See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286254556

The Mediating Effects of Brand Association, Brand Loyalty, Brand Image and
Perceived Quality on Brand Equity

Article  in  Asian Social Science · February 2013

DOI: 10.5539/ass.v9n3p125

CITATIONS READS

206 2,988

2 authors, including:

Erfan Severi
UCSI University
9 PUBLICATIONS   319 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Erfan Severi on 12 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Asian Social Science; Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013
ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

The Mediating Effects of Brand Association, Brand Loyalty, Brand

Image and Perceived Quality on Brand Equity
Erfan Severi1 & Kwek Choon Ling1
1
Faculty of Business and Information Science, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Correspondence: Kwek Choon Ling, Faculty of Business and Information Science, UCSI University, No.1, Jalan
Menara Gading, UCSI Heights, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: 60-16-688-6248. E-mail:
[email protected]

Received: September 13, 2012 Accepted: January 25, 2013 Online Published: February 28, 2013
doi:10.5539/ass.v9n3p125 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n3p125

Abstract
According to Marketing Science Institute (2002), one of the major objectives of marketing research is to assess
the strength of brand equity. It is imperative to acknowledge that brand equity is an inseparable part of marketing
and essential to the companies to create core-competencies and build strong brand experience that will impact
the consumer decision making process (Norjaya Mohd. Yasin & Abdul Rahman Zahari, 2011). The aim of this
study is to find out the indirect relationship amongst the brand equity dimensions on brand equity. For the
purpose of this study, brand equity dimensions include brand association, brand awareness, brand loyalty,
perceived quality and brand image. In this study, a sum of 300 usable questionnaires were gathered. The result
indicates a mediating relationship amongst the dimensions of brand equity on brand equity.
Keywords: brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty, brand image, perceived quality, brand equity
1. Introduction
One of the most essential topics in marketing management is the subject of brand equity. Initially brand equity
was recognized by Farquhar (1989, p. 24), he stated that brand equity brought added value to the product. Brand
equity is often created by products or services that bring value directly or indirectly (Kapferer, 2005 and Keller,
2003). Brand equity has been studied in two different perspectives by academicians: financial perspective and
customer perspective. From the financial perspective, brand equity is evaluated according to the market value of
a company’s asset (Farquhar et al. 1991; Simon and Sullivan 1990). In referring to the customer perspective,
brand equity is appraised according to the consumer’s reaction to a brand name (Keller, 1993; Shocker & Weitz,
1994). This research will concentrate on the customer point of view or perception to evaluate brand equity.
Customer based brand equity is often divided into two categories, namely: consumer behaviour (Farquhar, 1989)
and consumer perception (Mahajan et al., 1991). Based on the Mahajan et al. (1991) finding, consumer
perception level can be used to evaluate customer-based brand equity. Whereas Farquhar (1989) argues that the
brand equity can change the consumer attitude towards a product. Meanwhile, Keller (1993, 2003) states that
brand knowledge is a mixture between brand image and brand awareness. Blackston (1995) has claimed that the
definition of brand should consist of objective brand and subjective brand, which contain personality
characteristic, brand image and brand attitude respectively. While Prasad and Dev (2000) suggest that in the
process of evaluating brand equity, brand performance and brand awareness must be considered. Furthermore,
Aaker (1991, 1996) suggests to incorporate perceived quality, brand awareness, brand association, and brand
loyalty in the process of evaluating the degree of brand equity. As a result of the disagreement in the researches
in related to the dimensions of brand equity, the purpose of this study is to identify the dimensions of brand
equity and also their mediating relationship with brand equity.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Brand Equity
Brand equity can be defined as “the marketing and financial values linked with a brand’s strength in the market,
including actual proprietary brand assets, brand name awareness, brand loyalty, perceived brand quality, and
brand associations” (Pride & Ferrell, 2003, p. 299). According to Lassar, Mittal and Arun (1995), the existing
extent literature has evaluated the brand equity from two different point of view; financial perspective and

125
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

customer perspective. Financial perspective is usually referred to the company’s brand value. While, the
customer perspective appraises brand equity based on the customers’ perceived brand value from the anchor of
marketing decision making (Kim, Kim, and An 2003). Table 1 shows the main concepts of brand equity based on
the extant literature review. This paper will adopt the idea of customer perspective of brand equity from Aaker
(1991). Aaker (1996) considers brand equity as an aggregate of assets and liabilities. There are five different
dimensions that can create the value of brand equity, namely; brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty,
brand association and proprietary brand assets (Aaker, 1996).

Table 1. The main concepts of brand equity

Major Concepts of Brand Equity
Contributors
Mahajan et al. Customer based Brand equity can be evaluated by the level of customer’s understanding.
(1994)
Farquhar (1989) Brand equity can be changed via the changes in consumers’ thoughts as they are buying a
particular product.
Aaker (1991) Brand equity can be evaluated through brand loyalty, brand association, brand awareness
and perceived quality.
Keller (1993) Basically, there are two methods to evaluate customer based brand equity (direct & indirect)
by stressing on two elements: brand image and brand awareness.
Source: Develop for this research

The strength of brand could be traced from customer’s perception and understanding about what they have
gained, observed, sensed and heard regarding a brand as a consequence of customer involvement with a
particular brand in the past (Keller, 2003). The value of brand equity can be significant when the brand has
meaning to the individual and vice versa (Keller, 1993; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Rio et al., 2001). For that
reason, a number of researchers have built up conceptualization of brand equity based on five factors, for
instance, value, performance, social image, attachment and trustworthiness (Lassar et al., 1995). Whereas, Aaker
and Joachimsthaler (2000) have defined brand equity in various concepts which namely are; brand awareness,
brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality. Other scholars also argue that the brand equity is a
multifactor structure that contains brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand knowledge, customer satisfaction,
perceived equity, brand associations, and other proprietary assets (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Blackston, 1995;
Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995). Further research is more inclined to consider brand equity and other brand assets,
such as brand knowledge, brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty, perceived quality, as inseparable parts of
brand equity, yet independent (Keller, 1993; Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993).
This study will discuss the dimensions of brand equity as according to the theories of brand equity found by both
authors namely: Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) and Keller (2003). The dimensions of brand equity being
discussed in this paper consist of brand association, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand
image.
2.1.1 Brand Awareness
Brand awareness is a key and essential element of brand equity which is often overlooked (Aaker, 1996), and it is
a prevalent selecting factor among customers (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995). Aaker (1996) defines brand awareness
as the durability of a brand that embedded in the customer memory. Therefore, brand awareness will be created by
ongoing visibility, enhancing familiarity and powerful associations with related offerings and buying experiences
(Keller, 1998). Keller (1993, 1998) further argues that brand awareness could influence customer decision making
in buying goods via strong brand association. Pitta and Katsanis (1995) have argued that there is an
inter-relationship between brand awareness and brand association by asserting that the brand awareness of a
product can be produced in the consumer’s mind prior to brand association of the product is built and embedded in
the consumer’s memory. Atigan et al. (2005) and Pappu (2005) have also pointed out the correlation between
brand association and brand awareness.
2.1.2 Brand Association
Aaker (1991) believes that brand association and brand equity are strongly interrelated to each other because brand

