You are on page 1of 16

Paper presented at “The 3rd International Conference on Business and Management Research (ICMBR) –

The 14th Euro-Asia Conference”, 27-29 Augut 2008, Bali-Indonesia

The Influence of Brand Trust and Satisfaction on Repurchase Intentions:


An Empirical Study on the Retailing Firm

Inggrid Gouw
Sabrina Oktoria Sihombing
Universitas Pelita Harapan

ABSTRACT

For years, retailers have often made it a point to align themselves with the
high quality brands they sell. A brand with strong brand equity is a valuable
asset to the manufacturer as well as retailers. However, there are very few
studies on the effects of the brands sold by a retailer could have on customer
evaluations on the retailer. Thus, the objective of this research is to examine
the role of consumer trust in and satisfaction with the brand and their
relationship to retailer trust and satisfaction, and ultimately retailer
repurchase. This paper replicates the model proposed Zboja and Voorhess
(2006) relating to the impact of brand trust and satisfaction on repurchase
intentions with the retailing firm. There are six hypotheses in this research.
First, there is a positive relationship between satisfaction with the brand and
trust in the brand. Second, there is a positive relationship between satisfaction
in the retailer and trust in the retailer. Third, there is a positive relationship
between satisfaction in the brand and satisfaction in the retailer. Fourth, there
is a positive relationship between trust in the brand and trust in the retailer.
Fifth, there is a positive relationship between satisfaction with the retailer and
repurchase intentions with the retailing firm. Finally, there is a positive
relationship between trust in the retailer and repurchase intentions with the
retailing firm. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data
for this study. Translation and back-translation of the indicators in the
original study was conducted to obtain a measure consistent with the
Indonesian cultural understanding of the indicators used in the
questionnaires. Questionnaires were distributed to respondents by the drop-
off/pick-up method and a total of 242 completed questionnaires were used in
the analysis. The data was then analyzed using structural equation modeling.
All research hypotheses were supported, except one, which is the relationship
between trusts in the retailer and repurchase intentions with the retailer. This
paper also provides the implications for theoretical and managerial and
offers directions for future research.

Keywords: brand trust, satisfaction, repurchase intentions, retail

Introduction
With increasing expectations and needs, consumers today are demanding higher quality products, more
varieties, better service-scapes, and more attentive and responsive customer service (Muharam 2001). New
retail forms continue to emerge to meet new situations and consumer needs, this is backed up by
accelerating economic which contributes to the increasing the buying power of consumers (Kotler & Keller
2006), resulting in a growth in the retail sector.
Retailers today are always searching for new marketing strategies to attract and hold customers. They
attempt to attract customers with unique products, or better services than their competitors offered (Kotler
& Keller 2006). For years, retailers have often made it a point to align themselves with the high quality
brands they sell (Zboja & Voorhess 2006). Brands are used by manufacturers to distinguish their products
from the competitions.
According to Lamb, Hair and McDaniel (2005), a brand with strong brand equity is a valuable asset to
the manufacturer. Well-known brands also have value for retailers. When a store does not carry a popular
brand, consumers are put off and may switch stores. Therefore, retailers cannot afford to cast off well-
known brands if they want to retain their customers (Quelch & Harding 1996). Previous study conducted
by Delgado-Bellester and Munuera-Aleman (2005) had proven that brand trust is important in the
development of brand equity. The research findings reveal that brand trust is rooted in the result of past
experience with the brand, and it is also positively associated with brand loyalty, which in turn maintains a
positive relationship with brand equity.
The investigation of brand loyalty continues to be a central issue in the marketing management
literature. Research in the broad area of brand loyalty has expanded to include topics such as consumer
loyalty to loyalty programs as they impact sales levels for the brand (Yi & Jeon 2003), the effects of
consumer affiliation with a brand community on their loyalty to the brand (McAlexander, Schouten &
Koenig 2002), and the financial consequences of brand loyalty (Anderson & Mittal, 2000). Other
researches have shown there is a positive relationship between satisfaction with brand and repurchase
intentions (Esch, Langner, Schmitt & Geus 2006).
However, very few researchers have considered the effects that the brands sold by a retailer could have
on customer evaluations on the retailer (Zboja & Voorhess 2006; Fullerton 2005). The scarcity of research
on this topic resulted in a limited understanding of this spill-over effect from consumer trust and
satisfaction in brand to the retailer. Therefore, researcher is interested in doing further research on the
impact of brand trust and satisfaction on repurchase intentions with the retailing firm by replicating the
research done by Zboja and Voorhess (2006).
In an effort to shed new insight into the effects of manufacturers’ brand on customer perceptions of the
retailer, this research seeks to examine the role of consumer trust in and satisfaction with the brand and
their relationship to retailer trust and satisfaction, and ultimately retailer repurchase intentions using a
different research object. This paper is organized into five sections: justifications of the research, a review
of the relevant literature and hypotheses, the research method, the discussion of the results, and conclusions
of the research.

Justifications of the Research


This research can be justified on these two grounds as follows: (1) the need for replication in social science
research, and (2) potential outcomes for the marketers.

