This research project would not have been possible without the support of many
people. Firstly I wish to express my deep sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Tran
Ha Minh Quan for his invaluable advices and helps. Without him, this thesis could not
have been completed.
Special thanks to all instructors without whose knowledge and assistance this
study would not have been successful. My debt is also acknowledged to Dr. Barry
Clough from Dragon-Mekong-CTU for his kindness and help in English editing.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and honor to my dear parents for
not only the love they devote to me but also for the time I took from them which
should have been my devotion to them in their aged time.
My thanks would also go to all of my classmates, mycolleagues, especially my
“old pals”, Nguyen Thanh Trung and Ms Dang Hai Yen for all of their friendship and
encouragement.
I also wish to thank my friends in Vietcombank, VPBank, Navibank and Tien
Phong bank for their great support. My thanks wouldalso go to the respondents,
without them, my thesis could not have been done.
Finally, my greatest thanks would go to my dear wife, Vu Thi Thuy Duong and
my two sons, Vu and Phuc who are my whole life and are the greatest inspiration and
encouragement for me to overcome all difficulties through the duration of my study.
81 trang |
Chia sẻ: lvcdongnoi | Lượt xem: 2937 | Lượt tải: 4
Bạn đang xem trước 20 trang tài liệu Testing a model of customer - Based brand equity in the Vietnamese banking servic (Viết bằng Tiếng Anh), để xem tài liệu hoàn chỉnh bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
nt .488 .884
SQ2 - Bank X 's employees are well dressed and appear neat .560 .881
SQ4 - Bank [X]' s physical facilities are visually appealing .469 .886
SQ5 - Bank [X] provides its services at the time it promises to do so .510 .883
SQ6 - When I have problems, bank [X] is sympathetic and reassuring. .610 .878
SQ7 - I receive prompt service from bank [X]'s employees .663 .876
SQ8 - Bank [X] bank employees are always willing to help me .659 .876
SQ9 - I feel safe in my transaction with the bank [X] .535 .882
SQ10 - Bank [X]' s employees are polite .671 .875
SQ11 - Bank [X]'s employees know the bank product and service very well .589 .879
SQ12 - Bank [X] employees have necessary knowledge to answer my questions .596 .879
SQ13 - Bank [X]' s employees know what my needs are and how the bank's products can
satisfy them
.594 .879
SQ14 - Bank [X]'s employees give me personal attention .595 .879
Price scale ( α = .888 )
PC1 - Interest rates of bank [X] are very competitive .756 .856
PC2 - Service fees of bank [X] are very competitive .725 .868
PC3 - Bank [X] offers me price deals .764 .854
PC4 - Bank [X] offers me very reasonable price .785 .848
Brand promise scale ( α = .793)
PR1 - Bank [X] creates meaningful promises for me .581 .775
PR2 - Bank [X] lives up to its promises .717 .626
PR3 - Bank [X] creates positive associations and image .612 .743
Brand differentiation scale ( α = .834)
DF1 - Bank [X] differs from other banks in a positive way
.698 .768
DF2 - Bank [X] is unique compared to other banks .722 .741
DF3 - Bank [X] offers advantages that other banks can not .667 .800
42
Brand trust & credibility quality scale (α = .691)
TR1 - Bank [X] communicates openly and honestly
.384 .765
TR2 - Bank [X] is trustworthy and credible .566 .527
TR3 - I have great faith in bank [X] .589 .494
Rational evaluations scale (α = .818 )
RE1 - Bank [X] provides good value for money .634 .787
RE2 - Bank [X] greatly meets expectations .703 .717
RE3- Overall, I am very satisfied with bank [X] .679 .743
Emotional evaluations scale (α = .848)
EE1 - When thinking of bank [X], I get a positive and warm feeling .728 .778
EE2 - Bank [X] means a lot to me .732 .773
EE3 - I am proud to be a customer of bank [X] .690 .813
Customer-brand relationship scale (α = .844 )
RL1 - The next time I am going to transact with a bank, I am going to bank [X] again .615 .823
RL2 - I will recommend bank [X] to others .595 .830
RL3 - Overall, I find Bank [X] better than other banks .677 .805
RL4 - I am very interested in bank [X] .698 .800
RL5 - It is important for me to maintain the relationship with bank [X] in the future. .680 .805
4.3.2 Exploratory factor analysis
All variables retained were then put into EFA. The purpose of this step was to
continuously purify the instrument and to identify the components that explain for the
correlation between variables or sets of variables. One of the underlying objectives of
EFA is to reduce a large number of variables to a minimum number that can explain
most of the characteristics of the original variables. Each component extracted from the
original set of variables represents a discriminated aspect of the construct being
studied. These extracted variables then can be used as independent variables in later
analysis. The EFA model is expressed in the following equation:
Fi=Wi1X1+ Wi2X2+ Wi3X3+…+ WikXk
43
where
Fi : Estimated value of Factor i
Wik : Weight or factor score coefficient
Xk:: variable k
k: Number of variable
There are two common techniques used to extract factors in EFA, principal
components analysis and principal factors analysis. In most cases, these two methods
usually yield very similar results. However, principal components analysis is often
preferred as a method for data reduction, while principal factors analysis is often
preferred when the goal of the analysis is to detect structure (StatSoft, 2008).
The current study employs principal components analysis with varimax rotation
technique. As the ultimate purpose of running EFA in this study is to reduce the
variables for MLR in the later stage, principal component analysis is a better choice.
Principal components analysis with varimax rotation method maximizes the variance
on the new axes; in other words, this combination will minimize numbers of variables
with high factor loading in the same factor, lending itself to easier interpretation (Trong
& Ngoc, 2005).
The results of EFA are shown in table 4.3. There are 10 factors extracted at
Eigenvalues of 1.022 and total explained variance of 70.641. all factor loading are
greater than the cut-off value of 0.4. The result of KMO and Bartlett's Test is also very
high (0.913 at p=0.00). This indicates that EFA is suitable and all measures can be used
for the next analysis.
