See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340275000

The Impact of Brand Credibility and Perceived Value on Customer Satisfaction

and Purchase Intention at Fashion Market

Article  in  Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems · February 2020

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308

CITATIONS READS

11 3,892

1 author:

Dam Tri Cuong

Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City
56 PUBLICATIONS   287 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dam Tri Cuong on 06 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

The Impact of Brand Credibility and

Perceived Value on Customer Satisfaction
and Purchase Intention at Fashion Market
Dam Tri Cuong, Faculty of Business Administration, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
E-mail: damtricuong@iuh.edu.vn
Abstract--- This research’s main objective was to empirical study the impact of brand credibility and perceived
value on customer satisfaction and purchase intention at the fashion market. We gathered research data from 285
customers at fashion shops in Vietnam and using the PLS-SEM(partial least squares structural equation modeling)
with Smart PLS software to analyze the data. The findings showed that brand credibility had a relatively substantial
positive effect on customer satisfaction, purchase intention, and perceived value. The results also explained that
perceived value had a positive influence on customer satisfaction and purchase intention. The results as well
exhibited that customer satisfaction had a positive impact on purchase intention. From those earlier findings, this
present study discussed implications for managers.
Keywords--- Brand Credibility, Perceived Value, Customer Satisfaction, Purchase Intention, Fashion Market, PLS-
SEM

I. Introduction
A review of the brand influenced consumer decision making was a long-term field among marketing academics
and practitioners. Brands performed a crucial role in buying decision making and choice behavior [1,2]. Clients tend
to be reluctant to get buying the products/services while clients were unsure about product/service traits based on
economic's perspective. The client's uncertainty of products/services started from the state of incomplete and
asymmetric information of products/services traits because the companies were more understood their
goods/services than were purchasers. In such conditions, to resolve this obstacle of clients’ uncertainty, the
companies could apply brands as signals effectively convey news about goods/service quality to purchasers. Brands
could also impact customer evaluations of the relative values of traits, attributes, perceptions of risk, and information
cost used to perform consumer options[1,2].The credibility was the feature's essential of a brand signal. Brand
credibility was considered as the believability of the goods/service status traits included in a brand, which relied on
the willingness, as well the capacity of companies to provide what they pledge[3,4]. Moreover, prior empirical
researches also revealed that brand credibility had a predictor of perceived value [1,6,7]. Besides, previous
investigations also stated that brand credibility had an antecedent on customer satisfaction [7,8], and on purchase
intention [9–12]. Despite the importance of the brand, credibility was recognized. Brand credibility and its impact on
customer satisfaction, purchase intention, and perceived value had been obtained little consideration for the fashion
market. On the other hand, in the business trend, clients were essential for firms. Firms should give goods/services
which make clients' satisfaction and to take market share and enhance profitability[13]. Likewise, in recent years,
both marketing practitioners and academics have come to acknowledge the significance of perceived value to client
behavior [14]. Furthermore, previous empirical studies revealed that perceived value had a predictor of customer
satisfaction [7,8,15]and purchase intention[6,14,16]. However, researching the effect of the perceived value on
customer satisfaction and purchase intention has not been investigated in the context of the fashion market.
Consequently, the goal of this current study was to empirical research on the impact of brand credibility and
perceived value on customer satisfaction and purchase intention at the fashion market.

II. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Brand Credibility
Brand credibility was acknowledged as the trust of the goods/service status traits included in a brand, relying on
the readiness, as well the capability of companies to provide what they pledge [17].Otherwise, credibility came from
source credibility literature[15]. If the credibility was linked as brands of the firms, or if brands were used as sources
for reliability, credibility was described as brand credibility [10]. Other researches stated that source credibility
consisted of three components: trustworthiness, expertise, and attractiveness/likeableness[10,15,18–20]. The

