Factors affecting brand love, brand loyalty and word-ofmouth: The case of Honda brand

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

International Conference on Marketing in the Connected Age (MICA-2018), October 6^th, 2018

Danang City, Vietnam

Factors Affecting Brand Love, Brand Loyalty and Word-of-

Mouth: The Case of Honda Brand

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh^a*, Thuy Nguyen^a

^aHo Chi Minh City Open University, 97 Vo Van Tan Street, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

A B S T R A C T

The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of brand experience, brand image and brand trust on

brand love, and the impact of brand love on brand loyalty and word of mouth. The primary data collection

technique that is questionaire was used for the purpose of analyzing the data. It was distributed to 400

respondents from customer who using the product of motocycle brand. The data collected was analyzed

through a Structural Equation Modeling – SEM. The findings of the study revealed that one statistically

significant factor affecting brand love is brand experience, and brand love affecting brand loyalty and word of

mouth. Factors that do not affect brand love includes brand image and brand trust.

Keywords: brand experience; brand image; brand trust; brand love; brand loyalty; word of mouth.

1.

Introduction

The new brand with new strategy, attractive promotion will be the best of customer’s choice. However, there

are many brands still in the top choice of customer, although these brands have not attractive promotion for

customer. So why are customer still choosing those brand?

In fact, previous studies were suggested that a customer’s emotional attachment to a brand is the most reliable

measure of a strong brand and should therefore be a primary objective for brand management or customer

relationship marketing (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). Fournier (1998) founded that consumers were able to

emotionally bond with brands in a similar way to that observed in personal relationships. This has been

supported by more recent research, which shows that consumers can develop a relationship with a brand that

evokes emotions similar to love (Albert et al., 2008; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Wallace et al., 2014).

To develop brand love, a consumer must have a positive brand attitude and positive experiences, as well as a

feeling of psychological proximity to the brand (Joji and Ashwin, 2012). A beloved brand is an integrated part of

the consumer’s self-expressiveness, and by using a certain brand and demonstrating love toward it, the consumer

expresses his or her self to others (Albert et al., 2008; Huber et al., 2015; Wallace et al., 2014).

Brand trust is an antecedent of brand love (Albert and Merunka, 2013; Drennan et al., 2015). As in

interpersonal relationships, trust leads to love between people (Hazan and Shaver, 1987; Shaver, Schwartz,

Kirson and O'connor, 1987). According to Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), brand trust occurs when consumers

believe the brand keeps its promises. It is a promise of brand with their customers to fulfil their expectations. It is

considered a driver of consumers’ emotional attachment to a brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).

In today's highly competitive business environment, a well positioned brand image is very important (Amold,

1992). Marketers strive to create a brand image that similar to (congruent with) the self-image of the target

consumers (Aaker and Biehl, 1993; Kapferer, 1992). When consumers believe that they can rely on the brand, it

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]

232

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

has facilitated the development of sentiment.

The purpose of this study is to figure out the affect of brand experience, brand image, brand trust to brand

love and outcome of it. The findings of this research will be the direction for company which are trying to win

the consumer’s love.

First, literature review and study model are presented. Hypotheses are built in this step. Then, we describe the

methodology and data collection procedures. After the results are shown, there are conclusion, reccomendations

based on our findings and directions for future research.

2.

Literature view and hypothese development

Brand Love

Fournier (1998) was among the first scholars to provide evidence that consumers are able to emotionally

bond with brands in a similar way to that observed in personal relationships. Brand love includes passion for the

brand, attachment to the brand, positive evaluation of the brand, positive emotions in response to the brand, and

declarations of love for the brand’ (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; pg. 81). Various studies demonstrate that consumers

can actually experience a feeling of love for their brand (Albert et al., 2008a; Albert and Merunka, 2013; Batra et

al., 2012; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Rossiter (2012) proved that consumers who exhibit love toward a brand use

it more frequently and have the intention to recommend the brand to others compared to brands they just like or

feel neutral toward.

