Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Module Code
MG 3123
Module Title
Module leader
Geraldine Cohen
Student ID number
Student Name:
Student Number:
Degree Course: Business and Management
(Marketing)
Department: Brunel Business School
Supervisor: Dorothy Yen
2
Abstract
This research study aims to understand Chinese female consumers perceived brand
value and how it influences brand loyalty in the cosmetic industry. Since Chinas
prosperous cosmetic market presents companies with many desirable opportunities,
this project tries to produce a substantial insight on how to improve brand loyalty by
understanding Chinese consumers perceived brand value in a multi-dimensional view.
Due to the fact that consumers perceived value has very often been narrowly
interpreted in terms of money paradigm, as merely a trade-off between a products
quality and price, this research attempts to measure it in a multi-dimensional ways.
Sweeney and Soutar (2001)s multi-dimensional framework is adopted in the research
to measure consumers perceived brand value of a product which include its quality,
money, emotional as well as social values. As for the measurement of consumers
brand loyalty, Zeithaml, Leonard and Parasuraman (1996)s framework is used which
includes both favourable and unfavourable behavioural intentions. Favourable
behavioural intention is measured in terms of purchase intention, price insensitivity
and word-of-mouth communication while unfavourable behavioural intention is
measured by complaining behaviour of consumers.
Primary research data is collected by conducting online questionnaire surveys on
around two hundred Chinese female consumers. Collected data is then analysed by
SPSS and presented in forms of tables and figures for future interpretations. Research
findings are discussed and both academic implications as well as marketing
implications are developed accordingly. Regarding the limitations of this research and
the result produced, recommendations are given for future research.
Acknowledgements
This project has brought me a lot of excitements, challenges and most importantly, a
precious learning opportunity. First of all, I would like to dedicate my special
gratitude to my supervisor, Dorothy Yen. I am truly grateful for all your kindness and
support throughout the project. Thank you for giving me useful advices and constant
encouragements. Without your guidance, this project will not be possible to complete
successfully.
Secondly, I owe my gratitude to my dear parents who have always been there for me
and showered me with their love. Also, I would like to thank all of my friends who
helped me overcome various challenges encountered in this assignment. Last but not
least, I would like to dedicate a big thank you to all those respondents who kindly
participated in completing the research questionnaires.
Content Page
Page number
China National Commercial Information Centre (CNCIC 2011 cited in Li and Fung
2012) recorded that cosmetic retail sales rose by 28.2% year-on-year in third-tier
cities in 2010, faster than those in the first-tier (15.8%) and second-tier cities (17.0%).
According to Li and Fung (2012), cosmetics retail sales in lower-tier cities of China
are fast growing while first-tier and second- tier cities captured a bigger share of the
market.
Data by National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS) show that the retail price index
of cosmetics in China has risen to above 101.6 since August 2011 (NBS 2012).
Although the tax levied on imported cosmetics has been reduced from 6.5% to 5%
since 1 January 2012, the retail price of many cosmetic products remains high (Li and
Fung 2012).
It seems that no prior researches have been done on multi-dimensional view of female
consumers perceived brand value in the cosmetic industry, much less in the market of
China. Apart from that, although the opportunities presented by the prosperous
Chinese cosmetic market are well-known, very few researches focus on Chinese
consumers multi-dimensional perceived brand value.
Other than that, Pihlstrom and Brush (2008) did a similar research about the influence
of consumers perceived brand value on their behavioural intentions in the mobile
service industry. Their research framework however only includes favourable
behavioural intentions. As variables and linkages predicting positive outcomes may be
asymmetrically related to those that predict consumers disloyalty (Zeithaml, Leonard
and Parasuraman, 1996), it is necessary to take negative behavioural intentions into
considerations for measuring brand loyalty. Hence, this research includes both
favourable and unfavourable behavioural intentions into the research framework for
better measurement of brand loyalty.
2003). According to Huang and Tais (2003) research finding, brand consciousness in
terms of its brand name of a cosmetic product is rated to be more important than its
country of origin. However, a research done by HKTDC (2012) shows that the
country where a products certificate is issued has a significant influence on Chinese
consumers confidence towards the product. Its findings show that 89% respondents
had confidence in international product certificates while 42% had confidence in
mainland China product certificates.
2.1.1 Cultural influence on Chinese consumers perceived brand value and
behavioural intention
Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) state that Chinese highly pronounced long-term
orientation derives from Confucianism which strongly influenced China. They claim
that Chinese consumers tend to care more about relationships. Chinese consumers are
more conscious of the relational switching costs (Burnham et al., 2003) which denote
the psychological barriers to switching providers caused by the fear of damaging
personal relationships with staff and peer consumers than consumers from other
cultural backgrounds (Frank, Abulaiti and Enkawa, 2012).
Ye, Bose and Pelton (2011)s research suggests that Chinese consumers brand
perceptions and brand choice are highly connected to their self-concept. According to
self-congruity theory (Sirgy, 1982), consumers prefer certain products or brands that
are consistent with their self-image and those which can enhance their self-image.
Two important self-concept motives are self consistency and self-esteem. In other
words, certain products and brands serve as mirrors, allowing consumers to see
positive reflections of them selves and present the positive side of self to others
(Sirgy, 1982).
The impact of Chinese consumers self-concept on their brand perceptions and brand
choice are supported by some prior research studies. He and Mukherjee (2007) stated
that Chinese consumers attitudes and store loyalty are driven by self consistence as
well as social confirmation. Wang et al. (2009) suggest that self-image congruence
with product and company-brand personality positively affects purchase intention.
Their research suggests that Chinese consumers use name brands as a superior vehicle
for self expression. When they perceive congruence between their self-image and
brand personality, they tend to have strong purchase intentions toward the brand.
Eisingerich and Rubera (2010) found that self-brand relevance is correlated to
13
Chinese consumers brand perceptions and brand choice are believed to be highly
influenced by their cultural backgrounds. Chinese consumers seemed to get caught in
the middle of the continuum between following the eastern collectivist tradition which
highlights the importance of conformance as an important aspect of self and
recognising their need for uniqueness as an individual (Ye, Bose and Peltons 2011).
