See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281467441

Consumer-based chain restaurant brand

equity, brand reputation, and brand trust
Article in International Journal of Hospitality Management September 2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.06.010

CITATIONS

READS

92

3 authors, including:
Timothy Jeonglyeol Lee
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
75 PUBLICATIONS 237 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Timothy Jeonglyeol Lee

Retrieved on: 28 September 2016

International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity, brand reputation, and

brand trust
Sung Ho Han a , Bang Nguyen b , Timothy J. Lee c,
a
b
c

Oxford Edu Centre Ltd. (Ph.D., Oxford Brookes University), 5 Shelford Place, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7NW, UK
ECUST School of Business, East China University of Science & Technology, Shanghai 200237, PR China
Department of Tourism & Hospitality,Ritsumeikan Asia Pacic University (APU), Beppu 874-8577 Japan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 October 2014
Received in revised form 29 June 2015
Accepted 29 June 2015
Keywords:
Visit purpose
Brand equity
Chain restaurant
Brand reputation
Brand trust

a b s t r a c t
This study develops and tests a consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity(CBCRBE) model and investigates the mediating effects of brand reputation on the relationship between CBCRBE and brand trust.
Using a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis, the four dimensions of CBCRBE- food & service
quality, brand affect, brand awareness, and brand association- are found to have positive effects on brand
reputation. Moreover, it is demonstrated that brand reputation has a positive effect on brand trust. The
results of study conrm that brand reputation partially mediates the effects of food & service quality,
brand affect, and brand awareness on brand trust. In addition, the effect of brand association on brand
trust is fully mediated via brand reputation. The study of CBCRBE offers insights into the efcient strategies that can be used to enhance brand reputation and secure brand trust in the restaurant industry.
Finally, based on the result of the relationship between CBCRBE, brand reputation, and brand trust, the
study compares the differences among the groups according to the consumer visit purposes in relation
to the CBCRBE dimensions. The results of the study contribute to improve understanding of the complex
psychological processes involved in consumer selection criteria for a chain restaurant or relevant service
industry.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Creating and maintaining a brand is essential in todays competitive marketing environment, and brand equity is the outcome of
efcient branding activity investments (Seetharaman et al., 2001).
The measurement of brand equity should accurately evaluate consumers perceptions of the brand in order to develop marketing
strategies that align with consumers values (Isberg and Pitta,
2013). This is relevant, not only to consumers, who purchase a
brand, but also to managers and marketers who evaluate the performance of the brand and formulate powerful strategies (Yasin et al.,
2007). Hence, the evaluation of brand equity presents an efcient
way to assess both consumers brand perceptions and marketing
activity (So and King, 2010).
Changes in consumer lifestyles have led to an increase in the
demand for varied dining experiences and to the rapid growth in
the fast-foodservice industry (Min and Min, 2011). This development has an inuenced the appearance of many chain restaurants

Corresponding author. Fax: +81 977 78 1121.

E-mail addresses: sunghohan7@hotmail.com (S.H. Han),
bang.london@gmail.com (B. Nguyen), timlee7@apu.ac.jp (T.J. Lee).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.06.010
0278-4319/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

which frequently build strong brands in order to strengthen

competitiveness and brand equity so that consumers are able
to recognize the chain restaurant brand better (Kim and Kim,
2005). Perkins (2014) states that independent restaurants struggle because consumers are changing to chain restaurants. With the
U.K.s eating out market continuing to grow, the chain restaurants
show a tendency to dominate the U.K. high street (Angelis, 2013).
In 2014, it was thought to be worth approximately 16.4 billion
(US$26 billion) and U.K. chain restaurants are now expected to grow
to 22 billion (US$35 billion) over the next ve years (Gerrard,
2014). Although some researchers have studied the development
of the chain restaurant market, a limited number of studies focus
on consumer-based brand equity in the chain restaurant industry
(Hyun and Kim, 2011; Kim and Kim, 2005). Scholars debate whether
brand equity measures used in goods marketing can be applied
to service-based brands. Due to the unique attributes of services
(e.g. intangibility and heterogeneity), goods-based brand equity, it
is argued, requires adjustments to meet hospitality service brand
evaluation requirements (Nam et al., 2011).
Moreover, while previous research has examined the relationship between brand reputation and brand trust (Chang, 2013;
Johnson and Grayson, 2005; Park et al., 2014), no study has, to
the best of our knowledge, examined the role of brand reputation

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

on the relationship between Consumer-Based Chain Restaurant

Brand Equity (CBCRBE) and brand trust in the restaurant industry. Researchers consider brand trust as an important factor in the
restaurant industry mainly due to food safety, food taste and health
(Afzal et al., 2010; Song et al., 2012). In addition, trust is the most
popular measure of brand-consumer relationships, and may be a
crucial indicator for brand equity (Alam and Yasin, 2010). Thus,
consumers frequently choose reputable restaurants based on trust.
As most consumers rely on the restaurants reputation to infer
food quality, restaurants invest heavily in developing a reputation
that is considered trustworthy (Fandos and Flavian, 2006; Herbig
and Milewicz, 1995; Madanoglu, 2005; Rijswijk and Frewer, 2008).
When consumers choose service brands such as restaurants, they
also consider risk reduction (Lacey et al., 2009). That is, consumers
try to reduce uncertainty and anxiety by taking into account the
overall brand equity, brand trust, and brand reputation. Thus, it is
important to analyze further the relationship among brand equity,
brand reputation and brand trust in the chain restaurant industry.
To ll this important gap, this research aims to: (1) to identify
the underlying dimensions of CBCRBE; (2) to empirically examine the relationship between CBCRBE, brand reputation and brand
trust in the restaurant industry, investigating the mediating role of
brand reputation on the relationship between CBCRBE and brand
trust; and (3) to compare the evaluation of the dimensions of
CBCRBE between different consumer visit purposes. The results
should demonstrate how CBCRBE can be effectively used to attract
consumers and to improve understanding of the differential application of CBCRBE dimensions according to consumer visit purposes.
Thus, highly effective targeting strategies can be established in the
current study.

