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

net/publication/304149497

Influence of consumers' self-brand connections on purchase intentions

Conference Paper · May 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 934

4 authors, including:

İbrahim Kırcova Hakan Yilmaz

Yildiz Technical University 5 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS   
35 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hakan Yilmaz on 20 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

Influence of consumers’ self-brand connections on purchase intentions

İbrahim Kırcovaa, Ebru Enginkayaa, Hakan Yılmaza*

a
Yildiz Technical University,
Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences,
Department of Business Administration.
Barbaros Bulvarı,Main Campus 34349 Beşiktaş-İstanbul/TURKEY

Abstract

Brands function as insignia for individuals to express their social identity in and
through their consumption preferences. Strong brands are endowed with salient
symbolic meanings, which attract consumers in order to satisfy their social
desirability and acceptance needs by the possessions of these brands. Based on the
“Social Identity Theory” and the “Theory of Reasoned Action”, a conceptual
model was tested to examine the role of social identity effects and self-brand
connections on consumers’ decision process. Hypotheses were analyzed with a
structural model on a sample of smart-phone users. Results indicate significant
influences of the brand’s symbolic perceptions on the consumers’ brand purchase
intentions which are mediated through self-brand connections and attitudes towards
the brand. Findings and limitations of the study are discussed in terms of the
theoretical and practical implications for consumer behavior literature and
marketing implications.

Keywords: Social identity; self-brand connections; symbolic brand meaning; brand

attitudes; purchase intentions; structural equation modeling.

1. Introduction

Unlike the assumptions of the classical economics theory, behavioral economics

theorists embrace the irrationality, inconsistency and emotionality of humans
(Kahneman, 2011). The social and emotional aspects of decision making had been
scrutinized for a long time by the consumption researchers and marketers.
Advancements in psychology and neuroscience along with the commercial interest
of corporations paved the way for the interest on the deeper motivations of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +905333527781; e-mail address: [email protected].

1
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

consumers and sub-conscious decision making. These advancements illuminated

the symbolic meanings associated with the consumption in addition to the
functional expectancies of consumers. Just like doing and being, having was also
identified as an integral act for an individual’s self-definition (Belk, 1988). The
symbolic meanings attributed to the consumption choices and possessions,
augmented the brands with a self-expressive function. Motivations such as
differentiation, status seeking, social desirability and social acceptance have
become some of the preeminent drivers of consumption preferences. In this regard,
brands aim to promise added value to their functional offerings and products by
building strong and recognizable images. Brands with strong images capture
competitive advantage in consumers’ minds (Aaker, 1996); by creating emotional
links with consumers above and beyond the functions of the products (Doyle,
2000). Therefore, this study aims to examine the role of symbolic meanings and
self-expressive roles of a brand, over the consumer’s purchase decision, while
controlling for the influence of perceived quality of the brand. Theoretical
background and related constructs are discussed in the following sections.

1.1. Symbolic Meaning of a Brand

The overall utility of using a brand product is consisted of the functional and
symbolic utilities which are related with both rational and emotional benefits
(Vazquez, Rio, & Iglesias, 2002). A brand does not only signify a product's
utilitarian attributes; but also represents a particular meaning, which makes the
product personally meaningful for its consumers (Ligas & Cotte, 1999). The
symbolic function of a brand is not just to express the self, but also it helps
consumers to create and build their self-identities (Escalas & Bettman, 2005).
Consequently, brands are heavily communicating to consumers to achieve a
desirable position in their minds. The extent to which a brand can convey symbolic
meanings for its users is a key criteria for the purchase decision. The perceived
level of symbolic meaning incorporated by a brand could be influenced by the
consumer’s culture and socio-psychological background as well as the dynamics of
the industry such as competition, product category and marketing efforts.
Nonetheless, as the differentiation needs are getting more vital for a brand,
differentiation is getting ever harder for the brands from the competitors. Highly
diverse characteristics of targeted consumers and complex communication
channels bring opportunities and challenges together for the brands to nurture an
image endowed with distinct, consistent, desirable and hard-to-copy meanings.

