The Effects of Brand Loyalty and Satisfaction on University Student

Purchase Intentions of Smartphone

ABSTRACT
In fact, during the Covid-19 pandemic, smartphones have had an impact on how
individuals connect while conducting business, whether locally or worldwide. A more
intense competition among phone manufacturers in the quest for a larger market share,
with a gradual shift toward satisfying customers' evolving needs. As a result, the goal of
this study is to examine the relationship between attitude, brand loyalty, and satisfaction
when it comes to smartphone purchase intent among university students. According to a
survey of university students in Ho Chi Minh City, favorable student attitudes lead to
brand loyalty and satisfaction, as well as being strongly linked to purchase intent. Finally,
this research suggests some implications for smartphone manufacturers as well as
research directions for the future.
Keywords: Brand loyalty, Customer satisfaction, Smartphone

1
1. Introduction

During the pandemic, the importance of the mobile industry was highlighted because
billions of people have relied on mobile technology, particularly smartphones, to provide
access to a variety of life-enhancing and, in some cases, life-saving services. As a result,
despite the economic downturn and its implications on consumer incomes, smartphone
usage continued to rise in 2020 (GSMA, 2020). Regardless of the high rate of
penetration, smartphone users in Vietnam have steadily increased (Statista, 2020), and
smartphone makers are releasing new products at shorter consumer replacement cycle
(Lee, 2014). As a result, the smartphone market is becoming increasingly competitive.
Smartphone manufacturers have been working to improve brand loyalty and user
satisfaction due to the customer – oriented era (Chen et al., 2016). Brand loyalty refers to
consumers' willingness to pay a premium for a specific brand within the same product
category and to recommend that brand to others (Giddens, 2002), and when customers
that are satisfied are more likely to buy the same brand again and again, resulting in a
loyal customer (Ballantyne et al., 2006), which help them stand out and grow their
market share.

Smartphone technology is affecting people's behaviors, especially young adults,

according to Mohd Azam Osman et al (2012), however polls are still insufficient. There
is a dearth of awareness of customer behavior and preferences when it comes to
smartphone usage, particularly among young individuals. According to Han et al. (2004),
although the relationship was studied, it related to design (aesthetics) elements rather than
purchase intention. Furthermore, Isklar and Buyuközkan (2007) suggested a multi-criteria
decision-making approach for evaluating mobile phones, but they did not examine the
relationship between satisfaction and purchase intent. Since new smartphone models are
introduced to the market on a regular basis, which has had an impact on consumers,
particularly the younger generation, in terms of motives behind the smartphone
purchasing decision process. As a result, it is critical to investigate the elements of brand
loyalty and satisfaction in the mobile phone sector.

The objective of this study is to see how brand loyalty and satisfaction affect smartphone
purchase intent among university students who are likely to switch their preferences to
new items. In reality, while many external factors such as brand image and quality which
2
influence smartphone brand loyalty positively (Alkhawaldeh & Eneizan, 2018), it is more
important to investigate the internal factors influencing brand loyalty and satisfaction
among buyers, particularly students, to understand how their attitudes contribute to these
factors during the decision-making process. The theory of planned behavior (TPB)
developed by Ajzen (1991) is an excellent approach for learning about smartphone
buying intent in this direction. As a result, it is necessary to propose a conceptual
framework based on the basic knowledge gained from this model.

This study aims to answer the question by using a framework that includes all the above-
mentioned features. Therefore, the research question is “Is there any significant
relationship influence of brand loyalty and satisfaction on the purchasing intention of
smartphones in the company of university students.”

As the smartphone industry grows and becomes more competitive, it is becoming

increasingly critical to comprehend customer satisfaction and brand loyalty, which play
an important role among academics and practitioners. Moreover, this research will fill the
voids in the previous studies, and help customers, especially students, who are unsure
how to select regarding which smartphone brand to purchase by comprehending the
factors influencing their decisions.

2. Review Of Literature
2.1 Theory of planned behavior (TPB)

Over time, various ideas have been proposed to explain human behavior. It is important
to remember, however, that not all behavior may be classified the same manner. As a
result, categorizing behavior is a priority before attempting to explain it. Because the
current study aims to investigate the reasons for and against providing and gaining access
to items and services, it's critical to know what factors influence consumer consuming
behavior.

In case of consuming smart phones, many studies have been conducted on consumer
smartphone preferences, with a particular focus on what motivates people to buy
smartphones. Identifying the elements that influence smartphone purchase behavior is
one of the ways. According to Filieri et al. (2017), three primary elements influencing
customers' smartphone choices are brand-related socio-cultural, aesthetic, and utilitarian

3
considerations which lead to brand loyalty as a main factor influencing purchase
intention. These three elements are a summary of those that have been discussed in
previous studies (Kim et al., 2014) in particular, identified elements that differentiate
smartphone users from non-users. Customer satisfaction, in addition to the importance of
brand loyalty described by Amine (1998), is crucial in driving customer retention
(Anderson and Fornell, 1994). According to Sangareddy et al. (2009), the unfavourable
effect on customer satisfaction would cause the rate of purchase intent to drop. As a
result, the brand was one among the number of factors that influences the consumers'
smartphone decisions.