44
Table 4.3 – Rotated component matrix
Observed Component
variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SQ1 0.094 0.175 0.141 0.083 0.071 0.041 0.067 0.131 0.785 0.084
SQ2 0.008 0.187 0.051 0.339 -0.052 0.149 0.101 0.132 0.685 0.075
SQ4 0.186 0.179 0.155 0.006 0.289 0.132 0.000 -0.075 0.691 0.18
SQ5 0.151 0.747 0.028 0.043 -0.088 0.081 0.058 0.017 0.172 0.125
SQ6 0.103 0.754 0.181 0.151 0.181 0.066 0.033 0.077 0.026 0.175
SQ7 -0.049 0.739 0.065 0.243 0.123 0.138 0.068 0.14 0.149 0.101
SQ8 -0.091 0.685 0.103 0.225 0.171 0.123 0.248 0.13 0.171 0.116
SQ9 -0.039 0.563 0.272 0.316 -0.033 0.185 -0.05 0.197 0.109 -0.18
SQ10 -0.043 0.365 0.092 0.496 0.192 0.241 0.186 0.083 0.325 -0.028
SQ11 0.163 0.202 0.081 0.782 0.083 0.14 0.089 0.004 0.045 0.065
SQ12 0.103 0.2 0.141 0.743 0.087 -0.027 0.176 0.013 0.136 0.081
SQ13 0.138 0.154 0.133 0.776 0.165 -0.004 -0.006 0.072 0.057 0.263
SQ14 0.203 0.164 0.193 0.488 0.447 0.137 0.009 0.027 0.175 0.226
PC1 0.802 0.021 0.133 0.105 0.118 0.029 0.175 0.005 0.051 0.111
PC2 0.831 0.012 0.09 0.161 0.114 0.079 0.107 -0.053 0.024 -0.041
PC3 0.808 0.019 0.023 0.03 0.175 0.047 0.19 -0.007 0.115 0.121
PC4 0.83 0.051 0.113 0.085 0.072 0.006 0.164 -0.007 0.053 0.16
PR1 0.188 0.028 0.138 0.179 0.253 0.127 0.223 0.018 0.081 0.685
PR2 0.107 0.197 0.14 0.15 0.081 0.25 0.131 0.135 0.179 0.743
PR3 0.164 0.299 0.134 0.193 -0.006 0.219 0.048 0.241 0.13 0.618
DF1 0.081 0.194 0.135 0.103 0.028 0.826 -0.009 0.1 0.063 0.115
DF2 0.032 0.08 0.111 0.102 0.098 0.825 0.115 0.14 0.13 0.09
DF3 0.054 0.154 0.068 -0.009 0.245 0.737 0.076 0.098 0.081 0.233
TR1 0.163 0.117 0.004 0.113 0.305 -0.04 -0.07 0.636 0.03 0.123
TR2 -0.078 0.152 0.164 0.001 -0.016 0.156 0.049 0.798 0.053 0.056
TR3 -0.123 0.088 0.135 0.01 0.005 0.204 0.12 0.794 0.1 0.073
RE1 0.286 0.127 0.217 0.167 0.231 0.114 0.637 -0.018 0.05 0.193
RE2 0.334 0.098 0.206 0.058 0.113 0.052 0.731 0.034 0.058 0.158
RE3 0.321 0.122 0.193 0.132 0.155 0.066 0.706 0.103 0.091 0.056
EE1 0.245 0.098 0.236 0.115 0.742 0.087 0.121 -0.033 0.11 0.152
EE2 0.205 0.033 0.235 0.181 0.723 0.203 0.14 0.156 0.002 0.061
EE3 0.087 0.105 0.222 0.131 0.741 0.099 0.229 0.139 0.136 0.033
RL1 0.163 0.042 0.602 0.123 0.205 0.057 0.313 0.15 0.1 0.04
RL2 0.063 0.199 0.791 0.067 -0.04 0.02 -0.022 0.092 0.075 0.092
RL3 0.042 0.074 0.713 0.13 0.188 0.158 0.195 0.133 0.159 -0.016
RL4 0.152 0.117 0.706 0.109 0.313 0.177 0.05 0.033 0.079 0.135
RL5 0.102 0.071 0.672 0.119 0.29 0.042 0.263 0.021 0.008 0.202
Eigenvalues 11.404 3.497 2.181 1.836 1.472 1.319 1.218 1.108 1.082 1.022
Extracted
variance 9.369 8.632 8.557 7.976 7.369 6.671 5.703 5.493 5.472 5.399
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
45
The service quality scale was developed basing on the Spiros et al (2004)’s scale
which covered all aspects of Parasuraman et al (1988)’s service quality measurement.
However, only three components were extracted (see table 4.3). They include three
variables representing the tangible aspects (SQ1, SQ2,SQ4) and the scale is called
tangibles as it was originally termed. The second component (SQ5 to SQ9) is closely
related to the reliability and responsiveness perspective and here referred to as
“affectivity”. The last component, consisting of 5 variables, SQ10 to SQ14, is
characterized as “staff competence”.
Factor loading of the variables contained in eight scales (10 components) are all
greater than .4. The lowest is of variable SQ 14 – Bank [X]’s employees give me
personal attention (0.448). Thus all the variables were then useable. The EFA result for
each scale is provided in table 4.4.
Table 4.4 – EFA result for individual measurement scales
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction/rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings Scales
Total % of Variance Total % of Variance
Service quality
60.575 60.575
Tangibles 5.730 40.962 3.186 22.756
affectivity 1.464 10.459 3.049 21.779
Staff competence 1.287 9.190 2.246 16.040
KMO=.852 (p=.00)
Price competitiveness 3.008 75.208 3.008 75.208
KMO=.839 (p=.000)
Brand promise 2.123 70.765 2.123 70.765
KMO=.673 (p=.000)
Brand differentiation 2.257 75.24 2.257 75.24
KMO=.720 (p=.000)
Brand trust 1.888 62.921 1.888 62.921
KMO=.616. (p=.000)
Rational evaluation 2.202 73.386 2.202 73.386
KMO=.712 (p=.000)
Emotional evaluation 2.302 76.722 2.302 76.722
KMO=.728 (p=.000)
46
Customer-brand
relationship 3.099 61.988 3.099 61.988
KMO=.852 (p=.000)
4.4 Testing the research model and the hypotheses
4.4.1 Testing correlations between all constructs
It was proposed in chapter 2 that the research model includes 13 hypotheses. To test
those hypotheses, the first step was to test the correlations between dependent variables
and the independent variables and among independent variables as well. Then multiple
linear regressions were run to confirm the relationships among them. The correlation
analysis results shown in table 4.5 temporarily allow us to expect that there are positive
relationships between the brand evaluations and the brand associations (H1 to H 10) as
well as between the customer-brand relationship and the brand evaluations (H11, H12,
H13).