Brand Experience

Previous studies show that a long period of time and extensive experience of a brand is needed for brand love

to develop (Holmes, 2000; Mikulincer et al., 2001). This study adopts three dimensions of sensory, intellectual

and behavioral, proposed by Brakus et al. (2009), because of the following reasons: these dimensions fit the

choice of the context of this study. Its definitions and measurements are widely used in marketing literature, i.e.,

better validity and reliability. The affective experience is overlooked in this study because the results show its

low validity (Cronbach’s αs ¼ 0.36). Following the rationales of the hierarchy of effects, i.e., the cognition-

affection-behavior (C-A-B) model, customers’ cognitive responses, e.g., sensory and intellectual experiences,

and their behaviors, e.g., behavioral experience, might arose their emotions, e.g., brand love (Breckler, 1984;

Solomon, 2014). There is not too many studies investigating the relationship between brand experience,

however Sanjit. K. R, Abdolreza. E., Abhigyan. S. (2012) figured out the antecedents and

consequences of brand and brand experience included in the model. They built that relationship based

on the research of Kumar (1996) which was identified the feeling characterized by high levels of joy

and surprise in connection with a consumption experience may be an antecedent of brand love.

Therefore, it can be argued that when the customer gain the brand experience, their love toward the

brand could increase.

H1a: Sensory experience impacts to Brand Love

H2a: Intellectual experience impacts to Brand Love

H3a: Behavioral experience impacts to Brand Love

Brand Image

Brand image has been defined as the consumer’s mental picture of the offering (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). It

is seen as the representation of a brand in the consumer’s mind that is linked to an offering (Dobni & Zinkhan,

1990), or a set of perceptions about a brand the consumer forms as reflected by brand associations (Keller,

1993). Hence it can be defined as.the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to specific brands

(Low & Lamb, 2000). In business markets brand image can also be expected to play an important role, especially

where it is difficult to differentiate products or services based on tangible quality features (Mudambi, Doyle &

Wong, 1997). In today's highly competitive business environment, a well positioned brand image is very

important (Amold, 1992). Marketer and advertisers recognize that products (and services) have symbolic image

that are often more important to a product's success than are its actual physical attributes and characteristics

(Aaker,1991; Pettijohn et al., 1992; Triplett,1994). They strive to create a brand image that similar to (congruent

with) the self-image of the target consumers (Aaker and Biehl, 1993; Kapferer, 1992). As Reichheld (2001, qtd

in Hsieh and Li) perceptively state that preferable brand image will lead consumers to conceive a perception of

an organization’s public relationship practice, which matches the corporate reputation better. In Ismail and

Spinelli (2012) research, they found the strong relationship between brand image and brand love. Moreover,

Aaker (1997) and Founier (1998) defined brand image was human attributes to the brand they consumes

therefore it gained brand love or brand emotional of customers.

233

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

H2: Brand Image impacts to Brand Love

Brand Trust

Trust is used as a mental shortcut to reduce uncertainty and the need for mental processing (Moorman et al, 1992),

and is a focal factor of the formation of any long-term relationship (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). As in interpersonal

relationships, trust leads to love between people (Hazan and Shaver, 1987; Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson and

O'connor, 1987). According to Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), brand trust occurs when consumers believe the

brand keeps its promises. It is a promise of brand with their customers to fulfil their expectations. It is considered a

driver of consumers’ emotional attachment to a brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). The characteristics of

brand trust are considered to be the driving force of consumer sentiment toward the brand (Chaudhuri and

Holbrook, 2001; Langner et al., 2015).

H3: Brand Trust impacts Brand Love

Brand Loyalty

It is widely considered that loyalty is one of the ways with which the consumer expresses his/her satisfaction

with the performance of the product or service received (Bloemer and Kasper, 1995). Like Filser (1994), Odin,

and Valecre-Florence (2001) assumed char rhe repurchase of the same brand under conditions of strong

perceived brand differences characterizes brand loyalty. One way to measure customer loyalty is to focus on the

behavioural dimension of loyalty (Caruana, 2002), and have a scale to measure repurchase intention or the

intention to remain with the company (de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000). Brand love includes a variety of emotions

such as passion, positive attitude and appreciation, likes, commitment, etc. (Albert et al., 2008, Batra et al., 2012,

Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Shimp and Madden, 1988, Sternberg, 1986). Thus, it includes emotional component.