Furthermore, as a component of the socio-cultural dimension, attitude has a significant

impact on consumer decision-making. The notion of planned behavior is used to study
prospective responses on smartphones (Ajzen, 1991). One of the most essential theory for
understanding general individual behavior is Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (TPB)
(1985, 1991). TPB explains how informational and motivating elements impact different
individual behavior as an extension of the idea of reasoned action. The paradigm
proposes that an individual's desire to do something is determined by his or her attitude,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control over the target behavior (Ajzen,
1991).

A person's general opinion of particular behavior is characterized as attitude (Ajzen,

1991, 2019). When a person engages in specific behaviors, it displays their internal
attitude as well as their favorable or negative appraisal (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).
Subjective norms are concerned with influential individuals' approval and whether they
support or not, or concerned with the majority's perception of what is often done. (Ajzen,
1991, 2019; Nimri et al., 2020). Perceived behavioral controls relate to a person's
assessment of the probable challenges and impediments in carrying out a specific
behavior (Ajzen, 1991). These can include factors that influence one's ability to engage in
a certain behavior like time, money, skills, and confidence (Chen & Tung, 2014). The
higher the individual's intention to engage in the behavior in question, the more favorable
the attitude, societal norms, and the stronger the perceived controls (Ajzen, & Schmidt,
2015; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

4
Shimp (2010) claims that attitude becomes a reliable predictor of purchasing behavior of
consumers toward a brand due to its strong influence (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2013),
and customers who have a favorable emotional experience when shopping are more
likely to engage in beneficial actions afterward (Yalch & Spangenberg, 2000).

Therefore, this research would apply TPB to analyze how consumers purchase smart
phones, describe the relevant concepts of TPB and the hypothetical relations between
them.

2.2 Hypotheses development

2.2.1 Brand loyalty

The manufacturer's most asset is its brand. In the interaction between manufacturers and
consumers, the brand is thought to be very essential (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010).
Consumers are more likely to stick with the incumbent brand than move to a new one due
to status quo bias (SQB), which refers to people's tendency to preserve their present
condition or behavior. Consumer preferences for smartphone attributes were studied by
Ganesan and Sridhar (2014), with an emphasis on the relationship between brands and
indicators that attribute in the purchase decision process. Thus, according to their
research, brand preference encouraged smartphone owners that are more biased in buying
the same brand of smartphone that is the same as the one they have already owned.

Many researches on brand loyalty have looked at behavioral components of brand loyalty
such as repeat purchases, but none have looked at cognitive brand loyalty. For instance,
Fader and Schmittlein (1993) explored the worth of high offer brands as far as brand
steadfastness, tracking down that high offer brands have a lot higher brand dependability
than low offer brands. At the point when it came to checking brand dedication, they just
took a gander at the conduct parts of rehashing buys, not the intellectual ones.

Brand loyalty is " a favorable attitude toward, and consistent purchase of, a particular
brand." Wilkie (1994). However, to thoroughly understand brand loyalty in the case of
customer behavior, such a concept is far too simplistic. Brand loyalty is described as a
positive attitude and dedication to a specific brand that stems from customer satisfaction
leading to continue using and purchasing (Ballantyne et al., 2006). Attitude contributes as

5
a component of brand loyalty (Yeh et al., 2016). Behavioral loyalty, in particular, has the
potential to boost brand market share and profit.

In comparison to other items, brand loyalty has a larger impact in smartphone purchase
decisions, according to Lee and Park (2016). It is supposed that just a few brands
dominated the market share of the phone industry, so consumers are more likely to have
strong brand loyalty to brands like Apple and Samsung. This may considerably affect
their buying decisions when purchasing new handsets.

2.2.2 Attitude and brand loyalty toward smartphones

Sheth (1968) proposes a definition of brand loyalty based on the behavioral component:
"brand loyalty is a function of a brand's relative frequency of purchase in both time-
independent and time-dependent situations." Also, Reynolds et al established that brand
loyalty based on the attitudinal component (1974). They characterized brand reliability as
an individual's tendency to keep a predictable behavior in circumstances that are similar
to those where the person has recently experienced. As Day (1969), both attitudinal and
behavioral criteria should be used to assess loyalty (composite brand loyalty). The two
most essential parts of brand loyalty may be deduced from the conceptual and operational
definitions of brand loyalty: attitude and behavior have been widely studied in the
consumer behavior field.