The need for replication in social science research. The research model used in this research is a
replication of a model that was developed by Zboja and Voorhess (2006). According to Hubbard, Vetter,
and Little (1999), the principle of replicability plays an important role in the research process. This is
because replication is the key to generalization (Leone & Schultz 1980 cited by Hubbard et al. 1999). In the
specific, they noted that much empirical research takes place in marketing, but little is generalizable, and
this is why we have little knowledge of marketing phenomena. Furthermore, Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonski
and Netermeyer (1993) also suggested that relationship among constructs in research models must be
established in cross-cultural context in order to identify what, if any, cross-cultural confounds or limitations
may exist with respect to the theory or model’s generalizability. Otherwise, the (unrecognized) presence of
these confounds could give rise to misleading inferences. Also, in the original study, Zboja and Voorhess
(2006) suggested replicating the research model in other industries or product types to validate their
findings. Hence, we attempt to replicate the theoretical framework applied in the United States on an
Indonesia retail context with a different product.

Potential outcomes for marketers. In practices, researchers hope this research could offer meaningful
suggestions to XYZ book store in understanding its role in the spill-over effects from customer perceptions
of trust and satisfaction with a brand to repurchase intention, that is by maintaining customer satisfaction
and trust in itself as the retailer.
Literature Review and Hypotheses

Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction are the consumer’s judgments regarding a firm’s success or failure
in meeting expectations (Oliver 1980). Met expectations result in customer satisfaction; unmet expectations
result in customer dissatisfaction. In his other writings, Oliver (1997) defined satisfaction as the summary
of psychological state resulting when the emotion surrounding disconfirmed expectations is coupled with
prior feelings about the consumer experience. In general, satisfaction has been conceptualized in terms of
whether the product or service meets customer needs and expectations (Zeithaml & Bitner 2000). Focusing
on the retail industry, satisfaction with brand or brand satisfaction is defined as a cognitive evaluation of
whether or not the exchange relationship with the brand is rewarding (Esch et al. 2006). Furthermore,
Bloemer and de Ruyter (1998) defined satisfaction with the retailer as the outcome of the subjective
evaluation that the chosen alternative (the store) meets or exceeds expectations.

Trust
Over the years scholars have studied trust from several disciplinary perspectives-anthropology, economics,
psychology, sociology, and political science, to name only a few. As we can expect with such a diversity of
scholarship, not only do different scholars address the same problem from different approaches and with
different methods, but they have expressed inevitable differences of opinion over the fundamental nature of
the joint problem (Bhattacharya, Devinney, & Pillutla 1998).
The emergence of relationship marketing as a dominant focus of both marketing theorists and
practitioners suggests that trust is the main factor on which a relationship is based (Delgado-Ballester &
Munuera-Aleman 2005). Fukuyama (1995) defines trust as the expectation that arises within a community
of regular, honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of members of
that community. In relating with brand, trust in a brand is defined as the willingness of the average
consumer to reply on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function (Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001).
In relating with retailer, Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder (2002) defined trust in the retailer as a
consumer’s confident belief in a retailer’s honesty towards the consumer.

Relationship between satisfaction and trust


In the marketing literature, several studies have highlighted the relationship between satisfaction and trust.
Several studies (eg., Chiou 2004; Hart & Johnson 1999) show trust as mediating the satisfaction-loyalty
relationship. Geysken, Steenkamp, and Kumar (1999) found satisfaction to be an antecedent of trust.
Similar results have been found in retail settings (Bloemer & Oderkerken-Schroeder 2002), in the context
of brand trust (Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Aleman 2001), as well as proposed in services by Singh and
Sirdeshmukh (2000). The expectation is that the satisfaction-trust relationship found in previous studies
will hold for both brands and retailers in the present study. Therefore, the following hypotheses are
proposed:

H1: Satisfaction with the brand has a positive relationship with trust in the brand.
H2: Satisfaction with the retailer has a positive relationship with trust in the retailing firm.

Relationship between brand and retail variables


The contemporary brand literature acknowledges the importance of retailers in brand management (Keller
& Lehmann 2003). Strong brands create ‘trade leverage’ for manufacturers when dealing with retailers
(Glynn 2007). Many manufacturer marketing strategies require the cooperation of the retailer for their
implementation (Ghosh, Chakaborty, & Ghosh 1995).
Biong (1993) and Schellhase, Hardock, and Ohlwein (1999) found that the supplier merchandise
attributes in retailer buying affect retailer satisfaction, trust and loyalty. Glynn and Brodie (2004) confirmed
the broad direction of these findings by showing that brand had three benefits for retailers. These benefits
are manufacturer brand support, consumer brand equity and customer expectations strongly influenced
relationship outcomes such as retailer satisfaction, trust, commitment and performance of the brand.
Studies have also found that positive feelings toward retail salespeople are “transferred” into similar
feelings toward the retailer and/or manufacturer (Beatty, Mayer, Coleman, Reynolds, & Lee 1996; Goff,
Boles, Bellenger, & Stojack 1997). Retailers can and have leveraged the brands they carry in much the
same manner, perhaps benefiting from spill-over effects at work among consumers (Zboja & Voorhess
2006). If retailers can create a connection in the minds of consumers with the popular brands they carry,
they can likely benefit from these powerful brands as well. Based on these findings, the following
hypotheses are proposed:

H3: Satisfaction with the brand has a positive relationship with satisfaction with the retailing firm.
H4: Trust in the brand has a positive relationship with trust in the retailing firm.