Liao and Wang (2009) recognised a contradiction across China. Referring to their
findings, although some Chinese consumers may possess little knowledge about a
particular brand, they heavily consume name-brand products for material possession
or social needs. Therefore, they have a tendency to choose well-known and highly
advertised brands.
Ye, Bose and Pelton (2011) claimed that Chinese consumers awareness and
expression of their psycho-sociological identities are reflective in building
relationships with products and brands. Additionally, they supported that personal care
products are closely related to consumers self concept as they facilitate selfexpression. However, on the contrary to some prior researches, their research findings
show that the direct effect of Chinese consumers self-consciousness has a negative
impact on brand consciousness. It is explained by the deeply held Confucian values in
the Chinese culture which emphasize on collectivism, harmony, tradition and loyalty.
As a result, Chinese consumers may have difficulty in connecting to the Western
sense of brand concept (Sung and Tinkham, 2005). Other than that, it is worth
noticing that branding is still a fairly new concept in the Chinese culture with
relatively limited penetration (Bruce, 2010) which may affect the impact of Chinese
consumers sense of self on brand consciousness and brand selection.
14
to that, due to the robust halo effect of brand image, Chinese consumers perceive the
effect sizes of marketing mix elements as relatively less variant for foreign brands.
Their result states that because of a better established market position of foreign
brands, reasonable or attractive prices have a positive effect on repurchase intention
for foreign brands while the perceived price of a product is found to have no effect on
repurchase intention for local brands due to the insecurity of consumers which is
induced by a large number of local brands and a blurred position of brands in the
market. However, the perceived quality of a product has a significantly stronger
relationship on repurchase intention for local brands since the consumers
expectations are lower. They also found that the perceived price for both groups has
no effect on recommendation intention, while the perceived quality has a significant
effect.
Other than that, consumers perceived value occurs at various stages of the purchase
process which include pre-purchase stage where consumers expectation is formed,
transaction stage where evaluation is formed as well as post-purchase stage where
after-use assessment is formed (Woodruff, 1997). As a result, perceived brand value
can be generated without the product or service being bought or used.
Consumers perceived value differs from person to person due to the differences on
personal values, needs, preferences and financial ability. (Ravald and Gronroos,
1996,) Wilson (2010) stated that there is no objective perception of a single reality
and there are always some differences in perception. There is consensus regarding the
multidimensional and subjective nature of consumer perceived value as described by
different researchers (e.g. Sheth et al., 1991b; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). According
15
to Zeithaml (1988), what constitutes value is highly personal and due to its
idiosyncratic nature, it is very likely to vary from one consumer to another. Thus,
consumers perceived brand value is a very subjective assessment of a brands product
or service from the consumers own perspectives.
It is believed that consumers perceived value changes over time as Zeithaml (1988)
suggested that improved technology and increasing competition lead to the
development of technically better products, the features that signal superiority change.
In additional to that, Sheth et al. (1991b) stated that different value dimensions may
be important depending on the decision level and on the type of product or service
being considered.
Generally, the more value a product delivers to consumers, the more successful the
product (Jang, Dickerson and Hawley, 2005). Consumers perceived value is seen as
the central driver in a purchase decision (Woodruff, 1997) since consumers select
products they perceive as the best value. It is suggested that customer loyalty can be
achieved by offering products with superior value to consumers which eventually
drives the companys financial performance (Smith and Wright, 2004).
16
Price insensitivity refers to the extent which a consumer is willing to pay a higher
price for a companys product, continue to purchase product from a company with a
price increase and continue the relationship with a company even if alternatives are
less expensive (Zeithaml, Leonard and Parasuraman, 1996). Price sensitivity is said to
differ among demographic groups where female, married, older and do not work
outside home is the most price sensitive group among the rest. (Zeithaml and Berry
1987 J32*) It is also greater for higher priced packaged goods, durable good and
service than for low priced, non-durable products. Consumers price sensitivity can be
affected by various factors, such as complexity, price dispersion, lack of price
information and processing time required. (Zeithaml, 1988)
they believed that variables and linkages predicting positive outcomes may well be
asymmetrically related to those that predict customer disloyalty. Solnick and
Hemenway (1992) found that complaining consumers were four and one-half times
more likely to leave the company than non-complaining consumers. They suggested
that complaining consumers intend to be less loyal and more likely to switch to
another company. However, some researchers take the opposite view, Day (1984)
suggested that the majority of consumers with negative brand experience would rather
remain inactive and do not undertake any action at all. In addition, Bloemer, Ruyter
and Wetzels (1998) stated that a large extent of consumers behavioural intentions in
response to dissatisfaction is determined by personal and situational variables.
20
Table 3:
21
Table 4:
Table 5:
23
Figure 1:
The research framework
Functional value
H1
(Quality/ performance)
H2
Purchase
Intention
H3
H4
H5
Functional value
H6
(Price/ value for money)
Price insensitivity
H7
H8
H9
H10
Emotional value
H11
Word-of-mouth
H12
H13
H14
Social value
H15
H16
Complaining
behaviour
24
25
29
30
In order to test the reliability of the research findings, reliability tests were conducted.
Referring to table 6, each construct has attained a Cronbachs Alpha value of above
0.7. Since the Cronbachs Alpha value of a reliable scale should be above 0.7
(DeVellis, 2003), the scales used in the research framework are proved to be reliable.
This suggests that the adopted scales have good internal consistency reliability.
4.3 Descriptive analysis
Data from this research was collected from a total number of 206 Chinese female
participants, 34% were from the age group of 18 to 30 years old, 33.5% were from
31-40 years old and 32.5% were from 41-50 years old. Participants monthly income
was divided into five groups, 10.2% were less than 3000, with exchange rate of 1
Chinese Yuan equals 0.10666 British Pound Sterling (The money converter, 2013) ,
14.6% were between 3000 and 5000, 13.1% were between 5000 and 10000,
34.0% were between 10000 and 20000 and 28.2% were more than 20000. The
category of last purchased cosmetic product was divided into four groups, hair care
products comprised of 28.2%, skin care products comprised of 45.1%, colour
cosmetics comprised of 18.0% and fragrance comprised of 8.7%. The unequal
distribution of participants monthly income and the category of their last purchased
cosmetic products were accepted since these factors were not under the researchers
control.