The internal of individuals that they evaluate an object like a branded product defined as
an attitude Mitchell and Olson (1981, p. 318). As a result, brand evaluation is crucial in
molding consumer perceptions of the brand (Esch, Langner, Schmitt, & Geus, 2006).
Brand augmentation mentalities are more ideal, as indicated by Reast (2005), when a
customer has faith in the brand, is loyal to it, or believes in it (Völckner and Sattler,
2006). According to Shimp (2010), buyer demeanor is a reliable indicator of brand
behavior since it has a significant impact on purchase goals (Zarantonello and Schmitt,
2013). Positive brand mentalities are demonstrated not only in the shopper's process with
brand inclination (Wu and Wang, 2011), but also in a positive outcome on their purchase
expectation. Different specialists have tracked down a good and critical impact
(Chaudhuri, 1999) on brand mentality as a central element of brand devotion (Brown and
Dacin, 1997). Based on these findings, I reach hypotheses:
6
H1: Attitude positively affects brand loyalty.

2.2.3 Brand loyalty and purchase intention toward smartphones

Purchase intention is the purposeful to procure specific products or services in the future,
but it isn't continuously taken after through since it subordinates to the individual's
potential to execute (Warshaw & Davis, 1985). According to Blackwell et al. (2001),
what clients are thinking about revealing their intention to buy. Customers will conduct
the method of recognizing the item to buy, at that point finding data around the item,
assessing, acquiring, and providing feedback, according to comparable studies. There are
numerous smartphone manufacturers to choose from in order to meet the demands and
desires of users. Thus, customer purchasing behavior is influenced by factors like the
brand name (Leo et al., 2005).

Customers who buy a brand on a regular basis and have a strong attachment to it are said
to have high brand loyalty (Baldinger and Rubinson, 1996). Customers who are devoted
to a brand become loyal customers who purchase from them again and again. Brand
loyalty is typically linked to repurchase intentions. There is a significant difference
between them. A consumer builds a connection bond with a brand when they commit to
it. Customers frequently purchase cellphones from Samsung, Apple, Nokia, and LG. For
example, Apple's smartphone brand has a huge number of committed fans. Due to past
study, the brand name of a product has an impact on the customer's appraisal and
purchasing choice (Khasawneh, 2010). Thus, I arrive at the following hypotheses:

H2: Brand loyalty positively affects smart phone purchase intention.

2.2.4 Satisfaction

One of the most popular topics in marketing is customer satisfaction during the last 40
years or so. However, there appears to be a scarcity of research on the association
between customer pleasure and repurchase likelihood and mobile phone feature choices.

Consumer satisfaction, as per Philip Kotler, is an individual sensation of joy got from
contrasting an item's accomplished presentation in relation to their assumptions.
Consenting to Kotler (1994), customer satisfaction is the way to customer support and,
accordingly, repurchase assumption. Repurchase assumption, then again, has been
described as a strong want to repurchase a supported item/administration inside the
7
future, happening in reiterate same-brand or same-brand-set purchases, in spite of the
plausibility of situational impacts and showcasing endeavors causing exchanging
behavior (Oliver, 1999).

The smartphone market has become quite competitive, when the level of competition
increases, manufacturers are more likely to maintain present revenues, profits, and market
share by both retaining and attracting new customers. However, it is easier for businesses
to keep current customers since it is shown to be a more stable basis for the performance
of profitability (Peters, 1988; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990), emphasizing the importance
of current customer satisfaction.

2.2.5 Satisfaction and attitude toward smartphones

Customers' evaluations of a company based on their service encounters form customer

satisfaction (Bitner, 1990). Consumer satisfaction and attitudes have been found to
promote favorable brand attitudes for the object with which they are satisfied (Bolton,
1998; Oliver, 1980). The literature supports the idea that a linking of customers or
relative favorable attitude will develop over time as a result of cumulatively satisfying
service usage occasions when satisfaction is considered a post-purchase construct
(Bearden and Teel, 1983).

“A consumer's overall attitude generated from the entirety of their beliefs should be
dependent on their complete satisfaction, which will in turn be influenced by evaluations
based on both direct experience and information acquired from other sources or cues,”
according to Burton et al (2001). Furthermore, according to Grace and O' Cass (2005),
brand communications remarkably influence the establishment of a positive perception of
the brand. Therefore, the following was hypothesized:

H3: Attitude has positive relationship with satisfaction.

2.2.6 Satisfaction and purchase intention toward smartphones

In the circumstance of traditional services, there is an indication of a significant

relationship between consumer satisfaction and behavioral intention in many service
industries (Bolton and Lemon, 1999). Satisfaction and the desire to behave in a certain
way (repurchase intent and word of mouth). Behavioral intention, as described by Ajzen
(1991), is "one's intention to execute particular actions or behaviors toward a product or
8
service," which encompasses repurchase intention (Chen, Peng, & Hackley, 2008).
According to Ng, and Kim, customer satisfaction had a positive connection with return
intention in university food services (2009).