Repurchase Intentions
Hellier, Geursen, Carr and Richard (2003) define repurchase intentions as the individual’s judgment about
buying again a designated service from the same company, taking into accounts his or her current situation
and likely circumstances. Repurchase intentions, along with loyalty, willingness to pay a price premium,
word-of-mouth, and complaining represent the five behavioral intentions described by Zeithaml, Berry, and
Parasuraman (1996). Oliver (1997) operationalized action loyalty as repeat usage. Furthermore, Delgado
Ballester and Munuera-Aleman (2001) and Macintosh and Lockshin (1997) use repurchase intentions as an
element of loyalty in brand and store contexts respectively.
Based on the overall satisfaction theory, previous studies noted that overall satisfaction completely
mediates the relationship between transaction-specific satisfaction and repurchase intentions (Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, & Berry 1994). Transaction-specific satisfaction is directly integrated into the consumer’s global
evaluation or overall satisfaction with the retailer and it is this global evaluation that influences repurchase
intentions (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann 1994; Oliver 1997; Parasuraman et al. 1994). It is believed that
overall satisfaction, as opposed to transaction-specific satisfaction, will influence repurchase intentions
since overall satisfaction is more closely related to a general attitude, which is likely to predict future
behavior (Anderson et al. 1994).
Another model hypothesizes that the relationship between transaction-specific satisfaction and
repurchase intentions is moderated by overall satisfaction. The moderating influence indicates that when
overall satisfaction is high, the relationship between transaction-specific satisfaction and repurchase
intentions is weaker. In this instance, regardless of whether a consumer is dissatisfied with a particular
service experience, they will return to the retailer due to the high level of overall satisfaction based on
previous experiences (Bitner & Hubbert 1994; Bolton 1998).
The word “loyalty” captures long-term relationship elements that satisfaction measurement can mess,
providing a more complete picture of customer’s feelings. Loyalty traditionally has been defined in terms
of its consequences: repurchase intent, actual repurchase, complaint behavior, positive word-of-mouth, and
share of total purchases (Hart & Johnson 1999). In addition, they noted that loyal customers are those who
have been consistently been satisfied over time. Therefore, it is safe to say that satisfaction is the antecedent
of loyalty or repeat purchase intentions.

Relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intentions


Satisfaction has been hypothesized in literature to have a direct influence on repurchase intentions (Mittal
& Kamakura 2001). A direct positive relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention is
supported by a wide variety of product and service studies (Fullerton 2005; Hellier et al. 2003; Yi & La
2004). These studies establish that overall customer satisfaction with a retailer is strongly associated with
the behavioral intention to return to the same retailer. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5: Satisfaction with the retailing firm has a positive relationship with repurchase intentions with the
retailing firm.

Relationship between Trust and Repurchase Intentions


While customer satisfaction is a major factor, it is only one of the many variables that can have an impact
upon customer repurchase intentions (Liljandar & Strandvik 1998; Mittal & Lassar 1998; Sharma &
Patterson 2000). There has also been numerous studies involving trust and loyalty or repeat purchase
intentions (Ribbink, van Riel, Liljander, & Streukens 2004; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol 2002; Chow &
Holden 2002). Thus, the last hypothesis is proposed:

H6: Trust in the retailing firm has a positive relationship with repurchase intentions with the retailing firm.

Figure 1. Original Model


Trust in the H4 Trust in the H6
Brand + Retailer
+
Reseller
H1 + H2 + Repurchase
Intentions
Satisfaction H3 Satisfaction +
with the with the
Brand + Retailer H5

Source: Zboja and Voorhess (2006, 382)

Research Method

Sample. Because we cannot identify the brand and retailer, we will call them brand “ABC” and retailer
“XYZ”. ABC is a top manufacturer of electronic and XYZ is a well-known retailer carrying brand ABC.
The study used undergraduate students at a large private university in West Java. This research applied
judgment sampling, that is, respondents of this research should ever buy brand ABC in retailer XYZ. A
total of 283 students participated. Of the 283 questionnaires, 23 were unusable either because respondents
had insufficient experience with brand ABC (less than 2 months) or because their answers were incomplete.
The sample size played role in the data analysis of structural equation modeling. According to Hair,
Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006), sample sizes in the range of 150 to 400 respondents are
suggested when using SEM. Researcher also determined the size sample to use by using the size that others
have used for similar studies in the past (Churchill & Brown 2004).

Research Instrument. Where possible, established scales were used (Sekaran 2006). Therefore, all research
variables were measured using multi-item scales adapted from prior studies. As the indicators used in this
questionnaire were adopted from previous studies done in English, a back translation process was done to
ascertain the accuracy of translation between the Indonesian and the original English version. Back
translation is the technique most commonly used to check the accuracy of translation in survey research
(Douglas & Craig 2007). There are three advantages in using back translation. First, according to Douglas
and Craig (2007), back translation helps to test for accuracy of the translation. Second, they further stated
that it helps identify problems and egregious errors in translation. Finally, back translation can improve the
reliability and validity of research in different languages. Table 1 show the conceptual and operational
definition of each variable in the study where each indicator represents a question in the questionnaire.