2. Research models and hypotheses

A considerable amount of research is directed towards identifying the dimensions of brand equity and establishing a common
basis for further study (Buil et al., 2008; Kumar et al., 2013; Yasin
et al., 2007; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). Aaker (1991) lists four dimensions of brand equity, namely, brand awareness, perceived quality,
brand association and brand loyalty. Due to the unique characteristics of services, researchers have studied adjusted measures of
service brand equity. To examine the brand equity of luxury hotels
and chain restaurants, Kim and Kim (2005) used brand awareness,
perceived quality, brand image and brand loyalty. Building on this,
Hyun and Kim (2011) added a food quality item to their perceived
quality dimension in the chain restaurant context. In the present
study, the authors extend previous brand equity models proposed
by Aaker (1991), Kim and Kim (2005), and Hyun and Kim (2011)
by incorporating self-congruence, brand affect and food quality.
Food quality consists of important items related to food freshness
(Soriano, 2002), and food hygiene (Dutta et al., 2007). The present
research uses self-congruence to capture symbolic consumption as
researchers agree on the importance of symbolic consumption in
consumer behavior (Kwak and Kang, 2009; Nam et al., 2011). In
addition, the authors posit that consumers tend to favor restaurants which create strong emotional ties (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2001), suggesting that emotional attachment to the brand leads to
a positive attitudinal response (Evanschitzky et al., 2006). Thus, the
study adopts brand affect as a dimension of CBCRBE. However, the
current study excludes brand loyalty as a dimension of CBCRBE.
Lassar et al. (1995) view brand loyalty as a consequence of brand
equity and not a part of it. They consider only perceptual dimensions as brand equity, thus excluding behavioral dimensions, such
as brand loyalty. Consequently, the study proposes the following
ve CBCRBE dimensions: food & service quality, brand affect, selfcongruence, brand awareness and brand association.

85

To demonstrate CBCRBEs relationship to other branding elements, the current study further includes brand reputation and
brand trust. Brand trust is one of the most important characteristics of the chain restaurant brand because it increases consumers
associations with intangible attributes such as taste, reliable
hygiene, atmosphere, etc. In the restaurant industry, increased
brand trust reduces consumers perceived risk when choosing a
service (Herrera and Blanco, 2011). With regard to this, reputation is also a valuable intangible asset of a brand (Dolphin, 2004).
In the service sector, reputation is particularly important, given
the services intangible character and the difculty in evaluating
its quality without having experienced it (Herbig and Milewicz,
1995). Researchers have demonstrated that good reputation is perceived as a signal of reliability (Suh and Houston, 2010) and acts
as an antecedent to trust (Alam and Yasin, 2010; Torres-Moraga
et al., 2010). Chang (2013) explored the role of trust as a mediating variable between corporate reputation and brand loyalty in
the restaurant sector, and the results supported previous studies in
that corporate reputation has an inuence on trust. Thus the current study adopts brand reputation as a mediating variable between
CBCRBE and brand trust.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 present the two research models used to investigate the relationship between CBCRBE, brand reputation and bran
d trust in the chain restaurant industry. The original research model
(Fig. 1) suggests that the ve dimensions of CBCRBE have an effect
on brand trust through brand reputation. The effects of the CBCRBE
dimensions on brand trust are fully mediated via brand reputation.
Fig. 2 presents an alternative model a partial mediation model
to investigate the direct effects of CBCRBE dimensions on brand
trust. Finally, the study posits that to be a successful brand, restaurant chains need to understand a consumers purpose for the visit;
therefore, the study examines the signicance of visit purpose in
relation to brand equity.

2.1. The effects of food & service quality on brand reputation

The majority of service quality studies have, to date, used the
SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman, et al., (1985). Some
researchers, however, have found that this model is insufcient to
capture a specic service area (Buttle, 1996). The Nordic European
model of service quality, suggested by Grnroos (1984), is found
to be more valid in the hospitality industry (Brady and Cronin,
2001; Ekinci, 2001; Madanoglu, 2005). The Nordic European model
identies two dimensions of service quality: Technical quality is
an objective evaluation of the outcome of service performance,
whereas functional quality is a subjective evaluation of how the
consumer receives the service (Grnroos, 1984). Scholars agree that
service quality in the restaurant industry must be evaluated from
various perspectives such as food quality, staff behavior and physical quality in order to meet the consumers expectations (Brady and
Cronin, 2001; Ekinci et al., 2008; Nam et al., 2011). Consequently,
due to the present studys contextual focus on the restaurant industry, the current study emphasizes food quality in our evaluation to
assess overall service quality in the CBCRBE (Hoare and Butcher,
2008).
Researchers suggest that service quality is associated with brand
reputation, that is, service quality becomes a tool that can indicate
a good or bad reputation (Wirtz et al., 2000). Having a good reputation ensures growth in popularity via word of mouth (Walsh et al.,
2009). In contrast, ambiguous product quality may have a negative
effect on building a brand reputation (Selnes, 1993). Jin and Leslie
(2009) support this relationship by showing that chain restaurants
have better food hygiene quality than independent restaurants
because of the reputational incentives of the chain. Based on the
above arguments, this study hypothesizes that:

86

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

Food & Service

Quality

H1

Brand
Affect

SelfCongruence

H2

H3

H6

Brand
Reputation

Brand
Trust

H4

Brand
Awareness

H5

Brand
Association

CBCRBE
Fig. 1. Full mediation model.

H1. Food & service quality has a positive effect on brand reputation.

(2009) found that emotional satisfaction has a positive effect on

behavioral intentions such as loyalty and recommendation in hospitality industry. Thus, pleasing consumers and securing their
preferences will form a positive brand reputation. Based on these
arguments, the current study hypothesizes that:

2.2. The effects of brand affect on brand reputation

Emotional feelings such as love, hate, pity and anger provide the
energy that stimulates and sustains a particular attitude towards a
brand (Wright, 2006). Research shows that consumption is governed by consumers feelings and emotions, in addition to the
functional aspect of the product (Zohra, 2011). Hence, researchers
direct much attention towards the affective factors in marketing (Keller, 2008). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001, p. 82) dene
brand affect as a brands potential to elicit a positive emotional
response in the average consumer as a result of its use. Behavioral decision theorists investigate affective reactions that inuence
the decision-making process (Garbarino and Edell, 1997). Research
demonstrates that consumer satisfaction and purchase intention
are directly inuenced by positive affect (Oliver et al., 1997). Yu
and Dean (2001) propose that the affective element of consumer
satisfaction is a better component for predicting positive wordof-mouth than cognitive elements (e.g. price and quality). Ladhari

H2.

Brand affect has a positive effect on brand reputation.

2.3. The effects of self-congruence on brand reputation

Self-concept is the thoughts, beliefs, and concerns that individuals hold about their own attributes and characteristics (Wright,
2006, p. 325). Scholars hold that consumers tend to prefer
brands with images that match their own self-concept, and selfcongruence is referred to as this process of matching (Sirgy and Su,
2000). Consumers have a positive attitude and buying intention
towards brands that are consistent with their self-image (Graeff,
1996). Self-congruence is related to symbolic consumption, which
expresses the self-concept through consumption (Hosany and
Martin, 2012). For example, Ekinci et al. (2013) found that tourists
revisit a tourism destination because the image of destination

Food&
Service Quality
H1

Brand
Affect

H7a

H2

SelfCongruence

H7c
H3

Brand
Awareness
Brand
Association

Brand
Trust

H7b

H7d

H7e

H4

H6

Brand
Reputation
H5

CBCRBE
Fig. 2. Partial mediation model.