The rapid growth of the mobile phone market, short life-cycle of the product (Tseng and
Lo, 2011), adding to the new capabilities of smartphones, and severe competition among
multiple enterprises in the field are all fascinating elements. When a consumer encounters
greater functionality and complexity in a phone, they are more likely to encounter issues,
which might lower customer satisfaction and, as a result, repurchase intention
(Sangareddy et al., 2009). Previous research has demonstrated that satisfaction has an
impact on purchasing behavior (Huang and Chia-Chang, 1997; Xu et al., 2016). This
study hypothesized that satisfaction would influence smartphone purchase intention. As a
result, the following theories emerge:

H4: Satisfaction can positively lead purchase intention of smartphones.

2.3 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework is shown in this figure based on the discussed hypotheses
above to assess the effects of those variables on buy intention in the case of university
students' smartphone purchase intent.

Brand Loyalty
H1 H2

Purchase
Attitude
Intention

H3
H4
3.
Satisfaction
Methodology

Figure 2. 1, Conceptual model of the study.

Because a sampling frame was not available, this study was forced to use a non-
probability judgmental sampling procedure to draw samples. Students who own and use
9
at least one smartphone approached by representatives from various phone brands in
order to ensure that the samples were diverse. The current study used an electronic
questionnaire created with Google Forms, the world's most popular internet survey tool,
to generate a suitable sample size. It was a matter of convenience that an Internet
questionnaire was chosen, due to the great physical distance. It was also possible to
ensure that all questions were answered via an Internet questionnaire. Finally, because the
Internet questionnaire offers data in digital format, no data entry was required. To ensure
content validity, all of the items in the questionnaire were adjusted and updated from
prior studies based on the findings of an exhaustive literature review. Zeithmal (1996)
was used for brand loyalty, Oliver (1997) for satisfaction, and (Khasawneh, 2010) for
purchasing intentions in the construction of the scale. The questionnaire is divided into
two sections. Section 1 collects demographic information, if the answers to this
preliminary question are affirmative, students will participate in the study by filling out
the questionnaires in Section 2. The items of all constructs were measured using a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from '1 – strongly disagree' to '7 – strongly agree,' with the increase
in dispersion and decrease in neutral replies.

The minimum sample size for the proposed model was calculated using two methods.
The study used the ten times rule recommended by the PLS literature, which calls for a
sample size of 10 times, the most complex association (Hair et al., 2017), with a
minimum sample size of 30. The statistical software G*Power version 3.1 was used to
enhance a priori power analysis (Faul et al.2009). A sample size of 77 is proposed for an
effect size of the f2 =0.15, the probability of error =0.05, power level (1-β) =0.8, and the
number of predictors = 3. This means that the sample size of the 82 meets minimum
statistical power and requirements.

4. Data Analysis And Results

4.1. Demographic characteristics of sample

This study gathered data from 82 university students who own or use at least one
smartphone. Table 4.1 shows that females make up 57.32 percent of the total participants,
while males make up 42.68 percent. Students in their first - year account for 8.54 percent
of the total, while those in their second -year account for 18.29 percent. Furthermore, the
majority of students in the third and final years account for 58.54 percent and 14.63
10
percent, respectively. Apple with 59.76 percent and Samsung with 26.83 percent that
have more smartphone owners than other brands. Students who use LG and Nokia
smartphones account for 1.22 percent of each group, while Huawei and other phone
makers account for 2.44 percent and 8.54 percent, respectively. 71.95 percent of
participants have a monthly income of less than 5 million VND, with 12.20 percent
earning between 5 and 10 million VND, while 7.32 percent and 8.54 percent earning
between 10 and 20 million VND, and higher than 20 million VND, respectively.

Table 4. 1, Descriptive statistic.

Demographic Characteristic Frequency Percentage
Male 35 42.68
Gender
Female 47 57.32
First year 7 8.54
Second year 15 18.29
Academic Year
Third year 48 58.54
Final year 12 14.63
Apple 49 59.76
Samsung 22 26.83
LG 1 1.22
Smartphone Brand
Nokia 1 1.22
Huawei 2 2.44
Others 7 8.54
Under 5 million VND 59 71.95
5 – 10 million VND 10 12.20
Monthly Income
10 – 20 million VND 6 7.32
Higher 20 million VND 7 8.54

4.2. Measurement model

Reliability and validity were used to validate the outer measurement model (Hair et al.
2017) through bootstrapping approach. To measure construct reliability, the researchers
employed composite reliability (CR) and Dijkstra-rho Henseler's (pA) (Teo, Tan, Ooi,
and Lin 2015; Tan and Ooi 2018). The minimal CR and pA values were found to be
0.895 and 0.859, respectively, as indicated in Table 4.2. All the values for both indices
surpass the minimum criterion of 0.7, showing that the measurement model is valid (Tan
and Ooi 2018; Foo et al. 2018).