126
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

association enhances the memorable of a particular brand. According to Keller (1998), brand association can be
created via the association with attitudes, attributes and benefits respectively. Brand association also acts as an
information collecting tool (van Osselaer & Janiszewski, 2001) to execute brand differentiation and brand
extension (Aaker, 1996). James (2005) also discusses that highly effective association helps to boost brand and
equity. In addition, Yoo et al. (2000) and Atilgan et al. (2005) have stated that strong brand association leads to
higher brand loyalty.
2.1.3 Brand Loyalty
Aaker (1991) defines brand loyalty as symbolizes a constructive mind set toward brand that leading to constant
purchasing of the brand over time. Aaker (1991) also argues that brand loyalty is an essential element when it
comes to evaluate a brand in terms of value because loyalty can generate profit. According to Assael (1992,
p.87-89) and Samuelsen and Sanvik (1997, p. 1123-1128), there are two approaches being used to understand the
brand loyalty that have completely outclassed in the marketing literature. The first approach in marketing literature
is behavioural approach to brand loyalty in which the advocators believe that constant purchasing of one brand
over time is an indicator of brand loyalty. The second approach in the marketing literature is cognitive approach to
brand loyalty in which the advocators argue that behaviour solely does not reflect brand loyalty. According to Yoo
(2000), brand loyalty has the power to impact on customer decision to purchase the same product or brand and
decline to shift to competitors’ brands. As a result, Yoo (2000) concludes that brand loyalty is the core of brand’s
value. In addition, Strategic Marketing and Research Techniques (2008) discover that there is a strong positive
relationship between customer loyalty and brand image.
2.1.4 Brand Image
Brand image could be defined as a brand that is brought to the consumer’s mind by the brand association (Keller,
1993). Brand image can be also defined as consumer’s thoughts and feelings about the brand (Roy and Banerjee,
2007). Aaker (1991) asserts that brand image could be a set of association which is significant to the consumers.
Based on Bearden and Etzel (1982) as well as Park and Arinivasan (1994) arguments, brand image is closely
related to the uniqueness of a particular product classification. According to Hsieh and Li (2008), strong brand
image does create a superior brand messages of a particular brand over the rivalry brand. Consequently, customer’s
behaviour will be affected and determined by brand image (Burmann et al., 2008). Consumers employ a product’s
brand image in deriving overall perceptions of the specified product, a product with higher brand image may be
inferred by consumers as product of superior quality and value (Richardson et al. 1994). Furthermore, Jacoby et al.
(1971) conduct an experiment research and have discovered that consumers’ perception of quality and value are
significantly affected by brand image.
2.1.5 Perceived Quality
According to Aaker (1996), one of the main elements of brand equity is perceived quality and perceived quality
itself is an essential part of study in evaluating brand equity. According to Aaker (1991, p. 85-86), perceived
quality can be defined as the overall perception of customers about brilliance and quality of products or services in
comparing with the rivalry offering. Zeithaml (1988) and Erenkol and Duygun (2010) state that quality of product
is different from perceived quality because the perceived quality is the buyer’s subjective appraisal of the product.
Therefore, perceived quality cannot necessarily be fairly determined because perceived quality in itself is a
summary construct (Aaker, 1991, p. 85-86). Zeithaml (1988) asserts that perceived quality can act as a key
influencing factor in determining consumer’s choices. According to Motameni and Shahrokhi (1998) and Yoo et al.
(2000), perceived quality is positively related to the brand equity.
2.2 Mediated Hypotheses
2.2.1 Relationship among Brand Awareness, Brand Equity and Brand Association
Keller (1993, 1998) argues that brand awareness does create impact on buyer decision making process via brand
association that embedded in the buyer memory. There is a correlation between brand awareness and brand
association (Atigan et al. 2005; Pappu, 2005; Pappu & Katsanis, 1995). Brand awareness is the first and
fundamental attribute of customer brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Aaker, 1996; Tong & Hawley, 2009). Brand
awareness precedes the construction of brand equity in the consumer mind set (Huang & Sarigöllü, 2011); it affects
customer’s perception and attitudes. Therefore, Aaker (1996) asserts that in order to assess brand equity, brand
awareness has to be taken into account. Aaker (1991) believes that brand association and brand equity are strongly
interrelated to each other because brand association is an element that helps a brand to be remembered. High brand
awareness produces strong brand association and in turn strong brand association creates positive impact on brand
equity because brand association is viewed as “a sign of quality and commitment”, leading customers to