-----------------

Direct effects

indirect effects.

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

matches their self-image and symbolic meanings. In the restaurant

industry, self-congruence is one of the main factors that inuence
a restaurant visit. Restaurants are places for dining, social meetings
and business. Hence, the image of a restaurant (e.g., interior design,
music, menu, and staff dress and behavior) must match the selfconcept of its target consumers. Researchers use the self-concept to
explain consumer behavior (Quester et al., 2000) because a persons
specic behavior patterns are frequently determined by the image
that he/she has about himself/herself (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1989).
This, in turn, suggests that self-congruence creates positive brand
attitudes (Ekinci and Riley, 2003) and inuences brand preference
(Jamal and Goode, 2001). In a competitive marketing environment,
the extent of the congruence between consumers self-concept and
a brands image signicantly inuences consumers evaluation of
the brand (Graeff, 1996). When reputation is considered as the
overall evaluation of a brand, the present study suggests that:
H3.

Self-congruence has a positive effect on brand reputation.

2.4. The effects of brand awareness on brand reputation

Brand awareness is related to the strength of the brand in
the minds of consumers, and it enables consumers to recognize
and recall the brand, thus enhancing brand equity (Keller, 1993).
Brand awareness is an important goal of marketing efforts because
brand image and brand attitude cannot be formed in its absence
(Macdonald and Sharp, 2003). Some researchers highlight the
importance of brand awareness in the service context (Kayaman
and Arasli, 2007; Krishnan and Hartline, 2001). Brand awareness
is linked to brand name; it denotes the probability that a particular brand name comes to the consumers mind (Keller, 1993). A
brand name serves to reduce the risks of buying and consuming
an alternate service brand (Bharadwaj et al., 1993). Mathew et al.
(2014) found that brand awareness contributes to create credibility, which in turn, creates loyalty intensions. Trust of consumers
towards a special brand thus enhances brand reputation. Scholars have demonstrated that brand awareness is related to brand
reputation (Maltz, 1991). Brand awareness and brand association
are considered to be the main components of reputation (Davies
and Miles, 1998), and investments in brand awareness can lead
to sustainable competitive advantage and long-term brand value
(Macdonald and Sharp, 2003). Therefore, the current study posits
that brand awareness has an impact on brand reputation and the
study hypothesizes that:
H4.

Brand awareness has a positive effect on brand reputation.

2.5. The effects of brand associations on brand reputation

Keller (1993, p. 3) denes brand associations as the other informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory and contain
the meaning of the brand for consumers. The informational nodes
contain specic details of a product, such as price, logo and brand
advertising, in addition to word-of-mouth and the consumers past
experience (John et al., 2006). Aaker (1991) asserts that the cornerstone of brand equity is the familiarity of a brand name which
can create positive associations for consumers. Brand associations
are regarded as one of the most important factors in creating
a brand image (Keller, 2008; Ross et al., 2006). Positive brand
image, in turn, creates a good brand reputation. The establishment
of a brand image through advertising, logos and symbols determines a products position, and successful positioning reinforces
a strong brand image (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995). Romaniuk and
Nenycz-Thiel (2013) note that a strong memory effect reinforces
a brand image. Consumers who are loyal to a brand often associate
a company with a positive reputation (Roberts and Dowling, 2002).
Therefore, the current study hypothesizes that:

H5.

87

Brand association has a positive effect on brand reputation.

2.6. The effects of brand reputation on brand trust

Researchers agree that reputation is related to attitudes
(Schwaiger, 2004). Attitudes are feelings and beliefs about a brand
on the basis of the knowledge and information obtained from a
consumers experiences (Wright, 2006). Therefore, a brands reputation refers to the attitude of consumers that the brand is good

and reliable (Afzal et al., 2010, p. 45). Smai

ziene (2008) suggests
that a positive reputation expresses a low level of risk and stimulates buying decisions. Researchers highlight that trust reduces
uncertainty and risk (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). In the context of chain restaurants, trust is a vital factor in buying behavior
(Bredahl, 2001). When consumers trust a brand, they believe that
the food is of high quality reducing uncertainties like lack of hygiene
and freshness. Therefore, in maintaining a positive relationship
between consumers and providers, scholars consider trust as a crucial component (Elliott and Yannopoulou, 2007). Brand reputation

has the ability to reduce uncertainty and create trust (Smai

ziene,
2008). In a service sector such as chain restaurants, reputation is
more important due to the services uncertainty (Cretu and Brodie,
2007). Researchers have demonstrated that brand reputation has
a positive effect on brand trust (Suh and Houston, 2010; TorresMoraga et al., 2010). Reputation thus conveys increased trust in the
service quality (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). Therefore, the present
study hypothesizes that:
H6.

Brand reputation has a positive effect on brand trust.

2.7. The effects of CBCRBE on brand trust

We test the direct effect of CBCRBE on brand trust to investigate
the partial mediation impact of brand reputation on the relationship between CBCRBE and brand trust. Researchers have studied
the relationship between brand trust and consumer-based brand
equity (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn, 2005; Kumar
et al., 2013). For example, Kim (2014) explains that improving service quality is positively related to improving brand trust. Thus
by increasing food safety, food quality, and the service ability of
staff in the restaurant, the trust in the restaurant brand is elevated
(Bredahl, 2001). Moreover, Phan and Ghantous (2013) shows that
brand association is the strongest driver of brand trust in service
brands. This is because the image of a service brand signals that the
brand should be able to keep its promises to the consumers. This
study, therefore, hypothesizes that:
H7a H7e. Consumer-based Chain Restaurant Brand Equity
(CBCRBE)Food & service quality, brand affect, self-congruence,
brand awareness, brand associationhas a positive effect on brand
trust.
2.8. Evaluation of CBCRBE and the purpose of a visit
A consumers satisfaction with a restaurant can be described
as the subjective evaluation (Meyer and Schwager, 2007) of the
restaurant according to situational factors as well as food-related
attributes, atmosphere, and staff behavior (Berry et al., 2002;
Namkung and Jang, 2008). As consumers visit a restaurant to meet
varying purposes, they evaluate it with diverse criteria based on
their specic visiting purpose (Noone and Mattila, 2010). For example, a consumer might visit a restaurant to enjoy atmosphere, to
attend a social meeting, to eat casually, or to save time. These
motives play an important role in the consumers overall satisfaction. Ponnam and Balaji (2014) found that the various visiting
motives affect the evaluation of a restaurants attributes. The consumers satisfaction towards the chain restaurants is based on the

88

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

Table 1
Construct correlations and average variance extracted (AVE).

