Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Dhruba Gautam

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Hypothesis Development Relation between Brand Awareness and Brand Association with Purchase Intention Figure 1: Research Framework

Figure 1 Hypothesis Development Relation between Brand Awareness and Brand Association with Purchase Intention Figure 1: Research Framework

Related Figures (8)

Table 1: Rotated Component Matrix
Table 1: Rotated Component Matrix
The final refined model was structural model for the study for testing the proposed hypotheses. The AVE, given by Fornell and Larcker (1981), Ya 22, (where, 4 = standardized factor loading, n = number of item) varies among 0.512 to 0.521 brand equity dimensions. The Construct Reliabilities given, by Fornell and Larcker (1981). (Efi At)” (DP Aa) +(2PL4 (1-22) brand equity dimensions. The path diagram of the final refined measurement model was shown in Figure 2. (where, 4 = standardized factor loading, n = number of item) varies among 0.718 to 0.885 of
The final refined model was structural model for the study for testing the proposed hypotheses. The AVE, given by Fornell and Larcker (1981), Ya 22, (where, 4 = standardized factor loading, n = number of item) varies among 0.512 to 0.521 brand equity dimensions. The Construct Reliabilities given, by Fornell and Larcker (1981). (Efi At)” (DP Aa) +(2PL4 (1-22) brand equity dimensions. The path diagram of the final refined measurement model was shown in Figure 2. (where, 4 = standardized factor loading, n = number of item) varies among 0.718 to 0.885 of
“ “ The predicting capability of a model can be assessed by the amount of variance explained by independent variables in the dependent variable. The squared multiple correlation of dependent variable of the study was shown in Table 4.
“ “ The predicting capability of a model can be assessed by the amount of variance explained by independent variables in the dependent variable. The squared multiple correlation of dependent variable of the study was shown in Table 4.
Table 4 highlighted squared multiple correlation of purchase intention over brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality and brand associations were 0.52 or 52 percent. This model could predict the independent variables by 52 percent.
Table 4 highlighted squared multiple correlation of purchase intention over brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality and brand associations were 0.52 or 52 percent. This model could predict the independent variables by 52 percent.
The Regression coefficients of brand awareness and brand loyalty on purchase intention were found statistically significant. So, H1 and H4 were supported. Similarly, regression coefficient of brand association and perceived quality on purchase intention were statistically not significant. So, H2 and H3 were not supported. It was concluded that brand loyalty and brand awareness were the influential factors for purchase intention of smart phones. Moaderatian hv Cender Relationship between brand equity dimensions and purchase intentions. Significance relationship of brand quity dimensions with purchase intention was measured below.
The Regression coefficients of brand awareness and brand loyalty on purchase intention were found statistically significant. So, H1 and H4 were supported. Similarly, regression coefficient of brand association and perceived quality on purchase intention were statistically not significant. So, H2 and H3 were not supported. It was concluded that brand loyalty and brand awareness were the influential factors for purchase intention of smart phones. Moaderatian hv Cender Relationship between brand equity dimensions and purchase intentions. Significance relationship of brand quity dimensions with purchase intention was measured below.
Table 6 showed that mean value of male was 3.488 and female was 3.756.
Table 6 showed that mean value of male was 3.488 and female was 3.756.
Table 7: Independent Sample t-Test Table 7 highlighted significance value of F-value 0.108 (Sig.) showed no differences was existed (Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, 2015). So Equal variances assumed was met. Sig. of t-value (0.013) shows that females performed significantly better than males in purchase intention (Meyers et al., 2015). So, Hs was accepted.
Table 7: Independent Sample t-Test Table 7 highlighted significance value of F-value 0.108 (Sig.) showed no differences was existed (Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, 2015). So Equal variances assumed was met. Sig. of t-value (0.013) shows that females performed significantly better than males in purchase intention (Meyers et al., 2015). So, Hs was accepted.
Related topics:
BusinessBrand equity
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved