belief rhat lhe brmd has specific qualities that
make it snstutstr competenr, honest, .esponsible and so on,
which is in line with the research on rrust (e.s. Andaleeb,
1S92; Doney md Camonj 199?j Ilvelere and Huslon,
1980). This research sugsests thar h$ is based on the
disposiriotul atn-ibutions made ro rhe perns sbour his4Er
ilrotioo.. behavors ed q!!l e\. Tte le) i..Je. ther. n In
know which speci8c atnibutjons form bfud ds.
Drawing on the research on b@d rusl developed by
Delsado et aa (2003), we cotrider that rhese specinc
attributions have a tecnnicll and intdtional datue, vhich is
in line eirh a two dimdsional idea of rru$ more commonly
foud in mdasem€nt ud marketing liteFtue Ge Doney
Md Cmor. IooT: Gene.cn. loo4: MorsM and Hdnr.
1994). Therefore, rle first dim€nsion of brand trust
Geliability) has a tednicd or competence based natue,
involving the ability and wilinsness to keep promises dd
satisly consln6' needs. The second djmension (intodons)
empnses the attibution of good inr@tio$ ro rhe brmd in
relation to rne consmes' iDtdests md welfde) fo! exanple
{heo -nexpe.red problem. w th rl-e ar^dncr a-ise.
Cotrequendy, ! irutwonhy brand is one that codsist@dy
teeps irs pNmise of value to consmds tbrcrlsh the way the
produd is developed, pfoducedj sold, seaiced and
advqthed. Elen in bad times wh{ some ldnd of bnnd
In sllmary, brald rut is defned as addresed by Delgado
Brmd tut is lhoefor conceptualized as havins two disdnc!
dime8ions ihst rcfled difrerent pnpectives ftom which a
bred may be considered rrusrwofthy,
lhe contribrtion of brand trust to brand equity
To accomplish od rid of malrzins rhe rcle of brfld tust in
the deveiopment of brand equity, we exanine rhe
relationships networ! in which biud rrost is embedded,
md specifically the rclarionshils that har with us m&n
etecedmr ed the main lset of bled equity: brand loyalty,
Brand trust evolves ftom pasl erperience and prior
inLeraoon {Garbariro ud Joho"on. laoo) becau\e ia
developaent is ponrayed most often as m individual's
expuiential processof lelmine od time. Therfore ir
sdmadzs ihe cotrrneB' loowledee and exlsiences with
rhe brmd. A! u qperience anribute, ir is iinuenced by the
consuet's eEluatioD of ey dnect (e.s. tial, usase) md
 006 brand tru3l n.tter t. br.nd €dunv?
Lkna bcad.-Boa. ^ ona ht; t rL vr.e4 Audx.
indirecr conllcl (e.g. ldveftisjng, woid of mouth) with the
brmd (Kellcr, r993j Kdshnm) 1996). Among lll rhese
difcrenl conracrs) Ihe consunltion experierce is lhe most
rele\dD dd imporrd qou.e ol brrd becru\. il
'ruJ)
senerarcs a$ociadonsj rnoughs snd inferences that are mor
self-rel€vat and held wiih more cenlinty (Dwyer d, al j r 9871
Krisbne, 1996). In thjs sense, ii csbe postulated thlt the
ove.all sa*faction, as a seneral evaluation of the
consumption experience wirh de brand, aenerates brand
rust (Gsnesad, 199.1; Selbes, 1998). This leads us to prolose
1hefollowing !$othesis:
,47. The consmer's ove.all satisfaction with the brru &s
! losirive effect on band tust.
Considerins brand equixy as a relatjonal market b.sed asset
implies that buildins ud maintaidns ftusl is at the corc of
b'dd eqnh. be.ause ir n a kc\ -l1ara(rcri.dc ar rJ
successflrl lons-term relationship (Garba.ino md Johnson)
1999; krzelere and Husion, 1980j Mores and Hut, 19!4).
Takins inro accou! the conceptual .onnectrons ot
relationship aspec md the notion of loyalry (Fouinier sd
Yao, 1997), the prevailina idea in these studies (Chaudhui