127
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

familiarize purchasers with a brand, as well as “helping them consider it at the point of purchase” (Aaker, 1991;
Tong & Hawley, 2009; Marinova et al., 2011; Yoo et al., 2000). Based on the aforementioned, theoretical
interrelationship among brand awareness, brand association and brand equity has been proved, but there is a lack
of study to evaluate the mediating relationship among these three constructs. Therefore, this paper tries to evaluate
the relationship between brand awareness and brand equity mediated by brand association via hypothesis 1.
H1: The relationship between brand awareness and brand equity is mediated by brand association
2.2.2 Relationship among Brand Association, Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty
Brand association is an element that helps a brand to be remembered (Aaker, 1991). Aaker defines brand loyalty as
symbolizes a constructive mind set toward brand that leading to constant purchasing of the brand over time.
Furthermore, research done by Atilgan et al. (2005) and Yoo et al. (2000) discovers that if customers have more
positive association toward a brand, they would be more loyalty toward a brand and the other way round. Aaker
(1991) believes that brand association and brand equity are strongly and positively interrelated to each other, since
it is viewed as “a sign of quality and commitment”, leading customers to familiarize purchasers with a brand
(Aaker, 1991; Tong & Hawley, 2009; Marinova et al., 2011; Yoo et al., 2000). Oliver (1979, p. 392) defines brand
equity as “a deeply held commitment to rebury or re-patronize a preferred product or service consistently in the
future, deposit situation influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior”.
According to Travis (2000), the ultimate objective and meaning of brand equity is to build brand loyalty. At the
meanwhile, theoretical interrelationship among brand association, brand loyalty and brand equity has been proved,
but there is a lack of mediating relationship among these three constructs. Therefore, this paper tries to evaluate
the relationship between brand association and brand equity mediated by brand loyalty via hypothesis 2.
H2: The relationship between brand association and brand equity is mediated by brand loyalty
2.2.3 Relationship among Brand Loyalty, Brand Equity and Brand Image
According to Yoo (2000), brand loyalty has the power to impact on customer decision to purchase the same
product or brand and decline to shift to competitive brands. Brand image can be defined as consumer’s thoughts
and feelings about the brand (Roy & Banerjee, 2007). Yoo (2000) argues that there is a positive relationship
between brand loyalty and brand image. According to Marshall (2010), brand loyalty is a thought that firms
emphasizes, while it may create or sustain a customers' patronage over the long-term, thereby increases brand
equity. Thus, brand loyalty is located in the heart of brand equity. Gladden and Milne (2004) believe that one of the
components of brand equity is brand image. Based on the aforementioned, theoretical interrelationship among
brand loyalty, brand image and brand equity has been proved but there is a lack of study to evaluate the mediating
relationship among these three constructs. Thus, this paper tries to evaluate the relationship between brand loyalty
and brand equity mediated by brand image via hypothesis 3.
H3: The relationship between brand loyalty and brand equity is mediated by brand image
2.2.4 Relationship among Brand Image, Brand Equity and Perceived Quality
According to Richardson et al. (1994), consumers employ a product’s brand image in deriving overall perceptions
of the specified product. Consumers may infer a product with higher brand image as product of superior quality
and value (Richardson et al., 1994). Jacoby et al. (1971) conduct an experiment research have discovered that
consumers’ perception of quality and value are significantly affected by brand image. Similar conclusions are
derived by Shimp and Bearden (1982) as well as Rao and Monroe (1989), their studies support the notion that
brand image, in many occasions, served as consumers quick reference, or “short-hand” of quality and value
representation. Kotler and Armstrong (1996) mention that brand image is used by consumers to evaluate the
perceived quality of products. Richardson et al. (1994) conclude that there is a positive relationship between brand
image and perceived quality. Goldden and Milne (2004) assert that brand image is part of the brand equity, by
arguing that the consumer perceptions of the brand image will create the impact toward the brand equity of a
particular product or service offered. Aaker (1996) has stated that one of the key elements of brand equity is
perceived quality and it is the core construct in the research to appraise brand equity. Furthermore, Yoo (2000)
mentions that brand equity will be increased with the help of promoting positive perceived quality; perceived
quality is parts of brand value that leads consumers to select a particular brand rather than another competing brand.
Based on the aforementioned, theoretical interrelationship among perceived quality, brand image and brand equity
has been proved, but there is a lack of study to evaluate the mediating relationship among these three constructs.
Therefore, this paper tries to evaluate the relationship between brand image and brand equity mediated by
perceived quality via hypothesis 4.
H4: The relationship between brand image and brand equity is mediated by perceived quality

128
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

2.3 Proposed Conceptual Framework

The tested conceptual framework was illustrated in Figure 1 in which all the mediating relationships among the
constructs will be carried out in the hypothesized testing.

Brand
Awareness

Brand
Association

Brand Brand
Loyalty Equity

Brand
Image

Perceived
Quality

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual framework

3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
Descriptive research design was adopted in this study to conclude the inferences derived from the hypothesized
testing (Malhotra, 2004).
3.2 Questionnaire Design
Basically the questionnaire was designed and separated into two parts, part 1 and part 2. Part 1 consists of
measuring brand equity elements, which include; brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty, brand image
and perceived quality. In part 2, the questionnaire data and information that related to the respondents were
elaborated, such as gender, nationality, age, marital status and educational qualification. Items that being used for
measuring Brand Awareness were adopted from Atilgan et al. (2005) and Yoo et al. (2000). Items that being used
for measuring Brand Association and Brand Loyalty were adopted from Kim and Kim (2005) and Yoo et al.
(2000). Lastly, the measurement items of Brand Image and Perceived Quality were adopted from Kim and Kim
(2005). For the purpose of conducting this research, the researchers has chosen five point likert scales from
“Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (5) for all the tested constructs (Kim & Kim, 2005).
3.3 Sampling
In this research, the target population covers all the existing full time business students who are study in one of
the private universities in Malaysia. 330 potential respondents were used as a sampling size and in order to
choose the potential respondents in this survey convenience sampling technique has been adopted.
3.4 Administration of Survey
In this research, the drop-off survey techniques have been used. The copies of self-administered survey
questionnaires have been given to the respondents in order to make sure the confidentiality and privacy aspects of
participants in the survey. Before the actual survey being conducted, a pilot test with 30 potential respondents was
carried out. The pilot test was carried out with the purpose to ensure the reliability of the scale measurement as well
as the quality of the questionnaire. Based on the feedback from the pilot test study, a final set of questionnaire was
produced. Out of 330 questionnaires that have been distributed in the actual survey, 300 questionnaires were
gathered. A part from 30 questionnaires that were unfinished for the reason of either the respondents were not
willing to cooperate or they did not take the survey seriously. However, the rest of the questionnaires (300) have
been used (91.6 percent) for data analysis using SPSS software (version 20).