4.4.2 Testing research model
4.4.2.1 The relationship between rational evaluation and the brand associations.
Hypotheses from H1 to H5 assume that the rational evaluation positively relate to the
brand associations (see figure 4.4). The correlation analysis results preliminarily let us
be aware of these relationships. However, to ascertain that they truly exist, or in other
words, to confirm that all those hypotheses are statistical significant, the first MLR
Model (Model I) was run. The “rational relationship” component extracted in the
previous step then played the role of a dependent variable. The “enter” method was
employed to select all independent variables that would be put into the model.
47
Figure 4.4. Relationships between rational evaluation
and the brand associations
The MLR results are presented in table 4.5a and table 4.5b. The regression coefficient
R square (adjusted) is .424. ANOVA results showed that this model had a F value of
31.946. at sig. = .000 These results allowed us to reject the null hypothesis that all the
regression coefficients equal zero ( β1 = β2= β3 =…= βk. =0). However, the adjusted R
square value is rather low, indicating that the model’s goodness of fit for the population
is not so high.
Service quality
Price
Trust and
Credibility
Rational
Evaluation
Differentiation
H2
H3
H4
H5
H1
Promise
48
Table 4.5 – Correlation matrix
Tangibles Affectivity
Staff
competence Price
Brand
promise
Differentiatio
n
Trust &
credibility
Rational
evaluation
Emotional
evaluation
Customer-
brand
relationship
Tangibles
Pearson
Correlation 1 0.000 0.000 0.012 .308** .311** .316** .206** .167** .262**
Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 1.000 0.833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000
Affectivity
Pearson
Correlation 0.000 1 0.000 .308** .369** .192** 0.104 .341** .404** .339**
Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.000
Staff
competence
Pearson
Correlation 0.000 0.000 1 .218** .319** .269** .163** .243** .279** .272**
Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000
Price
Pearson
Correlation 0.012 .308** .218** 1 .373** .174** 0.017 .570** .416** .330**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.767 0.000 0.000 0.000
Brand promise
Pearson
Correlation .308** .369** .319** .373** 1 .478** .338** .465** .438** .438**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Differentiation
Pearson
Correlation .311** .192** .269** .174** .478** 1 .349** .301** .362** .354**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Trust &
credibility
Pearson
Correlation .316** 0.104 .163** 0.017 .338** .349** 1 .195** .264** .316**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.073 0.005 0.767 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Rational
evaluation
Pearson
Correlation .206** .341** .243** .570** .465** .301** .195** 1 .515** .543**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Emotional
evaluation
Pearson
Correlation .167** .404** .279** .416** .438** .362** .264** .515** 1 .575**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Customer-brand
relationship
Pearson
Correlation .262** .339** .272** .330** .438** .354** .316** .543** .575** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
49
Table 4.5a. Model summary
Model I R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 0.662 0.438 0.424 0.759
a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust & credability, Price, Staff competence, Tangibles, Affectivity,
Differentiation, Brand promise
To decide which hypothesis is statistically significant, partial regression
coefficients were tested with t value. The results in table 4.5b show that four latent
variables (representing three associations) are statistical significant5. In other words,
only three hypotheses, out of six, are supported. (see figure 4.5)
Table 4.5b – Coefficients a
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model I B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) -2.80E-16 0.044 0 1
Tangibles 0.124 0.05 0.124 2.489 0.013
Affectivity 0.135 0.05 0.135 2.713 0.007
Staff competence 0.078 0.049 0.078 1.588 0.113
Price competitiveness 0.448 0.05 0.448 9.013 0.000
Brand promise 0.143 0.059 0.143 2.402 0.017
Differentiation 0.05 0.053 0.05 0.933 0.351
1
Trust & credability 0.056 0.05 0.056 1.13 0.259
a. Dependent Variable: Rational evaluation
5
All hypotheses in this study were tested at significance level of 0.05
50
Table 4.6 – Summary of hypotheses testing results (Model I)
Hypotheses Confirmed
H1: Rational evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality YES
H2: Rational evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness YES
H3: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand promise YES
H4: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation NO
H5: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility NO
Figure 4.5. Results of model I
Adjusted R square =.424
F value = 31.946
Sig. = .000
Service quality
Price
Promise
Trust and
Credibility
Rational
Evaluation
Differentiation
β=0.259 (sig.=.013)
H2
H3
H1
β= 0.448 (sig.= .000)
β=0.143 (sig.=.017)
51
4.4.2.2 The relationship between emotional evaluation and the brand associations.
The same way as above, the second regression model (model II) was run to test the
hypotheses between emotional evaluation and the brand associations (see figure 4.6).
The adjusted R square of the second model is .358, F value is 24.434 at .000
significance. These results also allow us to conclude that the model fits with the data.
Yet the goodness of fit is also quite low.( Table 4.6a)
Figure 4.6. Relationships between emotional evaluation
and the brand associations
Table 4.6a - Model II Summary
Model II R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .611a .373 .358 .80123111
a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust & credibility, Price competitiveness, Staff competence, Tangibles,
Affectivity , Brand differentiation, Product quality, Brand promise
Service quality
Price
Promise
Trust and
Credibility
Emotional
Evaluation
Differentiation
H7
H8
H9
H10
H6
52
Hypotheses from H6 to H10 were tested with this model and the results are shown in
Table 4.6b and are summarized in table 4.7. Figure 4.7 is used to visually illustrations
for the hypotheses testing results.
Table 4.6b - Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model II B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 2.38E-16 0.047 0 1
Tangibles 0.061 0.052 0.061 1.169 0.243
Affectivity 0.26 0.053 0.26 4.959 0.00
Staff competence 0.145 0.052 0.145 2.813 0.005
Price competitiveness 0.248 0.052 0.248 4.733 0.00
Brand promise 0.082 0.063 0.082 1.302 0.194
Differentiation 0.132 0.056 0.132 2.347 0.02
1
Trust & credability 0.116 0.053 0.116 2.207 0.028
a. Dependent Variable: Emotional evaluation
Four hypotheses are supported by the results in model II.
Table 4.7 – Summary of hypotheses testing results (Model II)
Hypotheses Confirmed
H6: Emotional evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality YES
H7: Emotional evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness YES
H8: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand promise NO
H9: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation YES
H10: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility YES
53
Figure 4.7. Results of model II
4.4.2.3 The customer-brand relationships.
Before testing the hypotheses assuming the relationship between “customer-brand
relationships” construct and brand evaluations, this step first tests the assumption that
the rational evaluation is positively related to the emotional evaluation (H11). The third
regression was run (Model IIIa).