1. Food & Service Quality

2. Brand Affect
3. Self-Congruence
4. Brand Association
5. Brand Awareness
6. Brand Reputation
7. Brand Trust

1
1
0.66(0.15)
0.56(0.13)
0.45(0.11)
0.09(0.08)
0.65(0.13)
0.75(0.12)

1
0.42(0.14)
0.50(0.13)
0.17(0.10)
0.59(0.14)
0.80(0.16)

1
0.30 (0.11)
-0.14(0.09)
0.33 (0.12)
0.34 (0.12)

1
0.34(0.08)
0.50(0.11)
0.46(0.11)

1
0.32(0.09)
0.31(0.09)

1
0.69(0.13)

AVE
0.52
0.85
0.80
0.76
0.63
0.76
0.73

Standard errors are in parentheses.

value they want from visiting the restaurant (Holbrook, 1999). Such
evaluation of value can also have an effect on the brand equity of the
chain restaurant. While these restaurants offer food, service, atmosphere, and facilities (the restaurants fundamental attributes), the
restaurant managers should further investigate the CBCRBE in relation to the consumers actual visiting purpose in order to satisfy
their underlying needs (Ha and Jang, 2013). By identifying the differences based on the visiting purposes, managers can develop a
variety of customized marketing strategies more elaborately and
also elevate the brand equity of restaurant. Therefore, this study
hypothesizes that:
H8. There is a difference in CBCRBE between different consumer
groups based on the purpose of a visit.

3. Methodology
3.1. The sample and data collection
Prior to the main survey activities, two pilot studies were conducted. Each pilot was conducted with 30 respondents. As some
questions were obscure and difcult for participants to understand,
they were revised. The main survey, conducted in the South East
of England, focused on British consumers. Respondents were asked
if they had any experience with chain restaurant brands (e.g., T.G.I
Fridays, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, etc.) prior to lling in the
questionnaire. Using a convenience sampling method, a total of 328
questionnaires was collected and of these 15 were excluded due to
incomplete or missing items. The respondents were males (49.0%)
and females (51.0%). Of the respondents, 31.4% were between 16
and 25 years old, 19.6% between 26 and 35, 25.3% between 36 and
45, 17.3% between 46 and 55, 4.8% between 56 and 65, and 1.6%
over 65.

4. Findings
4.1. Validity and reliability of the measures
Before testing the model, an exploratory factor analysis was
performed. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin) value is .866, which
exceeds the recommended value of 0.6 (Pallant, 2007). Barletts Test
of Sphericity is shown to be statistically signicant (p = 0.000). This
supports the notion of factorability of the correlation matrix. The
result of the factor analysis suggests a ve factor solution: Food &
service quality, Brand affect, Brand awareness, Brand association,
Self-congruence. This study further assessed the mean and reliability of consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity (CBCRBE),
brand reputation and brand trust using SPSS. Results reveal that
Cronbachs alphas for reliability are above the acceptable levels of
.70 (Hair et al., 2006; Pallant, 2007). In order to test convergent
validity, the study estimated factor loadings signicance, average
variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) by conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS. All factor loadings are
greater than 0.5 and statistically signicant. In addition, AVE and
CR are above 0.5 and 0.7 respectively (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) which
meet the requirements for convergent validity. AVEs are higher
than the squared correlations between constructs except for food
& service quality and brand trust. However, the condence interval
( 2 standard error) around the correlation estimate between
the food & service quality and brand trust does not include 1.0
(Table 1). Thus, this supports discriminant validity (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988).
To measure models, the results of the conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicate a good model t (2 = 506.63, df = 224, p = 0.00,
GFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.064, TLI = 0.94). In this testing, the
2 statistic suggests an inadequate t. However, this is less meaningful as the sample size in this study is large (Hair et al., 2006).
Table 2 presents the information on the measurement of models.
4.2. Hypothesis testing

3.2. Measurements
To measure the constructs, a seven point-Likert type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, was employed.
Food & service quality measures consisted of two food quality,
two physical quality, and two staff behavior items adopted from
Dutta et al. (2007), Soriano (2002) and Ekinci (2001). Three items
developed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) were employed to
measure brand affect. To measure brand awareness and brand associations, this study adopted three items from Yoo et al. (2000) and
Netemeyer et al. (2004), and three items from Gladden and Funk
(2002). Self-congruence was measured with three items adopted
from Sirgy and Su (2000). Three items proposed by Veloutsou and
Moutinho (2009) were used to measure brand reputation. Finally,
this study measured brand trust using three items from DelgadoBallester (2004).

4.2.1. Structural models results (full mediation model and partial

mediation model)
Using structural equation modeling (SEM), two research models
were tested to examine the mediating effect of brand reputation.
Results of the structure analysis conrm the models goodness of t
and hypothesized paths of this study. Table 3 provides the results
for the two models (full and partial mediation models). In the specication of the research Model 1 (full mediation model), the results
show an appropriate model t (2 = 710.30, p = 0.00, GFI = 0.85,
CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.082). The validity of Model 2 (partial mediation model) shows an adequate model t (2 = 542.88,
p = 0.00, GFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.067).
4.2.2. Impact of consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity
(CBCRBE) on brand reputation
As shown in Table 3, the present research posits that food & service quality has a positive effect on brand reputation. Hence, the

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

89

Table 2
Reliability and validity of constructs.
Construct

Items

Mean

SD

Loadings

Cron bachs alpha

CR

Food & service

quality

The staff of this restaurant brand is helpful and friendly

This restaurant brand offers a tidy environment
This restaurant brand provides comfortable seats and tables
The staff of this restaurant brand is talented and displays a natural expertise
This restaurant brand offers fresh foods
This restaurant brand prepares food and drinks according to hygiene standard

4.53
4.57
4.45
3.56
4.22
5.07

1.46
1.55
1.65
1.60
1.64
1.33

.82
.70
.67
.78
.68
.64

.87

.73

Brand affect

I feel good when I dine in this restaurant brand

This restaurant brand makes me happy
This restaurant brand gives me pleasure

4.16
4.11
4.27

1.71
1.64
1.66

.91
.91
.94

.93

.86

Self-congruence

The customers who dine in this restaurant are very much like me
The customers who dine in this restaurant reect the type of person I would like to be
The customers who dine in this restaurant are very much like the person I admire

3.10
2.52
2.47

1.56
1.52
1.49

.77
.97
.93

.92

.83

Brand awareness

I am aware of this brand

I am familiar with this restaurant brand
I can recognize this brand among other restaurant brands

