Results The results of Study 3 replicated Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Moreover, as shown in Table 3, SEM results demonstrated that the AA Relationships are a better predictor of a mind brand’s share = .56 versus = .30; = 25.59, < .001) and heart share = .87 versus = .35; = z p z (γ γ (γ γ 46.23, < .001) than brand attachment. AA Relationships were also better able to capture a p heart share than brand attitude-strength = .90 versus .29; = 25.85, < .001), while z p brand’s (γs being an equal predictor of brand mind share = .79 versus .72; = 1.94, = n.s.). In addition, z p (γs the AA Relationships and the emotional valence measure predicted the heart share of a brand equally well = .86 and .79; = 3.39, = n.s.), while the AA Relationships were better z p (γs predictors of a mind share than the emotional valence measure = .78 and .30; = z brand’s (γs 19.73, < 001). The AA Relationships also predicted the relationship motivation strength better p than other measures (see Table 3). In addition, Study 3 demonstrated that the AA Relationships measure predicted intentions to engage in the most difficult-to-enact pro- or customers’ behaviors better than brand attachment = .80 versus .33; = 21.42, < .001), attitude z p (γs strength = .92 versus .31, = 34.74, < .001) as well as the emotional valence measure = z p (γs (γs .92 versus .36; = 32.75, < .001). The same results were obtained for moderately z p behaviors while no difference was noted among four measures for easier behaviors (Table 3). This supports Hypothesis 4a. Since all survey participants shopped at the collaborating store at least once in the past (before December 2010), it was not possible to test the relative predictive performance of the AA Relationships and other measures on brand purchase.9 Thus, the relative predictive power of several competing measures on behaviors (Hypothesis 4b) was tested on the basis of only brand
Results The results of Study 3 replicated Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Moreover, as shown in Table 3, SEM results demonstrated that the AA Relationships are a better predictor of a brand’s mind share (γ = .56 versus γ = .30; z = 25.59, p < .001) and heart share (γ = .87 versus γ = .35; z = 46.23, p < .001) than brand attachment. AA Relationships were also better able to capture a brand’s heart share than brand attitude-strength (γs = .90 versus .29; z = 25.85, p < .001), while being an equal predictor of brand mind share (γs = .79 versus .72; z = 1.94, p = n.s.). In addition, the AA Relationships and the emotional valence measure predicted the heart share of a brand equally well (γs = .86 and .79; z = 3.39, p = n.s.), while the AA Relationships were better predictors of a brand’s mind share than the emotional valence measure (γs = .78 and .30; z = 19.73, p < 001). The AA Relationships also predicted the relationship motivation strength better than other measures (see Table 3). In addition, Study 3 demonstrated that the AA Relationships measure predicted customers’ intentions to engage in the most difficult-to-enact pro- or behaviors better than brand attachment (γs = .80 versus .33; z = 21.42, p < .001), attitude strength (γs = .92 versus .31, z = 34.74, p < .001) as well as the emotional valence measure (γs = .92 versus .36; z = 32.75, p < .001). The same results were obtained for moderately behaviors while no difference was noted among four measures for easier behaviors (Table 3). This supports Hypothesis 4a. Since all survey participants shopped at the collaborating store at least once in the past (before December 2010), it was not possible to test the relative predictive performance of the AA Relationships and other measures on brand purchase.9 Thus, the relative predictive power of several competing measures on behaviors (Hypothesis 4b) was tested on the basis of only brand
AA%20Model%20of%20Customer_Brand_Relationships%20Jan_09_2013-2.docx