and Holbroob 2001; Delsado et zJ.) 2003t Garbarino ud
Johnson, r99ej husd t€e,1999) isthatltutisthe cardinal
drive. of loyllry because it deates exchanse rclationshils that
are highly valued, In thjs context, brand loyalty does not
exclusively focls on repeated lurchases, bur on the inremal
dislosiiions o( atnude tovards the brand, the locus on
bchavior would orherwise not p.oyide an adequ.re basjs for a
complete hdersrmding of rhe brand consuner relationship.
Co$equddy, bmd loyalq, undedies rhe ongoing proce$ of
continuing and mainraining a valued dnd jmportant
reladonship that h.s been created by rrusr (chaudhuri and
This is falrly wcll suppo.led by sevdll auftos in the
b.mdins literatur€. Fore$mplq Sle$ and Psrvltitlr (1995)
assert dDr r-\e losic behind rhe qisrence of rhe brud s ro
tlmsmit trust 1o the marlet, especblly when direcr conracl
beMem consmers and complnies lre dot possible. Another
tellins ara@st itr suppod of this lieRpoinl is !h!t the
uique value perceived in a brmd by conslnds may be
derived from sreater tlust in that parlicular !@d rhar olher
brDds do nor provide (Chaudhuri and Holbroot, 2001).
From a mdagerisl perspedive! companies have also besu
to conside. the idea of winins consmers' trost in ords 1o
build a relarionship. In the consumer muket, ihere are roo
mey uonymous consumers, maldns ir ulilely that rhe
comlany could develop le.sonal rlationshils with each one.
Thus, consuers develop a relatiodship with the bnnd,
which becomes a substitute for hnmm contact between the
organization and its tustones (sherh dd Panatiyar, 1995).
Trust, therefore, can be dcveloped through this reladonship
with rhe brud. The ffien pra,ri.e' ^f .nmfme. h
manasins their brmds illushte this idea. Fo. dmple,
Macbod (2000) considers rhat much of the vocabdary of
modem brand buildins uses words associlted wirh pcrso@l
rel*ionships such as trust and Blackston (1992) views tnsl ro
be one component of conslmers' relationships with brsds.
More recendn Hiscock (2001, p, i) has claimed thlt "the
dtimate goai of makering is to gendare an ifiedse bond
berween rhe consumer dd lhe brhd, and the marn
insEdient of rh's bond is irust".
t89
louhal6f Produd & Brand Manag.ment
thtuh. 11 Numb.3 2AO5 . 137 196
Based on these ideas, we put foqa.d rh€ hrporhesis rhar
brdd h.r will .orurbure ro brand lolalr] as rhe ma{mrm
erTrssion of a successtul reladonship berwem the consumer
/JZ Tle codslmer's
tust in a brmd has a posidve efect on
ofbruds wilh higb levels of equiqr
Fjnally, one characteristic
is th$ consumers are very loyal to rhm. In facr, b@d loyalry
is ihe main driver of brsd equity because it G considered to
be the p.th that leads ro cerrain oarleri4g advstages @d
.rLcomA e.g. turkcrins ...'.. fi"p fremim'
IrEket share) 'edr.ed
erelter rsde leverase)) which have been closely
associated wirh band equity (Aaker, t99li Bello and
Holbrook, 1995! Park ed Srinivasan, 1994). Therefore, we
propose anoder hlpoth$is describing the relationship
betweer brdd loyalry md bmd equiry:
93, The consume* loyalty to rlLe brud has a positive
eEed on b.and equiry-
Method
The data are based on ! survey done in a Resion of 1,100,000
inhabitants in lhe south eastern pari of Spain- A
questionnaire was administered through the use ol !
compuer aided telephoDe nridviewing (CATI) proeram by
a market research nrm. The particilans were real consume6