6.01
5.92
6.00

1.38
1.26
1.28

.74
.86
.78

.84

.75

Brand association

This brand has an attractive logo

I like the logo of the brand
I like the colours of building or interior

4.78
4.43
4.05

1.51
1.55
1.56

.89
.94
.77

.90

.80

Brand reputation

This brand is trustworthy

This brand is reputable
This brand makes honest claims

4.60
4.77
4.30

1.45
1.47
1.40

.90
.92
.79

.90

.82

Brand trust

I can rely on this brand to solve the service dissatisfaction

This brand guarantees satisfaction
I have condence in this brand

4.16
4.62
4.87

1.44
1.43
1.43

.75
.90
.91

.88

.80

Table 3
Structural models results (full mediation model and partial mediation model).
Hypothesized paths

H1:Food & service quality brand reputation

H2:Brand affect brand reputation
H3:Self-congruence brand reputation
H4:Brand awareness brand reputation
H5:Brand association brand reputation
H6:Brand reputation brand trust
H7a:Food & service quality brand trust
H7b:Brand affect brand trust
H7c:Self-congruence brand trust
H7d:Brand awareness brand trust
H7e:Brand association Brand trust
Model t statistics
X2
Df
RMSEA
GFI
CFI
TLI

Full Mediation

Partial Mediation

Standardized path coefcient

t-Value

Standardized path coefcient

t-Value

0.45
0.27
0.02
0.21
0.12
0.75

6.08***
4.22***
0.42
3.98***
2.15*
11.77***

0.44
0.22
0.02
0.20
0.13
0.13
0.40
0.50
0.11
0.15
0.03

5.57***
3.19**
0.27
3.68***
2.23*
2.30*
5.67***
8.37***
2.37*
3.30***
0.63

542.88
226
0.067
0.88
0.94
0.93

710.3
231
0.082
0.85
0.92
0.90

GFI: goodness of t index; CFI: critical t index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; TLI: TuckerLewis index.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

results of the study support H1 ( = 0.45, t = 6.08, p < 0.001). The

results of the analysis also support H2 ( = 0.27, t = 4.22, p < 0.001)
and conrm that brand affect has a positive effect on brand reputation. Furthermore, H4 is supported ( = 0.21, t = 3.98, p < 0.001),
indicating that brand awareness has a positive inuence on brand
reputation. H5 predicts brand association has an effect on brand
reputation, which the results support ( = 0.12, t = 2.15, p < 0.05).
The result of the analysis for H3 reveals that self-congruence does
not have a statistically signicant effect on brand reputation
( = 0.02, t = 0.42, p > 0.05). Taken together, these results indicate that the CBCRBE dimensions (food & service quality, brand
affect, brand awareness, and brand association) are important
antecedents of brand reputation.

4.2.3. Impact of consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity

(CBCRBE) and brand reputation on brand trust
H6 suggests that brand reputation has a positive effect on brand
trust. The result of the model testing supports this proposition
( = 0.75, t = 11.77, p < 0.001). H7aH7e predict that CBCRBE has
a positive effect on brand trust. The results of the partial model
testing can be seen in Table 3, food & service quality ( = 0.40,
t = 5.67, p < 0.001), brand affect ( = 0.50, t = 8.37, p < 0.001), and
brand awareness ( = 0.15, t = 3.30, p < 0.001) have positive effects
on brand trust. However, self-congruence has a negative effect on
brand trust ( = 0.11, t = 2.37, p < 0.05). Therefore, brand reputation partially mediates the effects of food & service quality, brand
affect, and brand awareness on brand trust. However, brand associ-

90

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

Table 4
Analysis of CBCRBE by the purpose of visit: ANOVA with the post-hoc test.
CBCRBE/

Purpose of visit

Social meeting

Enjoy atmosphere

Enjoy eating

Saving time

Others

F (p-value)

Food & Service

quality

N
Mean
S.D.
Post-hoc test

54
4.32
1.22

20
4.77
1.35
A

91
4.45
1.16

82
3.91
1.13
B

41
4.21
1.03

3.519 (0.008)**

Brand affect

N
Mean
S.D.
Post-hoc test

53
4.08
1.60
B

21
4.70
1.59
A

90
4.96
1.18
A

82
3.47
1.53
B

41
3.90
1.56
B

12.583 (0.000)***

Self-congruence

N
Mean
S.D.
Post-hoc test

55
3.09
1.36
A

21
3.14
1.49
A

90
2.85
1.49

81
2.33
1.17
B

43
2.70
1.38

3.313 (0.011)*

Brand awareness

N
Mean
S.D.
Post-hoc test

55
5.62
1.04

20
5.71
1.29

88
5.61
1.07

78
5.59
1.17

41
5.56
0.87

0.076 (0.989)

Brand association

N
Mean
S.D.
Post-hoc test

55
4.49
1.42

21
4.79
1.56

92
4.70
1.44

83
4.14
1.26

41
4.18
1.46

2.408 (0.050)

The Duncans multiple range test was used as the post-hoc test.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

ation is insignicant ( = 0.03, t = 0.63, p > 0.05), thus, indicating

that the effects of brand association on brand trust is fully mediated by brand reputation. Following the analysis results above, the
current study further developed and explored the CBCRBE. In the
subsequent attempt, this study added one-way ANOVA to compare the differences among varying groups according to their visit
purpose in relation to the CBCRBE.

With regard to Self Congruence (p < 0.05), there is a signicant difference among two categories: Social Meeting, Enjoy Atmosphere
groups; Saving Time groups. Notably, in the dimensions of food &
service Quality and Self Congruence, the Enjoy Atmosphere group
represents the highest mean score, while Saving Time group has
the lowest mean score.

4.2.4. Evaluation of CBCRBE by the consumer purpose of visit

According to the results of the analysis using SEM, both the
full and partial mediation models, it is evident that all the CBCRBE
dimensions have an effect on brand trust. Of great importance to
chain restaurant is the ability to attract consumers and satisfy the
consumers needs. The study demonstrates that it is desirable to
build brand strategies using the improved dimensions of CBCRBE
which can provide brand trust with consumers. In addition to this,
the consumers purpose of visit can be another important factor in assessing brand trust. Consumers choose restaurants with
multi-attributes and both factors, the dimensions of CBCRBE and
consumer purpose of visit need to be compared with each other.
Consumers consider the importance of the CBCRBE dimensions differently according to purpose of visit. For this reason, based on SEM
results, this study conducts one-way ANOVA using all the CBCRBE
dimensions in order to conrm the difference of CBCRBE according
to consumer purpose of visit. Table 4 illustrates the result of the
ANOVA.
As shown in Table 4, ANOVA with the post-hoc test (Duncans
multiple range test) was employed to examine the perceptional differences of groups according to the purpose of visit on CBCRBE at
the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels. This test shows a statistical significance for three dimensions of CBCRBE but not Brand Awareness
and Brand Association. Specically, the Duncan multiple range test
conrms signicant differences between the groups, Enjoy Atmosphere (interior design, celebrating Event etc.) and Saving Time,
with regard to food & service Quality (p < 0.01). In terms of Brand
Affect (p < 0.001), ve groups can be categorized into two different groups of visit purpose: Enjoy Atmosphere, Enjoy Eating;
Social Meeting , Saving Time, and Others. The group Enjoy
Eating has the highest perception of Brand Affect (Mean = 4.96).