11
Second, the study used the average variance extracted (AVE) and every factor loading to
test convergent validity (FL). The AVE readings for all of the structures are higher than
the suggested value of 50%, as indicated in Table 4.2. (Tan et al. 2017; Hew et al. 2019;
Kumar, and Bhasker 2018). The construct PI has the lowest AVE value of 0.632, which
is higher than 50% minimum criterion. Furthermore, all FL of PI in Table 4.2, ranging
from 0.808 to 0.886, were higher than the proposed cut-off value of 0.7, indicating
convergent validity (Wong et al. 2014; Ooi and Tan 2016).

Table 4. 2, Convergent validity and construct reliability.

Latent Items Loading Cronbach’ Dijkstra – Composite Average Variance

Construc s s Alpha Henseler’s reliability Extracted (AVE
t rho

ATT ATT 0.896 0.878 0.882 0.917 0.734

1

ATT 0.782
2

ATT 0.855
3

ATT 0.889
4

BL BL1 0.905 0.937 0.938 0.952 0.798

BL2 0.879

BL3 0.897

BL4 0.903

BL5 0.883

SAT SAT1 0.741 0.897 0.904 0.924 0.709

12
 SAT2 0.876

SAT3 0.768

SAT4 0.743

SAT5 0.837

PI PI1 0.874 0.853 0.859 0.895 0.632

PI2 0.808

PI3 0.813

PI4 0.826

PI5 0.886

Note(s):

a. ATT = Attitude; BL = Brand Loyalty; SAT = Satisfaction; PI = Purchase Intention

Discriminant validity (DV) was investigated utilizing the Fornell and Larcker (1981)
method. Table 4.3 supported DV by showing that the square root of AVE for all diagonal
constructs was greater than the correlation coefficients for the other constructs.

Table 4. 3,Fornell-Larcker test.

Latent ATT BL PI SAT

Construct
ATT 0.857
BL 0.849 0.894
PI 0.748 0.823 0.842
SAT 0.797 0.774 0.79 0.795

Note(s):

a. ATT = Attitude; BL = Brand Loyalty; SAT = Satisfaction; PI = Purchase Intention

Discriminant validity ensures that the relevant items have a high load on the construct in
question while having a low burden on other constructs. The Heterotrait-Monotrait
13
(HTMT) inference ratio of correlations was calculated using a non-parametric bootstrap
approach to assess discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). The bottom and upper
limits of the 95 percent confidence interval are indicated for all values in Table 4.4, and
all of the values were less than one for each connection. This means that each item in the
sample statistically differs from the others. The discriminant validity is determined based
on this result (Hew et al., 2020).

Table 4. 4,Hetero-Trait-Mono-Trait (HTMT inference).

Latent Original Sample Bias 2.5% 97.5%

Construct Sample (O) Mean (M)
BL -> ATT 0.934 0.934 -0.000 0.843 0.992
PI -> ATT 0.835 0.842 0.007 0.697 0.934
PI -> BL 0.89 0.894 0.004 0.783 0.97
SAT -> ATT 0.917 0.921 0.004 0.815 0.992
SAT -> BL 0.858 0.859 0.001 0.730 0.935
SAT -> PI 0.898 0.901 0.003 0.804 0.971
Note(s):

a. ATT = Attitude; BL = Brand Loyalty; SAT = Satisfaction; PI = Purchase Intention

4.3 Inspecting structural model

The inner structural model was examined using 5,000 bootstrapping subsamples with no
sign change option, as well as p-values and t-values of less than 0.05 and 1.96,
respectively. The T-values greater than 1.96 shows that the relationship is significant at
95% confidence level (α = 0.05). Figure 4.1 and table 4.5 show that all four hypotheses
were supported. In this study, ATT was shown to be positively associated to BL (β =
0.849, ρ < 0.00). As a result, H1 was confirmed. H2 was further supported by the fact that
BL was favorably linked with PI (β = 0.527, ρ < 0.000. Furthermore, ATT was found to
be favorably associated to SAT (β = 0.797, ρ < 0.000). As a result, H3 was approved. In
line with these hypotheses, the results show that SAT positively affects PI (β = 0.383, ρ <
0.00), which led H4 to be supported.

14
 Table 4. 5,Outcome of the structural model examination.

PLS Path Original Sample Standard T Statistics P 2.5% 97.5% Remarks

Sample Mean Deviation (|O/STDEV|) Values
(O) (M) (STDEV)
ATT -> BL 0.849 0.847 0.044 19.388 0.000 0.745 0.914 Supported
BL -> PI 0.527 0.532 0.105 5.026 0.000 0.309 0.727 Supported
ATT -> SAT 0.797 0.801 0.041 19.538 0.000 0.577 0.856 Supported
SAT -> PI 0.383 0.383 0.096 4.005 0.000 0.186 0.567 Supported

Note(s):

Figure 4. 1, Structural model testing.

a. ATT = Attitude; BL = Brand Loyalty; SAT = Satisfaction; PI = Purchase Intention

5. Discussion And Conclusion

The goal of this study was to use TPB to evaluate the factors that influence smartphone
purchasing intentions among university students (Ajzen,1991). This research focused on
the association between attitude, brand loyalty, satisfaction, and smartphone purchase
intent from the data was collected and evaluated from 82 diploma students via the
Internet environment. Due to the strongly linked relationship between the elements listed
in the original model, the findings revealed that four hypotheses were supported.