1.2. Self-Brand Connections

Brands are incorporated to the self-concept of the users, at least to some degree.
This bond between the brand and the consumer’s self-concept is labeled as the self-
brand connections (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). A strong connection between the
2
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

brand and the consumer's self identity is formed when brand associations are used
to construct one's self or to communicate one's self to others. A strong self-brand
connection is more likely to occur when the consumer's personal experience with
the brand is closely tied to the image of the brand, and when the brand itself
satisfies psychological needs (Moore & Homer, 2008). Building personal and
emotional ties have become paramount for brands to create long-term relationships,
and in turn, customer loyalty as a consequence of all the symbolic and social
functions ascribed to the consumption behavior.

1.3. Theory of Reasoned Action

In order to predict individuals’ volitional behaviors, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975;

1980) proposed the “Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)”, which argues that the
attitudes towards a behavior and the subjective norm, social pressure of other
people from the social setting of the individual, influence the individual’s intention
to perform or not to perform a particular behavior. TRA is utilized frequently in
consumer behavior studies and evidenced to be a strong predictor of purchase
decisions of consumers (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). TRA was further
extended with the addition of the perceived behavioral control variable, and the
new model is labeled as the “Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)” (Ajzen, 1991). In
consideration with the methodological boundaries and research purposes, the
conceptual model is based on TRA in this study.

1.4. Perceived Brand Quality

Perceived brand quality is the consumer's subjective evaluation regarding a

product’s capabilities to provide consumers a reason to buy, by differentiating the
brand from competing brands. It is not necessarily a reflection of the objective
quality of the products (Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2005). Consumer beliefs
about product reliability, durability and service ability, style and design often
define quality and, in turn, influence attitudes and behavior toward a brand (Keller,
2013). In order to examine the importance of social and symbolic functions of a
brand in consumer decision making process, perceived quality construct, an
integral component of brand choice process (Keller & Aaker, 1992), was also
included in our model to obtain unbiased findings. Besides with the predicted
influence of perceived quality on the attitudes and intentions, it is also expected
that the perceived quality positively influences the self-brand connections for the
consumers. Because it is more likely that the image of the brand is perceived to be
desirable, if the brand is competitive enough to deliver high quality.

2. Research Questions and Hypotheses

It is aimed to examine the antecedents of consumers’ purchase decisions within a

social identity notion in this paper. Purchase intentions are identified as the
3
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

outcome variable of the research model. In conjunction with the premises of the
“Theory of Reasoned Action” (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), behavioral
intentions are projected to be preceded by the attitudes and the subjective norm
perceptions of the consumers. Thus, we expect that:

H1: Consumers’ attitudes towards the brand positively influence their purchase
intentions.

H2: Consumers’ perceptions of subjective norms about the brand positively

influence their purchase intentions.

Beyond the principles of TRA, in consideration with the social bounds of

consumption, we also predict an influence of subjective norm on consumers’
attitudes towards the brand which are generated subjectively by each individual
depending on the given social setting and the cultural backgrounds. Therefore, we
expect:

H3: Consumers’ perceptions of subjective norms about the brand positively

influence their attitude towards the brand.

Escalas and Bettman (2005) define self-brand connection as the extent to which a
consumer incorporates a brand into his or her self-concept. The “Social Identity”
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and the “Self-Categorization” (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) theories distinguish personal and social self from
each other. In this regard, the extent to which a brand is incorporated into a
consumer’s self-concept is relevant to that consumer’s social-self in some degree.
Given the fact that, an individual defines his or her self-concept relatively and
collectively with other people (Brewer & Gardner, 1996), the perceived relevancy
of a brand for this individual’s self-concept is likely to be influenced by other
people around. Therefore, we argue that:

H4: The perceived level of subjective norm about a brand positively influences
the strength of the self-brand connection for the consumer.

Products are not sought by the customers just for their functions, but also for the
meanings that they comprise (Levy, 1959). In this regard, possessions of brands are
conceptualized as the extensions of the possessor’s self-concept, by reflecting who
they are (Belk, 1988). This self-expressive role brings brands into prominence for
individuals in the social-bonding processes (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Therefore,
we expect that:

4
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

H5: Self-brand connection positively influences the consumer’s attitude

towards the brand.

H6: Self-brand connection positively influences the consumer’s intention to

purchase the brand.