5. Conclusion
5.1. Contributions
The present study contributes to the growing literature on
CBCRBE, brand reputation and brand trust. First, this research centers on the development of a brand equity model, appropriate for
chain restaurant brands, and focuses on its dimensions as represented by chain restaurants consumption psychology. This study
suggests that food & service quality, brand affect, self-congruence,
brand awareness and brand association are components of CBCRBE.
Although many researchers have studied on the development of
brand equity models, there has been no research model in the
context of chain restaurant brands that includes the following all
three dimensions: food & service quality, brand affect, and selfcongruence. In the restaurant sector, the present study highlights
that the service quality dimension needs to be extended by incorporating food quality, since only adopting physical quality and
staff behavior is insufcient to cover all aspects of the restaurant sector. This is supported by the views of Bujisic et al. (2014)
and Mattila (2001) who indicate the importance of food & service
quality dimension in all the restaurant types. In addition, selfcongruence captures symbolic aspects of brand equity (Nam et al.,
2011), and brand affect captures attitudinal aspects of brand equity,
in the restaurant sector.
Second, the ndings suggest that the effects of CBCRBE on
brand trust are partially mediated by brand reputation. While past
research indicates that brand equity directly inuences brand trust,
this study is the rst to examine the impact of brand reputation on
the relationship between CBCRBE dimensions and brand trust in
the restaurant industry.

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

The ndings show that food & service quality, brand affect, brand
awareness, and brand association have positive effects on brand
reputation, and that brand reputation has an inuence on brand
trust. Thus, we conrm the mediating role of brand reputation
on the relationship between these CBCRBE dimensions and brand
trust. From the ndings, we note that a chain restaurant brand with
high quality satises consumers, leading to increased reputation of
the chain restaurant brand. This is supported by Jin and Leslies
study (2009), which indicates that chain restaurants have a better food hygiene quality than independent restaurants because of
the reputation of chain afliation. Moreover, this nding also suggests that when consumers feel emotional ties to the service brand,
this leads to greater reliability (Song et al., 2012) and commitment
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
Interestingly, ndings also show that self-congruence has no
effect on brand reputation but has a negative effect on brand trust.
This could be because most British consumers tend to regard chain
restaurant brands as non-luxurious. Thus, consumers who visit the
chain restaurants do not want to have congruence with other consumers who are in the chain restaurant. That is, consumers visit
the chain restaurant not for their symbolic values but for their
functional values. Our study also examines the direct effects of
the CBCRBE dimensions on brand trust. The ndings demonstrate
that food & service quality, brand affect, and brand awareness have
positive effects on brand trust. Thus, we note that brand reputation partially mediates the effects of food & service quality, brand
affect, and brand awareness on brand trust. In addition, we found
an interesting relationship in that the effect of brand association
on brand trust is fully mediated via brand reputation. This nding
highlights that brand association has an impact on brand trust only
via brand reputation. Brand reputation, in terms of chain restaurant brands, relies on both consumer perception (brand awareness,
brand association, and food & service quality) and positive emotional responses. In addition, this research further reveals that
reputation is a decisive factor in dening brand trust. Therefore,
the current study supports previous studies suggesting that a good
brand reputation affects consumers trust in the brand in a positive
way (Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009).
Last, this study applied the ANOVA analysis based on the result
of the relationship between CBCRBE, brand reputation, and brand
trust in order to elicit more in-depth knowledge. There have been
no studies about the difference of CBCRBE according to the purpose of visit. However, the examination of the relationship between
brand equity and consumer visiting purpose is important because
brand equity has an inuence on the service brands selection as
it reduces risk (Kumar et al., 2013). The result of study conrms
that there is difference between groups according to their purpose
of visit relating to the CBCRBE dimensions. The rst important difference comes from food & service quality. Consumers who visit a
restaurant in order to enjoy the atmosphere consider food & service
quality as an important attribute of a chain restaurant compared to
consumers who visit a restaurant in order to save time.
Our nding is consistent with Ha and Jangs study (2012) that
atmosphere has a positive relationship with food & service quality in the restaurant sector. People sometimes visit a restaurant
to celebrate special events or relieve their stress. These visiting
purposes are related to their emotion (Ha and Jang, 2012) and
the atmosphere of restaurant has an inuence on the consumers
emotion. Thus, consumers can evaluate the food & service quality level based on a restaurants atmosphere, another signicant
difference appears in brand affect. We notice that enjoy atmosphere and enjoy eating groups have more brand affect towards
a particular restaurant brand than other groups with other visit purposes (social meeting, saving time, and others). This result
is in line with Jang et al. (2011) that when consumers are dining in a restaurant, the more positive and authentic atmospherics

91

there are, the more positive emotions can be increased. As far as

self-congruence is concerned, we notice a signicant difference
between groups. Groups focusing on social meeting and enjoy
atmosphere perceive self-congruence more positively compared
to the saving time group. As self-congruence is associated with
symbolic consumption, people choose a restaurant as a way to
express their self-concept (Ekinci et al., 2008). Thus, consumers
who visit a restaurant for a social meeting want to show themselves as a member of a special social group and choose a restaurant,
which can be congruent with their self-concept. In particular, the
enjoy atmosphere group seeks emotional pleasures through visiting a restaurant. When a consumers self-concept matches with
the restaurants atmospheric elements including facility, ambience,
spatial layout, and employee factors, a consumer feels satisfaction
(Heung and Gu, 2012).
These ndings deepen the understanding regarding the consumers selection criteria for a chain restaurant. Specically, the
present research contributes to the literature by improving understanding of the complex psychological processes that consumers go
through when visiting a chain restaurant. With the elaborate comparison of the differences among the groups, the study establishes
a model to assist in the development of appropriate marketing
strategies.
5.2. Practical and managerial implications
This study offers important implications for marketers in the
service sector including restaurants. Service is intangible and it is
difcult to assess it without experiencing it (Herrera and Blanco,
2011). Thus, reputation acts as safeguard against decient informa
2008). The important element
tion in the service sector (Smai
ziene,
of a good reputation in service brands is consumer satisfaction
(Fomburn and van Riel, 1997). Therefore, marketers should consolidate consumer satisfaction through solving existing service issues
(Delgado-Ballester, 2004) in order to get a positive evaluation from
consumers. As perceived quality is an important factor for creating a positive brand reputation and brand trust in service brands,
marketers of such brands should focus on upgrading physical environments as well as staff behaviors in order to satisfy consumers.
For example, in service industries like a hotel, restaurant, amusement park, well-trained staff with good manners and a high level
of expertise play an important role in enhancing the image of a service brand. Further, to maintain the brands good reputation, a chain
restaurant brand should provide hygienic and fresh food and drink.
Many of the consumers who visit chain restaurant brands believe
that whenever and wherever they offer higher quality food and
prestige (Kotabe and Helsen, 2010). Thus, this leads many tourists
to visit chain restaurant. That is, tourists can experience the same
quality of foods and environment anywhere without hesitation.
This increases the consumers trust towards the chain restaurants
brands. Therefore, managers of chain restaurants need to create a
positive perception of the brand through a good reputation (Lee
and Carter, 2012).
In the service sector, trust towards the chain brands comes from
the ability to deliver and keep the promise of quality. Thus, managers of chain brands always need to examine if service quality is
kept according to the criteria. The ndings also conrm that brand
affect drives brand reputation and brand trust. Consumers trust the
service brand based on the emotional connections with the service provider after experiencing a service (Johnson and Grayson,
2005). Service providers can increase patronage by enhancing
consumers positive feelings and emotions towards the brand.
According to Grisaffe and Nguyen (2011, pp. 10551057), superior
quality, effective advertising, service excellence, emotional memories, identity construction, self-expression, and socialization can
evoke emotional attachment. Marketers should consider how to