129
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

4. Research Results
4.1 Demographic Profile Analysis
Respondents of this survey consist of 50 percent male and 50 percent female, which means the participants were
equally chosen from both genders. The age trend of the participants is as follows:
Between the age of 26-30 years old group has the highest respondents (42.3 percent) that is followed by the age
group of 21-25 years old (38.7 percent), 31-35 (14 percent), 20 years old or less (3.3 percent) and finally the age
group of 30-40 years old (1.4 percent) had the lowest participant amongst all the age groups participated in this
survey. The respondents’ highest education levels were majority in Master’s Degree (51 percent), following by
Bachelor’s Degree (41.7 percent) and Diploma (4.7 percent).
4.2 Reliability Test
According to Cavana et al. (2001), reliability test can be used as a measure that signals the consistency and stability
of the instruments used in the survey when repeated measurements are made. A well known approach to measure
reliability is to use the Cronbach alpha. The value of Cronbach alpha with the range of greater than 0.70 is
considered acceptable and good (Cavana et al., 2001). Results from the Table 2 point out the Cronbach alpha for
the six tested constructs were well above 0.70. Based on the finding, Cronbach alpha for the construct ranged from
lowest of 0.780 (brand image) to 0.914 (brand awareness). In conclusion, the outcome concluded that the
measurement scales of the constructs were stable and consistent in measuring the constructs.

Table 2. Reliability of the Constructs

Constructs Composite Reliability
Brand Awareness 0.914
Brand Association 0.795
Brand Loyalty 0.821
Brand Image 0.780
Perceived quality 0.838
Brand Equity 0.889
Source: Developed for this research

4.3 Validity Test

Cavana et al. (2001) state that in order to measure validity, construct validity has to be utilized and the
measurement for the validity is factor analysis. Table 3 shows the outcome of the factor analysis. The value of
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) was 0.850 (between 0.5 and 1.0) which means that the sample size is big enough to
conduct factor analysis. The statistical test for Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p = 0.0001; d.f. = 351) for
all the correlations within a correlation matrix (at least for some of the constructs). With reference to the principle
components analysis and VARIMAX process in the orthogonal rotation, the outcomes showed that the
Eigenvalues for all the constructs were higher than 1.0, ranging from the lowest of 1. 544 (Brand Image) to the
highest of 7.971 (Brand Awareness). In the case of convergent validity, the factor loadings for all items within a
construct showed in Table 3 were more than 0.50. Based on the results indicated in Table 3, discriminant validity
point out that all items were assigned according to the different constructs. Hence, the items were not overlapping
and they supported respective constructs.

130
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

Table 3. Factors identified by principal components factor analysis

Factor’s Variable Factor Eigen- Percentage Cronbach’s
Name Loading value of Variance Reliability
Explained Coefficients
Brand I aware this particular product/brand that appeared in the 0.872 7.971 14.80 0.914
Awareness social media.
I can recognize this particular product/brand in 0.851
comparison with the other competing product/brand that
appeared in the social media.
I know how this particular product/brand looks like. 0.871
Some characteristics of the particular product/brand that 0.872
appeared in the social media come to my mind quickly.
I can quickly recall symbol or logo of the particular 0.770
product/brand that appeared in the social media.
Brand I regularly refer this particular product/brand through the 0.646 2.598 11.365 0.821
Loyalty social media.
I usually use this product/brand as my first choice in 0.736
comparison with the other product/brand.
I would recommend this product/brand to others through 0.563
the social media.
I will not switch to another product/brand that appeared 0.801
in the social media next time.
I am satisfied with product/brand that appeared in the 0.823
social media
Brand This particular product/brand that appeared in the social 0.873 1.928 11.035 0.795
Association media has its own personality.
This particular product/brand is different in comparison 0.852
with the other competing product/brand that appeared in
the social media.
I trust the company who owns the particular 0.871
product/brand that appeared in the social media.
This particular product/brand that appeared in the social 0.874
media is familiar to me.
There are reasons to buy this particular product/brand 0.755
over the competing product/brand that appeared in the
social media.
Perceived The Webmaster provides prompt services at the promised 0.782 1.697 10.054 0.838
Quality time.
The Webmaster handles customer complained effectively. 0.745
The Webmaster is able to tell patrons exactly when the 0.783
services would be performed.
The Webmaster gives individual customer attention. 0.805