Brands, endowed with symbolic meanings by the given social context and the
cultural value systems, not only distinguish their producers from all the others, but
also might distinguish their users from the non-users. Symbolic meanings
embodied by the brands can be used to create or represent its consumers’ self-
concept. It is evidenced that the more a brand perceived to be symbolic, the
stronger the connection between the consumer and the brand gets (Escalas &
Bettman, 2005). Therefore, we expect that;

H7: The perceived level of the symbolic function of a brand by the consumer
has a positive influence on the strength of the consumer’s self-brand connection.

In order to examine the salience of a brand’s symbolic benefits on the consumer

decision process in an unbiased way, it is essential to take functional benefits into
account. Thus, perceived quality of a brand is also incorporated in the conceptual
model. Perceived quality of a brand is evidenced as a significant predictor of
consumer’s purchase intentions (Grewal, Khrishnan, Baker, & Borin, 1998).
Besides with this direct influence, we also expect and test the indirect effects of
perceived quality on the purchase intentions which are mediated by self-brand
connections and consumer attitudes. Consequently we hypothesize:

H8: Perceived brand quality positively influence the consumer’s self-brand

connection.

H9: Perceived brand quality positively influence the consumer attitudes

towards the brand.

H10: Perceived brand quality positively influence the consumer intentions to

purchase the brand.

5
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

Figure1 – The proposed research model

H7

H6
H8 H5

H10

H2
H9
H4
H1

H3

3. Methodology

A cross-sectional quantitative research was designed. Data was collected via face-
to-face surveys from a convenient sample of under-graduate and post-graduate
students from the business administration department of a state university in
İstanbul. 188 respondents participated in the study and 180 survey forms were
deemed as admissible after the data screening process. Descriptive statistics and
mean comparisons were analysed with SPSS 20. Conceptual model of the study
was tested with the two-step Structural Equation Modeling approach (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988) by Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation method in AMOS 18.
The constructs in the model were initially identified as a measurement model.
Subsequently to the assessments of the fit statistics and the validity checks with the
measurement model, the constructs were re-specified as a fully latent structural
model and the relationships were analysed.

3.1. Research setting and sample characteristics

One of the leading brands in global smart-phone market was chosen as the stimuli
in the study. Multiple stimuli (brand) utilization was avoided so as to prohibit a
potential contamination of the idiosyncratic differences between brands into the
findings while analyzing the relationships between constructs in the conceptual
model. The conceptual model of the study which aims to predict purchase
intentions of consumers was tested with a convenient sample of students. Drawing
a sample of students considered to be concurrent with the aims of the study
6
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

because, the population between 18 and 34 years of age has been indicated as the
group with the highest smart phone penetration rate (Monitise, 2015). The
respondents in the sample were predominantly female (n=109, 60.6%) and
unemployed (n=149, 82.8%).

3.2. Measures

Questionnaire contains scale items related to the brand’s perceived symbolic

meaning, self-brand connections, perceived brand quality, subjective norm,
attitudes towards the brand and purchase intention constructs. All the items were
anchored between “0=do not agree at all” and “4=completely agree” responses
within the five point rating scale format. All the items, related constructs and the
references are represented in Table 1. Besides with the measures of the theoretical
constructs, demographics and questions about smart-phone usage patterns of the
respondents were also included in the study.

3.3. Results

Although the data did not suffice the multivariate normality assumption, an
alternative estimation method (i.e. asymptotic distribution free estimation) could
not be utilized due to the small sample size in our study (n=180). However, in
consideration with the absence of a substantial kurtosis in our data (Byrne, 2009),
the analyses were conducted and the findings were interpreted with caution against
the probability of inflated chi-square values (Kline, 2011).

3.3.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The research model was specified as a measurement model first so as to assess the
fit and validity of the constructs. The results are represented in Table 1. All the
factor loadings were significant and all but one of them were above the
recommended .7 level (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009). The measurement
model demonstrated a good fit to the data according to the criteria suggested by Hu
and Bentler (1999), and Kline (2011); χ2 (194) = 322.260, (p = .000); χ2/df = 1.661;
CFI = .964; TLI = .957; RMSEA = .061 (.068); SRMR = .0445. All the constructs
indicated convergent validity accordingly to the higher AVE values than the
recommended level of .5 (between .616 and .856) and strong composite reliabilities
ranging between .761 and .959 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). No construct had greater
values of squared correlations with any other construct than their AVE values, that
in turn, indicates the discriminant validity of the constructs (Fornell & Larcker,
1981).