92

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

stimulate consumers emotional attitudes based on their age, gender, environment, trust, and goals.
For example, the atmosphere of service companies (e.g. lighting, color, layouts, and music) needs to be designed according to
the consumers symbolic needs. The consumers personal memory
can also stimulate their emotion, so some hotels and restaurants
encourage their customers to bring and decorate the place with
their personal photographs, cards, and letters, and so on (Ekinci
et al., 2008). It is important for staff of service companies to develop
emotional links with consumers by understanding their personality and providing customized service to consumers. However, as
the evaluation of food & service quality is often subjective, one
of the most important considerations is to balance the standardization and customization of chain restaurant brands to enhance
brand reputation. On the one hand, the quality of foods, physical
environment, and the demeanor of staff need to be standardized
in the restaurant sector. On the other hand, as suggested by this
study, in order to meet the subjective desires of a diverse range
of consumers, marketers need to conduct extensive and in-depth
examinations of the target markets.
In addition, this study highlights that brand awareness and
brand association contribute signicantly to brand reputation.
Brand awareness relates to familiarity with the brand (Netemeyer
et al., 2004; Yoo et al., 2000). Scholars note that in modern society,
public exposure to advertizing through the mass media is ubiquitous and continues to increase (Buil et al., 2008). Thus, service
brands need to invest in advertising in order to enhance the familiarity of brand. For example, a brand can show consumers that it
takes a keen interest in social and environmental issues. In this case,
marketers should focus on developing a favourable image for the
brand by using fair trade foods, recycling campaigns, or charities.
Also, employing unique marketing strategies can be the most effective means of increasing association, for example, through the use
of a unique logo, interior, staff uniforms, advertising, events, and
specialized menus.
Importantly, comparing consumers perception differences of
CBCRBE according to visit purpose offers practical implications
for managers. Our ndings reveal the importance of why managers should learn which CBCRBE dimensions are related to the
consumer visit purpose. For managers of service brands, knowing a consumer visit purpose, may direct their focus to the main
attributes in order to strengthen their brand equity. For example,
the enjoy atmosphere group recognizes food & service quality, brand affect and self-congruence as essential factors while
the social meeting group only considers self-congruence as the
important factor. Thus, managers need to develop marketing strategies to improve these factors to satisfy these groups. As the
enjoy atmosphere and social meeting groups are interested in
self-congruence, it is necessary that consumers feel emotionally
congruent with the restaurant, which may lead them to prefer one restaurant over another. Thus, service providers should
understand the consumers culture value, gender, and social status
in order to provide service, which is congruous with their selfconcept.
In conclusion, it is essential to comprehend the purpose of visit
and improve CBCRBE based on the purpose of visit in the service
sector to enhance the reputation and trust of the service companies.
In addition, managers should regularly check whether consumers
are satised with the overall restaurant, and adjust it accordingly based on societal trends and target consumers preferences.
This study owns limitations with the use of non-probability sampling (convenience sampling). Despite best efforts, the respondents
may not be representative of the total population of restaurant
consumers. Hence, future research needs to consider employing
probability sampling design in order to elevate its external validity. Also, if the statistics on chain restaurants in the survey area are

provided, such materials will provide a strong case for the generalization of the result of research.