If consumers love branding, they may feel loyalty to the brand, want to use it, willing to invest more resources to

buy the brand, that is loyalty to the behavior, participation moreover, positive word of mouth (WOM) and

attitude loyalty (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006, Batra et al., 2012). Related studies have also shown significant effects

of these emotional components, such as attachment, brand loyalty (Aurier and de Lanauze, 2012, Davis-Sramek

et al., 2009). , Fuchs et al., 2015, Johnson et al., 2006). Thus, this study hypothesizes the influence of brand love

on brand loyalty as the following:

H4: Brand Love impacts Brand Loyalty

Word of Mouth

There is recent focus on WOM in the literature on relationship marketing as a potential responses that can

emerge from efforts directed at forming relationships with consumers (e.g. Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995; Verhoef

et al., 2002). Harrison-Walker (2001) defined WOM as “informal, person-to-person communication between a

perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver regarding a brand, a product, an organization or a

service” (p. 63). Consumers imitate each other following a social or vicarious learning paradigm (Hawkins et al.,

2004), but perhaps more importantly, they also talk to each other. WOM is described as the process that allows

consumers to share information and opinions that direct buyers toward and away from specific products,

brands and services (Hawkins et al., 2004). Kudeshia et al. (2016) show that a strong positive relationship exists

betweenbrandloveandWOM. Most recently, Batra et al. (2012, p.1) confirms that love is "a positive relationship

with oral sex." Nowadays, brand love is a vastly debated subject because it is linked to high levels of brand

loyalty and a positive word-of-mouth (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Consumers who feel love for brands are more

willing to talk about them through a process of identity construction (Batra et al., 2012), and the influence of

brand love for a positive word-of-mouth has been demonstrated (Ahuvia and Carroll, 2006; Albert and Merunka,

2013).

H5: Brand Love impacts Word of Mouth

Figure 1 shows the study model in this research. The model is built to examine the impacts of brand

experience, brand image, brand trust factors on brand love, brand loyalty and word of mouth.

234

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

Brand Experience

Brand

Loyalty

Sensory

Intellectural

Behavior

H4

H1

Brand

Love

H2

H5

Brand Image

Brand Trust

H3

Word of

mouth

Fig. 1. The conceptual model of this study

3. Methodology

Measurement Items

The approach of this study is quantitative. The questionnaire developed for the study consists of three major

parts. The first part comprises of 16 items measuring three subcategories icluding: brand experience, brand

image and brand trust. The second part comprises of brand love (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). The third part

comprises of two subcategories brand loyalty (Shimp & Madden, 1988; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Albert et al.,

2008; Batra et al., 2012) and word of mouth (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Albert & Merunka, 2013).

Each of these variables was measured by seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1-strong disagree to 7-

strong agree. A nrutral response “neither disagree nor agree” was adopted to reduce uninformed responses.

The data of the study was gathered from a sample of consumers in Ho Chi Minh City who used the product

of Honda brand. Sample was randomly selected. A total of 700 surveys were sent and 700 surveys were

recovered. 300 surveys have excluede because of wrong and lack of information. The remaining 400 surveys

were used to analyze (57% of the total survey). This study used online and offline channel to collect the data.

Most of the online surveys are not reliable and full of the information, thus, it is the main reason of high rate

elimination.

Sampling and data collection procedure

According to Hoang Trong and Chu Nguyen Mong Ngoc (2005), the size of the sample is equal or more than

n*5 (n: item). Thus, with 36 items are measured by seven-point Likert-type scales, the minimum size of the

sample was n=180 (36*5). Within the time allowed, this study conducted 400 questionnaries.

Data Analysis

The next step is to filter the errors in data entry, encode and analyze the data by SPSS and AMOS (version

20) software. Specifically, SPSS and AMOS was used to analyze the descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s Alpha,

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structual Equation Modeling

(SEM) to examine the relationship between the constructs in the study model.

4.

Results

A total of 400 valid questionnaries were approved. More than 72% of the respondents were male,

indicating that the sample was unbalanced in terms of gender, and more than 46% of them were age between 26

and 32 years old. In addition, more than 36% of respondents were employee.