15
This research confirmed that attitude has positively related to brand loyalty in case of
smartphone consumption. Such findings are in line with some previous papers which also
used this construct (Wu and Wang, 2011). The first stage of deciding whether a phone
brand is doing well in the market and satisfying their demands is based on an individual's
attitude toward an object, particularly among students toward a phone brand, is regarded
the attitude of an individual toward an object. Because students are confronted with a
large amount of information on the Internet and are unable to thoroughly analyze the
accuracy of that material, they rely on their thoughts, their conviction in a brand to which
they are committed. Thus, positive customer attitude towards companies and brands have
long been associated with business outcomes such as increased revenues and brand
loyalty (Trang et al., 2019). It is crucial for smartphone manufacturers take fostering
positive attitude of customers into account for a further growth in the industry.

Also, this research shown that brand loyalty has a significant and positive relationship
with purchase intention of smartphone. Because that brand is more valuable to them than
others, loyal customers may purchase a business's products more frequently than they
need to, especially if the shop has built a loyalty reward program. Furthermore, getting
new customers will be costly, as loyal customers are more likely to stick with company
brand and buy more than new customers. According to Baldinger and Rubinson (1996),
brand loyalty is seemed to be the main reason for choosing smartphones. As a result, the
study indicated that smartphone purchase decision of university students is influenced by
brand name. Smartphone manufactures could emphasize on brand name when promoting
smartphones to students. Besides, brand managers may draw a good loyalty program for
their existing customers to retain them.

When the relationship between attitude and satisfaction was examined, it was discovered
that the two variables had a positive association. It is thought that customer satisfaction
stems from a positive attitude toward the feelings associated with their encounters.
Apple, for example, one of the leaders in the mobile phone market, takes the approach of
continually improving their phones and actively listening to their clients in order to
satisfy their customers. As it is critical to connect the positive experience in the mind and
heart of the consumer, so that they return for more of the company's items that they have
enjoyed. This has also been validated by earlier findings of (Bolton, 1998; Oliver, 1980).

16
The more positive attitude is, the higher satisfaction of customers would be when using
smartphones.

Finally, the findings of this study revealed that satisfaction has a significant influence on
the relationship between components and students' intent to purchase a mobile phone. It
demonstrates that consumers who are satisfied with a past performance of smartphone in
areas such as operation, shop workers, and design are more likely to make a cognitive
effort to go to future confidence, hence boosting consumers' future purchase decisions.
Tseng and Lo (2011) discovered that when customers are unhappy with their existing
phone and believe that other phones are more useful, they are more inclined to switch. As
a result, in order to stay competitive in the market, smartphone manufacturers need focus
on increasing customer satisfaction as well as attracting new ones.

The findings of this study have several implications for students that they could enrich
their knowledge of purchase intent in the mobile phone sector by recognizing what
elements influence their decision. In terms of the implications for management, since this
study provides them with vital information on factors that influence university students'
smartphone purchasing intent. It is critical for marketers taking brand loyalty, satisfaction
to be centered in company's strategy in order to maintain consistency in their values and
nurture relationships with their most loyal customers, all while attempting to move their
customers through the funnel from awareness to advocacy. Moreover, smartphone
producers shall emphasize the importance of cultivating a favorable consumer attitude
because it is a significant factor in increasing satisfaction and brand loyalty. As the
mobile phone industry becomes more competitive, companies that recognize brand
loyalty and satisfaction in their marketing and sales strategies are able to retain customers
while increasing earnings and market share.

There are a few limitations in this study that need to be examined and analyzed more
thoroughly. To begin with, the study only included students from Ho Chi Minh City,
which might not apply to students at other Vietnamese universities. Second, because to
the Covid-19 pandemic, the survey was conducted through a virtual platform, Google
Form, and the sample may be slanted toward respondents who they base on their existing
experience with the one they already own. As a result, future study will need to look at

17
greater sample sizes and different settings in order to gather more reliable results from
research surveys.

18
 REFERENCES

Ahmad, Z., Jun, M., Khan, I., Abdullah, M., & Ghauri, T. A. (2016). Examining Mediating Role of
Customer Loyalty for Influence of Brand Related Attributes on Customer Repurchase Intention.
Journal of Northeast Agricultural University (English Edition), 23(2), 89–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1006-8104(16)30052-6

Ahn, T., Ryu, S., & Han, I. (2007). The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of
online retailing. Information and Management, 44(3), 263–275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.12.008

Ajzen, I. (n.d.). The Theory of Planned Behavior.