7
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

Table 1 – Constructs, items and CFA results

Constructs Items β CR AVE
Symbolic Using this brand communicates a lot about the person who uses it.a .858
a .761 .616
meaning This brand symbolizes it's users personality. .704
This brand reflects who I am. a .899
a
Self-brand I can identify with this brand. .939
.903 .703
connection I feel a personal connection with this brand. a .812
a
I can consider this brand to be representative of me. .679
This brand offers a high level of quality overall.
b .858
Perceived
This brand provides high quality products in smartphone market. b .881
brand c .910 .717
quality This brand has sophisticated products and services. .893
c
Products of this brand are generally reliable. .748
d
M ost people who are important to me think that I should prefer this brand. .824
d
Subjective M ost people who are important to me think that I should use this brand. .847
d .918 .736
norm The people who influence my decisions encourage me to prefer this brand. .917
d
The people who influence my decisions recommend me to use this brand. .841
I like the idea of using this brand. d .818
d
Choosing this brand when buying a new smartphone is a wise decision. .889
Attitude d .912 .724
Buying this brand is a good idea. .915
Using this brand is a good choice. d .773
d
It is likely that I will buy this brand when I buy a smartphone next time. .951
d
Purchase I would buy this brand if I were to buy a smartphone now. .962
.959 .856
intentions If the price was not an issue, I would prefer this brand.d .843
d
I intend to buy this brand in the future. .939
Constrcuts 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.Self-brand connection .703
2.Symbolic meaning .478 .616
3.Attitude .760 .269 .724
4.Purchase intention .656 .181 .821 .856
5.Subjective norm .579 .284 .858 .471 .736
6.Perceived quality .590 .327 .751 .674 .459 .717
S ample factor mean 1.913 1.508 1.967 2.025 1.474 2.588
S D .997 1.055 1.106 1.479 1.145 1.031

Notes: SD= standard deviation; CR= construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; Lower
triangle in the matrix indicates correlation between constructs. AVE values are presented on the
diagonal. aItem adapted from Escalas & Bettman (2005); bItem adapted from Keller & Aaker (1992);
c
Item adapted from Grewal et al. (1998); dItem adapted from Taylor & Todd (1995).

3.3.2. Structural Model and Hypothesis Tests

Items and constructs in the measurement model were re-specified as a structural

model concurrently with the conceptual model in Figure 1 to test the research
hypotheses. Structural model demonstrated a reasonable fit with the data, χ2 (202) =
385.431, (p = .000); χ2/df = 1.908; CFI = .949; TLI = .941; RMSEA = .071 (.001).

8
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

Results of the hypotheses are represented in Table 2. Research hypotheses were

partially supported according to the data.

Table 2 – Hypothesis tests and structural relationships

Hypotheses Relationships Std. Path Coef. Result
H1 Attitude Intention .802*** Supported
Not
H2 Subj. Norm Intention NS
supported
H3 Subj. Norm Attitude .170** Supported
H4 Subj. Norm Self-brand Con. .410*** Supported
H5 Self-brand Con. Attitude .422*** Supported
Self-brand Con. Intention Not
H6 NS
supported
H7 Symb. Meaning Self-brand Con. .276** Supported
H8 Perc. Quality Self-brand Con. .406*** Supported
H9 Perc. Quality Attitude .497*** Supported
Not
H10 Perc. Quality Intention NS
supported
Explained
variance Endogenous factor R2
Self-brand Connection .409
Attitude .683
Intention .644
Notes. *p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001. NS: non-significant.

The first hypothesis (H1), attitudes positively influence the intention as suggested
by TRA, was supported. However, all the other direct effects on purchase
intentions, H2, H6 and H10, were indicated non-significant in the model. Neverthe
less proposed model demonstrated a high level of explanatory power on purchase
intentions (R2=.644). The attitude towards the brand was also hypothesized to be
influenced by subjective norms (H3), self-brand connections (H5) and perceived
brand quality (H9). All these constructs were indicated as significantly and
positively influencing attitudes and explaining the 68% (approx.) of the total
variation in attitude construct. Additionally, self-brand connection was expected to
be influenced by perceived symbolic meaning (H7), perceived brand quality (H8)
and subjective norm (H4). All these relationships were found to be significant and
positive by explaining a total of approximately 41% of variation change in self-
brand connection factor.

