were significantly different from each other (p < .05) and behaviors as part of the three levels loaded on different factors in a CFA. ------------------------------------------ Table 2 here ------------------------------------------ Results Two CFAs demonstrated that the chi-square change between the model in which the distance and prominence factors were allowed to correlate (r = .87; = 3.70, < .05) χ2(1) p and the model in which the two factors were forced to be perfectly correlated was significant = 420.50, < .001). In addition, the results again showed that the two factor model with p (Δχ2(1) brand-self distance and brand prominence as two separate factors favors the AA Relationships more than a one-factor model. Study 2 also confirmed that the second order factor model predicts the AA Relationships better than the first order factor model. The measurement results in Study 2 replicated Hypotheses 1a and 1b. As hypothesized, the AA Relationships measure had a greater predictive power of a brand’s mind share = .74 versus = .32; = 24.71, < .001) and heart share = .95 versus = .37; z p z (γ γ (γ γ = 44.75, < .001) than brand attachment (Table 2). SEM results further showed that the AA p Relationships and the emotional valence measure predict a heart share equally well = brand’s (γs .89 and .78; = 2.21, = n.s.), while the AA Relationships predict the mind share of a brand z p better than the emotional valence measure = .76 and .29; = 21.58, < .001). Also, AA z p (γs Relationships and brand attitude-strength equally predict a mind share = .70 versus brand’s (γs .64; = 3.86, = n.s.) while AA Relationships predict a heart share better than brand z p brand’s
were significantly different from each other (p < .05) and behaviors as part of the three levels loaded on different factors in a CFA. ------------------------------------------ Table 2 here ------------------------------------------ Results Two CFAs demonstrated that the chi-square change between the model in which the distance and prominence factors were allowed to correlate (r = .87; χ2(1) = 3.70, p < .05) and the model in which the two factors were forced to be perfectly correlated was significant (Δχ2(1) = 420.50, p < .001). In addition, the results again showed that the two factor model with brand-self distance and brand prominence as two separate factors favors the AA Relationships more than a one-factor model. Study 2 also confirmed that the second order factor model predicts the AA Relationships better than the first order factor model. The measurement results in Study 2 replicated Hypotheses 1a and 1b. As hypothesized, the AA Relationships measure had a greater predictive power of a brand’s mind share (γ = .74 versus γ = .32; z = 24.71, p < .001) and heart share (γ = .95 versus γ = .37; z = 44.75, p < .001) than brand attachment (Table 2). SEM results further showed that the AA Relationships and the emotional valence measure predict a brand’s heart share equally well (γs = .89 and .78; z = 2.21, p = n.s.), while the AA Relationships predict the mind share of a brand better than the emotional valence measure (γs = .76 and .29; z = 21.58, p < .001). Also, AA Relationships and brand attitude-strength equally predict a brand’s mind share (γs = .70 versus .64; z = 3.86, p = n.s.) while AA Relationships predict a brand’s heart share better than brand
AA%20Model%20of%20Customer_Brand_Relationships%20Jan_09_2013-2.docx