131
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

Brand This particular product/brand has a differentiated image 0.698 1.544 8.235 0.780
Image in comparison with the other product/brand.
This particular product/brand has a clean image. 0.828
This particular product/brand is well established. 0.808
Note: KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.850; p = 0.0001 (p<0.05); df = 351
Cumulative Percentage Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings = 68.368
Source: Developed for this research

4.4 Mediated Regression Analysis

Mediational analysis is used to examine how two variables precede or cause a third variable (refer to dependent
variable) (Howitt and Cramer, 2011a). For the purpose of testing four hypotheses, Baron and Kenny (1986) have
proposed mediated regression analysis that was used in this research (H1, H2, H3 and H4). Baron and Kenny (1986)
have recommended three step process that was adopted in this research. Based on Baron and Kenny (1986)
approach, there are three steps that should be considered:
1) The mediating variable is regressed on the independent variable.
2) The dependent variable is regressed on the independent variable.
3) The dependent variable is simultaneously regressed on the dependent variable and the mediating variable.
Baron and Kenny (1986, p.1177) assert that in order to establish mediation, the following conditions ought to be
present: Firstly, the independent variable has to impact the mediator in the first step; secondly, the independent
variable has to impact the dependent variable in the second step; and lastly, the mediator has to impact the
dependent variable in the third step. Taking into account the conditions in the forecasted direction, the outcome of
independent variable in step three has to be less than in step two. Tables below illustrate {4(a), 4(b), 4(c) and 4(d)}
the three steps process recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986):

4.4.1 Relationships among Brand Awareness, Brand Equity and Brand Association (H1)
Table 4(a). Result of mediated multiple regression (mediator analysis) (H1)
Independent Variable Brand Association (Mediator) Brand Equity (Dependent Variable)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Brand Awareness 0.316* 2.237* 1.665*
st nd
(1 equation) (2 equation) (3rd equation)
Brand Association 1.808*
(3rd equation)
*p<0.05
Source: Developed for this research

According to the finding from Table 4(a), brand awareness as an independent variable significantly affected the
brand association as a mediator in equation one; brand awareness as an independent variable significantly
impacted the brand equity as a dependent variable in equation two; both brand awareness as an independent
variable and brand association as a mediator considerably impacted the brand equity as a dependent variable.
Hypothesis 1 (H1) is supported because the beta value of brand awareness in the equation three (beta=1.665) is
smaller than the beta value of brand awareness in the equation two (beta=2.237), diminishing by 0.572
(2.237-1.665). In conclusion, brand association does act as a mediator in mediating the relationship between brand
awareness and brand equity.

132
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

4.4.2 Relationships among Brand Association, Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty (H2)
Table 4(b). Result of mediated multiple regression (mediator analysis) (H2)
Independent Variable Brand Loyalty (Mediator) Brand Equity (Dependent Variable)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Brand Association 0.416* 2.297* 1.587*
st nd
(1 equation) (2 equation) (3rd equation)
Brand Loyalty 1.704*
(3rd equation)
*p<0.05
Source: Developed for this research

Based on finding in Table 4(b), brand association as an independent variable significantly affected the brand
loyalty as a mediator in equation one; brand association as an independent variable considerably impacted the
brand equity as a dependent variable in equation two; both brand association as an independent variable and brand
loyalty as a mediator considerably impacted the brand equity as a dependent variable. Hypothesis 2 (H2) is
supported because the beta value of brand association in equation three (beta=1.587) is smaller than the beta value
of brand association in equation two (beta=2.297), diminishing by 0.71 (2.297-1.587). In conclusion, brand loyalty
does act as a mediator in mediating the relationship between brand association and brand equity.

4.4.3 Relationships among Brand Loyalty, Brand Equity and Brand Image (H3)
Table 4(c). Result of mediated multiple regression (mediator analysis) (H3)
Independent Variable Brand Image (Mediator) Brand Equity (Dependent Variable)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Brand Loyalty 0.224* 2.326* 1.903*
st nd
(1 equation) (2 equation) (3rd equation)
Brand Image 1.890*
(3rd equation)
*p<0.05
Source: Developed for this research

According to the finding from Table 4(c), brand loyalty as an independent variable significantly affected the brand
image as a mediator in equation one; brand loyalty as an independent variable significantly affected the brand
equity as a dependent variable in equation two; both brand loyalty as an independent variable and brand image as a
mediator considerably impacted the brand equity as a dependent variable. Hypothesis 3 (H3) is supported because
the beta value of brand loyalty in equation three (beta=1.903) is smaller than the beta value of brand loyalty in
equation two (beta=2.326), diminishing by 0.423 (2.326-1.903). In conclusion, brand image does act as a mediator
in mediating the relationship between brand loyalty and brand equity.