Table 1. Research Variables and Indicators


Variable Conceptual Definition Operational Definition/Indicators Scale Source
Satisfaction with A cognitive evaluation of 1. I am satisfied with my decision to Interval Zboja and
Brand whether or not the exchange buy ABC calculator. (1-5) Voorhess
relationship with the brand is 2. My choice to buy ABC calculator (2006)
rewarding (Esch et al. 2006). was a wise one.
3. I think that I did the right thing
when I bought ABC calculator.
Trust in Brand The willingness of the average 1. ABC is a brand name that meets Interval Delgado-
consumer to reply on the ability my expectations. (1-5) Ballester
of the brand to perform its stated 2. ABC is a brand name that never (2004)
function (Chaudhuri & Holbrook disappoints me.
2001) 3. ABC brand name guarantees
satisfaction
Satisfaction with The outcome of the subjective 1. I am satisfied with my decision to Interval Zboja and
Retailer evaluation that the chosen visit XYZ book store. (1-5) Voorhess
alternative (the store) meets or 2. My choice to visit XYZ book store (2006)
exceeds expectations (Bloemer was a wise one.
& de Ruyter 1998). 3. I think that I did the right thing
when I visited XYZ book store.
Trust in Retailer A consumer’s confident belief in 1. XYZ book store is not competent. Interval Zboja and
a retailer’s honesty towards the 2. XYZ book store is unresponsive. (1-5) Voorhess
consumer (Bloemer & (2006)
Odekerken-Schroder 2002)

Reseller Individual’s judgment about 1. I would purchase ABC calculator Interval Holloway,
Repurchase buying again a designated in XYZ bookstore again. (1-5) Wang and
Intentions service from the same company, 2. Next time I shall need ABC Parish
taking into account his or her calculator, I will buy it from XYZ (2005);
current situation and likely book store. Julander
circumstances (Hellier et al. (2003)
2003)

Pretesting. To ensure that questionnaire items were clearly articulated, a pretest was conducted. The
purpose of the pretesting was to improve the questionnaire by identifying and eliminating potential
problems before using it in the actual study (Malhotra 2004). This study used two methods in evaluating
reliability. The first is Cronbach’s alpha and the other is corrected item-total correlation. A minimum value
of 0.7 for Cronbach’s alpha was used as suggested by Hair et al. (2006) and items that exhibited corrected
item-total correlations below 0.5 were eliminated (Hair et al. 2006). As a result 11 indicators were deleted.
Table 2 shows the item purification table.

Table 2. Pretest Item Purification


Construct Number of Initial Items Number of Final Items
Satisfaction with brand 5 5
Trust in brand 5 3
Satisfaction with retailer 5 3
Trust in retailer 6 3
Reseller Repurchase Intentions 6 2
Total indicators 27 16

The items were also assessed for convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity testing as they are
the three most widely accepted forms of validity (Hair et al. 2006). Discriminant validity was evaluated
using a cut-off point for Pearson correlation of no more than 0.75 (Sekaran 2003), while convergent
validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A
cut-off point of 0.50 for factor loadings and a critical ratio of 1.96 were used as suggested by Hair et al.
(2006).

Data analysis. To test research hypotheses, structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was applied in this
research. This method was used because it is able to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated
dependence relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs as well as between several
latent constructs (Hair et al. 2006).
This study used the two-step approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) whereby the
measurement model was first examined to confirm convergent and discriminant validity, followed by the
simultaneous estimation of the measurement and structural models. According to Garson (2008) there is no
point in proceeding to the structural model until one is satisfied the measurement model is valid.

Competing Model. One of the advantages of SEM is that it has a strategy in comparing alternative models
to assess relative model fit (Garson 2008). Competing models strategy is a modeling strategy that compares
the proposed model with a number of alternative models in an attempt to demonstrate that no better-fitting
model exists. This approach is particularly relevant in structural equation modeling because a model can be
shown only to have acceptable fit, but acceptable fit alone does not guarantee that another model will not fit
better or equally well (Hair et al. 2006).
The proposed model is as shown in Figure 1. Two competing models were developed for testing. The
first competing model suggests that satisfaction with the brand does not only influence trust in brand and
satisfaction with the retailer, but also trust in the retailer (Figure 2). The second competing model suggests
that satisfaction with brand and trust in brand are also predictors of repurchase intentions (Figure 3)

Figure 2. Competing model 1 (compmod1)

Trust in the Trust in the


Brand Retailer
Reseller
Repurchase
Intentions
Satisfaction Satisfaction
with the with the
Brand Retailer

Figure 3. Competing model 2 (compmod2)

Trust in the Trust in the


Brand Retailer
Reseller
Repurchase
Intentions
Satisfaction Satisfaction
with the with the
Brand Retailer

Actual Survey
In this research, a questionnaire was administered to a total sample of 283 respondents. After eliminating
incomplete questionnaires, 260 questionnaires were used in the analysis, resulting in a response rate of
91.87%. The instrument was assessed for reliability and validity. The results showed that all Cronbach’s
alpha were over 0.7. Items that did not achieve corrected item-total correlations of 0.5 were eliminated.
Table 3 shows the item purification table in the actual study.

Table 3. Actual Study Item Purification


Construct Number of Initial Items Number of Final Items
Satisfaction with brand 5 3
Trust in brand 3 3
Satisfaction with retailer 3 3
Trust in retailer 3 2
Reseller Repurchase Intentions 2 2
Total indicators 16 13
Table 4 shows the variable correlation ranged from 0.025 to 0.599, which are below 0.75, showing
discriminant validity. However, although all correlations were positive, as predicted by supporting theories,
not all correlation coefficients were significant; therefore nomological validity was not established.