who reported their consrhlnon expeience with one of lwo
diferenl product catesories: shampoo and ber. Thesc
products pere chosen because rhey are fiequently
puchafd, and mosr leople are familiar with them and
have experienced different brands. Respondents were
asianed to one pro.lud and were !sLed which brands they
use.l. They were jnrerviewed *ith refe.{ce to one of ihe
b@ds mentioned. To obtain rliable mswers) Ihe s@!1e uit
was conlosed ofthose individuals who w€re active decision
makers ofrne brand lhey consumed.
By random phone cllls sith the use of the CATI prosam,
we obtained 27r comlleied questiomailes (134 for shampoo
dd 137 ibr beer)) yielding a response nie of 67 percenl -a
ressoneble response mte aivm rhll lhe suvey was complerely
volunBry and the puticipdts received no compensarion lor
answering the questioruire.
The sample *as well t,allnced in terms ot mosr
dmqraphic and socio economic charaderisrics (e-s. ase,
incomes, educarion) ercept for gender. Specifically, 23
percent of t]1e sample was male snd ?7 percent was female,
Ahhoueh a rudom sanplins process was used to seiecl each
paflc1lant in the study, there is a dispropofuonar
represenution of women to m6. This eq be explajned by
the olrual md social values ofthe eeoeraphical area in which
the slNey wls ldministered. Sisnificant soder diEerences
still exist in the sens€ inat there is ! la.ge prcpordon of
houscwives. In uddition, both siay-at-home an.l wortins
womd ieldn the vast majority of taditioml responsibilities
for the cm of fte household iDcludins mosr forms of
shopping. However, mo$ people are faniliar with both
shampoo Gecause ir is a pesonal hrgiene product) lnd beer
(becruse the seosaphical dea of ftis srudy is one with lhe
hishe* levcls of beer codsrmlrion in Spain).
Table I provides a detailed desdiption of the sample,
 Do€! brand tust man.r to brand .quity?
BLna Dekano-Ban @ ann Jdi Lrk Munm AknAn
Table I Sample infomation
Buying alwaF the sane brahd
lr is inportant to buy a good brand
h natteF what brand to buy
SD
Based on previous research (Delgado, 2004; Delgudo d ar,
2003) a set of lou items was used to meaue each drmmlon
of lhis .onsrrucr. As in the clse with al of the multi itm
measues) each item was fiamed !s !n agree/disaeree
A fou-irem
scale was used ro messu.e the dispositioml
commitment to maintaining an onsoins relationship wirh a
brmd (e.s. Bloemer ud Kaspd, 1995; Dick od Basu,
1994). Each item was iahed as m asleddisasree
Brud equity wd
measued wilh a foutsitem Ukerr scale
developed by Yoo aDd Donthu (2001) which is in lin€ wirh the
defnitioo of b!@d equity lsposed by Keller 0993)- The
four items measN rne diEeftnce in consumer choice
beMed the focal brmded produd and e ubradded
lroduct Cjven the same lwel of lroduct featus. In line
with ou view of brmd equily as ! rel.tional ma.ket based
aset, this defnitjon explicitly relies on brud l,rowledge
slllctues in the minds of consrmen as the foudarion of
In line wln Andeson a al, (1994, !. 54), overal satisfadion
h denled as m overall evaluation based on the toral p@hlse
and consmption *perience wlh a product or seruce orer
rime. Therefore, we used m overall sadsfacrioD measue as a
s@..y evllulion of the entirc beDd use experimce
Table ID. This measue involves no! only rhe valence (positive
and nesative) but also rhe inrensiry ed is represented by
three items measurcd on a fiie poinr scrle (oliver, 1997j
Journ.l ol todud & Srand Manrgem€nt