Cronbach’s Alpha

235

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients ranges from 0.700 to 0.920, higher than the rule of thumb of 0.6

(Nunnally & Burnstein, 1994), thus confirming the internal consistency of the items. There were five eliminated

items after Cronbach’s alpha analysis: one item of brand trust (NT1), three items of brand love (TY1, TY2, TY9)

and one item of brand loyalty (TT1).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

With regard to construct validity, as recommended by Hair et al., 1998, Exploratory Factor Analysis

(EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were used to assess construct validity. Thus, EFA was

performed to test the uni-dimensionality of the research construct so as to examine the degree to which the items

are tapping to the same concept. It has been recommended that CFA, derived from structural equation modeling

(SEM), is a more rigorous test of uni-dimensionality (Garver and Mentzwe, 1999). Thus, CFA was also utilized

to confirm and sometimes to refine the uni-dimensionality of results from EFA.

All items of the research model were analyzed by Factor Extraction using the principal axis factoring

method, promax rotation. Statistical package for social sciences was used to show which variables “clump

together”. For commonly used assumptions followed (Hair et al., 1998); sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin measure greater than 0.5); the minimum eigenvalue for each factor to be one, considering the sample size,

factor loading of 0.5 for each item was considered as the threshold for retaining items to ensure the greater

confidence.

There were eliminated items which dislpayed factor loadings below 0.5 (Hair et al., 1998) after EFA

analysis: one item of brand experience (KN2) and one item of brand image (HA5).

The brand experience factor was formed by six observational variables, including HA1, HA4, KN1, KN3,

KN4, KN5. This factor is to measure the customer experience when they using the product of brand. Although

this factor has mixed two observational variables of brand image (HA1: Being fashionable and trendy and HA4:

Being sophisticated) but the factor is still brand experience because when customer using the product of brand,

and compare with other brand, they feel like the design of brand and they are at a higher level. It is also

experience of customer.

After exploratory factor analysis, the variables of brand experience, brand trust, brand image, brand love,

brand loyalty and word of mouth exhibited evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. The factor loadings

of all items were more than 0.5. These remaining items were continued to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Actually, when building a model, the data usually do not match the original model. This is expressed

through the indicators used to evaluate the fit of the model, so the Model Adjustment Index (MI) is used to add

or remove relationships in the model to create the best model (Schumacker and Lomax, 2010). Based on the

Model Adjustment Index (MI), we eliminate variables to increase the fit of the model; 10 variables were

eliminated, including: TT5, TY4, NT3, TY7, KN4, TM1, TT4, TY8, TM3, NT2, HA1, KN5, HA2 and HA3.

Model results satisfy metric conditions, namely CMIN / df = 2558 (≤ 3); GFI = 0.945, TLI = 0.915, CFI = 0.968

(all ≥ 0.9); RMSEA = 0.062 (≤ 0.08). Since all of the indicators met theoretical conditions, the CFA model was

consistent with the data collected.

236

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

In this section, the SEM has the role of testing the Measurement Model for the proposed hypotheses. The

measurement indicators used to evaluate the SEM are similar to those to evaluate the appropriate model in CFA

analysis, including: CMIN/df, CFI, GFI, TLI and RMSEA. The results of SEM analysis, for the first time

showed that the model is not suitable because these indicators are not satisfactory. Based on the Model

Adjustment Index (MI), we eliminate variables to increase the fit of the model. In addition, one variable was

eliminated to increase the relevance of the model, namely: TM5. SEM results satisfy metric conditions, namely

CMIN / df = 2620 (≤ 3); GFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.919, CFI = 0.968 (all ≥ 0.9); RMSEA = 0.064 (≤ 0.08). There is a

match between the data collected and the model given.

Bootstrap is a repetitive sampling method that use replacement, so the number of samples when testing

Boostrap can be increased. In this study, the repeatability of the Bootstrap test was 500 times (N = 500). The results of

this test are shown in Table 3:

Figure 2. Structural Equation Modeling – SEM

Table 3. Bootstrap test results

Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Parameter

Estimate

Lower

Upper

P

Statistical significance

<---

0.719

0.502

1.028

TYTH

TTTM

KNTH

NTTH

TYTH

0.004

Has statistical significance

Does not have statistical

significance

<---

0.273

0.772

-0.016

0.676

0.494

0.885

0.121

0.004

Has statistical significance

237

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

<---

0.89

1.194

1

0.804

1.067

1

TT2

KN3

HA4

NT6

TM2

TM4

NT5

TY5

TY3

TY6

TT6

TT3

TTTM

KNTH

NTTH

TTTM

NTTH

TYTH

TTTM

0.004

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.004

0.000

Has statistical significance

1.338

1

1.034

1.068

1.034

1

0.936

0.976

0.884

1

1.134

1.165

1.189

1

1.08

1.423

1.1

0.967

1.291

0.993

1

1.211

1.576

1.239

1

After a chain of steps of data analysis conducted prudently, objectively and in accordance with stringent

theoretical requirements the hypothesis of the proposed inintial relationships has been adjusted:

Table 4. Relationships and the level of impact in the SEM

Level of

impact

Contents

Results

0.702

Brand experience impacts brand love

Acceptable

Brand trust impacts brand love

Unacceptable

Acceptable

Brand image impacts brand love

0.793

Brand love impacts brand loyalty and word of mouth

5.

Discussion

Brand Experience

To increase high brand love, brands nees to provide the experience for customer. Previous studies have

shown that the better the brand experience is, the higher the level of the brand love is (Holmes, 2000; Mikulincer

et al., 2001; Brakus et al., 2009; Solomon, 2014). Specificly, brand experience has positive impact on brand love

with the second highest impact level is 0.702, Sanjit et al.,(2012) also found the relationship between the brand

experience, brand love, WOM and loyalty, it is plausible to argue that affective component of brand experience

238

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

contributes to generating romantic brand love by inducing brand- related arousa

Brand Image

This factors does not affect brand love. The cause may be that in competitive business enviroment, brands

recognize the importance of building brand image. Company tries to build brand image similar to the image of

the target customer (Aaker and Biehl, 1993; Kapferer, 1992), thus, it is hard to customer to remember the signal

of particular brand . Furthermoer, start-up companies increases every year and they create many creative brand

image, it makes customer easy change their minds easily.

Brand Trust

This factors does not affect brand love much. Although in the theoretical modeling, brand trust is expected to

positively impact on brand love, but statistical data have shown the opposite: brand trust does not affect brand

love much. This is reflected in the index only 0.229. Strong trust in a brand leads to positive outcomes such as

positive attitudes, stronger commitment and loyalty (Knox et al, 1993) and is a focal factor contributing to brand

love (Albert et al, 2008; Drennan et al., 2015). However, in the present context, brand trust is not big enough to

affect brand love.

Brand Loyalty and Word of mouth

If consumers love the brand, they might feel greater brand loyalty, desire to use, willingness to invest more

resources to purchase the brand, i.e., behavioral loyalty, to be more involved, and to spread positive word-of-

mouth (WOM), and attitudinal loyalty (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Batra et al., 2012). The results of the survey

agree with many conclusions of previous studies, such as Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), Batra and cộng sự (2012),

Aurier and de Lanauze (2012), Davis-Sramek et al. (2009), Fuchs et al. (năm 2015), Johnson et al. (2006).

Specificly, brand love has a positive impact on brand loyalty and word of mouth with the highest impacts is

0.793

6.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to identify antecedents and consequences of brand love. As a new

concept in consumer behavior and marketing, brand love promises to offer important insights to

unexplored research domain to the scholars. According to the survey data of 400 customers who using

product of motorcycle brand in Ho Chi Minh City, the findings of the study revealed that one factor affects brand

love is brand experience. In fact, customer will choose the product of the motorcycle brand based on their

experience, or the experience from their family, friend (up to 49% customer asked opinion of their family or

their friend when they have a need to buy a motorcycle). Therefore, brands need to organize practical programs

to increase the experience of customer. In addition, the results show that brand trust does not have affect brand

love, this opposed the conclusion of Patwardhan and Balasubramanian, 2011; Albert and Merunka, 2013. If this

belief is not big enough, customer can switch to another brand.

This research aims to be found the relationship between brand experiences, brand love and WOM which

impressed the manager should increase more activities for customer to experimental in product. Then, they

would love company brands in mind and propose them to the others.

7.

Limitations and future research

In addition to the results obtained, the research has certain limitations. First the research conceptual model

is a generalized conceptual frame- work focusing on brand love, the probable roles played by those

mediating and moderating variables have not been discussed.. Secondly, the topic conducted through the

survey in Ho Chi Minh City, may not accurately reflect the factors affecting brand love, brand loyalty and word

of mouth. With futher research, we have proposed the following research should discuss more in the other

industry, especially in service industry in order to increase implement practical of brand love concept.

