View
214
Download
4
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
statistics and reporting data
Citation preview
Reporting Descriptive Analysis, Correlation Analysis and Regression Analysis
Mean Std. Deviation
symbolic2 3.6115 .70954
function2 4.0031 .42587
social2 3.6581 .70054
experiential2 3.9360 .54965
SATISFACTION 3.9722 .49002
LOYALTY 4.0380 .48491
4.8 Descriptive Analysis
The mean and standard deviation values for all of the study variables are presented in Table 4.11.
All of the variables were measured using a five-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly
disagree or very unlikely) to 5 (strongly agree or very likely).
Results show that the mean scores for each of the four components of brand image
benefits varied from 3.94 to 4.00, indicating that respondents had a moderate perception of all
the dimensions of brand image benefits. The standard deviation for these components ranged
from 0.43 to 0.71. Similarly, overall customer satisfaction had a moderate mean value of 3.97,
with a standard deviation of 0.49. On the other hand, loyalty intention achieved a high mean
score of 4.04, indicating that respondents had high loyalty towards the brand.
In summary, the means and standard deviations for all four dimensions of brand image
benefits, overall satisfaction and loyalty intention in the study were found to be average (i.e.
based upon the scale of 1 to 5, the mean scores can be explained as: a mean score that is less than
2 is rated as low, a mean score between 2 to 4 is rated as average, and a mean score greater than
4 is rated as high (Yasin, 2004)).
Table 4.11
Mean and Standard Deviation for Variables in the Study
Variables Mean Std. DeviationFunctional benefits 4.00 0.43Social benefits 3.66 0.70Symbolic benefits 3.61 0.71Experiential benefits 3.94 0.55Overall customer satisfaction 3.97 0.49Loyalty intention 4.04 0.48
Correlation Analysis
Pearson correlation coefficients were computed in order to examine the strength and the direction of the
relationship between all the constructs in the study. The Pearson correlation coefficient values can vary
from -1.00 to +1.00. A correlation value of +1.00 indicates a perfect positive correlation, while a value of
-1.00 represents a perfect negative correlation, and a value of 0.00 indicates no linear relationship
between the X and Y variables or between two variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Pallant, 2007).
Cohen (1988) interprets the correlation values as: small/weak when the correlation value is r = .10 to .29
or r = -.10 to -.29, medium/moderate when the value is r = .30 to .49 or r = -.30 to -.49, and large/strong
when the correlation value is r=0.5 to r=1.0 or r= -0.5 to r= -1.0.
As shown in Table 4.12, the results indicate that all of the brand image benefits dimensions were
positively correlated with loyalty intention. Functional benefits (r = .507, p < 0.01) was highly and
positively associated with loyalty intention. In addition, symbolic benefits and experiential benefits were
found to have a moderate significant correlation with loyalty intention. The correlation coefficient values
between the aforementioned brand image dimensions and loyalty intention ranged from 0.353 (p < 0.01)
to .388 (p < 0.01). However, one dimension of brand image benefits is significantly correlated with
loyalty intention but is slightly weak, namely social benefits (r = .260, p < 0.01).
All of the brand image benefits dimensions were found to be positively correlated with overall
satisfaction. The results show that functional benefits (r = .603, p < 0.01) was strongly and significantly
correlated with overall customer satisfaction. The rest of the brand image dimensions benefits such as
social benefits, symbolic benefits and experiential benefits were found to be moderately and positively
associated with overall customer satisfaction. The correlation coefficient values between these
dimensions of brand image benefits and overall customer satisfaction are between the ranged of 0.321 (p
< 0.01) to 0.452 (p <0.01)
The results summarized in Table 4.12 indicate that overall customer satisfaction has a strong
positive correlation with loyalty intention (r = .621, p < 0.01).
Table 4.12 Pearson Correlations Matrix of Study Variables (N=583)
Variables Symbolic Functional Social Experiential Satisfaction Loyalty
1 Symbolic Benefits 1
2 Functional Benefits .351** 1
3 Social Benefits .550** .320** 1
4 Experiential Benefits .495** .388** .451** 1
5 Satisfaction .452** .603** .365** .420** 1
6 Loyalty .353** .507** .260** .388** .621** 1
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Reporting Regression Analysis
Variables Entered/Removedb
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1 experiential2,
function2,
social2,
symbolic2a
. Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: LOYALTY
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .560a .313 .308 .40327
a. Predictors: (Constant), experiential2, function2, social2, symbolic2
b. Dependent Variable: LOYALTY
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 42.856 4 10.714 65.882 .000a
Residual 93.996 578 .163
Total 136.852 582
a. Predictors: (Constant), experiential2, function2, social2, symbolic2
b. Dependent Variable: LOYALTY
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.331 .171 7.774 .000
symbolic2 .095 .030 .140 3.162 .002
function2 .453 .044 .397 10.359 .000
social2 -.016 .030 -.023 -.545 .586
experiential2 .155 .037 .176 4.172 .000
a. Dependent Variable: LOYALTY
4.10 Multiple Regression Analysis
Multi regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship between brand image
benefits (independent variable) and loyalty intention (dependent variable), the
relationship between brand image (independent variable) and overall customer
satisfaction (mediating variable) and the relationship between overall customer
satisfaction (mediating variable) and loyalty intention (dependent variable).