uatM 14 NLrj4 3 2045 67 1q6
Tbble II also repons iDfor@don abour the reliability md
convers{t rzlidity of the ditrerent measures. Dis@mina
vaLidia is el\o indicned jnce rhe .oD6oence inrenr (
2 x standard eEors) mud the comlation estimate lretween
23 my eo latent indic.to6 never nrludes 1.0 (Anderson md
77 Gerbins 1988).
6.6 Results
2\
15.4
The proposed stutual model is speci€ed by the htpor,\dized
relatioships in Figu.e 1, disassed in the ten as JJ1 ,t13. The
32.8
path linEng overall satisfadion ud bmd loyalty is also
esrimated, which b in line with prvious r$e$ch on brmd
loyarly Gee Andeson add Sdlivm, 1993; Bloemq md Kasper,
3,3
1s95; oliver, 1999)Dl. Codlentional muimM liEelihmd
estimarion techDiqus sere used to test ihe model. The lit of
29,3
the modei is satisflcrory
OL46j =399.08; GFI=0.87;
SRMR = 0.046; RMSEA: O.O8l CFI:0.92j -Ir'I O.INF
:0.91), L\@by suggesting that the nonolosical network of
relarionshils lirs ru dau.
66 ln terhs or ou hrpotheses (see Table III), rhe nndinss for
70.5 lt1 (overall sltisfaciion - brmd reliability; yr:0.88,
68.3 , < 0.05; overali satisfadion - b.od intentionsj 72r = 0.55,
? < 0 05) sugssi thst band tn$ is rooted in the resul! of
39.4 past erldience wi& the brmd (i.e. overall satisfacdon). As
14.21 suegested by Singh and Sirdeshmnkh (2000)) we obsere that
the eEects of overall sadsfadjon are not specific ro a slnele
dimension ofband trust.
Specifically, as the squared mdti]rle corelations (SMC'
ffa! ovml sarisferion exp]ains a substmtial modt of th€
€riance of bnnd trut brand reliabiliry = 0.?8, ud b6d
intentions = 0.30. The lad that b@d reliabiliry, as pdeived
by consumes, relis more heavily on overall satisfadion thd
bmd intendons do is in line with Rnpel a a-l\ (1985)
statements about how hsl evolves. According to theu
reasoninsj b.snd relilbility is heavily related to the
66islecy of bmd performme 4 srsElsl by the overall
satisfaction consmers nave with ihe brdd. In comparison with
bqnd reliability, bsnd intmtions caplrr the essmce of b6d
tust that is not setrely roored in pasr er?erience. HNsu,
srarem€nt.
rhe fad thal plst e4eridce (e.s. sarisfadion with the brmd) is
not an exact bmmdd of b@d intotions does no1 imply that
pa e.:!'qienLe play\ no rcle n) explainna btrd in endon..
Continuins with the consetu@ces of brand rlust, it is
foud Io be positively a$ociated with brmd loyalty, srtug
suppon b ,.I? Grmd reliability
- brsd loysliy B3r 0,12,
t<0.05; brud inrslions - brud loyaltyj 832:0.20,
, < 0.05),
Ii3 is also supported, with b@d loyllry significmdy
asociated wi$ e inftase in brand equity (p{r-08?,
! < 0.05). This susges$ that the posiulated rela.ionship of
brand loyalq' and brmd equity b connrmed.
Neverthelesq rhe question of interest is to deternine the
lelevoce of bradd tust in th€ development of btud equity.
For this purlose we specified different models rh!t, from !
theoretical lespective, give alternative inter!retations of the
(elarive importmce attibured to brand rrur when e$lainins
the bond benveen consmeA and braDds.
Gee Specificllly, we test our rleorerical model (MT) asainst
alrermtive model specincations (MA). The alternarive nodels
specifications ro ou rneoretical nodel depicted in Fielrre I
. a less parsimonious model MAI such as rhe CF?!
r90
 D@i brand tl6r n.fte. to brand equit? louhal of Frodu.r & Srand Manag.ment
I4da Delsalh-Bau,:ur edfu$ Lvi Mnffi14bndn uotume I 4 . Nudbd 3 . 2a05 . I 37 196