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 691
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

trustworthiness was related to the client’s belief in the firm. Expertise was related to the source’s perceived skills.
Attractiveness/likeableness was connected with the source’s image. Therefore, customer's perception of brand
credibility demanded the brand was ready (trustworthiness), had the capacity (i.e., expertise), and was dedicated
(i.e., attractiveness/likeableness) to provide what the firms declared [20,24]. Prior studies also said that the historical
view of brand credibility could impact the past and present marketing programs, and this could affect existing and
coming brand credibility. Consequently, the trustworthiness, expertise, and attractiveness of a brand exhibited the
cumulative impacts of historical and present marketing programs[19,21]. Brand credibility had a vast influence
during a brand scrutinize process [17]. Brand credibility was a primary trait of the brand. If clients believed that the
company has been providing its commitment, it meant it was doing well; this led to more satisfaction. If clients
noticed a brand to be credible enough, clients would consider in purchase decisions, as brand credibility was
possible data for building a stand in clients’ minds [4,6,8].
Brand credibility was an essential notion to scrutinize as it associated with customer satisfaction, customer
retention, brand loyalty with word of mouth positively, helping enhanced the firms’ profitability and competitive
power [20,22].
Prior studies disclosed that brand credibility had a crucial predictor of client satisfaction [7,8,11]. Previous
empirical studies showed that brand credibility had a positive impact on customer satisfaction [7,8,11,23].
Brand signaling theory implied that brand credibility increased the possibility of a purchase intention, and brand
credibility was also a critical predictor impact on purchase intention [4,22]. Prior studies also disclosed that brand
credibility led to increasing consumer utility and purchase intention[1,22]. Previous empirical studies also showed
that brand credibility influenced purchase intention[9,10,12,22].
Perceived value was the perception of the clients of brand benefit [2,30]. Some studies exhibited that perceived
value had a crucial antecedent factor of brand credibility [2,5,25]. Previous empirical studies presented that brand
credibility influenced perceived value [2,5,6].
Therefore, we suggested the following hypotheses:
H1: Brand credibility has a significant influence on customer satisfaction.
H2: Brand credibility has a significant influence on purchase intention.
H3: Brand credibility has a significant influence on perceived value.
2.2. Perceived Value
Perceived value had given much attention to researchers because it played a critical role in client satisfaction,
purchase intention, and also one of the vital tools to gain a sustainable competitive advantage [7,26–28]. There were
many meanings of perceived value in the literature. The most common definition of perceived value, from the
client's view, was what was given up or sacrificed to take the goods/service, which meant the agreement between
perceived interests and perceived expenses [2,13,29]. Other researchers said that the perceived value, in the
narrowest sense, was the expense paid for the product/service. More broadly, the perceived value was the sum' value
that clients drop out to get the utilities of having or using the product/service [30].
Some prior researchers said that perceived value had a predictor of customer satisfaction and an essential
contribution to customer satisfaction [7,26,31,32]. Previous empirical studies exposed that perceived value impacted
customer satisfaction [5,7,18,37].
Previous researches also displayed that perceived value had a crucial boost to purchase intention and a vital
predictor on purchase intention[6,27]. Some prior empirical studies revealed that perceived value impacted purchase
intention [2,5,27].
Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:
H4: Perceived value has a significant impact on customer satisfaction.
H5: Perceived value has a significant impact on purchase intention.
2.3. Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction was considered as consumer pleasure and an essential component of the firm. Customer
satisfaction was the awareness of clients' happiness or disappointment as a comparison between the results received
and clients' expectations of a product or service. If the results got displeased the expectations, the customers were
not pleased; if the results got suited to the expectations, the customers were satisfied, and if the results got surpassed