Table7:
31
Participants' Age
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
18-30
70
34.0
34.0
34.0
31-40
69
33.5
33.5
67.5
41-50
67
32.5
32.5
100.0
Total
206
100.0
100.0
Table8:
Participants' Monthly Income
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
< 3000
21
10.2
10.2
10.2
3000-5000
30
14.6
14.6
24.8
5000-10000
27
13.1
13.1
37.9
10000-20000
70
34.0
34.0
71.8
> 20000
58
28.2
28.2
100.0
Total
206
100.0
100.0
Table 9:
32
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
58
28.2
28.2
28.2
93
45.1
45.1
73.3
Colour cosmetics
37
18.0
18.0
91.3
Fragrances
18
8.7
8.7
100.0
Total
206
100.0
100.0
33
34
summarise the result of ANOVA analysis. The ANOVA test is used to compare the
mean scores of two or more groups on a continuous dependent variable (Pallant
2010).
Table 12:
Figure 3:
Table 12 and figure 3 display the result of ANOVA analysis between different age
groups and perceived brand value. The table shows that participants from the age
between 31 and 40 had the highest mean score of 3.57 and participants from the age
36
between 18 and 30 had the lowest mean score of 3.26 in terms of perceived social
value of a product (p<0.05).
Table 13:
Figure 4:
37
Table 13 and figure 4 display the testing of ANOVA analysis between different
monthly income and perceived brand value. The table shows that participants with
monthly income less than 3000 had the lowest mean score of 3.11whilst participants
with monthly income between 10000 and 20000 had the highest mean score of
3.67 in terms of perceived price value of a product (p< 0.05). This indicates that there
is perception difference in terms of price value of a product among Chinese females
with different monthly income levels. Participants with higher monthly income
inclined to perceive the product as more reasonably price, offer more value for money
as well as more economical.
Table
14:
38
Figure 5:
Table 14 and figure 5 display the result of ANOVA analysis between different product
categories and perceived brand value. Participants who assessed the perceived social
value of products which were colour cosmetics had the highest mean score of 3.86,
followed by those who assessed fragrances with mean score of 3.81, skin care
products with mean score of 3.38 and hair care product with mean score of 3.13 (p
<0.05). This finding indicates that a consumers perceived social value of a product is
highly influenced by the category of the product.
39
Table 15:
40
Figure 6:
Perceived Quality
Value
0.81***
Perceived Price
-0.07
Value
Purchase
Intention
0.08
Perceived Emotional
Value
-0.07
Perceived Social
Value
Table 16:
Perceived Quality
Value
Perceived Price
Figure 7:Value
Price
Insensitivity
Perceived Emotional
Value
0.52***
Perceived Social
Value
41
0.24***
-0.05
0.17*
Table 17:
Perceived Quality
Value
Perceived Price
Value
Figure 8:
Word of mouth
Perceived Emotional
Value
42
Perceived Social
Value
0.61***
0.22**
0.00
0.02
Table 18:
Perceived Quality
Value
Perceived Price
Figure Value
9:
Complaining
Behaviour
Perceived Emotional
-0.68***
Value
43
Perceived Social
Value
-0.06
0.02
0.08
44
Functional value
(Quality/ performance)
Purchase
Intention
Functional value
(Price/ value for money)
Price insensitivity
Emotional value
Word-of-mouth
Figure 10:
Testing of research framework
Social value
Complaining
behaviour
45
0.81***
0.52***
0.61***
-0.68***
-0.07
0.24***
0.22**
-0.06
0.08
-0.05
0.00
0.02
-0.07
0.17*
0.02
0.08
46
4.5.1 Quality
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
These research findings are consistent with previous research studies which suggest
that the perceived quality of a product has a positive impact on consumers purchase
intention (Woodside and Taylor 1978; Zeithaml et al.1990 ; Boulding et al. 1993;
Bhaskaran and Sukumaran 2007), price insensitivity (Bloemer, Ruyter and Wetzels
1998), and word-of-mouth communication (Zeithaml, 1988 ; Boulding et al. 1993 ;
47
Taube and Heinberg, 2011) whilst it has a negative impact on consumers complaining
behaviour (Singh, 1991 and Kelley et al., 1993).
Nevertheless, the result of this research contradicts with Cronin and Taylor (1992)s
statement that the perceived quality of a product does not have significantly positive
effect on consumers purchase intention as well as Wang (2010)s statement that the
perceived quality of a product does not have a direct positive impact on consumers
purchase intention.
Regarding Cronin and Taylor (1992)s statement, one possible reason why there is a
difference between two research results may due to different cultural backgrounds of
participants, different industry being researched as well as research taken place during
completely different times. This indicates that the impact of perceived quality on
purchase intention can be enormously affected by these factors. The result of this
research shows that the perceived utilitarian aspect of a cosmetic product is a
powerful driver of Chinese consumers purchase intention. This may also be related to
their tradition of being outcome-oriented. Thus, the performance of the product is
highly valued which means the perceived quality of the product is highly valued.
As for Wang (2010)s statement, this research can only prove that the perceived
quality of a product has a significant positive impact on purchase intention but does
not suggest whether the impact is direct or indirect.
4.5.2 Price
Figure 13:
48
Figure 14:
The research result is consistent with Pihlstrom and Brush (2008)s finding that a
products perceived price value has a positive impact on consumers price
insensitivity. However, research result contradicts some other researches (Hui and
Zhou, 2002; Bhaskaran and Sukumaran, 2007; Pihlstrom and Brush, 2008) findings
which state that the perceived price value of a product has a positive relationship with
consumers purchase intention. A likely reason for this result is the impact of
perceived price value of a product on consumers purchase intention may be affected
by different factors, such as brand image, consumers personal values, needs and
financial ability.