Table 4.7a - Model III a Summary
Model III a R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .515a .266 .263 .85840387
a. Predictors: (Constant), Emotional evaluation
Service quality
Price
Promise
Trust and
Credibility
Emotional
Evaluation
Differentiation
H7
H9
H10
H6
β=0.405 (sig.=. 005)
β=0.248 (sig.=. 000)
β=0.132 (sig.=. 02)
β=0.116 (sig.= .028)
Adjusted R square =.358
F value = 24.434
Sig. = .000
54
Table 4.7b - Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model IIIa B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) -4.701E-16 .050 .000 1.000 1
Emotional evaluation .515 .050 .515 10.295 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Rational evaluation
This model was also proved fit with data. The R square is .266, F value is 105.992
at sig.=.000. Thus Null hypothesis: R square= 0 can be rejected. This model has beta of
.515 (positive), t value = 10.295 at sig. = .000. As the result, hypothesis H13 was
confirmed (figure 48.a).
Figure 4.8a – Hypothesis 11 Testing result
The fourth regression model (model IIIb) then was run to test the last two
hypotheses ( H12 & H13). The results are shown in table 4.8a, 4.8b and figure 4.8.
Rational
Evaluation
Emotional
Evaluation
H11
β= .515 (sig. =000)
55
Table 4.8a - Model III b Summary
Model III b R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .643a .414 .410 .76824887
a. Predictors: (Constant), Emotional evaluation, Rational evaluation
Table 4.8b – Coefficients a
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model (IIIa) B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 1.594E-16 .045 .000 1.000
Rational evaluation .336 .052 .336 6.431 .000
1
Emotional evaluation .402 .052 .402 7.685 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Relationship
Figure 4.8b. Results of model III b
The results from this model indicate that the model fitted the data with F value =
103.06; sig.=.000. Hypotheses H12 and H13 are both supported with β = .336 and .402
Adj. R square = .410
F=103.065
Sig. = .000
Customer-Brand
Relationship
Rational
Evaluation
Emotional
Evaluation
H12
H13
β= .336 (sig. =000)
β= .402 (sig. =000)
56
respectively and all at significance level of .000.
Table 4.9 – Summary of hypotheses testing results (Model IIIa,b)
Hypotheses Confirmed
H11: Rational evaluation is positively related to emotional evaluation YES
H12: Customer-brand relationship is positively related to rational evaluation YES
H13: Customer-brand relationship is positively related to emotional evaluation YES
4.5 Findings and conclusion
4.5.1 Findings
MLR results in this chapter have brought out some unexpected outcomes. “Brand
differentiation” (H4) and “trust & credibility” (H5) were not supported in their
relationship with “rational evaluation”. The contention might be that in the rational
perspective, customers make their judgment based on what they see, feel or touch
(service quality). It might be more important that a “real” rational evaluation, the
cost/benefit evaluation (price) and/or what they expect to receive is satisfied by the
bank (brand promise). In this perspective, emotion-based associations, like
differentiation or trust and credibility, might not make sense. The results shown in table
4.5b clearly support this argument.
Regarding the relationships between emotional evaluation and the brand
associations, only four hypotheses were confirmed, H6 (service quality), H7 (price
competitiveness), H9 (differentiation) and H10 (trust and credibility).
If there is evidence that tangible aspect had an impact on rational evaluation
(β=.123, sig=.014), it does not have an emotional impact. Only “affectivity” and “staff
competence” were significantly correlated to the customer emotional appraisal. The
57
reasoning might be that the appearance of banking equipment and facilities may result
in a professional image of the bank which may then generates trust from the customer
for their rational consideration. However, it might not touch their emotion. But
affectivity and employee competence are important factors that strongly influence
customers’ sentimental preferences to the bank.
By comparing the results in table 4.6b with those in table 4.5b, we can see “price
competitiveness” is relevant to both rational and emotional evaluations. However, it
plays a more important role in rational assessment (β=0.448, sig.=.000) than it does in
the emotional perspective (β=0.248, sig.=.000). From this standpoint, service quality
makes a larger proportion (β= 0.405, sig.=.005) than the price competitiveness
(β=0.248, sig.=.000). Brand differentiation and brand trust and credibility also
contributed to the emotional judgment of the customer.
In sum, by comparing the results between model I and model II, we can conclude
that, from a rational perspective, price competitiveness dominates the customer’s
judgment. From the emotional angle, service quality takes over.
From a causal-effect perspective, this study ultimately examines the contribution
of rational evaluation and emotional evaluation to the customer-brand relationship. As
the results in table 4.8b show, the statistical evidence lets us conclude that the
customer’s emotional evaluation contributes more than the rational consideration to the
customer loyalty to a brand (customer-brand relationship). This is in line with Berry
(2000)’s argument that “great brands always make an emotional connection with the
intended audience. They reach beyond the purely rational and purely economic level to
spark feelings of closeness, affection, and trust”. The relationship is expressed in the
following simple equation:
RL = 0.402 EE + 0.366 RE
Where
RL : Customer-brand relationship
58
EE: Emotional evaluation
RE: Rational evaluation
(to simplify , no constant and residual are put in the equation)
4.5.2 Conclusion
This chapter provides the analysis results and main findings of the study. The statistical
evidence revealed some unexpected results. Several arguments that explain the
research results are also presented in this chapter. Not all hypotheses from the research
model were supported and therefore, an adjusted model is suggested below (Fig. 4.9).
Figure 4.9. Adjusted model of CBBE in banking service
Rational associations Brand evaluations
Customer-Brand
Relationship
Service quality
Price
Promise
Trust and
Credibility
Rational
Evaluation
Emotional
Evaluation
Differentiation
H1
H2
H3
H6
H7
H9
H10
H11
H12
H13
Rational & emotional associations
59
Chapter 5:
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 presented the analysis results and the main findings of the study. A modified
model was also proposed in the chapter. This chapter summarized all hypotheses that
will be used to answer for the research questions in this chapter. Some implications are
suggested for academics and practitioners as well. The limitations of this study and
some suggestions for further research are also presented in this chapter. The structure
for chapter five is showed in figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 – Outline of chapter 5
5.2 Conclusions of the study
5.2.1 Summary of all hypotheses
To draw the conclusion for this study, the hypotheses testing results are repeated in
table 5.1 for easier reference.