Alkhawaldeh, A. M., & Eneizan, B. M. (2018). Factors Influencing Brand Loyalty in Durable Goods
Market. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i1/3811

Azad, N., & Safaei, M. (2012). The impact of brand value on brand selection: Case study of mobile
phone selection. Management Science Letters, 2(4), 1233–1238.
https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2012.02.014

ballantyne2006. (n.d.).

Carlson, J., & O’Cass, A. (2010). Exploring the relationships between e-service quality, satisfaction,
attitudes and behaviours in content-driven e-service web sites. Journal of Services Marketing,
24(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011031091

Choi, H. C., Huang, S., Choi, H., & Chang, H. (2020). The effect of flight attendants’ physical
attractiveness on satisfaction, positive emotion, perceived value, and behavioral intention.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 19–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.05.001

Coelho, P. S., Rita, P., & Santos, Z. R. (2018). On the relationship between consumer-brand
identification, brand community, and brand loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
43, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.011

Erciş, A., Ünal, S., Candan, F. B., & Yıldırım, H. (2012). The Effect of Brand Satisfaction, Trust and
Brand Commitment on Loyalty and Repurchase Intentions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 58, 1395–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1124
Gotz, F. M., Stieger, S., & Reips, U. D. (2017). Users of the main smartphone operating systems
(iOS, Android) differ only little in personality. PLoS ONE, 12(5).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176921

GSMA. (2021). SDG Report-Mobile phone.

Haverila, M. (2011). Mobile phone feature preferences, customer satisfaction and repurchase intent
among male users. Australasian Marketing Journal, 19(4), 238–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.05.009

Ho, M. H. W., & Chung, H. F. L. (2020). Customer engagement, customer equity and repurchase
intention in mobile apps. Journal of Business Research, 121, 13–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.046

Huang, Y. C., & Liu, C. H. (2020). Buffering effects of brand perception to behavioural intention -
Evidence of China airlines. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100468

Javed, M. K., & Wu, M. (2020). Effects of online retailer after delivery services on repurchase
intention: An empirical analysis of customers’ past experience and future confidence with the
retailer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101942

Ketchen, D. J. (2013). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Long Range
Planning, 46(1–2), 184–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.002

Kim, D., Chun, H., & Lee, H. (2014). Determining the factors that influence college students’
adoption of smartphones. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
65(3), 578–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22987

Kim, H. S., & Yoon, C. H. (2004). Determinants of subscriber churn and customer loyalty in the
Korean mobile telephony market. Telecommunications Policy, 28(9–10), 751–765.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2004.05.013

Kim, J., Lee, H., & Lee, J. (2020a). Smartphone preferences and brand loyalty: A discrete choice
model reflecting the reference point and peer effect. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101907
Kim, S. H., & Huarng, K. H. (2011). Winning strategies for innovation and high-technology products
management. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1147–1150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.013

Laurenti, R., & Acuña, F. M. B. (2020). Exploring antecedents of behavioural intention and
preferences in online peer-to-peer resource sharing: A Swedish university setting. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 21, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.10.002

Le, D. N., Nguyen, H. T., & Hoang Truong, P. (2020). Port logistics service quality and customer
satisfaction: Empirical evidence from Vietnam. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 36(2),
89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.10.003

Lee, H. W., Lee, H. C., Lee, L. K., Teber, E. T., & Bret Church, W. (2014). The use of soluble protein
structures in modeling helical proteins in a layered membrane. Journal of Biomolecular
Structure and Dynamics, 32(2), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2013.765808

Lee, M., Lee, S. A., Jeong, M., & Oh, H. (2020). Quality of virtual reality and its impacts on
behavioral intention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102595

Lee, W.-K. (2014). A Framework for Purchase Intentions Toward a Brand-New Smartphone Based
on Self-Presentation and Aesthetics. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 24(4), 515–
529. https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2014.24.4.515

Lyong ha, C. (1998). The theory of reasoned action applied to brand loyalty. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 7(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429810209737

Ma, R., & Wang, W. (2021). Smile or pity? Examine the impact of emoticon valence on customer
satisfaction and purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 134, 443–456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.057

Mehmood, K. K. (2015). The Strategic Role of Hedonic Value and Utilitarian Value in Building
Brand Loyalty: Mediating Effect of Customer Satisfaction Drivers of Purchase Decision and
Customer Retention in Retail Industry View project The Strategic Role of Hedonic Value and
Utilitarian Value in Building Brand Loyalty: Mediating Effect of Customer Satisfaction Jalal
Hanaysha. In Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) (Vol. 35, Issue 2).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289839589

Moriuchi, E., & Takahashi, I. (2016). Satisfaction trust and loyalty of repeat online consumer within
the Japanese online supermarket trade. Australasian Marketing Journal, 24(2), 146–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.02.006
Munerah, S., Koay, K. Y., & Thambiah, S. (2021). Factors influencing non-green consumers’
purchase intention: A partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124192

Nie, J., Zheng, C., Zeng, P., Zhou, B., Lei, L., & Wang, P. (2020). Using the theory of planned
behavior and the role of social image to understand mobile English learning check-in behavior.
Computers and Education, 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103942

Nimri, R., Patiar, A., & Jin, X. (2020). The determinants of consumers’ intention of purchasing green
hotel accommodation: Extending the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 45, 535–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.10.013

Oliver, R. L. (n.d.). Whence Consumer Loyalty?