Iable ll construcls measuremem summary: conf matory factor analysis afd scale reliability

t-v.lu€ SCR' AVE" Alpha

0.93 0.77 0.33
lxl k a brand name expechtions
that meets my 0.94 20,31
I feelconfidence in [XI bbid nahe 0.88 18.20
lxl k d brdnd nane that never disappoints ne 0.78 1r.09
lxl brand name guarantees satkf.ction O.s2 19,31
0.87 0.62 081
Ixlbhnd nane would be honettand sincere in addr.ssing ny con<erns 0.77 1454
l.ould relyon IXlbGnd name lo solv. any probl€m with the produd O.7O 12.63
lxlbrand name would m.ke 6ny ef{ort to ratirt me in case ofa problem 0.91 18.54
lxlbrand name would.onp€nrdte ne in somewayforthe problem with th€ lpoduct] 0.75 13.95
0.75 0.45 07
l. I conrider myself lo bc loyalto [xl 0.4] 6.7j
2. Onlyunder €xtreme circumstan@s would l(onsider puKhasing a brand of this produ<r 0.86 16.87

3, ff the slore was out of [x], I would go toneshere eke to buy some O.7O 12,71
4, Evenwhen another brand k or sale, lwould prcfer the bhtrd IXI 060 1A.44
0.38 066 0.35
1. ftmakes senre to buy IXI instead ofany other brand, even ifthey are lhe sne 081 15.7J
2, Even if another brand has the same featurd as [xl, twoutd pref€r to buy IXj 014 13.84
!. rr th€r€ is anorher brand as good ar [X], I pref* to buy lxl 081 15.86
4, lfanother brand is not differcnt fbm IXIin any way, it seens snarr€r ro purchase IXI 083 18.05
Ovehl htisladio" with tlB bhnd
(onidering allmy consumpLion experi.nce with LXt lam... 0.85 0.66 0.77
l,...Verysatitfied 0.9j 19.09
2,... Pleased 0,91 1a.92
!..., Not very dirappoirted . o.s8
10.19

Not€r: ?soe coprposire reliab ity Ja: (r.\ J'7va(4/f(Jr,)2va(O+f@/lj Baqozzi and v, re88); baverdsc
(," = (-:1,)'varO/ (-'r,)'vaifl+Ee, . Fo'nell and La(kbr, 1981); Fit statisuls for measurement mode ol 1e ino.aroE
,l.{) : 189.59; CFI : 0.92; TL(NNFI) = 0'91, GFl 0.87 SRMR = 0.044j Rl'rSEA = 0.080j IXlindlGtes a bbnd name

constrsined model (MA2) in which the paramerer of rhe

cl.tionship amons overall satisfaction dd brmd lo,€lry (,yn)
Figure I lreorctcal modelof elationsh ps
is .onstrained ro zeroj and
' a second consrraine.l model (MA3) in which rhe
paramerea of the Elaiionship among brmd Eusr md
blmd loyalty (&L md pr) !.e consulined ro zero.
These las rwo oodels represent the next most likely
conshined alternativ€s ro our theorerical model 6:om a
theoretical perspective.
These models wer sequemially compared to one dother
alcordns In Arde6on and Gerbing5 \1088) \uggerboo..
These authoFrecommd this prccedE ud sugeesr lhe use
Table lll Constiuct slructubl model

Stand.rdiz€d parameter estinat.s

Nunber Sign Paran€t€r Estinat.
overall sarida<tion - brand rcliability 033 16.59*
owrdll satifaction - brand inlention! 0.55 8.12'
ov€rall rarhfa.tion
-bEnd loyal9
brand loyalty 0.14 2.62'.
-
BEnd rcliabilily + 0.42 1.31'
B6id inre ions - brand loyalty 0.20 3.71'
BEnd loyalty
- bnnd equity 0,87 648'
Not.3:'No hypothesls isofferedj'p< 0,05, 14) = l99.O8j GFl= 0.87;SRMR = O.046j nMSEA = O.Ogj CFt= 0 92;TU (NNF|) = O9t

191
 De3 bra.d tu{ man.r tu brand .q!ily? ,ournal ol Pbduci & BrEnd Manaq.mcnl
Ettad D.lsat RaA.,@ ann Jdi Lri Mututu Abnai uat@ t4 Nwb- 3 . 20a5 fi7 196