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 692
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

expectations, the customers were delighted[30,33]. Customer satisfaction also had been one of the primary aims that
managers would need to reach. The firms' competitive advantage was to satisfy the client effectively, and it meant to
exceed the expectations of the client[34].
2.4. Purchase Intention
Purchase intention was the commitment of the clients to re buy goods/services whenever clients performed the
next trip. Thus, it exhibited that purchase intention would produce behavior among consumers when clients
purchased goods/services. Consequently, it made consumers buy more goods/services since it's getting a habit that
exists in them self. It had a substantial effect because firms wanted to improve the selling of particular
goods/services for the aim of maximizing their profit[35–37].
Purchase intention describing four behaviors of purchasers, including would surely buy the good or service,
would think about purchasing the good or service, would expect to buy, would plan to purchase the good or service
in the future[22,43].
Previous researches showed that customer satisfaction led to enhanced chances of purchase intention [40–43].
Prior empirical studies also disclosed that customer satisfaction impacted purchase intention [46–51].
Therefore, we suggested the following hypothesis:
H6: Customer satisfaction positively influences on purchase intention.
Based on the purpose of research, literature review, and hypotheses development, Figure 1 exhibited the
proposed research model.

Brand credibility

H1+
H2+

H6+
H3+ Customer satisfaction H6+
Purchase intention

H4+
H5+

Perceived value

Figure 1: The Proposed Research Model

III. Research Methodology

3.1. Measures
The measurement indicators of the constructs from prior studies were modified and adjusted to accommodate the
research condition. We applied a five-point Likert scale to measure the variables.
In this research, we adjusted four items of brand credibility from[2,6,12]. We also modified four items of the
perceived value from[2,6,19], four items of customer satisfaction from [8,50,52],and four items of purchase
intention from [38,39].
3.2. Data Collection and Sample
Te survey data was an investigation of consumers who bought goods/services at fashion shops in Ho Chi Minh,
Vietnam. This study sample was performed based on convenience sampling with different groups of consumers
about gender and income in many places in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The objective of the current survey was to
take the representation of the collected sample. We delivered the sum of 350 questionnaires, and there were 65

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 693
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

responses dismissed as there was not enough information or answered the same questions. Hence, there were 285
responses obtained for the final examination. The demographic characteristics of consumers revealed as followed.
There were 98 male consumers (34.4%) and 187 female consumers (65.6%). There were 31 consumers less than
$300 (10.9%), 91 consumers from $300 - less than $600, 112 consumers from $600 - less than $1000, and 51
consumers $1000 and above.
3.3. Analytical Approach
We applied the PLS-SEM (partial least squared structural equation modeling) with Smart PLS software to test
the proposed research model. Testing the proposed research model and hypotheses were conducted through two
stages: (1) Evaluating the measurement model and (2) Evaluating the structural model (PLS-SEM)[49,50].

IV. Results and Discussion

4.1. Results
(1) Evaluating the Measurement Model
Table 1 displayed the measurement model items of the construct's analysis results.
We used Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) for assessing the reliability of the study. Cronbach’s
alpha values of the constructs should be higher than 0.70 or Cronbach’s alpha above 0.60 could be accepted, and the
CR values were higher than 0.70, indicating adequate internal consistency of the constructs [51,52]. Table 1 showed
that Cronbach’s alpha values of the independent variables were above 0.70. Thus, these constructs achieved internal
consistency reliability.
We utilized the factor loading of all items values and the average variance extracted (AVE) to assess convergent
validity. The factor loading and AVE should be higher than 0.50 [52,53]. In this current study, the factor loading of
all items and the AVE values were above 0.50. So, the convergent validity of the constructs was good.
Table 1: Measurement Model Items of the Construct’s Analysis Results
Construct Indicators Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE
BRCR1 0.824
BRCR2 0.846
Brand credibility (BRCR) 0.861 0.905 0.705
BRCR3 0.863
BRCR4 0.825
PEVA1 0.810
Perceived value PEVA2 0.869
0.868 0.910 0.716
(PEVA) PEVA3 0.842
PEVA4 0.864
CUSA1 0.751
CUSA2 0.769
Customer satisfaction (CUSA) 0.769 0.853 0.591
CUSA3 0.754
CUSA4 0.801
PUIN1 0.744
Purchase intention PUIN2 0.812
0.821 0.882 0.652
(PUIN) PUIN3 0.854
PUIN4 0.815
Source: Data processing result
Then, we assessed discriminant validity through the Fornell-Larcker criterion[54]. It compared the square root of
the AVE values with the latent variable. Precisely, the square root of the AVE should be higher than its highest
correlation with any other construct[49]. Table 2 disclosed that the square root of AVE of reflective construct brand
credibility, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and purchase intention was higher than the corresponding latent
variables correlation. Therefore, the discriminant validity of these constructs was high.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 694
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