133
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

4.4.4 Relationships Among Brand Image, Brand Equity and Perceived Quality (H4)
Table 4(d). Result of mediated multiple regression (mediator analysis) (H4)
Independent Variable Perceived Quality (Mediator) Brand Equity (Dependent Variable)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Brand Image 0.374* 2.732* 2.032*
st nd
(1 equation) (2 equation) (3rd equation)
Perceived Quality 1.869*
(3rd equation)
*p<0.05
Source: Developed for this research

According to the finding from Table 4(d), brand image as an independent variable significantly affect the
perceived quality as a mediator in equation; brand image as an independent variable significantly affect the brand
equity as a dependent variable in equation two; both brand image as an independent variable and perceived
quality as a mediator considerably impacted the brand equity as a dependent variable. Hypothesis 4 (H4) is
supported because the beta value of brand image in equation three (beta=2.032) is smaller than the beta value of
brand image in equation two (beta=2.732), diminishing by 0.7 (2.732-2.032). In conclusion, perceived quality
does act as a mediator in mediating the relationship between brand image and brand equity.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Implications of Research Findings
5.1.1 Theoretical Implication
In terms of theoretical implication, this study has concluded as follows; relationship between brand awareness and
brand equity is mediated by brand association; relationship between brand association and brand equity is
mediated by brand loyalty; relationship between brand loyalty and brand equity is mediated by brand image and
finally relationship between brand image and brand equity is mediated by perceived quality.
5.1.2 Managerial Implication
The outcome of this research has given valuable feedbacks which can be used for designing different strategies to
attract customers with emphasizing on brand equity of the products and services. Marketers should remember that
there are some factors influence consumer’s perception towards brand equity. Based on the results from this
research finding, marketers should prioritize brand equity constructs as their strategy to attract potential customers
because it does show significant direct and indirect relationships between the dimensions of brand equity and
brand equity.
5.2 Limitations of Research
The outcome of this research has given valuable feedbacks to researchers. However, these outcomes were
accompanied with some limitations. Cavana et al. (2001) have stated that cross-sectional data that is only able to
reveal the net effect of predictor variable towards a particular criterion variable at a specific point of time. Due to
the limitation of cross-sectional study, the outcomes and findings of the research are not capable to “explain why
the observed patterns are there” (Easterly-Smith, Thorpe & Lowe, 2003). Furthermore, the restriction of using
convenience sampling techniques has indicated that the outcomes of this research cannot be generalized.
5.3 Recommendation for Future Study
As this research has encountered some limitations, a few recommendations have been suggested for further
research. Psychological judgment will change over time. Therefore, cross-sectional study might not be capable to
portray the experiential changes in models and the causality of the brand equity (Easterby- Smith et al., 2003). In
due respect, longitudinal studies, which continually measure the same sample units of population over a period of
time is recommended to be used in the future research (Burns and Bush, 2003). Furthermore, in terms of restriction
of generalization, it would be suggested to use probability sampling technique in the future study for the reason of
improving and enhancing the validity and generalization of these research findings.

134
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of the brand name. New York: The Free
Press.
Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand Leadership. New York: The Free Press
Assael, H. (1992). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S., & Akinci, S. (2005). Determinants of the brand equity: A verification approach in the
beverage industry in Turkey. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(3), 237-248.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500510597283
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
51, 1173-1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208911
Blackston, M. (1995). The qualitative dimension of brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4), 2-7.
Burmann, C., Schaefer, K., & Maloney, P. (2008). Industry image: Its impact on the brand image of potential
employees. Journal of Brand Management, 16(3), 159-176.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative
methods. Queensland: John Wiley & Sons.
Churchill, G. A., & Brown, T. J. (2004). Basic marketing research. Ohio: South Western.
Cobb Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference and purchase intention.
Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25-41.
Easterby Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2003). Management research: An introduction. California: SAGE
Publications.
Erenkol, A. D., & Duygun, A. (2010). Customers perceived brand equity and a research on the customers of
Bellona which is a Turkish furniture brand. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 16(1).
Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 24-33.
Farquhar, P. H., Han, J. Y., & Ijiri, Y. (1991). Recognizing and measuring brand assets. Marketing Science
Institute. MA: Cambridge
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1995). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gladden, J. M., & Milne, G. R. (2004). Examining the importance of brand equity in professional sport. In S.
Rosner, & K. Shropshire (Eds.), The Business of Sports. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartless Publishers.
Hair, J. Jr., Wolfinbarger, M., Bush, R., & Ortinau, D. (2009). Essentials of marketing research. Ohio:
McGraw-Hill.
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2011). Introduction to SPSS statistics in psychology for version 19 and earlier (5th
ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Huang, R., & Sarigöllü, E. (2011). How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity, and the
marketing mix. Journal of Business Research, 07136.
Jacoby, J., Olson, J., & Haddock, R. (1971). Price, brand name, and product composition characteristics as
determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(6), 570-579.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032045
James, D. (2005).Guilty through association: Brand association transfer to brand alliances. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 22(1), 14-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760510576518
Kapferer, J. N. (2005). The new strategic brand management. London: Kogan-Page.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252054
Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity. London:
Prentice Hall International.

135
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd ed.).
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, H. B., & Kim, W. G. (2005). The relationship between brand equity and firm’s performance in luxury hotels
and chain restaurants. Tourism Management, 26, 549-560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.03.010
Kim, H. B., Kim, W. G., & An, A. J. (2003). The effect of consumer based brand equity on firm's financial
performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), 335-351.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760310483694
Kirmani, A., & Zeithaml, V. (1993). Advertising, perceived quality and brand image. In D. A. Aaker, & A. L.
Biel (Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising (pp. 143-161). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (1996). Principles of marketing (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International,
Inc.
Lassar, W., Mittal., B., & Arun., S. (1995). Measuring consumer based brand equity. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 12(4), 11-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363769510095270
Mahajan, V., Rao, V. R., & Srivastava, R. K. (1994). An approach to assess the importance of brand equity in
acquisition decisions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 221-235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(94)90005-1
Malhotra, N. K. (2004). Marketing research: An applied orientation (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Marinova, S., Cui, J., Marinov, M., & Shiu, E. (2011). Customers relationship and brand equity: A study of bank
retailing in China. WBC, Poznau, 6-9.
Marketing Science Institute. (2002). Research priorities. Marketing science. Retrieved from
http://www.msi.org/msi/pdf/MSI_RP04-06.pdf
Motameni, & Shahrokhi. (1998). Brand Equity Valuation: A Global Perspective. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 7(4), 275-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610429810229799
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pappu, R. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity: Improving the measurement. Journal of Product and Brand
management, 14(3), 143-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601012
Park, C. W., & Arinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and
its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, (31), 271-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3152199
Pitta, D. A., & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363769510095306
Prasad, K., & Dev, C. S. (2000). Managing hotel brand equity: A customer-centric framework for assessing
performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 22–31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001088040004100314
Pride, W. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003). Marketing: concepts and strategies. Boston: MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Rao, A., & Monroe, K. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers' perceptions of product
quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 351-357.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3172907
Richardson, P., Dick, A., & Jain, A. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand
quality. The Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 28-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251914
Rio, A. B., Vazquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effects of brand associations on consumer response. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760110398808
Roy, D., & Banerjee, S. (2007). Caring strategy for integration of brand identity with brand image. International
Journal of Commerce and Management, 17(1/2), 140-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10569210710776512
Samuelsen, B. M., & Sandvik, K. (1997). The concept of customer loyalty. The 25th EMAC Conference,
University of Warwick, UK.
Shimp, T. A., & Bearden, W. O. (1982). Warranty and other extrinsic are effects on consumer’s risk perceptions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 38-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208894
Shocker, A. D., & Weitz, B. (1994). A perspective on brand equity principles and issues. In L. Leuthesser (Ed.),

136
 www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 9, No. 3; 2013

Report Number 88-104. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Simon, C. J., & Sullivan M. W. (1990). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial
approach. Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
Strategic Marketing & Research Techniques. (1992-2008). Brand and image assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.s-m-a-r- t.com/Exp_brandequity.htm
Tong, X., & Hawley, J. M. (2009). Measuring customer-based brand equity: Empirical evidence from the
sportswear market in China. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(4), 262-271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420910972783
Travis, D. (2000). Emotional branding: How successful brands gain the irrational edge. Crown Publishing
Group.
Van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Janiszewski, C. (2001). Two ways of learning brand association. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28, 202-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/322898
Yasin, N. M., & Zahari, A. R. (2011). Does family and viral marketing have any effect on brand equity? Journal
of Contemporary Marketing Review, 1(9), 19-31.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195-211.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282002
Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perception of price, quality and the value: A mean-end and synthesis of evidence,
Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 2-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251446

137

View publication stats