of a chi square ditrerence elr (CDT) to rest the null
hrpothesis: MT Il,{: 0.
In compliison with the theoretical model, rhe consr€ined
model (MA2) id{ti6es bEnd lrust as the primuy prearsor
ofbrod loyllry because it pla]s a fi mediarins role belweo
overa]] satisfaclon md bred loralty, which i in line wirh rh€
commird{r trust theory (Morgan ed Hunt, 1994). In
cont@s!, the constiained model (N{A3) is in line wirh
literatue thar conside$ over.ll satisfacrion as the
conslruct in exphiiing brmd loyalty. Cosequenrlt in ihis
model brand rrus is ody jusr ! perilherll evaluation of ihe
pasl erlerience sith the brmd ihar does nor have iEthe!
eftids on brand loyalty.
The top secrion of Tsble IV ofre6 the chi-square fir
comparisons amola these modeh, In rhe irst step, the
theordcal model (Ficlr 1) was comp{ed with a le$
parsimonious MAl. A noniignificmt CDTwould lead ro rhe
acceptane of the hore pmimonious MT. Tbble IV repo.ts.
nonaignincut chsee in chisquare beMed ou model and
the CFA, le!.lins us to considd MT !s ! bene specincliion.
Next, we conftasred MT wirh a consfained model MA2 (i.e.
eith }3, path equal to zero) and ihe ditrdence in chi-square
nt beMed the nvo models was sicDi6cmr. This resdr leads
us to stay with the less parsimonious th€orcticsl hodel
because ir has a sienificet better 6t. Finally, w€ compared
MT wirn m ahernarive model (MA3) where it is proposed
rhal brmd l1ust has no efect on brand loyalry. In this case we
are comparins MT wirh a more parsimonious model.
Accordins 10 rhe CDT, the rheorerical model (MT)
provided a sisnificmdy belter nt to the data (, < 0 01) L\m
rhe model MA3. Therefore, the dEoredcal model was
deemed the besr represoladon of the network relarionships
in which brand trust is embedded.
Dii<ussions
The bdefits of ddeloping $d exploitins marketins resouces
have bed a stnificant rhmc in the ma&edng literature. By
leveraaiq marLeting resources, it is arsued rhat tums will be
ia a s onger positioD to succeed in the mlrletplace
(sriva$ava d dl., 1998). Amons these resouces we idendry
brand equity, which is viewed as a relational harket based
a$el because it lies in the relarionships be$een rhe bed and
key de.lal staleholde.s for erample end consumeG. Under
tht framework we theonzed the rcle of m impo.tsnt
in rhe developmdr of
rclationship variable such as trust
brmd equiry. We developed a causal model conrainins rhiee
hrlorheses ed $tuctual equrion modeling supponed all of
Becluse an emersins consosus in sru.tual equations
modeliag is that researchers should compare alrernative
models, not jus test a propos€d model) we malyzed
alteinative models. To belter know the (ole of b(ud irust in
brand equity processes we comparcd rhe proposed model with
other alternarive models in which the cenlial nomological
status lbr brmd trust ed br@d loyalty vari$. In the
alteinative model NtrA2j the direct etrect of olerall satistuction
on brand loyalty is not allowed. Thereforej brand trust ts
lhe identified !s a key tull mediarins variable to dwelop bnnd
key loyalty md consequendy bradd equitt In the alt@ative
model MA3, on the coDllarr) the dned efect ofbmDd trust
on brcno loyalry i. bor 'dpr hed. Tler, brand hr iq bol
alowed Io mediate, beins ovemll satisfaction the maiD driver
of bmnd lor€lty) and bre.t equity,
Compar€d Io lhese mor prNimonious models, the
proposed model is prefered because i! hls a bener
sienificat 6t. Consequorln although brmd hs does lot
play a finl meli.ting rcle !s suggested by Morgan dd Hut
(1994), it contributes to a befter expluarion ofbrmd equiry.
These results h.ve significant inplications fof both
schola.slip md lradice.
Lnplicatio$ for scholarship md liEitatiom
The results obtained aboul the role of brand trust in rhe
developm{t of brmd equity emich brddins literatue
rnJouah rhe iffeendon with the literatue on the resource
based view of rhe tum. Foi insthce, the emliricll evdoce
aboul lhe fact that bEnd equity is best splained when brmd
tust is taken inro accour reinforces rhe idea lhar brmd
equity is a reladonll ma.ket based .set. Morean and HEI
(1996) ptoposed that Esources such as loyalty md trost are
imobile ed cannot be purchased or replicated. These
resources can iherefore be combined in order to fom h*hd
order iesouces (e.g. brand equity) frod which sustainable
resourc+based competitive advstages will result. Some open
questiotu on this topic war.ur tu.the. research.
fni. srakeholdu &enry.a)\ thet tte 6rm n reliMr or a
netwofk of relstions in which it becomes oblised to the
membes of this neMork. Thmforq as a relarioml market
based ase! rhe ualysis of brsd e{ruity must also coBider
rhe rclatiotrhips wiL\ other membeB of the value chaiq
includins employees (especially in senice companier,
investors or evd sulplie.s,
Second, because there are interconnections among
stakeholders, e inleresdng point is thlt a tum mieht buld
up soodg brmd equity based on lhe relationships developed
with consmers that colld be udernined by the tum
neslectina irs relationships with other stakeholde6 croups, In
other words! ro whar efend does br@d equq depend on
relationshiF with stskeholden crculs other thd the focal
groulj that is coffrnes? To whlr ex!@i is ir imporrsr ro
manage each relarionship? lq msr $e mo\r valued asp.cr in