4.10.1 The Relationship between Brand Image Benefits and Loyalty Intention.
The first hypothesis (H1) examined whether there is a positive relationship between brand
image benefits and loyalty intention. Results in Table 4.13 indicated that 31.3% variances
in loyalty intention can be explained by brand image based benefits (R2 = 31.3, p < 0.01).
Detail regression results of the aforementioned hypotheses are discussed below.
The first hypothesis (H1) suggested that there is a positive relationship between brand
image benefits and loyalty intention. Results shown in Table 4.13 illustrated that three of
the dimensions of brand image benefits; namely functional benefits ( = .397, p < 0.01),β
symbolic benefits ( = .140, p < 0.01) and experiential benefits ( = .176, p < 0.01) wereβ β
found to have a positive effect on loyalty intention. Therefore, hypotheses H1a, H1c and
H1d are supported. The effect of social benefits on loyalty intention is not significant (p >
0.05), hence hypothesis H1b is rejected. Overall, the first hypothesis H1 is also partially
supported.
Table 4.13
Regression Analysis of Brand Image Benefits with Loyalty Intention
Dependent Variable Independent Variable Std. Coefficient Beta ( )β
t-value
Loyalty intention Brand Image benefits :Functional benefits .397** 10.359Social benefits -.023 -.545Symbolic benefits .140** 3.162Experiential benefits .176** 4.172R2 .313Adjust R2 .308Sig. F .65.88**
Note: Significant levels: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.331 .171 7.774 .000
symbolic2 .095 .030 .140 3.162 .002
function2 .453 .044 .397 10.359 .000
social2 -.016 .030 -.023 -.545 .586
experiential2 .155 .037 .176 4.172 .000
a. Dependent Variable: LOYALTY
Regression between brand image benefits and overall customer satisfaction
Variables Entered/Removedb
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1 experiential2,
function2,
social2,
symbolic2a
. Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: SATISFACTION
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .665a .442 .438 .36729
a. Predictors: (Constant), experiential2, function2, social2, symbolic2
b. Dependent Variable: SATISFACTION
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 61.778 4 15.444 114.488 .000a
Residual 77.972 578 .135
Total 139.750 582
a. Predictors: (Constant), experiential2, function2, social2, symbolic2
b. Dependent Variable: SATISFACTION
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .766 .156 4.912 .000
symbolic2 .139 .027 .202 5.063 .000
function2 .542 .040 .471 13.619 .000
social2 .036 .027 .052 1.336 .182
experiential2 .102 .034 .115 3.021 .003
a. Dependent Variable: SATISFACTION
The Relationship between Brand Image Benefits and Overall Customer Satisfaction
Hypothesis 2 posited that there is a positive relationship between brand image benefits
and overall customer satisfaction. The results in Table 4.14 revealed that 44.2% of the total
variances in overall satisfaction were explained by brand image benefits (R2 = 44.2, p >
0.01). Results in Table 4.14 demonstrated that functional benefits ( = .256, p < 0.01),β
symbolic benefits ( = .100, p < 0.01) and experiential benefits ( = .221, p < 0.01) haveβ β
significant influences on overall satisfaction. However, the effect of social benefits on
customers’ overall satisfaction with the brand is not significant (p > 0.05). Thus, H4a, H4b,
and H4d are supported while H4c is rejected. This concludes that H4 is partially accepted.
Table 4.14
Regression Analysis of Brand Image Attributes and Brand Image Benefits with Overall Customer Satisfaction
Dependent Variable Independent Variables Std. Coefficient
Beta ( )βOverall Customer Satisfaction
Brand Image benefits :
Functional benefits .256**Social benefits .039Symbolic benefits .100**Experiential benefits .221**
R2 .629Adjust R2 .621Sig. F 77.66**
Note: Significant levels: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
Recommended