Table 4. Correlation among Variables


Satisfaction Trust in Satisfaction Trust in Reseller Repurchase
With brand brand with retailer retailer Intentions
Satisfaction 1
with brand
Trust in 0.599** 1
Brand
Satisfaction 0.198** 0.116 1
With retailer
Trust in 0.025 0.100 0.149* 1
Retailer
Reseller 0.217** 0.173** 0.390** 0.046 1
Repurchase
Intentions
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-taied)

Table 5 shows the Exploratory Factor Analysis. The result showed that convergent validity had been
established as the indicators of the same construct converge in one component and satisfy the minimum
factor loading of 0.50 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006).

Table 5. Actual Study Exploratory Factor Analysis


Rotated Component Matrix (a)
Component
1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction with Brand 1 0.807
Satisfaction with Brand 2 0.844
Satisfaction with Brand 3 0.739
Trust in Brand 1 0.747
Trust in Brand 2 0.847
Trust in Brand 3 0.810
Satisfaction with Retailer 1 0.873
Satisfaction with Retailer 2 0.915
Satisfaction with Retailer 3 0.893
Trust in Retailer 2 0.910
Trust in Retailer 3 0.914
Reseller Repurchase Intentions 1 0.913
Reseller Repurchase Intentions 2 0.906
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Table 6 shows the result of the initial running of data in SEM using 260 respondents. Although the CR of
all the indicators was above 1.96, indicating significant paths, the result showed the presence of a Heywood
case. According to Hair et al. (2006) a Heywood case is a factor solution that produces an error variance
estimate of less than 0, resulting in an illogical solution. The standardized regression weights of trust in
retailer 2  trust in retailer is 1.174. Researcher used the strategy suggested by Garson (2008) to drop
outliers from the data. This resulted in a reduction of the number of actual sample from 260 to 242. Table 7
shows the CFA of the reduced sample size of 242 respondents.

Table 6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Path Standarized CR Absolute Fit
Regression Weight
Satisfaction with brand 1← Satisfaction with brand 0.649 GFI = 0.945
Satisfaction with brand 2← Satisfaction with brand 0.841 10.589 AGFI = 0.909
Satisfaction with brand 3← Satisfaction with brand 0.831 10.537 CMIN/DF = 1.847
Trust in brand 1 ← Trust in brand 0.731 CFI = 0.972
Trust in brand 2 ← Trust in brand 0.707 10.484 NFI = 0.941
Trust in brand 3 ← Trust in brand 0.870 11.920 TLI = 0.960
Satisfaction with retailer 1 ← Satisfaction with retailer 0.809 RMSEA = 0.057
Satisfaction with retailer 2 ← Satisfaction with retailer 0.896 16.514
Satisfaction with retailer 3 ← Satisfaction with retailer 0.895 16.501
Trust in retailer 2 ← Trust in retailer 1.174
Trust in retailer 3 ← Trust in retailer 0.580 2.110
Reseller repurchase intentions 1 ← Reseller repurchase intentions 0.873
Reseller repurchase intentions 2 ← Reseller repurchase intentions 0.882 9.395
Source: Data Analysis of 260 Respondents

Table 7. Confirmatory Factor Analysis


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Path Standarized CR Absolute Fit
Regression Weight
Satisfaction with brand 1← Satisfaction with brand 0.639 GFI = 0.939
Satisfaction with brand 2← Satisfaction with brand 0.844 10.035 AGFI = 0.899
Satisfaction with brand 3← Satisfaction with brand 0.834 9.994 CMIN/DF = 1.850
Trust in brand 1 ← Trust in brand 0.728 CFI = 0.968
Trust in brand 2 ← Trust in brand 0.691 9.745 NFI = 0.933
Trust in brand 3 ← Trust in brand 0.857 11.133 TLI = 0.954
Satisfaction with retailer 1 ← Satisfaction with retailer 0.801 RMSEA = 0.059
Satisfaction with retailer 2 ← Satisfaction with retailer 0.899 15.414
Satisfaction with retailer 3 ← Satisfaction with retailer 0.877 15.154
Trust in retailer 2 ← Trust in retailer 0.763
Trust in retailer 3 ← Trust in retailer 0.762 5.268
Reseller repurchase intentions 1 ← Reseller repurchase intentions 0.851
Reseller repurchase intentions 2 ← Reseller repurchase intentions 0.898 7.741
Source: Data Analysis of 242 Respondents

Table 8 shows the comparison of the three models on the goodness-of-fit measures. Based on the
competing model results, competing model 2 was the best fitting model among the three models tested. It
had the same TLI as the original model while performing best for the rest of the indices. However, although
competing model 2 proved to be the best fitting model, the original model was still used for this study as
this study is a replication of Zboja and Voorhess’ (2006) model. On the other hand, competing model 1 and
2 could be used for future research.

Table 8. Comparison of Goodness-of-fit Measure for the Original Model and Competing Models
Goodness-of-fit index Cut-off value Original Model Competing Competing
Model 1 Model 2
RMSEA ≤0.10 0.059 0.059 0.057
GFI ≥0,90 0.936 0.936 0.938
AGFI ≥0,90 0.901 0.900 0.902
NFI ≥0,90 0.931 0.931 0.933
TLI ≥0.95 0.957 0.955 0.957
CMIN/DF 1.797 1.828 1.789
≤2,00
CFI 0.968 0.967 0.969
PNFI ≥0,90 0.704 0.692 0.682
Lower values indicate
PGFI better fit 0.607 0.597 0.588
Lower values indicate
AIC better fit 170.019 172.019 169.967
Lower values indicate
better fit

Result of the hypotheses testing in this study is shown in table 9. Based in the result, out of the six
hypotheses proposed in the study, five hypotheses are supported, indicated by a CR more than 1.96.