49
According to Taube and Heinberg (2011), well established brands with a clear market
position and good image are more favourably interpreted by Chinese consumers,
hence reasonable or attractive prices have a positive effect on purchase intention. This
implies that brands with a blurred market position and plain brand image, good
perceived price value of a product may not have a positive impact on Chinese
consumers purchase intention. Other than that, if the perceived monetary value of a
product does not match with a consumers personal value and needs, there may be no
positive effect on purchase intention. For example, a consumer with strong financial
ability who enjoys pursuing for fine products with the highest quality may not
repurchase a product simply because it is the most economical.
The research result also shows contradiction to Pihlstrom and Brush (2008)s claim
that positive word-of-mouth intentions are not influenced by the perceived price value
of a product. Since consumers word-of-mouth communication can be determined by
various personal and situational factors, researches conducted on participants with
different cultural backgrounds and studied different topics may lead to very different
result findings. One possible reason may be due to the fact that by recommending
products which offers good value for money to others, helps consumers gain a sense
of satisfaction and self-enhancement. This may be related to Chinese value for
deepening their personal relationship throughout the process of recommending others
something they perceived as good value for money as a way of giving benefits to
others. Thus, good perceived price value of a product triggers Chinese consumers
urge to recommend the product to others.
4.5.3 Emotional
50
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Findings from this research suggest that the perceived emotional value of a product
does not have a positive impact on either favourable or unfavourable behavioural
intentions. The result of this research shows contradictions to the results of prior
research studies which claim that the perceived emotional value of a product has a
positive influence on consumers purchase intention (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001,
Pihlstrom and Brush, 2008; Wang 2010), price insensitivity (Pihlstrom and Brush,
2008) and word-of-mouth communication (Pihlstrom and Brush, 2008).
A possible reason behind the result differences may be that Chinese consumers are
51
more focused on the utilitarian components rather than the hedonic components of a
product. In other words, this research result shows that most Chinese consumers
evaluate cosmetic products from a utilitarian perspective rather than from a hedonic
perspective which may explain why the positive impact of a products perceived
emotional value on a Chinese consumers behavioural intentions is insignificant.
Another possible reason may be related to the fact that Chinese consumers are not
able to connect to brand concepts that advocates emotional value as branding is still a
fairly new concept in the Chinese culture (Bruce, 2010). Thus, their behavioural
intentions are less likely to be influenced by those hedonic components of a product.
4.5.4 Social
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
52
The result of this research is consistent with previous researches which proved that
the perceived social value of a product does not have any positive impact on a
consumers purchase intention (Goldsmith, Frieden and Henderson, 1997;Pihlstrom
and Brush, 2008) while it has a positive impact on a consumers price insensitivity
(Pihlstrom and Brush, 2008).
Nevertheless, the research findings contradict some research studies which suggest a
products perceived social value has positive impacts on consumers purchase
intention (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999; Gill et al., 2007) as well as their word-ofmouth communication (Pihlstrom and Brush, 2008).
A possible reason for this research finding may be that the effects of some cosmetic
products such as skin care or hair care products may not be very prominent and
improvements may take time. Thus, these cosmetic products may not be able to
perform their function as a superior vehicle to deliver social recognition and approval
to consumers instantly. Also, the brand name of cosmetic products can not be flaunted
to others throughout consumption, unlike other products such as clothes and
accessories for which brand logos can be recognised by others during consumption.
Hence, the overall social value of cosmetic products perceived by Chinese female
consumers is not powerful enough to trigger purchase intention and word-of-mouth
communication.
purchase intention. This implies that the most efficient way to increase consumers
purchase intention is by increasing the quality value of a product.
-Price insensitivity
Hypotheses H2, H6, H10 and H14 respectively suggest that a products perceived
quality, emotional and social value each has a positive influence on a consumers
price insensitivity. The positive impacts of a products perceived quality value (H2:
= 0.52, p< 0.001), price value (H6: = 0.24, p< 0.001) as well as its social value
(H14: = 0.17, p< 0.05) on price insensitivity, tested to be significant while that of a
products emotional value (H10: = -0.05, p> 0.05) on price insensitivity, tested to be
insignificant. The findings support for hypotheses H2, H6 as well as H14 but not
hypothesis H10. Hence, a products perceived quality value is the best predictor of a
consumers price insensitivity, followed by perceived price value and social value.
This result indicates that consumers price insensitivity can be increased by increasing
the quality, price and social value of a product.
-Word-of-mouth communication
Hypotheses H3, H7, H11 and H15 respectively state that a products perceived
quality, emotional and social value each has a positive influence on a consumers
word-of-mouth communication. The positive impacts of a products perceived quality
value (H3: = 0.61, p< 0.001) and price value (H7: = 0.22, p< 0.01) on word-ofmouth communication proved significant while that of a products perceived
emotional value (H11: = 0.00, p> 0.05) and social value (H15: =0.02, p> 0.05)
proved insignificant. Hypotheses H3 and H7 are supported by research findings whilst
hypotheses H11 and H15 are not. Therefore, a products perceived quality value is the
best predictor of a consumers word-of-mouth communication, followed by perceived
price value. This indicates that the best way to increase consumers positive word-ofmouth communication is by increasing the quality as well as the price value of a
product.
-Complaining behaviour
Hypotheses H4, H8, H12 and H16 respectively claim that a products perceived
quality, emotional and social value each has a negative influence on a consumers
complaining behaviour. The negative effects of a products perceived quality value
(H4: = -0.68, p< 0.001) on complaining behaviour tested to be significant while that
54
of a products perceived price value (H8: = -0.06, p> 0.05), emotional value (H12:
= 0.02, p> 0.05) and social value (H16: = 0.08, p> 0.05) tested to be insignificant.
The research findings only support for Hypothesis H4. However, the findings did not
find support for hypotheses H8, H12 and H16. Thus, a products perceived quality
value is the best predictor of a consumers complaining behaviour. This implies that
the best way to decrease consumers complaining behaviour is by increasing the
quality of a product.
Among all brand value dimensions, the perceived quality value of a cosmetic product
is found to be the strongest predictor of consumers behavioural intentions. Other than
the perceived quality value of a product, the perceived price value of a cosmetic
product was also found to have a significant positive impact on consumers price
insensitivity and word-of-mouth intentions while the perceived social value of a
cosmetic product was found to have a significant positive impact on consumers price
insensitivity. However, the perceived emotional value of a cosmetic product was
found to have no significant impact on consumers behavioural intentions.
store brands, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 35, pp.