5.5 Conclusion
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Conclusions of the study
5.3 Implications of the study
5.4 Limitations and recommendations
60
Table 5.1. Summary of hypotheses
Hypotheses Confirmed
H1: Rational evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality YES
H2: Rational evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness YES
H3: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand promise YES
H4: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation NO
H5: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility NO
H6: Emotional evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality YES
H7: Emotional evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness YES
H8: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand promise NO
H9: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation YES
H10: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility YES
H11: Rational evaluation is positively related to Emotional evaluation YES
H12: Customer-brand relationship is positively related to rational evaluation YES
H13: Customer-brand relationship is positively related to emotional evaluation YES
5.2.2 Conclusions of the study
From the analysis outcomes and the findings presented in chapter 4, with reference to
the above tested hypotheses, this study concludes that the first research question is not
fully positively answered. This means that the original model of CBBE developed by
Martensen & Grønholdt (2004) can not be applied in the Vietnamese banking service
without any adaptation. As argued in chapter 2, product quality was not included in the
model. As the results, only five brand associations are confirmed in the model. They
consist of service quality, price, brand promise, brand differentiation and trust &
61
credibility. A modified model is proposed for the CBBE in the Vietnamese banking
perspective. The relationship between emotional evaluation and rational evaluation;
and those between these evaluations and customer-brand relationship were
significantly supported. This result is consistent with the original model.
To answer the second research question, the results in Table 5.1 reveal that,
instead of six, only three parameters, service quality, price and brand promise correlate
positively with customers’ rational evaluation. From the emotional perspective, there
are only four parameters proved to be positively related to the emotional evaluation.
These associations consist of service quality, price, brand differentiation and trust and
credibility.
5.3 Implications of the study
5.3.1 Theoretical implications
The aim of the current study is to test a general model of customer-based brand
equity into the banking service perspective. The findings suggest that the theoretical
model is not fully supported. However, the modified model can be used as a point of
departure for those who intend to study the CBBE in the banking industry in Vietnam.
As there is no specific model of CBBE for banking services in Vietnam so far, this
model is the first that provides a clear image of the dimensions that contribute to the
brand equity in banking service.
Secondly, this study contributes to the marketing literature a measurement scale
as a useful instrument to measure the brand equity in banking service. The advantage
of this instrument is that it can be used flexibly. For example, most of the observed
variables presented in this study might also be useful for those who would follow
Aaker’s approach to measure brand equity of banking service in an emerging economy
like Vietnam.
62
5.3.2 Practical implications
This study provides an insight into brand equity in banking industry. And thus, it can
furnish bank managers a structured approach to formulate their branding strategies.
The weight of the relationship between each of the brand equity dimensions or that of
the sub components and the loyalty formation helps them to prioritize and allocate
limited resources across brand equity dimensions/components to reach their objectives
in a most efficient way. This is consistent with a study of banking system in New
Zealand conducted by Macpherson Publishing (1999) whose argument is “banks need
to understand what drives satisfaction and loyalty, and where there is greatest
opportunity for improvement”. For example, maybe the bank management would
rather maintain a reasonable price level while increase the service quality (affectivity,
employee competence) to achieve more customer loyalty than merely use a price cut-
down or promotion campaign.
The modified CBBE model can be also used as a guideline for customer
relationship management in banking service. By better understanding the contributions
of brand equity components to the customer attitude towards the brand, bank managers
might set up criteria to classify customers into different groups, for instance “price
sensitive” group or “rationally-based” group and “emotionally-based” group. Then the
bank can have different policy for each group.
At the beginning of this study it was expected that the rational perspective (in
terms of low price) would be most important for the banking industry. But interestingly
the findings of this study do not support this view. Even though price competitiveness
dominates the customer rational evaluation and is also involved in the emotional
evaluation, the emotional evaluation finally contributes a larger proportion to the
customer loyalty. On the one hand, it positively impacts on the rational perceptions, i.e.
the more the customer’s mentally prefer the brand, the higher they perceive the brand
value and the greater their satisfaction with the brand. On the other hand, emotional
63
perceptions play a larger role in forming customer loyalty to the brand.
Understanding the way that customer loyalty is formed, bank managers might
need to inspire emotions in the customer’s mind by offering superior service
performance, differentiating the brand from competitors by providing customers with
advantage that other banks would find hard to copy, generating trust from the target
audience with consistent service quality and never communicating a value or service
that the bank can not deliver.
5.4 Limitations and recommendations for further research
Like any other research, this study has many limitations. The first one is in the
sampling. Samples were selected by the convenience method. This is the least reliable
form of non-probability sampling. Respondents were bank customers who are currently
in transaction with the selected banks. Many of them are very familiar with the bank
therefore they might over-rate the bank. In addition, the sample consists of individual
customers only. This may not fully reflect all aspects of customer perception about
bank operations, as others, for example business customers, may have very different
views.
Second, only two brands were selected in Can Tho city. Even though the banking
industry is a very systematical industry (i.e. the consistence within a system nationwide
is very high), this study needs to be repeated elsewhere, especially in bigger cities like
Ho Chi Minh or Hanoi, and with more bank brands involved.
Another limitation of the study is the lack of brand awareness in the model.
Though brand awareness was not found significant in the model of CBBE in the
financial service industry (Taylor et al, 2007) or in the hotel industry (Kayaman and
Arasli, 2007), brand awareness is a critical dimension for brand equity (a key task of
brand management is to get the brand in the target consumer’s consideration set)
(Kayaman and Arasli, 2007). Therefore, it is suggested that brand awareness be
64
included as a parameter in an extended model of customer-based bank equity for
banking services.
Finally, readers are advised to interpret these research results with caution. As
pointed out in chapter 4, the goodness of fit of the regression models were all
acceptable but not so high.
65
List of References
Aaker, D. A. (1996a). Building Strong Brand. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996b). “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”.
California Management Re view, Spring 38, 3
Berry L.L. (2000), ”Cultivating Service Brand Equity”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, volume 28, No. 1, 128-137
Chernatony, L.D and Cottam, S. (2006), “Why are all financial brands not great?”,
Journal of product and brand management, February, 88-97
Colgate, M. & Norris, M. (2000). “Why customers leave or decide not to leave their
banks”, Business Review , Volume 2, No. 2 , University Of Auckland.