References

[1] Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008), “When consumers love their brands: exploring the

concept and its dimensions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61, pp. 1062-1075.

[2] Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008b), “The feeling of love toward a brand:

measurement and concept”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp. 300-307.

[3] Arjun Chaudhuri; Morris B Holbrook (2001).“The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to

brand performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 2 pp. 81 – 93.

239

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

[4] Bloemer, J. and Kasper, H. (1995), “The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand

loyalty”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 311-329.

[5] Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters,

Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89.

[6] Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990) In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis. Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 110-119.

[7] Drennan, J., Bianchi, C., Cacho-Elizondo, S., Louriero, S., Guibert, N. and Proud, W. (2015), “Examining

the role of wine brand love on brand loyalty: a multi-country comparison”, International Journal of

Hospitality Management, Vol. 49, pp. 47-55.

[8] Fournier (1998), “Reviving brand loyalty: a reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-brand

relationships”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 451-472.

[9] Hoang Trong, Chu Nguyen Mong Ngoc (2008), Data Analysis with SPSS Vol.2, Hong Duc Publisher

[10]Huber, F., Meyer, F. and Schmid, D.A. (2015), “Brand love in progress–the interdependence of brand love

antecedents in consideration of relationship duration”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24

No. 6, pp. 567-579.

[11]Nunnally, J. C., & Burnstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric theory (3^rdedition), New York: McGraw-Hill

[12]Pawle, J. and Cooper, P. (2006), “Measuring emotion - lovemarks, the future beyond brands”, Journal of

Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 38-48.

[13]Reichheld, Frederick F., Boston: Bain & Company, Inc (1996), “The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force

Behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value”, pp. 137.

[14]Rossiter, J. (2012). “A new C-OAR-SE-based content-valid and predictively valid measure that

distinguishes brand love from brand liking”. Marketing Letters, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 905-916.

[15]Shaver, P., Hazan, C. and Bradshaw, D. (1988), “Love as attachment: the integration of three behavioral

systems”, in Sternberg, R.J. and Barnes, M.L. (Eds), The Psychology of Love, Yale University Press, New

Haven, CT, pp. 68-99.

240

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

Appendix. All measurement items of key constructs

Construct

Items

Source

KN1. H makes strong impression

Brakus et al.

(2009)

Brand Experience

KN2. I feel H interesting

KN3. When I encounter H, I engage in a lot of thinking

KN4. I am willing to participate in activities organized by

H

KN5. Overall, I have experience with H

When you think of the overall impression you have of H

products and brands, how do you rate them on:

A.E. Cretu, R.J.

Brodie. (2007)

Brand Image

HA1. Being fashionable and trendy

HA2. Having a popularity for quality

HA3. Being Being well known and prestigious

HA4. Being sophisticated

HA5. Generally, I have a good impression of the brand

image H

NT1. I trust H’s brand

Arjun

Chaudhuri;

Morris B

Brand Trust

NT2. H is an honest brand

Holbrook (2001)

NT3. H’s brand is safe

NT4. H’s brand meets my expectations

NT5. I feel confidence in H’s brand

NT6. Summary, I have faith in H

TY1. H is wonderful brand

Carroll and

Brand Love

Ahuvia (2006)

TY2. H makes me feel good

TY3. I am passionate about H

TY4. I am very attached to H

TY5. I feel connected with H

TY6. H is my only choice

TY7. I would buy H again even I hear bad things about it

TY8. I am prepared to defeand H in every situation

TY9. Overall, I love H

TT1. H is my first choice

Fournier (1998)

Brand Loyalty

TT2. I have often participated in discussions about H

TT3. I will advise relatives and friends choose H’s

product

TT4. I have often followed information about H

241

Nguyen Ngoc Dan Thanh, Thuy Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings

TT5. I do not care about other brands

TT6. I am loyal to only one brand of H

TM1. I have recommended H to lots of people.

TM2. I “talk up” H to my friends.

Carroll,B.A.and

Ahuvia,A.C.

(2006)

Word of mouth

TM3. I try to spread the good-word about H

TM4. I give H tons of positive word of mouth advertising

TM5. I will continue postitive word of mouth for H

242