9
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

Figure 2 – The updated research model

.276**

.406***
.422***

.497***
.410***
.802***

.170**

4. Discussions

Our findings exhibit the importance of subjective, contextual and abstract aspects
of consumption, which are blended by the brands and market competition in
addition to the recent socio-psychological changes in consumer behavior.
Subjective norm, the social pressure from other people around the consumer,
appear not only as an important predictor of behavioral intentions as suggested by
TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), but also as a significant factor on the emotional
bonding process of consumers with a brand. This finding is consistent with the
social identity notion (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) in consumer behavior and
substantiates the importance of reference groups for consumer decision process
(Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Another interesting finding is that the perceived brand
quality influences self-brand connection positively. Consumers might be taking the
level of quality provided by a brand as an indicator of the prestigious and
competitive image and so, integrating that brand into their self-concept to be able
to rob-off from these positive image cues. Purchase intentions were predicted
solely by the attitudes, which mediates all effects of other constructs. However, this
finding is interpreted with caution given that the non-significant path coefficients
might either be a consequence of the small sample size or the outcome of the single
brand stimuli. Nonetheless, the model appeared to be robust in terms of predictive
ability in consideration with the high R2 values.

5. Conclusions, managerial implications and limitations

What the brand says is becoming as important as what the brand does in consumer
decision process. This is sparked by the rampant social desirability needs of
modern humans and by the vast amount of commercial communication
10
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

implemented by brands. In order to be perceived distinct, brands continuously

utilize image building communication. Differentiating the product attributes and
protecting core competencies for a long time are getting more and more difficult
for brands recently. However, strong and distinct brand images help corporations to
secure their position in consumers’ minds. Marketers and brand managers should
develop brand images and product offerings consistent with each other in order to
obtain sustainable competitive advantage. In doing so, collective aspects of
consumption, interaction between consumers and the influences of reference
groups should be examined in scrutiny by the managers. Despite the promising
findings of our study, non-probability sampling and the lack of multiple stimuli
restricts the generalizability of our findings to the overall population. Therefore,
our findings could be sample-specific or product-category specific in the given
context.

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. London: Simon & Schuster (2010).
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411-
423.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(2), 139-168.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who Is This We? Levels of Collective Identity and
Self Representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93.
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts,
applications, and programming, second edition. New York: Taylor & Francis .
Doyle, P. (2000). Value-based marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8(4), 299-311.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self‐Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand
Meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39-50.
Grewal, D., Khrishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The Effect of Store Name, Brand
Name and Price Discounts on Consumers' Evaluations and Purchase Intentions.
Journal of retailing, 74(3), 331-352.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective. 7th Ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hu, L.‐t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
11
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux .
Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Global Edition. Pearson Higher Ed.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand
extensions. Journal of marketing research, 29(1), 35-50.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd Ed.).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard business review, 37(4), 117-124.
Ligas, M., & Cotte, J. (1999). The Process of Negotiating Brand Meaning: a Symbolic
Interactionist Perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 609-614.
Monitise. (2015, 04 20). THE MOBILE MONEY LANDSCAPE: Market statistics and
expert views. Retrieved from http://www.monitise.com/:
http://info.monitise.com/rs/clairmail/images/monitise_market-statistics-expert-
views-2014.pdf
Moore, D. J., & Homer, P. M. (2008). Self-brand connections: The role of attitude strength
and autobiographical memory primes. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 707-
714.
Muniz, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(4), 412-432.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity:
improving the measurement-empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 14(3), 143-154.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A
meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future
research. Journal of consumer research, 15(3), 325-343.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup. In W. Austin, & S.
Worchel, The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey:
Brooks-Cole Publishing Company.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of
planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137-155.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the
social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Vazquez, R., Rio, A. B., & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-based brand equity: development
and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing management,
18(1-2), 27-48.

12
 Kırcova, Enginkaya, Yılmaz

13

View publication stats