Colgate et al (2007), “Back from The Brink: Why Customers Stay?”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, February, 211-228
Cruz, P.P; Laukkanen, T. and Munoz, P.A (2005), Trust In E-Bank: A Cross-National
Study, ANZMAC Conference: Pricing and Financial Issues in Marketing
Cui, C.C.; Lewis, B.R. and Park W. (2003), “Service quality measurement in the
banking sector in South Korea”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
April, 191-201
Donald R.C & Pamela S.S.(2003), Business research methods 8th Ed., Mc Graw-
Hill/Irwin, New York
Filo, K. & Funk, D.C. (2001), ”Exploring the role of brand trust in the relationship
between brand associations and brand loyalty in sport and fitness”,
International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, Vol. 3, No. ½,
39-57.
Elena D.B. and José L.M.A. (2005), “Does brand trust matter to brand equity?”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14/3, 187–196
Gregory M. K. and Michael W. P. ( 2004), “Effects of components of satisfaction on
overall satisfaction in industrial markets”, Journal of the Academy of
Business and Economics
66
Harnish, V. (2006). ”The Brand Promise. Identifying the Single Most Important
Measurable in Building Value”, available at
columns/Brand%20Promise.pdf
Hoàng Trọng & Chu Nguyễn Mộng Ngọc (2005), Phân Tích Dữ Liệu Nghiên Cứu Với
SPSS, NXB Thống Kê
Kapferer , J.N. (2008), The New Strategic Brand Management, 4th Ed, Kogan Page,
London
Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, January, Vol. 57, p.1-22
Keller, K.L. (2001), Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating
Strong Brands, Working Paper, Report no. 01-107. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA: Marketing Science Institute (MSI)
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and
Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson
Education, Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. & Pfoertsch, W. (2007), B2B Brand Management, Springer, Berlin.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2006), Marketing Management 12th Ed, Prentice Hall
Krishnan, B.C. and Hartline, M.D. (2001), “ Brand Equity: Is It More Important in
Service?”, Journal of service marketing. Vol.15, 328-342
Lam, R.; Lo, H.P. and Burton, S. (2005), Investigating The Drivers Of SMEs’ Banking
Loyalty In Hong Kong, ANZMAC Conference: Consumer Behaviour.
Leiser M. (2004), Understanding brand’s value: advancing brand equity tracking to
brand equity management, Handbook of Business Strategy, Vol.5 No. 1,
217-221, MCB UP Limited.
Martensen A. & Grønholdt L., (2004), “Building Brand Equity: A Customer-Based
Modelling Approach”, Journal of Management Systems, Vol.16, No. 3
Myers, C.A. (2003), “ Managing Brand Equity: A Look at The Impact of Attributes”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 12, No.1, 39-51
Netemeyer, R.G. et al (2004), “Developing and validating measures of facets of
customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57,
p.209– 224
67
Nguyễn Đạt Lai (2008), “Thừa ngân hàng, nhưng thiếu sản ph m!”, available at:
nhung-thieu-san-pham.htm
Nguyễn Đình Thọ & Nguyễn Thị Mai Trang (2007). Nghiên Cứu Khoa Hoc
Marketing: Ứng Dụng Mô Hình Cấu Trúc Tuyến Tính SEM. NXB Đại học
quốc gia TP. HCM.
Nguyễn Đình Thọ & Nguyễn Thị Mai Trang (2008). Nghiên Cứu Thị Trường. NXB
Đại học quốc gia TP. HCM.
Olive, R.L. (1999), “ Whence Customer Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63
(Special Issue 1999), 33-44
Quan, Tran Ha Minh (2006), Retailers’ Perceptions Of Product Brand Equity: An
Empirical Study Of Vietnamese Independent Grocers, Doctorial thesis,
Southern Cross University.
Rüçhan Kayaman and Huseyin Arasli (2007), “Customer based brand equity: evidence
from the hotel industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 1, 2007
pp. 92-109
Shelagh, H. (2005), Modern banking, Jonh Willy & Son Inc
Spiros P.G. , Vlassis S. and Antreas D. A. (2003), “Antecedents to perceived service
quality: an exploratory study in the banking industry”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, April, 168-190
Statsoft, “Principal Components and Factor Analysis”: available at:
statsoftcom/textbook/stfacan.html#index
Stephen R. (2003), Branding your Bank, UBS News For Bank, Vol.3, Prophet,
London
Tam, J.L.M. (2005), “Brand familiarity: its effects on satisfaction evaluations”,
Journal of Services Marketing, January, 3–12
Taylor, S.A. ; Hunter, G.L. and Lindberg, D.L. ( 2005), “Understanding (customer-
based) brand equity in financial services”, Journal of Services Marketing,
21/4, 241–252
Zeithaml, V.A., “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, And Value: A Means-end
Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Jul, Vol.52/3, 2-22
68
Appendix 1 – Questionnaire (Vietnamese version)
Xin kính chaøo quí vò
Xin chaân thaønh caûm ôn quí vò ñaõ nhaän lôøi tham traû lôøi phoûng vaán. Baûng caâu hoûi naøy chæ taäp
trung tìm hieåu quí vò nghó gì veà thöông hieäu ngaân haøng [X] vaø moái quan heä giöõa quí vò vaø thöông hieäu
naøy. Do vaäy, khoâng coù caâu traû lôøi ñuùng hay sai maø moïi thoâng tin ñöôïc cung caáp bôûi quí vò ñeàu raát coù
giaù trò ñoái vôùi nghieân cöùu cuûa toâi. Raát mong quí vò traû lôøi ÑAÀY ÑUÛ caùc caâu hoûi vaø ôû möùc ñoä chính xaùc
cao nhaát coù theå. Moïi thoâng tin caù nhaân cuûa quí vò ñeàu ñöôïc giöõ kín. Thoâng tin do quí vò cung caáp seõ chæ
ñöôïc trình baøy trong baùo caùo döôùi daïng toång hôïp. Khoâng coù baát kyø moät baûng caâu hoûi naøo ñöôïc coâng
boá rieâng leû ra ngoaøi.