328341.
Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1990) Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of
Consumer Attitude, Marketing Letters, 2(2), pp. 159170.
Bhaskaran, S. & Sukumaran, N.(2007) Contextual and methodological issues in
COO studies, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 25, pp. 6681.
Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K.D. and Wetzels, M. (1998) Linking perceived service quality
and service loyalty: a multidimensional perspective, European Journal of Marketing,
33, pp. 1082-1106.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993) A dynamic process
model of service quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions'', Journal of
Marketing Research, 30, pp. 7-27.
Bruce, E. (2010) China: where retail dinosaurs are thriving, Business Week, 1
February, p. 64.
Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K. and Mahajan, V. (2003) Consumer switching costs: a
typology, antecedents, and consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 31(2), pp. 109126.
CNCIC (2011) Cosmetics market in China, cited in Li and Fung (2012) Chinas
cosmetics market, 2011, Li and Fung Research Centre.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2003) Business Research: A Practical Guide for
Undergraduate andPostgraduate Students. 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992) Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination
and Extension, Journal of Marketing, 56(July), pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000) Assessing the effects of quality,
value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments, Journal of Retailing, 76(2), pp.193-218.
59
60
Kelley, S.W., Hoffman, K.D. and Davis, M.A.(1993) A typology of retail failures and
recoveries, Journal of Retailing, 69, pp. 429-52.
Larsen, D. and Watson J.J. (2001) A guide map to the terrain of gift value,
Psychology and Marketing, 18, pp. 889906.
LeBlanc G. and Nguyen, N.(2001) An exploratory study on the cues that signal value
to members in retail co-operatives, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 29, pp. 4959.
Lemon, K.N., Rust, R.T. & Zeithaml, V.A. (2001) What drives
customer equity, Marketing Management, 10(1), pp. 20-25.
Li and Fung (2012) Chinas cosmetics market, 2011 Li and Fung Research Center.
Liao, J. and Wang, L.(2009) Face as a mediator of the relationship between material
value and brand consciousness, Psychology and Marketing, 26 (11), pp. 987-1001.
Mathwick, C., Naresh, M. and Rigdon, E. (2001) Experiential value:
Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping
environment, Journal of Retailing, 77, pp. 3956.
61
Monroe, K. B. (1990). Pricing: making profitable decisions, 2nd edn. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company
Morrison, S. and Crane, F.G.(2007) Building the service brand by creating and
managing an emotional brand experience, Journal of Brand Management, 14, pp.
410421.
NBS (2012)Statistical Communique on the 2011 National Economic and Social
Development, National Bureau of Statistics of China.
Oliver, R.L. (1997) Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Oliver, R.L., Rust, R. and Varki, S. (1997) Customer delight: Foundations, findings
and managerial insight, Journal of Retailing, 73(3), pp. 311-336.
Omar, O.E.(1994) Comparative product testing for own-label marketing,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 22, pp. 1217.
Pallant, J.(2010) SPSS Survival Manual, 4th edn. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open
University Press.
Pihlstrom, M. and Brush, G.J.(2008) Comparing the perceived value of information
and entertainment mobile services, Psychology and Marketing, 25(8), pp. 732-755.
Ravald, A. and Gronroos, C.(1996) The value concept and relationship marketing,
European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), pp. 19-30.
Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.E.(1990) Zero defections. Quality
comes to services, Harvard Business Review, 68(5), pp.105-111.
Robson, C.(2002) Real World Research, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rose, G.M., Shoham, A., Kahle, L. R. and Batra, R.(1994) Values, conformity and
fashion, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, pp. 15011519.
62
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thronhill, A.(2009) Research methods for business
students, 5th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991a). Consumption Values and Market
Choice. Ohio: South Western Publishing
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991b). Why We Buy What We Buy: A
Theory of Consumption Values, Journal of Business Research, 22(March), pp. 159
170.
Sierra, J.J., McQuitty, S. (2005) Service providers and customers: Social exchange
theory and service loyalty, The Journal of Services Marketing, 19, pp. 392400.
Singh, J. (1988), "Consumer Complaint Intentions and Behaviour: Definitional and
Taxonomical Issues," Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), pp. 93-107.
Singh, J.(1991) Understanding the structure of consumers' satisfaction evaluations of
service delivery, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, pp. 223-44.
63
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001) Consumer perceived value: The development
of a multiple item scale, Journal of Retailing, 77, pp. 203-220.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S.(2007) Using multivariate statistics, 5 th edn. Boston:
Pearson Education.
Taube,M. and Heinberg, M. (2011) Global branding and firm performance: How to
best allocate marketing mix resources for local and foreign brands in developing
countries, AMA Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, 22, pp. 353-354.
The Economist (2010), Watching China whizz by, The Economist, 21 August, pp.
52-53.
The Money Converter (2013) Convert Chinese yuan to British Pound Sterling.
Available at: http://themoneyconverter.com/CNY/GBP.aspx (Accessed: 6 March
2013).
Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W.(1999) A review and a conceptual framework of
prestige-seeking consumer behavior, Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1999,
pp. 157187.
Wang, X., Yang, Z. and Liu, N.R. (2009) The impacts of brand personality and
congruity on purchase intension: evidence from the Chinese mainlands automobile
market, Journal of Global Marketing, 22, pp. 199-215.
Wang, S.T. (2010) Impact of Multiple Perceived Value on Consumers' Brand
Preference and Purchase Intention: A Case of Snack Foods, Journal of Food
Products Marketing, 16(4), pp. 386-397.
Wilson, F.M.(2010), Organisational behaviour and work, 3rd edn. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Woodruff, R.B. (1997) Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage,
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 25, pp. 139153.
Woodside, A.G., & Taylor, J.L. (1978) Consumer purchase intentions and
perceptions of product quality and national advertising, Journal of Advertising, 7,
pp. 4851.