Table 2: Discriminant Validity

Brand credibility Customer satisfaction Perceived value Purchase intention
Construct
(BRCR) (CUSA) (PEVA) (PUIN)
Brand credibility
0.840
(BRCR)
Customer satisfaction
0.566 0.769
(CUSA)
Perceived value
0.356 0.509 0.846
(PEVA)
Purchase intention 0.807
0.611 0.636 0.431
(PUIN)
Source: Data processing result
(2) Evaluating the Structural Model (PLS-SEM)
(2.1) Evaluating the Model Fit
Figure 2 and Table 3 revealed the findings of the structural model.

Figure 2: Findings of the Structural Model (PLS-SEM)

Source: Data processing result
Table 3: Findings of Model Fit
Saturated model
SRMR 0.070
d_ULS 0.674
d_G1 0.308
d_G2 0.257
Chi-square 436.426
NFI 0.816
Source: Data processing result

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 695
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

The results in Figure 2 and Table 3 described that the Chi-square = 436.426 was significant at 0.05 level
(p=0.00). SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) was a measure of the approximate model fit of the
proposed research model. By convention, a model had a good model fit when SRMR was less than 0.08[55]. The
report results in Table 3 noted that the model had SRMR indices = 0.070 < 0.08. Consequently, the proposed
research model was fit for research data. Besides, testing of a multicollinearity issue showed that all VIF values
were below the threshold of 5. Therefore, there were no multicollinearity problems in the structural model[49].
(2.2) Hypotheses Testing
Table 4 exhibited hypotheses testing results. Bootstrapping results (with 5000 re samplings) for the relationship
between constructs revealed that the t-value of the H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 was higher than 1.96, and these
hypotheses were significant at a 5% level. Hence, these hypotheses were approved.
Table 4: Hypotheses Testing Results
Path Hypotheses Path coefficients t-value p-value Finding
BRCR  CUSA H1 0.441 7.931 0.000 Supported
BRCR  PUIN H2 0.358 6.663 0.000 Supported
BRCR  PEVA H3 0.356 6.321 0.000 Supported
PEVA  CUSA H4 0.352 5.251 0.000 Supported
PEVA  PUIN H5 0.112 2.321 0.020 Supported
CUSA PUIN H6 0.376 6.230 0.000 Supported
Source: Data processing result
(2.3) R2 (Explained Variance), f2 (Effect Size) and Q2 (Predictive Relevance)
For the structural model, the crucial evaluation metrics were R2 (explained variance), f2 (effect size), and Q2
(predictive relevance) [49]. The R2 was the overall effect size measure for the structural model [56]. The R2 value of
0.19, 0.33, and 0.67 could be displayed as weak, moderate, and substantial [57]. The f2 value 0.02 was small, 0.15
was medium, and 0.35 was high [58]. The Q2value measured the structural model’s predictive relevance for each
endogenous construct. The Q2 value should be above zero [49].
In the present study, the R2 value for the overall model here was 0.506 (see Figure 2 and Table 5) less than 0.67,
regarded as a fairly substantial effect; we observed that CUSA had a moderate impact (0.376), followed by BRCR
(0.358) and PEVA (0.112). Furthermore, BRCR and PEVA explained 42.9% of the variance on CUSA; we also
stated that BRCR had a relatively substantial effect (0.441) and followed by the PEVA effect (0.352). Besides,
BRCR explained 12.7% of the variance on PEVA; and it was a moderate impact (0.356).
Table 5: R2, f2 and Q2
2
Relationship f Construct R2 Q2
BRCR  CUSA 0.297
Customer satisfaction 0.429 0.233
BRCR  PUIN 0.174
BRCR  PEVA 0.145
Perceived value 0.127 0.082
PEVA  CUSA 0.189
PEVA  PUIN 0.019
Purchase intention 0.506 0.299
CUSA PUIN 0.163
Source: Data processing result
Table 5 also stated that the f2 effect sizes. The quite high f2 effect size happened for the relationship of
BRCRCUSA (0.297). The medium f2 effect size occurred for the link PEVACUSA (0.189), BRCR  PUIN
(0.174), CUSA  PUIN (0.163), and BRCR  PEVA (0.145). The small f2 effect size occurred for the relationship
of PEVAPUIN(0.019).
Table 5 also exhibited that the Q2 values of three endogenous constructs were above zero. Precisely, customer
satisfaction had Q2 values (0.233), the perceived value had Q2 values (0.082), and purchase intention had Q2 values
(0.299). These results confirmed the model’s predictive relevance for the endogenous latent variables.
4.2. Discussion
The current study showed that empirical research on the effect of brand credibility and perceived value on
customer satisfaction and purchase intention at the fashion market, as proposed in the research model. This study’s