Table 9. Relationship between Structural, Standardized Regression Weight and Measurement Model Critical
Ratio
Hypothesis Path Standardized CR Analysis of
Regression Hypothesis
Weights
H1 Trust in brand ← 0.706 7.358 Supported
Satisfaction with brand
H2 Trust in retailer ← 0.338 4.037 Supported
Satisfaction with retailer
H3 Satisfaction with retailer ← 0.253 3.367 Supported
Satisfation with brand
H4 Trust in retailer ← 0.199 2.446 Supported
Trust in brand
H5 Reseller Repurchase Intentions ← 0.347 4.175 Supported
Satisfaction with retailer
H6 Reseller Repurchase Intentions ← 0.090 1.070 Not
Trust in retailer Supported
Source: Data Analysis of 242 Respondents

Hypothesis 1 proposed that there is a positive relationship between satisfaction with the brand and trust in
the brand. The result of the actual study showed that hypothesis 1 is supported (CR = 7.358). Hypothesis 2
proposed there is a positive relationship between satisfaction in the retailer and trust in the retailer. The
result of the actual study showed that hypothesis 2 is supported (CR = 4.037).
Hypothesis 3 proposed that there is a positive relationship between satisfaction in the brand and
satisfaction with the retailer. The result of the actual study showed that hypothesis 3 is supported (CR =
3.367). Hypothesis 4 proposed that there is a positive relationship between trust in the brand and trust in the
retailer. The result of the actual study showed that hypothesis 4 is supported (CR = 2.446). Hypothesis 5
proposed that there is a positive relationship between satisfactions with the retailer and repurchases
intentions with the retailing firm. The result of the actual study showed that hypothesis 5 is supported (CR
= 4.175).
Finally, hypothesis 6 proposed that there is positive relationship between trusts in the retailer and
repurchases intentions with the retailing firm. The result of the actual study showed that hypothesis 6 is not
supported (CR=1.070).

Discussion
This research attempted to examine the role of consumer trust and satisfaction with the brand and their
relationship to retailer trust and satisfaction, and ultimately to retailer repurchase intention. The test results
showed the rejection of one proposed hypotheses (that is, there is positive relationship between trusts in the
retailer and repurchases intentions with the retailing firm). Researcher tried to further examination of
studies related with trust and satisfaction.
Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000) distinguished trust before initiation of an exchange (pretrust) from trust
after an exchange (posttrust). On the basis of social exchange theory, they proposed that consumers’
pretrust will have a direct influence on their postpurchase satisfaction. In other words, if a consumer does
not trust the retailer based on past experience, he or she will probably be dissatisfied with that retailer.
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) also provided another rationale for the relationship from trust to
satisfaction. They found that consumers in long-term relationships with retailers experience three primary
types of benefits: confidence, social, and special treatments. Among the three benefits, the confidence
benefit, which is very similar to trust, was the most important to consumers. Confidence benefits include a
sense of reduced anxiety, faith in the retailer, reduced perceptions of anxiety and risk, and knowing what to
expect. When consumers feel these benefits related to trust, their overall satisfaction is enhanced overt the
long term. Therefore, from these studies, researcher concluded that trust in the retailer may not be directly
related to reseller repurchase intentions, but is mediated by satisfaction with the retailer. Further studies
should be done to examine this relationship.

Theoretical and Managerial Implications


There are several theoretical implications of this research. As a replication of a study done by Zboja and
Voorhess (2006), this study strengthened the findings of the original researchers of the nature of the
relationship between brand trust and satisfaction and retailer repurchase intentions. Zboja and Voorhess
(2006) findings suggested that while brand trust and satisfaction do have an impact on retailer repurchase
intentions, that impact is mediated through retailer trust and satisfaction. In this research, the data suggested
that the impact of brand trust and satisfaction on retailer repurchase intentions is mediated only through
retailer satisfaction, not retailer trust.
Second, researcher’s attempt to replicate the theoretical framework applied in the United States on an
Indonesian retail context with a different product type contributes to cross-cultural strengthening of the
findings in the original study. Durvasula et al. (1993, 626) suggested that relationships among constructs in
research models must be established in a cross-cultural context in order to identify what cross-cultural
confounds or limitations may exist with respect to the theory or model's generalizability. Besides theoretical
implications, there were also key managerial implications of this study.
The results of this study have strong managerial implications for both brand and retail managers. The
findings showed that the relationship between brand trust and satisfaction and repurchase intentions is
mediated by satisfaction in the retailer. Thus, the results provide new insight for developing individual
strategies for retailers and manufacturers and for forming cooperative strategies with benefits for both
brand and retail managers. Retailers should not only concentrate on maintaining a range of strong brands in
the store, but also deliver services so as to keep customers satisfied and prevent them from fleeing to other
stores. Brand managers on the other hand, should maintain good relationships with retailers as
manufacturer does not have a direct link to customers.
The result of the study revealed that there are positive relationships between satisfaction and trust
variables. According to Hess and Story (2005, 321), it is necessary for customers to be satisfied in an
overall sense with the brand and retailer to trust them. Brand managers could start by conducting a
customer satisfaction survey in the store so as to get of its current product offering through retailers,
schools and universities. This survey would serve as an input on how manufactured products are
performing in comparison to other products in the market. Concerns of end users could then be identified
and solved through the development of future products. As for retail managers, interactive interviews could
be conducted in the store to improve customer satisfaction and gain their trust.
As a manufacturer, it is of utmost important for brand managers to maintain a good relationship with
retailers as it is not directly connected to the end customer. Although the current study only examined the
relationship between customer satisfaction in the brand and customer satisfaction with the retailer, keeping
retailers satisfied is one aspect manufacturers cannot miss. One way is to be involved in the marketing
strategy of these retailers. Both the brand and retail managers should discuss their marketing plans for the
next year. By maintaining a good relationship with the retailer, brand managers shorten the link between the
brand and the end customer.
Brand and retail managers could also organize events, such as a free seminar, together to educate the
mass about its products and related knowledge about the functions. Through these events, In the long run,
this would benefit the brand as more people would be familiar with the functions and benefits of the
product and develop a preference for it to other brands in the market. This in turn would secure loyal
customers for the brand and retailer. Moreover, organizing a free workshop serves as an act of social
responsibility and would improve the image and reputations of both the brand and the retailer.
In addition to providing services to keep customers satisfied, retail managers should maintain a strong
brand strategy where not only they are aware of which brands to carry, but also how customers’ perceive
these brands. The effectiveness of this brand strategy should be evaluated every few months to maintain a
strong selection of brands and keep customers from fleeing to other retailers.
To encourage purchase, retailers could offer a cashback or a coupon discount for large purchases.
Installment programs could also be offered to facilitate payment of expensive items such as electronics.
Product bundling could also be done to encourage purchase of complimentary items. Renovations of retail
stores could be been done to create a more comfortable place to shop.