Traân troïng kính chaøo
I. Thoâng tin chung (phaàn naøy do phoûng vaán vieân ghi)
Teân ngaân haøng: ………………… ……..….. ……….(döôùi ñaây kyù hieäu laø [X])
Teân phoûng vaán vieân: ................................................... Ngaøy phoûng vaán:
........./....../2009
Mã số : …………………………………………………………………………………
II. Caâu hoûi veà giaù trò thöông hieäu ngaân haøng
Xin vui loøng cho bieát möùc ñoä ñoàng yù hoaëc khoâng ñoàng yù cuûa quí vò ñoái vôùi caùc phaùt bieåu döôùi ñaây baèng
caùch khoanh troøn vaøo MOÄT con soá theo qui öôùc sau:
1 = raát khoâng ñoàng yù 2 = khoâng ñoàng yù 3 = trung laäp 4 = ñoàng yù 5 = raát ñoàng yù
Phaùt bieåu
1. Trang thiết bị của ngaân haøng [X] rất hiện đại 1 2 3 4 5
2. Trang phuïc cuûa nhaân vieân ngaân haøng [X] raát ñeïp vaø lòch söï. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Vò trí cuûa ngaân haøng [X] raát thuaän tieän ñoái vôùi toâi. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Cô sôû vaät chaát cuûa ngaân haøng [X] troâng raát haáp daãn 1 2 3 4 5
5. Ngaân haøng [X] thöïc hieän dòch vuï ñuùng thôøi ñieåm nhö ñaõ höùa 1 2 3 4 5
6. Khi toâi gaëp vaán ñeà, ngaân haøng [X] theå hieän söï quan taâm chaân thaønh trong giaûi
quyeát vaán ñeà.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Nhaân vieân cuûa ngaân haøng [X] phuïc vuï toâi nhanh choùng, ñuùng haïn. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Nhaân vieân ngaân haøng [X] luoân luoân saün loøng giuùp ñôõ toâi. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Toâi caûm thaáy an toaøn khi giao dòch vôùi ngaân haøng [X]. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Nhaân vieân cuûa ngaân haøng [X] bao giôø cuõng toû ra lòch söï, nhaõ nhaën. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Nhaân vieân cuûa ngaân haøng [X] hieåu raát kyõ veà saûn phaåm vaø dòch vuï cuûa ngaân 1 2 3 4 5
69
haøng.
12. Nhaân vieân cuûa ngaân haøng [X] coù kieán thöùc ñeå traû lôøi caùc caâu hoûi cuûa toâi. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Nhaân vieân ngaân haøng [X] hieåu ñöôïc nhu caàu cuûa toâi vaø saûn phaåm, dòch vuï
naøo coù theå ñaùp öùng ñöôïc nhöõng nhu caàu ñoù
1 2 3 4 5
14. Ngaân haøng [X] theå hieän söï quan taâm ñeán caù nhaân toâi 1 2 3 4 5
15. Laõi suaát cuûa ngaân haøng [X] raát caïnh tranh 1 2 3 4 5
16. Phí dòch vuï cuûa ngaân haøng [X] raát caïnh tranh 1 2 3 4 5
17. Ngaân haøng [X] cho toâi ñöôïc thöông löôïng giaù 1 2 3 4 5
18. Möùc giaù cuûa ngaân haøng [X] ñöa ra cho toâi raát hôïp lyù 1 2 3 4 5
19. Ngaân haøng [X] mang laïi höùa heïn raát coù yù nghóa 1 2 3 4 5
20. Ngaân haøng [X] thöïc hieän ñuùng nhöõng gì maø [X] höùa heïn mang laïi cho toâi. 1 2 3 4 5
21. Ngaân haøng [X] taïo ñöôïc nhöõng lieân töôûng vaø aán töôïng toát 1 2 3 4 5
22. Ngaân haøng [X] khaùc bieät hôn caùc ngaân haøng khaùc (theo nghĩa tích cực) 1 2 3 4 5
23. Ngaân haøng [X] coù nhöõng neùt ñoäc ñaùo khi so saùnh vôùi caùc ngaân haøng khaùc 1 2 3 4 5
24. Ngaân haøng [X] taïo ñöôïc nhöõng thuaän lôïi cho khaùch haøng maø caùc ngaân haøng
khaùc khoâng coù ñöôïc
1 2 3 4 5
25. Ngaân haøng [X] giao thieäp moät caùch trung thöïc vaø côûi môû 1 2 3 4 5
26. Ngaân haøng [X] raát ñaùng tin töôûng vaø tin caäy 1 2 3 4 5
27. Toâi raát tin töôûng vaøo ngaân haøng [X] 1 2 3 4 5
28. Ngaân haøng [X] mang laïi cho toâi giaù trò xöùng ñaùng ñoàng tieàn 1 2 3 4 5
29. Ngaân haøng [X] ñaùp öùng raát toát nhöõng kyø voïng (mong muoán) cuûa toâi? 1 2 3 4 5
30. Nhìn chung, toâi raát haøi loøng ñoái vôùi ngaân haøng [X] 1 2 3 4 5
31. Khi nghó veà ngaân haøng [X], toâi coù caûm giaùc raát aám cuùng 1 2 3 4 5
32. Toâi caûm thấy ngaân haøng [X] rất coù yù nghóa ñoái vôùi toâi 1 2 3 4 5
33. Toâi thaáy haõnh dieän khi laø khaùch haøng cuûa ngaân haøng [X] 1 2 3 4 5
34. Laàn tôùi khi coù yù ñònh giao dòch vôùi moät ngaân haøng, toâi seõ laïi giao dòch vôùi
ngaân haøng [X]
1 2 3 4 5
35. Toâi seõ giôùi thieäu ngaân haøng [X] vôùi nhöõng ngöôøi khaùc 1 2 3 4 5
36. Nhìn chung, toâi thaáy ngaân haøng [X] raát haáp daãn so vôùi caùc ngaân haøng khaùc 1 2 3 4 5
37. Toâi raát quan taâm tôùi ngaân haøng [X] 1 2 3 4 5
38. Vieäc tieáp tuïc duy trì moái quan heä vôùi ngaân haøng [X] trong töông lai laø raát
quan troïng ñoái vôùi toâi
1 2 3 4 5
70
III. Thoâng tin caù nhaân
1. Xin oâng (baø) vui loøng cho bieát teân: …………………………………………………………
Soá ÑT: …………………………. Ñòa chæ (hoaëc nôi coâng taùc): ………..………… ……….