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 696
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

contribution was to scrutinized and tested the impact of brand credibility and perceived value on customer
satisfaction and purchase intention in another circumstance compared with prior researches. Most of the previous
studies focus on these effects for the different industries, and this present study described these effects in the fashion
market.
The present study results revealed that the six hypotheses in the proposed model were supported.
This study results showed that brand credibility positively affects customer satisfaction. The brand credibility
was an antecedent on customer satisfaction, and the impact of brand credibility on customer satisfaction was
relatively high (β = 0.441), and the f2 effect size of the link of brand credibility and customer satisfaction was pretty
large (0.297). The previous empirical studies confirmed the results of this study [7,8,11,23]. The results also
revealed that brand credibility positively impacts on purchase intention. The brand credibility was a predictor of
purchase intention, and the effect of brand credibility on purchase intention was also moderate (β = 0.358), and the
f2 effect size of the link of brand credibility and purchase intention was also medium (0.174). The prior empirical
studies reinforced the results of this study [9,10,12,22]. Besides, the findings also stated that brand credibility
positively influences on perceived value. The brand credibility as a precursor of perceived value, its’ impact on
perceived value was reasonable (β = 0.356), and the f2 effect size of the link of the brand credibility and the
perceived value was average (0.145). The prior empirical studies supported the results of this study [2,5,6].
The research results also indicated that the perceived value positively influences customer satisfaction. The
perceived value was a predictor of customer satisfaction, the impact of the perceived value on customer satisfaction
was moderate (β = 0.352), and the f2 effect size of the link of the perceived value and customer satisfaction was
medium (0.189). Previous empirical studies reinforced the results of this research [6,8,18,19]. This study results also
illustrated that the perceived value positively affects purchase intention. The perceived value was an antecedent on
purchase intention; however, its’ impact on purchase intention was low (β = 0.112), and the f2 effect size of the
relationship of the perceived value and purchase intention was relatively weak (0.019). The prior empirical
researches confirmed the results of this study [2,6,59].
The present study results also noted that customer satisfaction positively impacts on behavioral intention.
Furthermore, customer satisfaction was a predictor of purchase intention, and the impact of customer satisfaction on
purchase intention was moderate (β = 0.376); and the f2 effect size of the link of customer satisfaction and the
purchase intention was medium (0.163). The prior empirical studies supported the results of this study[46–51].