Conclusions and Limitations


This study was undertaken to shed new insight into the effects of manufacturers’ brand on customer
perceptions of the retailer. It examined the role of consumer trust in and satisfaction with the brand and
their relationship to retailer trust and satisfaction, and ultimately retailer repurchase intentions. The results
of this study confirm the presence of positive relationships between brand trust and satisfaction toward
repurchase intentions, mediated by satisfaction with the retailer. The only unsupported hypothesis was the
hypothesis which proposed there is a positive relationship between trusts in the retailer and repurchases
intentions with the retailing firm. This insignificant link from trust in retailer and repurchase intentions
indicates the need for further research on these two variables.
There are several limitations to this study. First, this study used non-probability sampling. One of the
major disadvantages of non-probability sampling is that the findings from the study of the sample cannot be
confidently generalized to the population. Therefore, the results of this study only represented the samples
collected and not the population.
Second, the unit of analysis in this research was undergraduates of a private university in West Java.
This may potentially limit the applicability of research findings in other settings or populations. Third, this
research was restricted to the examination of one brand and one retailer. Thus, results cannot be generalized
for all relationships between brands and retailers.

Directions for Future Research


Future research could attempt to investigate using different products to validate the findings of this study.
Researcher may opt to apply the model to a different brand-retailer combination or even attempt to apply it
in the service industry.
The use of non-probability design sampling in this study limits the generalization of the findings.
Therefore, future research could attempt to change the design sampling to that of a probability design
sampling so as to be able to generalize the findings of future studies.
Future research may also be done using the competing model 2 which proved to be a better fitting
model than the original model in this study. Moreover, an experimental research could be done instead of
the questionnaire method used in the current study. Furthermore, cross-cultural research may also be done
to validate the findings of this study. Finally, units of analysis may be changed to more general respondents
such as undergraduates from several universities or even companies.

References
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D. (1994), “Customer satisfaction, market share and
profitability: findings from Sweden”, Journal of Marketing, 58, 2, 53-66.

Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 2, 411-423.

Anderson, E. and Mittal, V. (2000), “Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain”, Journal of Service
Research, 3, 2, 107-120.
Beatty, S.E., Mayer, M.L, Coleman, J.E., Reynolds, K.E. and Lee, J. (1996), “Customer-sales associate
retail relationships”, Journal of Retailing, 72, 223-247.

Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T.M. and Pillutla, M.M. (1998), “A formal model of trust based on outcomes”,
The Academy of Management Review, 23, 3, 459-473.

Biong, H. (1993), “Satisfaction and loyalty to suppliers within the grocery trade”, European Journal of
Marketing,27, 7, 21-38.

Bitner, M.J. and Hubbert, A.R. (1994), “Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality”,
in Rust. R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1998), “On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store
loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, 32, 5, 499-513.

Bloemer. J. and Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2002), “Store satisfaction and store loyalty explained by
customer and store-related factors”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, 15, 68-80.

Bolton, R.N. (1998), “A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer’s Relationship with a Continuous
Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction”, Marketing Science Institute, 17, 1, 45-65.

Buyusa.gov (2008) [Online] Available: https://www/buyusa.gov/asianow/iretail.html (Date Accessed: 21-


05-2008)

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: The role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, 65, 2, 81-93.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2002), “Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand
outcomes: The role of brand trust and brand affect”, Brand Management, 10, 1, 33-58.

Chiou, J. (2004), “The antecedents of consumer’s loyalty toward internet service providers”, Information &
Management, 41, 685-695.

Chow, S. and Holden, R. (2002), “Toward an understanding of loyalty: The moderating role of trust”,
Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 3, 275-299.

Churchill, G.A. and Brown, T. J. (2004), Basic Marketing Research 5th ed, Thomson, Belmont, CA.

Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004), “Applicability of brand trust scale across product categories”, European
Journal of Marketing,38, 5, 573-592.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J. L. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of customer loyalty”,
European Journal of Marketing, 35, 11, 1238-1258.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J. L. (2005), “Does Brand Trust Matter to Brand equity?”
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14, 2, 187-196.