Ooi, K. B., Hew, J. J., & Lin, B. (2018). Unfolding the privacy paradox among mobile social
commerce users: a multi-mediation approach. Behaviour and Information Technology, 37(6),
575–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1465997

Panda, T. K., Kumar, A., Jakhar, S., Luthra, S., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Kazancoglu, I., & Nayak, S. S.
(2020). Social and environmental sustainability model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase
intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118575

Pleyers, G., & Poncin, I. (2020). Non-immersive virtual reality technologies in real estate: How
customer experience drives attitudes toward properties and the service provider. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102175

Prados-Peña, M. B., & del Barrio-García, S. (2020). How does parent heritage brand preference affect
brand extension loyalty? A moderated mediation analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives,
36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100755

Qi, E., Shen, J., & Dou, R. (Eds.). (2013). The 19th International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37270-4

Rahim, A., Safin, S. Z., Kheng, L. K., Abas, N., & Ali, S. M. (2016). Factors Influencing Purchasing
Intention of Smartphone among University Students. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37,
245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(16)30121-6
Slaton, K., Testa, D., Bakhshian, S., & Fiore, A. M. (2020). The small, inventory free retail format:
The impact on consumer-based brand equity and purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102246

Smith, T. A. (2020). The role of customer personality in satisfaction, attitude-to-brand and loyalty in
mobile services. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, 24(2), 155–175.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-06-2019-0036

Statista. (2020). Penetration rate of smartphones in selected countries 2020.

Tan, G. W. H., Lee, V. H., Lin, B., & Ooi, K. B. (2017). Mobile applications in tourism: The future of
the tourism industry? Industrial Management and Data Systems, 117(3), 560–581.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2015-0490

Wang, J., Wang, S., Wang, Y., Li, J., & Zhao, D. (2018). Extending the theory of planned behavior to
understand consumers’ intentions to visit green hotels in the Chinese context. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(8), 2810–2825.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2017-0223

Wong, C. H., Tan, G. W. H., Hew, T. S., & Ooi, K. B. (2016). Can mobile TV be a new revolution in
the television industry? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 764–776.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.021

Yeh, C. H., Wang, Y. S., & Yieh, K. (2016a). Predicting smartphone brand loyalty: Consumer value
and consumer-brand identification perspectives. International Journal of Information
Management, 36(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.013

APPENDIX: Questionnaires

The Effects of Brand Loyalty and Satisfaction on University Student

Purchase Intentions of Smartphone

Part 1: Demographic characteristics

Demographic Characteristic Frequency Percentage

Male 35 42.68
Gender
Female 47 57.32
Academic Year First year 7 8.54
Second year 15 18.29
 Third year 48 58.54
Final year 12 14.63
Apple 49 59.76
Samsung 22 26.83
LG 1 1.22
Smartphone Brand
Nokia 1 1.22
Huawei 2 2.44
Others 7 8.54
Under 5 million VND 59 71.95
5 – 10 million VND 10 12.20
Monthly Income
10 – 20 million VND 6 7.32
Higher 20 million VND 7 8.54

Part 2: Measurement scale

Constructs Items
Attitude (ATT) ATT1: I think using this brand is a good idea.
ATT2:I think using this phone will satisfy my needs.
ATT3:I think this brand is better than others in the market.
ATT4:I think using this brand is extremely beneficial.

Brand loyalty (BL) BL1: I would purchase products for this brand in the future.
BL2: I would recommend this brand to my family and friends.
BL3: I consider myself to be loyal to this brand.
BL4: I would be happy to use this brand in the future.
BL5: Generally, I have confidence to this brand.

Satisfaction (SAT) SAT1: I am happy with my decision to purchase my phone.

SAT2: I am satisfied with the way my phone operates.
SAT3: I am pleased with the design of my phone.
SAT4: I am satisfied with my phone’s performance when it runs
into problems.
SAT5: The phone developers do a good job of satisfying my needs.

Purchase Intention PI1: I intend to continue purchasing products from this brand.
(PI) PI2: I would definitely purchase phones, accessories from this
brand.
PI3: I would be likely to recommend this phone for others to use.
PI4: I look forward for the up-to-date phone from my phone brand.
PI5: I would be more likely to purchase this phone in compared
with different manafacturers in the market.