V. Managerial Implications, Limitations, and Future Research

5.1. Managerial Implications
In line with the prior studies, this current study confirmed that brand credibility and perceived value influenced
customer satisfaction and purchase intention. Therefore, fashion shop managers should do the designing and
maintain enhancing consumers’ perceptions of brand credibility and creating the differential of the brand’s
perceived value.
The research results showed that brand credibility was an antecedent variable on customer satisfaction, purchase
intention, and perceived value. This study will help fashion shop practitioners to acknowledge the crucial of brand
credibility on customer satisfaction, purchase intention, and perceived value. Therefore, managers should not be
declaring something cannot provide, this will lead to harm to the brand credibility, and in the long run, this would be
able to decrease in clients' satisfaction level and purchase intention. Additionally, the role of perceived value had in
the model of brand credibility influence in service environments from the Erdem and Swait framework [4]. It was
essential to regard that perceived value had been seldom utilized for brand credibility researchesthough that's
theoretical rationality. Brand credibility was determined to a substantial and influence positivelyon perceived value
[2]. Better brand credibility led to better-perceived value. Therefore, the managers should have a brand
communication plans to enhance brand credibility so that the brand would deliver what the firms promised, was
believable, was the name clients can trust, and could provide what the firms promised.
Besides, the findings stated that the vital role of perceived value on customer satisfaction and purchase intention.
Hence, managers should have a strategic plan for the differential of the perceived value to increase customer
satisfaction and behavioral intention. Furthermore, the results also demonstrated that customer satisfaction has an
essential determinant antecedent on purchase intention. Better customer satisfaction, according to consumers'
perspective, leading to more increased purchase intention. Consequently, managers should make more effort to
improve clients’ perceptions of satisfaction that in turn, boosts the clients’ purchase intention.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 697
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

The present research has some limitations. Firstly, the research examines some fashion shops in Ho Chi Minh
City, not yet representative of other cities in Vietnam. Secondly, this present study only measured the effect of brand
credibility and perceived value on customer satisfaction and purchase intention at fashion shops, so future studies
should focus on other factors' influence. Therefore, these limitations can provide some direction for future research.

Reference
[1] Erdem T., Swait J., Louvierce J. The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity.
International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2002; 19: 1–19.
[2] Baek TH., King KW. Exploring the consequences of brand credibility in services. Journal of Services
Marketing. 2011; 25(4): 260–272.
[3] Erdem T., Swait J., Valenzuela A. Brands as signals: A cross-country validation study. Journal of
Marketing. 2006; 70(1): 34–49.
[4] Erdem T., Swait J. Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 1998; 7(2):
131–157.
[5] Hanzaee KH., Taghipourian MJ. The Effects of Brand Credibility and Prestige on Consumers Purchase
Intention in Low and High Product Involvement. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. 2012;
2(2): 1281–1291.
[6] Khan MM., Razzaque R. Measuring the Impact of Brand Positioning on Consumer Purchase Intention
Across Different Products. Journal of Quality and Technology Management. 2015; XI(I): 69–95.
[7] Othman M., Kamarohim N., Nizam FM. Brand credibility, perceived quality and perceived value: A study
of customer satisfaction. International Journal of Economics and Management. 2017; 11(3 Special Issue):
763–775.
[8] Sweeney J., Swait J. The effects of brand credibility on customer loyalty. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services. 2008; 15(3): 179–193.
[9] Vidyanata D., Sunaryo S., Hadiwidjojo D. the Role of Brand Attitude and Brand Credibility As a Mediator
of the Celebrity Endorsement Strategy To Generate Purchase Intention. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen. 2018;
16(3): 402–411.
[10] Sheeraz M., Khattak A., Mahmood S., Iqbal N. Mediation of attitude toward brand on the relationship
between service brand credibility and purchase intentions. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social
Sciences (PJCSS). 2016; 10(1): 149–163.
[11] Ameri HS., Behnam M. THE EFFECT OF BRAND CREDIBILITY ON CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION
ABOUT BRANDS AND THEIR PURCHASING BEHAVIORS IN SPORT GOODS. Sport Science. 2014;
7(2): 50–57.
[12] Jeng SP. The influences of airline brand credibility on consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Air
Transport Management. Elsevier Ltd; 2016; 55: 1–8.
[13] Zeithaml VA. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of
Evidence. Journal of Marketing. 1988; 52(3): 2–22.
[14] Sweeney JC., Soutar GN., Johnson LW. The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: A
study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing. 1999; 75(1): 77–105.
[15] Ohanian R. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise,
trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising. 1990; 19(3): 39–52.
[16] Lien CH., Wen MJ., Huang LC., Wu KL. Online hotel booking: The effects of brand image, price, trust and
value on purchase intentions. Asia Pacific Management Review. Elsevier Ltd; 2015; 20(4): 210–218.
[17] Erdem T., Swait J. Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice. Journal of Consumer Research.
2004; 31(1): 191–198.
[18] Sheeraz M., Iqbal N., Ahmed N. Impact of brand credibility and consumer values on consumer purchase
intentions in Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2012;
2(8): 1–10.
[19] Wang X., Yang Z. The effect of brand credibility on consumers’ brand purchase intention in emerging
economies: The moderating role of brand awareness and brand image. Journal of Global Marketing. 2010;
23(3): 177–188.
[20] Sallam MA. The Effects of Brand Credibility on Customer’s WOM Communication: The Moderator Role
of Brand Commitment A Conceptual Paper. International Journal of Marketing Studies. 2014; 6(5): 112–
118.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 698
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