……………………………………………………………………….. (neáu coù theå cung caáp)
Giôùi tính: Nam - 1 Nöõ - 2
Tuoåi: Döôùi 30 tuoåi - 1
Töø 31 – 45 - 2
Töø 46 – 60 - 3
Treân 60 tuoåi - 4
4. Xin vui loøng cho bieát thôøi gian oâng(baø) ñaõ giao dòch vôùi ngaân haøng [X]
1. Döôùi 3 thaùng - 1
2. Töø 3 thaùng ñeán moät naêm - 2
3. Treân moät naêm - 3
5. Xin vui loøng cho bieát möùc ñoä thöôøng xuyeân oâng (baø) giao dòch vôùi ngaân haøng [X]
1. Raát thöôøng xuyeân ( ít nhaát 5 laàn/tuaàn) - 1
2. Thöôøng xuyeân (1- 3 laàn/tuaàn) - 2
3. Khaù thöôøng xuyeân (1-2 laàn/thaùng) - 3
4. Vaõng lai (ngaãu nhieân hoaëc chæ khi caàn thieát) - 4
Xin caûm ôn quí vò ñaõ daønh thôøi gian hoaøn taát baûng caâu hoûi naøy!
71
Appendix 2 – Observed variables
Service quality
1. Bank [X] has up to date equipments
2. Bank [X]’s physical facilities are visually appealing.
3. I find it very convenient with the location of bank [X]
4. Bank [X]’s employees are well dressed and appear neat.
5. Bank [X] provides its services at the time it promises to do so
6. When I have problems, bank [X] is sympathetic in solving them
7. I receive prompt service from bank [X]’s employees
8. Bank [X]’s employees are always willing to help me.
9. I feel safe in my transaction with bank [X]
10. Bank [X]s‘ employees are polite
11. Bank [X]’s employees know the bank’s product and service very well
12. Bank [X]’s employees have necessary knowledge to answer my questions
13. Bank [X]’s employees know what my needs are and how the bank’s products can
satisfy them
14. Bank [X]’s employees give me personal attention
Price
15. Interest rates of bank [X] are very competitive
16. Service fees of bank [X] are very competitive
17. Bank [X] offers me price deals
18. Bank [X] offers me very reasonable price
Brand promise
19. Bank [X] creates meaningful promises for me
20. Bank [X] lives up to its promises
21. Bank [X] creates positive associations and images
Differentiation
22. Bank [X] differs from other banks in a positive way
23. Bank [X] is unique compared to other banks
24. Bank [X] offers advantages that other banks can not
Trust and credibility
25. Bank [X] communicates openly and honestly
26. Bank [X] is trustworthy and credible
27. I have great faith in Bank [X]
Rational evaluation
28. Bank [X] provides good value for money
29. Bank [X] greatly meets expectations.
30. Overall, I am very satisfied with bank [X]
Emotional evaluation
31. When thinking of bank [X], I get a positive and warm feeling
32. Bank [X] means a lot to me
72
33. I am proud to be a customer of bank[X]
Customer-brand relationships
34. The next time I am going to transact with a bank, I am going to bank [X] again
35. I will recommend bank [X] to others
36. Overall, I find bank [X] more attractive than other banks?
37. I am very interested in bank [X]
38. It is important for me to maintain the relationship with bank [X] in the future
73
Appendix 3 - Descriptive Statistics of variables
Observed
variables N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
SQ1 295 1.00 5.00 3.8407 .75483 -.587 .142 .886 .283
SQ2 295 1.00 5.00 4.1492 .76806 -.987 .142 1.704 .283
SQ3 295 1.00 5.00 4.0034 .88255 -.634 .142 .143 .283
SQ4 295 1.0 5.0 3.617 .8283 -.197 .142 .060 .283
SQ5 295 1.00 5.00 4.0407 .67389 -.653 .142 1.584 .283
SQ6 295 1.00 5.00 4.0237 .74422 -.537 .142 .507 .283
SQ7 295 1.00 5.00 4.1729 .69542 -.797 .142 1.591 .283
SQ8 295 1.00 5.00 4.1627 .72419 -.906 .142 1.648 .283
SQ9 295 1.00 5.00 4.1932 .78243 -1.040 .142 1.848 .283
SQ10 295 1.00 5.00 4.1966 .77063 -.892 .142 1.210 .283
SQ11 295 1.00 5.00 4.0305 .68195 -.492 .142 .979 .283
SQ12 295 1.00 5.00 3.9966 .71189 -.337 .142 .274 .283
SQ13 295 1.00 5.00 3.9186 .73782 -.535 .142 .943 .283
SQ14 295 1.00 5.00 3.7492 .80694 -.178 .142 -.270 .283
PC1 295 1.00 5.00 3.0814 1.05953 -.267 .142 -.615 .283
PC2 295 1.00 5.00 3.2169 1.08502 -.312 .142 -.500 .283
PC3 295 1.00 5.00 2.9051 1.12386 -.232 .142 -.799 .283
PC4 295 1.00 5.00 3.3119 .96417 -.362 .142 -.019 .283
PR1 295 2.00 5.00 3.6576 .66604 -.107 .142 -.127 .283
PR2 295 1.00 5.00 3.8712 .68289 -.348 .142 .666 .283
PR3 295 1.00 5.00 3.9559 .65576 -.392 .142 1.021 .283
DF1 295 1.00 5.00 3.8712 .73101 -.164 .142 -.056 .283
DF2 295 1.00 5.00 3.8305 .77706 -.177 .142 -.225 .283
DF3 295 1.00 5.00 3.7864 .81555 -.270 .142 -.031 .283
TR1 295 1.00 5.00 3.8441 .79288 -.786 .142 1.374 .283
TR2 295 2.00 5.00 4.2136 .69875 -.500 .142 -.181 .283
74
TR3 295 1.00 5.00 4.1661 .71157 -.651 .142 .837 .283
RE1 295 2.00 5.00 3.7186 .72292 -.170 .142 -.170 .283
RE2 295 1.00 5.00 3.6373 .74731 -.429 .142 .224 .283
RE3 295 1.00 5.00 3.7695 .78750 -.367 .142 .064 .283
EE1 295 2.00 5.00 3.6136 .76475 .003 .142 -.393 .283
EE2 295 2.00 5.00 3.7661 .74883 -.029 .142 -.484 .283
EE3 295 2.00 5.00 3.8068 .73305 .006 .142 -.557 .283
RL1 295 2.00 5.00 4.0373 .66647 -.181 .142 -.282 .283
RL2 295 1.00 5.00 3.8441 .81405 -.735 .142 .900 .283
RL3 295 1.00 5.00 3.8000 .77635 -.207 .142 -.132 .283
RL4 295 2.00 5.00 3.7831 .72870 -.172 .142 -.218 .283
RL5 295 2.00 5.00 3.8915 .75261 -.204 .142 -.400 .283
Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:
- Testing a model of customer-based brand equity in the Vietnamese banking servic ( Viết bằng Tiếng Anh).pdf