Douglas, S. P. and Craig, C. S. (2007), “Collaborative and Iterative Translation: An Alternative Approach to
Back Translation”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 30-43.

Durvasula, D., Andrews, J.C., Lysonski, S. and Netermeyer, R.G. (1993), “Assessing the cross-national
applicability of consumer behavior models: A model of attitude toward advertising in general”,
Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 626-635.
Esch, F. R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H. and Geus, P. (2006), “Are brands forever? How brand knowledge
and relationships affect current and future purchases”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 15,
2, 98-105.

Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Fullerton, G. (2005), “The Impact of Brand Commitment on Loyalty to Retail Service Brands”, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 22, 2, 97-110.

Garson, G.D. (2008), Structural Equation Modeling: Statnotes, from North Carolina State University,
Public Administration Program [Online] Available:
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/structur.htm (Date Accessed 08-03-2008)

Ghosh, A.K., Chakraborty, G. and Ghosh, D.B. (1995), “Improving brand performance by altering
consumers’ brand uncertainty”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 4, 5, 14.
Glynn, M.S. (2007), “How Retail Category Differences Moderate Retailer Perceptions of Manufacturer”,
Australasian Marketing Journal,15, 2, 55-67.

Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2004), “The Role of Brands in Creating Value in Supplier-Reseller
Relationships”, Paper presented at the 33rd EMAC Conference, Murcia, Spain.

Goff, B.G., Boles, J.S., Bellenger, D.N. and Stojack, C. (1997), “The influence of salesperson selling
behaviors on customer satisfaction with products”, Journal of Retailing, 73, 171-84.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis
6th ed, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hart, C.W. and Johnson, M.D. (1999), “A Framework for Developing Trust Relationships”, Marketing
Management, 8, 1, 20-22.

Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A. and Rickard, J. A. (2003), “Customer Repurchase Intention: A
general structural equation model”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 1762-1800.

Hess, J. and Story, J. (2005), “Trust-based commitment: multidimensional consumer-brand relationships”,


The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, 313-22.

Holloway, B.B., Wang, S. and Parish, J.T. (2005), “The role of cumulative online purchasing experience in
service recovery management”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 54-66.

Hubbard, R., Vetter, D.E. and Little, E.L. (1999) “Replication in strategic management: scientific testing for
validity, generalizability, and usefulness,” 19, 243-254.

Julander, C-R. (2003), “Effects of Switching Barriers on Satisfaction, Repurchase Intentions and Attitudinal
Loyalty,” SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration, Stockholm School of Economics,
Stockholm.

Keller, K.L. (2003). Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29, 4, 595-600.

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006). Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities.
Marketing Science, 25, 6, 740-761.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management 12th ed, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Lamb, Jr., C.W., Hair, Jr., J.F. and McDaniel, C. (2005), Essentials of Marketing 4th ed, Thomson South-
Western, Manson, Ohio.

Leone, R.P. and Schultz, R.L. (1980), “A study of marketing generalizations”, Journal of Marketing, 44,
10-18.

Macintosh, G. and Lockshim, L.S. (1997), “Retail relationships and store loyalty: a multi-level
perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 5, 487-497.

Malhotra, N. K. (2004), Marketing Research An Applied Orientation, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.

McAlexander, J., Schouten, J. and Koenig, H. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing,
66, 1, 38-54.

Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1998), “Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus
loyalty”, The Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177.

Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), “Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior:
Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
38 No. 1, pp. 131-42.

Muharam, S. (2001), Trend Industri Retail Indonesia di Millenium Baru [Online] Available:
http://www.smfranchise.com/analysis/retail2002.html (Date Accessed: 10-02-2008)

Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 4, 495-507.

Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a comparison


standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research”, Journal of Marketing, 58, 1,
111-124.

Quelch, J.A. and Harding, D. (1996), “Brands versus Private Labels: Fighting to Win”, Harvard Business
Review on Brand Management, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.

Ribbink, D., van Riel, A.C.R., Liljander, V. And Streukens, S. (2004), “Comfort your online customer:
quality, trust and loyalty on the internet,” Managing Service Quality, 14, 6, 446.

Schellhase, R., Hardock, P. and Ohlwein, M. (1999), “Customer satisfaction in business-to-business


marketing: the case of retail organizations and their suppliers”, The Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 15, 2, 106.

Sekaran, Uma. (2003), Research Methods of Business : A Skill Building Approach 4th ed, John Wiley and
Sons Inc., New York, NY.

Sharma, N. and Patterson, P.G. (2000), “Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and experience as
moderators of relationship commitment in professional consumer services”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 11, 5, 470-490.

Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000), “Agency and trust mechanisms in customer satisfaction and loyalty
judgments” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 1, 150-167.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges,” Journal of Marketing, 66, 15-37.
Yi, Y. and Jeon, H. (2003), “Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, profram loyalty and brand
loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 3, 229-240.

Yi, Y. and La, S. (2004), “What Influences the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and
Repurchase Intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty”,
Psychology & Marketing, 21, 5, 351.

Zboja, J.J. and Voorhess, C.M. (2006), “The Impact of Brand Trust and Satisfaction on Retailer Repurchase
Intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, 20, 5, 381-390.

Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2000), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (2006), “The behavioral consequences of service quality”,
Journal of Marketing, 60, 2, 31-46.