[21] Herbig P., Milewicz J. The Relationship of Reputation and Credibility to Brand Success. Journal of
Consumer Marketing. 1993; 10(3): 18–24.
[22] El-Baz BE-S., Elseidi RI., El-Maniaway AM. Influence of Electronic Word of Mouth (e-WOM) on Brand
Credibility and Egyptian Consumers’ Purchase Intentions. International Journal of Online Marketing.
2018; 8(4): 1–14. 1
[23] Atarodian A. The impact of brand credibility on customer satisfaction in the banking industry in the North
West of Iran. Life Science Journal. 2013; 10(SUPPL.6): 203–210.
[24] Lassar W., Mittal B., Sharma A. Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
1995; 12(4): 11–19.
[25] Kemp E., Bui M. Healthy brands: Establishing brand credibility, commitment and connection among
consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2011; 28(6): 429–437.
[26] Cuong DT. The Effect of Physical Environment and Perceived Value on Customer Satisfaction and
Behavioral Intention at the Cinema in Vietnam. TEST Engineering & Management. 2020; 82: 1665–1674.
[27] Calvo-Porral C., Lévy-Mangin JP. Store brands’ purchase intention: Examining the role of perceived
quality. European Research on Management and Business Economics. AEDEM; 2017; 23(2): 90–95.
[28] Pan H., Kang M-S. Comparative Analysis of Galaxy and Xiaomi on Switching Intention Process of
Smartphone Using Structural Equation Modeling. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous
Engineering. 2017; 12(2): 13–28.
[29] Chen CF., Chen FS. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage
tourists. Tourism Management. Elsevier Ltd; 2010; 31(1): 29–35.
[30] Kotler P., Armstrong G. Principles of Marketing. 16th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited; 2016.
[31] Cuong DT., Khoi BH. The effect of brand image and perceived value on satisfaction and loyalty at
convenience stores in Vietnam. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems. 2019;
11(8 Special Issue): 1446–1454.
[32] Kuo YF., Wu CM., Deng WJ. The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior.
Elsevier Ltd; 2009; 25(4): 887–896.
[33] Dimyati M., Subagio NA. Impact of Service Quality, Price, and Brand on Loyalty with the mediation of
Customer Satisfaction on Pos Ekspres in East Java. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2016; 14(3):
225–238.
[34] Minta Y. Link between satisfaction and customer loyalty in the insurance industry : Moderating effect of
trust and commitment. Journal of Marketing Management. 2018; 6(2): 25–33.
[35] Tariq MI., Rafay Nawaz M., Nawaz MM., Butt HA. Customer Perceptions about Branding and Purchase
Intention: A Study of FMCG in an Emerging Market. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res. 2013; 3(2): 340–347.
[36] Fandos C., Flavián C. Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes, loyalty and buying intention: An analysis for
a PDO product. British Food Journal. 2006; 108(8): 646–662.
[37] Tee P., Gharleghi B., Chan B., Samadi B., Balahmar A. Purchase Intention of International Branded
Clothes Fashion among Younger’s in Jakarta. International Journal of Business and Social Research. 2015;
5(8): 8–17.
[38] Jin B., Kang JH. Purchase intention of Chinese consumers toward a US apparel brand: a test of a composite
behavior intention model. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2011; 28(3): 187–199.
[39] Mathur A. Incorporating Choice into an Attitudinal Framework. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing. 1999. pp. 93–110.
[40] Ali F. Hotel website quality, perceived flow, customer satisfaction and purchase intention. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology. 2016; 7(2): 213–228.
[41] Hsu CL., Chang KC., Chen MC. The impact of website quality on customer satisfaction and purchase
intention: Perceived playfulness and perceived flow as mediators. Information Systems and e-Business
Management. 2012; 10(4): 549–570.
[42] Bai B., Law R., Wen I. The impact of website quality on customer satisfaction and purchase intentions:
Evidence from Chinese online visitors. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2008; 27(3):
391–402.
[43] Rita P., Oliveira T., Farisa A. The impact of e-service quality and customer satisfaction on customer
behavior in online shopping. Heliyon. Elsevier Ltd; 2019; 5(10): e02690.
[44] Mehmood W., Shafiq O. Impact of Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality, Brand Image on Purchase
Intention. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research Journal. 2015; 15.
[45] Ryu K., Lee H-R., Kim WG. The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 699
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020
 Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 03-Special Issue, 2020

restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2012; 24(2): 200–223.
[46] Alharthey BK. IMPACT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON CUSTOMER TRUST, PURCHASE INTENTION
AND STORE LOYALTY, WITH MEDIATING ROLE OF CUSTOMERS’ SATISFACTION ON
CUSTOMER TRUST AND PURCHASE INTENTION: STUDY OF GROCERY SHOPPING. British
Journal of Marketing Studies (BJMS). 2019; 7(2): 40–61.
[47] Shpetim C. Exploring the relationships among service quality, satisfaction, trust and store loyalty among
retail customers. Journal of Competitiveness. 2012; 4(4): 16–35.
[48] Ryu K., Han H., Kim TH. The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value,
customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2008;
27(3): 459–469.
[49] Hair JF., Hult GTM., Ringle CM., Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd edn. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2017.
[50] Sarstedt M., Ringle CM., Joseph F. Hair. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Handbook of Market Research. Springer International Publishing; 2017. 1–40 p.
[51] Nunnally J., Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc; 1984.
[52] Bagozzi RP., Yi Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Academy of Marketing Science.
1988; 16(1): 74–94.
[53] Hair JF., Black W c., Babin, B J., Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th edn. New Jersey: Upper
Saddle River; 2010.
[54] Fornell C., Larcker DF. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18(1): 39.
[55] Hu L., Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model
misspecification. Psychological Methods. 1998; 3(4): 424–453.
[56] Garson GD. Partial least squares: Regression & structural equation models. 2016 ed. Asheboro: Statistical
Associates Publishers; 2016. 1–262 p.
[57] Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Macoulides GA (ed.)
Modern Methods for Business Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. pp. 295–336.
[58] Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
1988.
[59] Soltani M., Esfidani MR., Jandaghi G., Soltaninejad N. The Effect of Service Quality on Private Brand
Image and Purchase Intention in The Chain Stores of ETKA. World Scientific News. 2016; 47(2): 202–216.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP3/20201308
ISSN 1943-023X 700
Received: 12 Jan 2020/Accepted: 15 Feb 2020

View publication stats