64
Ye, L., Bose, M. and Pelton, L. (2012) Dispelling the collective myth of Chinese
consumers: a new generation of brand-conscious individualists, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 29(3), pp. 190-201.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A MeansEnd Model and Synthesis of Evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52(3), pp. 2-22.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. (1987) The Time Conscious-ness of Supermarket
Shoppers, working paper, Texas A&M University.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A.(1996) The behavioural
consequences on service quality, Journal of Marketing, 60(2), pp. 31-46.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service:
Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Questionnaire
Section One -Participants information
1. Age
a. 18-30 b. 31-40 c. 41-50
2. Monthly income
a. < 3000 b. 3000-5000 c. 5000-10000 d. 10000-20000 e. > 20000
3. The category of last purchased cosmetics product
a. Hair care product b. Skin care product c. Colour cosmetics d. Fragrances
65
Strongl
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
disagree
1. This product has consistent quality.
quality.
acceptable.
14. This product would improve the way I am
perceived.
15. This product would make a good
impression on other people.
16. This product would give me social
approval.
Strongl
y
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
66
disagree
1. I would say positive things about this
67
1.
a. 18-30
b. 31-40
c. 41-50
2.
a. < 3000 b. 3000-5000 c. 5000-10000 d. 10000-20000 e. > 20000
3.
a. b. c. d.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
68
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
69
Univariate Statistics
N
Mean
Std.
Missing
No. of Extremesa
Deviation
Count
Percent
Low
High
Q1
206
1.99
.817
.0
Q2
206
3.55
1.312
.0
PBV1
206
3.50
.936
.0
PBV2
206
3.51
.888
.0
PBV3
206
3.46
.830
.0
PBV4
206
3.42
.973
.0
PBV5
206
3.46
.859
.0
PBV6
206
3.28
.888
.0
PBV7
206
3.74
.887
.0
PBV8
206
3.58
.922
.0
PBV9
206
3.30
.902
.0
PBV10
206
3.55
.852
.0
PBV11
206
3.53
.859
.0
PBV12
206
3.30
.841
.0
PBV13
206
3.45
.841
.0
PBV14
206
3.56
.852
.0
PBV15
206
3.51
.876
.0
PBV16
206
3.23
.978
.0
10
BL1
206
3.37
1.026
.0
BL2
206
3.71
1.046
.0
BL3
206
3.31
.962
.0
BL4
206
3.42
.973
.0
BL5
206
3.15
.926
.0
BL6
206
2.53
.818
.0
BL7
206
2.88
1.076
.0
BL8
206
3.07
.908
.0
BL9
206
2.92
1.009
.0
BL10
206
3.55
.818
.0
BL11
206
3.18
.953
.0
BL12
206
2.86
.948
.0
12
RBL6
206
3.48
.813
.0
RBL7
206
3.13
1.084
.0
RBL8
206
2.94
.909
.0
Quality
206
3.4733
.75013
.0
14
Emotional
206
3.4728
.72606
.0
Price
206
3.4612
.76321
.0
70
Scale: Quality
71
Cases
Valid
206
100.0
Excludeda
.0
Total
206
100.0
N of Items
.845
Scale: Emotional
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
206
100.0
Excludeda
.0
Total
206
100.0
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.873
Scale: Price
72
Cases
Valid
206
100.0
Excludeda
.0
Total
206
100.0
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.879
Scale: Social
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
206
100.0
Excludeda
.0
Total
206
100.0
N of Items
.828
Cases
Valid
206
100.0
Excludeda
.0
Total
206
100.0
73
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.869
Cases
Valid
206
100.0
Excludeda
.0
Total
206
100.0
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.768
Cases
Valid
206
100.0
Excludeda
.0
Total
206
100.0
N of Items
.869
74
Cases
Valid
206
100.0
Excludeda
.0
Total
206
100.0
N of Items
.769
75
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Quality
18-30 70
3.4429
.72002
.08606
3.2712
3.6145
1.50
4.50
31-40 69
3.4783
.75457
.09084
3.2970
3.6595
1.25
4.75
41-50 67
3.5000
.78576
.09600
3.3083
3.6917
1.50
4.75
Total
3.4733
.75013
.05226
3.3703
3.5763
1.25
4.75
Emotional 18-30 70
3.4200
.74767
.08936
3.2417
3.5983
1.00
4.80
31-40 69
3.5159
.75257
.09060
3.3352
3.6967
1.40
4.80
41-50 67
3.4836
.68149
.08326
3.3174
3.6498
1.80
4.80
Total
3.4728
.72606
.05059
3.3731
3.5726
1.00
4.80
18-30 70
3.4333
.76424
.09134
3.2511
3.6156
1.00
5.00
31-40 69
3.4879
.74224
.08935
3.3096
3.6662
1.67
5.00
41-50 67
3.4627
.79340
.09693
3.2692
3.6562
1.33
5.00
Total
3.4612
.76321
.05318
3.3563
3.5660
1.00
5.00
18-30 70
3.2571
.78709
.09408
3.0695
3.4448
1.00
4.50
31-40 69
3.5725
.64895
.07812
3.4166
3.7284
2.00
4.75
41-50 67
3.4813
.69265
.08462
3.3124
3.6503
1.25
4.75
Total
3.4357
.72148
.05027
3.3366
3.5348
1.00
4.75
Price
Social
206
206
206
206
76
ANOVA
Quality
Emotional
Price
Social
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
.114
.057
.101
.904
Within Groups
115.239
203
.568
Total
115.353
205
Between Groups
.331
.166
.312
.732
Within Groups
107.736
203
.531
Total
108.068
205
Between Groups
.104
.052
.088
.916
Within Groups
119.308
203
.588
Total
119.412
205
Between Groups
3.662
1.831
3.607
.029
Within Groups
103.048
203
.508
Total
106.710
205
77
Descriptives
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Quality
< 3000
21
3.2976
.62559
.13652
3.0129
3.5824
2.00
4.50
3000-5000
30
3.3083
.94842
.17316
2.9542
3.6625
1.50
4.75
5000-10000 27
3.6111
.68407
.13165
3.3405
3.8817
2.00
4.75
10000-20000 70
3.4393
.78185
.09345
3.2529
3.6257
1.25
4.75
> 20000
58
3.5991
.65047
.08541
3.4281
3.7702
1.75
4.75
Total
206
3.4733
.75013
.05226
3.3703
3.5763
1.25
4.75
21
3.2857
.67992
.14837
2.9762
3.5952
2.00
4.80
30
3.2933
.79608
.14534
2.9961
3.5906
1.80
4.60
5000-10000 27
3.5852
.63953
.12308
3.3322
3.8382
2.40
4.80
10000-20000 70
3.4486
.81893
.09788
3.2533
3.6438
1.00
4.60
> 20000
58
3.6103
.59757
.07846
3.4532
3.7675
2.20
4.80
Total
206
3.4728
.72606
.05059
3.3731
3.5726
1.00
4.80
< 3000
21
3.1111
.70185
.15316
2.7916
3.4306
1.67
4.00
3000-5000
30
3.1333
.84236
.15379
2.8188
3.4479
1.33
4.67
5000-10000 27
3.5185
.80773
.15545
3.1990
3.8380
2.00
5.00
10000-20000 70
3.5143
.78366
.09367
3.3274
3.7011
1.00
5.00
> 20000
58
3.6667
.60858
.07991
3.5066
3.8267
2.33
5.00
Total
206
3.4612
.76321
.05318
3.3563
3.5660
1.00
5.00
< 3000
21
3.1310
.83524
.18226
2.7508
3.5111
1.25
4.50
3000-5000
30
3.3333
.78327
.14300
3.0409
3.6258
1.50
4.75
5000-10000 27
3.5741
.57099
.10989
3.3482
3.8000
2.50
4.75
10000-20000 70
3.4464
.81304
.09718
3.2526
3.6403
1.00
4.75
> 20000
58
3.5216
.55663
.07309
3.3752
3.6679
2.25
4.75
Total
206
3.4357
.72148
.05027
3.3366
3.5348
1.00
4.75
Price
Social
78
ANOVA
Quality
Emotional
Price
Social
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
2.977
.744
1.331
.260
Within Groups
112.376
201
.559
Total
115.353
205
Between Groups
3.181
.795
1.524
.197
Within Groups
104.887
201
.522
Total
108.068
205
Between Groups
8.533
2.133
3.867
.005
Within Groups
110.878
201
.552
Total
119.412
205
Between Groups
3.217
.804
1.562
.186
Within Groups
103.493
201
.515
Total
106.710
205
79
Descriptives
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95%
Confidence Minimum
Maximum
Quality
Emotional
Price
Social
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
58
3.4957
.69694
.09151
3.3124
3.6789
1.50
4.75
93
3.4194
.74742
.07750
3.2654
3.5733
1.25
4.75
Colour cosmetics
37
3.5878
.89407
.14698
3.2897
3.8859
1.50
4.75
Fragrances
18
3.4444
.62753
.14791
3.1324
3.7565
2.50
4.75
Total
206
3.4733
.75013
.05226
3.3703
3.5763
1.25
4.75
58
3.3862
.69974
.09188
3.2022
3.5702
1.40
4.80
93
3.4624
.71016
.07364
3.3161
3.6086
1.40
4.80
Colour cosmetics
37
3.6162
.85424
.14044
3.3314
3.9010
1.00
4.80
Fragrances
18
3.5111
.60672
.14300
3.2094
3.8128
2.60
4.60
Total
206
3.4728
.72606
.05059
3.3731
3.5726
1.00
4.80
58
3.6264
.70387
.09242
3.4414
3.8115
1.33
5.00
93
3.4050
.77061
.07991
3.2463
3.5637
1.33
5.00
Colour cosmetics
37
3.4595
.86905
.14287
3.1697
3.7492
1.00
5.00
Fragrances
18
3.2222
.61570
.14512
2.9160
3.5284
2.33
4.33
Total
206
3.4612
.76321
.05318
3.3563
3.5660
1.00
5.00
58
3.1336
.70899
.09309
2.9472
3.3200
1.25
4.50
93
3.3817
.61854
.06414
3.2543
3.5091
1.25
4.75
Colour cosmetics
37
3.8649
.79406
.13054
3.6001
4.1296
1.00
4.75
Fragrances
18
3.8056
.55938
.13185
3.5274
4.0837
2.75
4.75
Total
206
3.4357
.72148
.05027
3.3366
3.5348
1.00
4.75
80
ANOVA
Quality
Emotional
Price
Social
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
.800
.267
.470
.703
Within Groups
114.553
202
.567
Total
115.353
205
Between Groups
1.232
.411
.777
.508
Within Groups
106.835
202
.529
Total
108.068
205
Between Groups
2.905
.968
1.679
.173
Within Groups
116.506
202
.577
Total
119.412
205
Between Groups
14.841
4.947
10.877
.000
Within Groups
91.870
202
.455
Total
106.710
205
81
Unstandardized
Standardiz t
Coefficients
ed
Sig.
Correlations
Collinearity
Statistics
Coefficient
s
B
Zero-
Partial
Part
order
1
(Consta
.723
.178
.808
.131
Emotion .083
Toleran
VIF
ce
4.058
.000
.810
6.165
.000
.776
.399
.273
.114
8.810
.116
.081
.716
.475
.718
.050
.032
.154
6.503
nt)
Quality
al
Price
-.065
.077
-.066
-.845
.399
.622
-.059
-.037
.316
3.164
Social
-.072
.073
-.069
-.983
.327
.565
-.069
-.043
.397
2.518
Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Predicted Value
1.5544
4.4059
3.3479
.58316
206
-3.075
1.814
.000
1.000
206
.168
.071
.021
206
Standard
Error
of
Predicted .037
Value
Adjusted Predicted Value
1.5697
4.4305
3.3478
.58365
206
Residual
-1.13556
1.13369
.00000
.46977
206
Std. Residual
-2.394
2.390
.000
.990
206
Stud. Residual
-2.425
2.404
.000
1.003
206
Deleted Residual
-1.16702
1.14959
.00006
.48193
206
-2.455
2.433
.000
1.007
206
Mahal. Distance
.246
24.776
3.981
3.298
206
Cook's Distance
.000
.099
.005
.010
206
.001
.121
.019
.016
206
82
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Standardiz t
Coefficients
ed
Sig.
