Report Data Descriptive Correlate and Regress 2013 Mycpd

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


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



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


Standardized

Coefficients


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



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



Coefficientsa

Model


Standardized

Coefficients


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

Documents

Report Data Descriptive Correlate and Regress 2013 Mycpd