Table lV Goodne$-of-fit measuEs for altemative modek ofbrand eouilv

Modeldesdprion I df RtlrR NFI tn dl A(epted

389.69 142 0.044 0 089 0,37
MT 399 03 146 0.046 0.89 0.87 9.39" MT
404 59 147 0.047 0.89 0.36 5,51" MT
424.5 148 .053 0.88 0.86 19.91''' MT

Notet: 'Not signiiGnt ai p < 0,05i "" Signlfkant arp < 0.05; ... Signtficnr at p < 0.01

192
 Do6 brand ttGl maft.r to br.nd.quily?
Ebna Delsa,C.-Batle:d and loi Lui Jnnm Atendn
!11 of rel!!ionshi!!? If lhar is lhe c!se, then, how is lrusl
Third, research on brandins indusrial produds has been
limited. The flct tha! in today's comperiuve business
en\iroDmenr, induq rial hrm' a-e 'ncreasinaly usins
brmding to diferentiate then products snd dso develop
relationships wiih their customers @kes allareni lhe need of
qpuding rhe body of tnowledee of the subject. A point of
delartue is to examine rhe research on conslns brmdrn8.
Therefore, our nndings ofrer industrial brlnding researches
some ideas that cm be applied in the industrial sector.
Otr a more smeral level, rhere is also room for addirional
srudies that oiercome the limnations of this r*e!rch. The
sample is not represdarive of the etrnre poprtation of
consume$. As distused previously, the smple was rmdotuly
selected by phone-calls intwiewing only rhose individuals
who were active decision makers jn the prcducts dalyrd.
Thh re.ulred in a dispropo-bonal repre\en@rior of womed
ve6us men, Being soJ our ieslits may reflect a sender bias
that limits the sternal validity of this *udy. The
seneralizability of the results could be ext€nded by
considering other demosraphic sroups. FiDally, the
seneralizability of the results could be ertended by
broadening the lst of products, for exmple duble soods
ud lervice! in which brud lrusi msy be ev@ more
important in developins bEnd equity.
Implietions foa practice
This study has several matusenal impiications resardins
brand equity. Fi6t, in oder to enjoy the substantial
competilive and economic advlntlges lrovided by bnnd
equity as a relational marlet based asset, companies mu*
build brand rusl. To that purlose. Fromise centic lpproach
is needed whs mamsinB the brmd. It implies to position the
brsnd es a promise, ss a set of dpedations lhat the brlnd
ofers a certain qpe and level ofvalue. Providins this value on
! consisrenr basis h at the helrl of building st.ong
relatio$hips with cotsume6 because they develop a sdse
of trust that ihe brmd will conrinue to deliver lhat value,
\vhen this happens, the brand cm sene as a catal]ft for
strmsthenins the relationship md for forming a bond rhat
competitos will 6nd difncult io breat. This will be the
foudation for the onaoing success and sustained compeirjee
However, companies must take ca& not to promse
e\erlhirg lor all people. Ther ha,e ,o.onrder $etr osn
caplbilities and the desies oftheir tarser consmer sesments
before deining rheir p.omises ofvelue, Once they are denned
these promises have Io be lepr consistentln especially when
thin3s chmse quickly md buyeB face grell scerlainly.
Second, since irust is built thmud experience, the hore
posirive experienc$ th€ conslner has with lhe b!ud, rhe
more ttustins he or she is liLely to become- As sudr,
investments in satisfadion lrogesj complajnt hsdling sd