Correlations
Collinearity
Statistics
Coefficient
s
B
Zero-
Partial
Part
order
1
(Consta -.057
.199
-.289
.773
Toleran
VIF
ce
nt)
Quality
.727
.146
.605
4.971
.000
.804
.331
.204
.114
8.810
Emotion .002
.130
.001
.014
.989
.735
.001
.001
.154
6.503
al
Price
.257
.086
.217
2.979
.003
.733
.206
.122
.316
3.164
Social
.029
.081
.023
.361
.719
.612
.025
.015
.397
2.518
Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Predicted Value
1.3208
4.8183
3.4628
.73263
206
-2.924
1.850
.000
1.000
206
.188
.079
.024
206
Standard
Error
of
Predicted .041
Value
Adjusted Predicted Value
1.3194
4.8348
3.4630
.73320
206
Residual
-1.27714
1.36972
.00000
.52402
206
Std. Residual
-2.413
2.588
.000
.990
206
Stud. Residual
-2.441
2.612
.000
1.002
206
Deleted Residual
-1.30657
1.39525
-.00021
.53641
206
-2.472
2.651
-.001
1.006
206
Mahal. Distance
.246
24.776
3.981
3.298
206
Cook's Distance
.000
.042
.005
.007
206
.001
.121
.019
.016
206
83
Model
Unstandardized
Standardiz
Coefficients
ed
Sig.
Correlations
Collinearity
Statistics
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
Zero-
Partial
Part
order
1
(Constan -.653
.192
-3.400
.001
Toleranc VIF
e
t)
Quality
.620
.141
.521
4.385
.000
.806
.295
.176
.114
8.810
Emotion
-.055
.126
-.045
-.437
.663
.740
-.031
-.017
.154
6.503
Price
.284
.083
.243
3.407
.001
.739
.234
.136
.316
3.164
Social
.205
.079
.166
2.604
.010
.671
.181
.104
.397
2.518
al
Casewise Diagnosticsa
Case Number
Std. Residual
Price_insensitivity
Predicted Value
Residual
40
5.123
3.33
.7109
2.62241
84
Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Predicted Value
.7109
4.4036
2.9968
.73476
206
-3.111
1.915
.000
1.000
206
.181
.076
.023
206
Standard
Error
of
Predicted .040
Value
Adjusted Predicted Value
.4209
4.4187
2.9965
.73791
206
Residual
-1.37550
2.62241
.00000
.50682
206
Std. Residual
-2.687
5.123
.000
.990
206
Stud. Residual
-2.720
5.399
.000
1.008
206
Deleted Residual
-1.40886
2.91245
.00028
.52517
206
-2.764
5.825
.002
1.023
206
Mahal. Distance
.246
24.776
3.981
3.298
206
Cook's Distance
.000
.645
.007
.045
206
.001
.121
.019
.016
206
85
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Standardiz t
Coefficients
ed
Sig.
Correlations
Collinearity
Statistics
Coefficient
s
B
Zero-
Partial
Part
order
1
(Consta
Toleran
VIF
ce
5.401
.216
25.014 .000
-.684
.159
-.683
-4.304
.000
-.649
-.291
-.230
.114
8.810
.141
.023
.171
.865
-.583
.012
.009
.154
6.503
nt)
Quality
Emotion .024
al
Price
-.056
.094
-.057
-.600
.549
-.556
-.042
-.032
.316
3.164
Social
.082
.088
.079
.933
.352
-.453
.066
.050
.397
2.518
Std. Residual
Residual
viour
40
-4.217
2.00
4.4254
-2.42537
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Predicted Value
2.2858
4.6136
3.1974
.49020
206
-1.860
2.889
.000
1.000
206
.204
.086
.026
206
Standard
Error
of
Predicted .045
Value
Adjusted Predicted Value
2.2392
4.6936
3.1990
.49301
206
Residual
-2.42537
1.41375
.00000
.56951
206
Std. Residual
-4.217
2.458
.000
.990
206
Stud. Residual
-4.444
2.491
-.001
1.007
206
Deleted Residual
-2.69362
1.45161
-.00154
.58898
206
-4.668
2.524
-.002
1.015
206
Mahal. Distance
.246
24.776
3.981
3.298
206
Cook's Distance
.000
.437
.007
.031
206
.001
.121
.019
.016
206
86
Pearson correlation
Sig.
Purchase intention
0.776
0.000
Price insensitivity
0.806
0.000
Word-of-mouth
0.804
0.000
Complaining behaviour
-0.649
0.000
Pearson correlation
Sig.
Price
Brand loyalty
87
Purchase intention
0.622
0.000
Price insensitivity
0.739
0.000
Word-of-mouth
0.733
0.000
Complaining behaviour
-0.556
0.000
Brand loyalty
Pearson correlation
Sig.
Purchase intention
0.718
0.000
Price insensitivity
0.740
0.000
Word-of-mouth
0.735
0.000
Complaining behaviour
-0.583
0.000
Brand loyalty
Pearson correlation
Sig.
Purchase intention
0.565
0.000
Price insensitivity
0.671
0.000
Word-of-mouth
0.612
0.000
Complaining behaviour
-0.453
0.000
Emotional
Social
The correlation test shows that there is statistically significant correlation between
each of the independent variable (perceived brand value dimension) and dependent
variable (brand loyalty dimension). Each perceived brand value dimension shows the
strongest correlation with price insensitivity, followed by word-of-mouth
communication, purchase intention and complaining behaviour.
The perceived value of a products quality shows the strongest correlation with price
insensitivity (r = 0.81, p< 0.01), followed by word-of-mouth communication (r =
0.80, p< 0.01), purchase intention (r = 0.78, p< 0.01) and complaining behaviour (r =
-0.65, p< 0.01).
Each brand loyalty dimension shows the strongest correlation with the perceived
quality value of a product. This shows that among four perceived brand value
dimension, an increase in the perceived quality value of a product will lead to the
strongest correlated increase in consumers purchase intention, price insensitivity and
word-of-mouth communication while it will lead to the strongest correlated decrease
in consumers complaining behaviour.
88
89