in Ll'e de. en ot,onmuicanon Eoo me'chandLirg \Faresie..
that sid in ctatins and informins consmeF about the
responsiv€ aftitud$ md behlvioa of the b6ds) !re wlys of
Third, history has prcvm that consuFes wil eive second
checes to bnnds they trust (Harin, 2000). The consmer
ourrase ar conr@inared coca-cola cans in some wesrern
Eu.opean couDfies in 1998 ud Perier mineral water
containins macceptable levels of benzene in 1990 sre cases
193
rourn.l of frodl.t & lr..d tt.nagrmenl
inpoi . Because of the sllosthof bothbnnds they@ntinue
toiljoy a rlbstutiai repuBtion despile of rhe m6?ected
prcduct harh dises. ConsequeDtly, as far as the brdding
Iiterature sugeests that itust is the esence of the value !h!t a
sirons brmd provides for consmesr plyiog.tteorio! to how
much consumers tut in a brud mi8ht be considered as a
tool to matuse brmd equity. This is pdtionuv impoltmt in
he.lth@re, leeal serices and i[ duable products.
Our nndinss are of special relevmce in rhe business to
busioess arena as far as a nlnbtr of studies Gee Hothome
dzl., 19e3i McQuiston &d Djckson, t99l) have sho@ that
industial buyes wiU choose ftcoeEized bmd names ftod
established ompanies as a way to reduce both corpor.te sd
Finally, compeies wilh trusted ofline bmnds also beneft
fton a "halo effect" in trins to esublish a pls{ce on the
web. The anonrmity of tbe lortroer maker bredDC more
mc'al becsus. consmers are lRelJ o be more r(eptive ro
tying online offennss from a trusted brmd name. In other
woids, having r ruste.l bred gave compuies a rclatively
smooth md sucessin tusition to trhe Net as in rhe case of
Barnes & Noble dd Toys R Us (Haryin, 2000).
Note
I Recendy, r$earchen hlve be$rn Io documenr that ihis
sltisflction]oyalty relationship is not a simple liDear efrect
(Oliva ,/ ,4j 1992). However, as lointed by Singh dd
Sirdeshmulh (2000), suficiut rsedch does not sist to
speciry the dature of this no liDearity or to suggest
condidons thar favor ii. Consequendy, we sleci& !
directional ftlationship onlt.
Rel€rences
L^ke\ D.A. (r99r), MMsitE Brand Eeuirt: Ca?itllitiaE afl
rhe Value a Brund Nane, Frce P.e$, New Yo!k, NY
aJ
Ambler, T. (199?)j "How much of brlnd equily is esphiDed
by ttusrl" ) Manasene"t De.ind, Vol. 35 No, 4, !p. 283-92,
Andaleeb, S.S. (1992), "The ttust concepi reseeh issues for
chmers of dbiribudon'i Reedtuh tu Mathetitue, yot. r1,
pp. 1 34.
AndeBo4 E.!{. ed Sulivsj M.\v. (1 993I "The stecedenu
and coDsequences of ostomer saiisfaaion for tumsi
Marh.tinC Scierce, Vo1. 12 No. 2, pp, 125 43.
Andenon, J.c. md Gerbins, D.W (1988), "Srnctual
equarion modelling jn practice: a reviev lnd
recomended Avo{tep apprcach!', Psrcholnei.al tuII.Nit,
Vol. 103 No- 3) pp. 411-23.
Andesot:, E.Vi, Fornell, C- sd Lhm,fu, D (r994t
"Customer sltisfactlo4 muket share, ud prcfrtability:
findinss from Swedeni Jdmal oJ Marhenry, yol. 5a, J,ny,
p!, 53 66.
Basozi, R ud Yi, Y (1988), "O! lhe srluadon of
structull equatiod nodetE", JMdt of rtu A.anenrt oJ
Marhe|inq S.ietue,Vol, 16 No. 1, pp, 74-94.
BriDbridce, J. (1s9?), "Who wins rhe mtio@l r.Et?i
Mth.rinsz Ociobet 23, pp. 2l-3.
Bello, D.C- ud Holbrcok M.B. (1995), "Does d abssce of
btud equity sene.alize a@s prcduct cla$$", tosH,.l ,/
Bdtar ,R6dault, Vol, 34 No. 21pp. 125-?l.