References
Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name. The Free Press, New York.
Afzal, H., Khan, M.A., Rehman, K., Ali, I., Wajahat, S., 2010. Consumer trust in the
brand: can it be built through brand reputation, brand competence and brand
predictability. Int. Bus. Res. 3 (1), 4349.
Alam, S.S., Yasin, N.M., 2010. The antecedents of online brand trust: Malaysian
evidence. J. Bus. Econ. Manage. 11 (2), 210226.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411423.
Angelis, A.D., 2013. UK restaurant industry. Retrieved from https://uk.nance.
yahoo.com/news/uk-restaurant-industry
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 16 (1), 7494.
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P., Haeckel, S.H., 2002. Managing the total customer
experience. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 43 (3), 8589.
Bharadwaj, S.G., Varadarajan, P.R., Fahy, J., 1993. Sustainable competitive
advantage in service industries: a conceptual model and research propositions.
J. Market. 57, 8399.
Brady, M.K., Cronin Jr., J.J., 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived
service quality: a hierarchical approach. J. Market. 65 (3), 3449.
Bredahl, L., 2001. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions
with regard to genetically modied foods: results of a cross-national survey. J.
Consum. Pol. 24 (1), 2361.
Buil, I., Chernatony de, L., Martinez, E., 2008. A cross-national validation of the
consumer-based equity scale. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 17 (6), 384392.
Bujisic, M., Hutchinson, J., Parsa, H.G., 2014. The effects of restaurant quality
attributes on customer behavioral intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage.
26 (8), 12701291.
Buttle, F., 1996. SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. Eur. J. Market. 30 (1),
832.
Chang, K.-C., 2013. How reputation creates loyalty in the restaurant sector. Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 25 (4), 536557.
Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Market. 65 (2),
8193.
Cretu, A.E., Brodie, R.J., 2007. The inuence of brand image and company
reputation where manufacturers market to small rms: a customer value
perspective. Ind. Market. Manage. 36, 230240.
Davies, G., Miles, L., 1998. Reputation management: theory versus practice. Corp.
Reput. Rev. 2 (1), 1627.
Delgado-Ballester, E., 2004. Applicability of a brand trust scale across product
categories: a multigroup invariance analysis. Eur. J. Market. 38 (5/6), 573596.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Alemn, J.L., 2005. Does brand trust matter to
brand equity? J. Prod. Brand Manage. 14 (3), 187196.
Dolphin, R.R., 2004. Corporate reputation-value creating strategy. Corp. Govern. 4
(3), 7792.
Dutta, K., Venkatesh, U., Parsa, H.G., 2007. Service failure and recovery strategies in
the restaurant sector: an IndoUS comparative study. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manage. 19 (5), 351363.
Ekinci, Y., 2001. The validation of the generic service quality dimensions: an
alternative approach. J. Retail. Consum. Ser. 8 (6), 311324.
Ekinci, Y., Dawes, P.L., Massey, G.R., 2008. An extended model of the antecedents
and consequences of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services. Eur. J.
Market. 42 (1/2), 3568.
Ekinci, Y., Riley, M., 2003. An investigation of self-concept: actual and ideal
self-congruence compared in the context of service evaluation. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 10 (4), 201214.
Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E., Preciado, S., 2013. Symbolism consumption of tourism
destination brands. J. Bus. Res. 66 (6), 711718.
Elliott, R., Yannopoulou, N., 2007. The nature of trust in brands: a psychosocial
model. Eur. J. Market. 41 (9/10), 988998.
Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G.R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., Meffert, H., 2006. The
relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service
relationships. J. Bus. Res. 59, 12071213.
Fandos, C., Flavian, C., 2006. Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes, loyalty and
buying intention: analysis for a PDO product. Br. Food J. 108 (8), 646662.
Fomburn, C.J., van Riel, C.B.M., 1997. The reputational landscape. Corp. Reput. Rev.
1 (1 and 2), 19.
Garbarino, E.C., Edell, J.A., 1997. Cognitive effort, affect, and choice. J. Consum. Res.
24 (2), 147158.
Gerrard, N., (2014). Restaurant & casual dining insight report. Retrieved from
www.thecaterer.com
Gladden, J., Funk, D., 2002. Developing an understanding of brand associations in
team sport: empirical evidence from consumers of professional sports. J. Sport
Manage. 16 (1), 5481.
Graeff, T.R., 1996. Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and
self-image on brand evaluations. J. Consum. Market. 13 (3), 418.
Grisaffe, D.B., Nguyen, H.P., 2011. Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands.
J. Bus. Res. 64, 10521059.

S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 8493

Grnroos, C., 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implications. Eur. J.
Market. 18 (4), 3644.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate
Data Analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ha, J., Jang, S., 2012. The effects of dining atmospherics on behavioral intentions
through quality perception. J. Ser. Market. 26 (3), 204215.
Ha, J., Jang, S., 2013. Attributes, consequences, and consumer values a means-end
chain approach across restaurant segments. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 25
(3), 383409.
Herbig, P., Milewicz, J., 1995. The relationship of reputation and credibility to
brand success. J. Consum. Market. 12 (4), 510.
Herrera, C.F., Blanco, C.F., 2011. Consequences of consumer trust in PDO food
products: the role of familiarity. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 20 (4), 282296.
Heung, V.C.S., Gu, T., 2012. Inuence of restaurant atmospherics on patron
satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 31 (4), 11671177.
Hoare, R.J., Butcher, K., 2008. Do Chinese cultural values affect customer
satisfaction/loyalty? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 20 (2), 156171.
Holbrook, M.B., 1999. In: Holbeook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for
Analysis and Research. Routledge, London.
Hosany, S., Martin, D., 2012. Self-image congruence in consumer behavior. J. Bus.
Res. 65 (5), 685691.
Hyun, S.S., Kim, W., 2011. Dimensions of brand equity in the chain restaurant
industry. Cornell Hosp. Quart. 52 (4), 429437.
Isberg, S., Pitta, D., 2013. Using nancial analysis to assess brand equity. J. Prod.
Brand Manage. 22 (1), 6578.
Jamal, A., Goode, M.M.H., 2001. Consumers and brands: a study of the impact of
self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. Market. Intell.
Plann. 19 (7), 482492.
Jang, S., Liu, Y., Namkung, Y., 2011. Effects of authentic atmospherics in ethnic
restaurants: investigating Chinese restaurants. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage.
23 (5), 662680.
Jin, G.Z., Leslie, P., 2009. Reputational incentives for restaurant hygiene. Am. Econ.
J. Microecon. 1 (1), 237267.
John, D.R., Loken, B., Kim, K., Monga, A.B., 2006. Brand concept maps: a
methodology for identifying brand association networks. J. Market. Res. 43,
549563.
Johnson, D., Grayson, K., 2005. Cognitive and affective trust in service
relationships. J. Bus. Res. 58 (4), 500507.
Kayaman, R., Arasli, H., 2007. Customer based brand equity: evidence from the
hotel industry. Manag. Ser. Quality 17 (1), 92109.
Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. J. Market. 57 (1), 122.
Keller, K.L., 2008. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and
Managing Brand Equity. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kim, G.-J., 2014. Applying service prot chain model to the Korean restaurant
industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 36, 113.
Kim, H., Kim, W.G., 2005. The relationship between brand equity and rms
performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants. Tour. Manage. 26 (4),
549560.
Kotabe, M., Helsen, K., 2010. 5th ed. In: Global Marketing Management. John Wiley
& Sons., N.J.
Krishnan, B.C., Hartline, M.D., 2001. Brand equity: is it more important in services?
J. Ser. Market. 15 (5), 328342.
Kumar, R.S., Dash, S., Purwar, P.C., 2013. The nature and antecedents of brand
equity and its dimensions. Market. Intell. Plann. 31 (2), 141159.
Kwak, D.H., Kang, J.H., 2009. Symbolic purchase in sport: the role of self-image
congruence and perceived quality. Manage. Decis. 47 (1), 8599.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., Sharma, A., 1995. Measuring the consumer based brand
equity. J. Consum. Market. 12 (4), 419.
Lacey, S., Bruwer, J., Li, E., 2009. The role of perceived risk in wine purchase
decisions in restaurants. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 21 (2), 99117.
Ladhari, R., 2009. Service quality, emotional satisfaction, and behavioural
intentions. Manage. Ser. Qual. 19 (3), 308331.
Lee, K., Carter, S., 2012. Global Marketing Management. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Macdonald, E., Sharp, B., 2003. Management perceptions of the importance of
brand awareness as an indication of advertising effectiveness. Market. Bull. 14
(2), 111.
Madanoglu, M., 2005. Validating restaurant service quality dimensions. J. Foodser.
Bus. Res. 7 (4), 127147.
Maltz, E., 1991. Managing Brand Equity: A Conference Summary. Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, Report, 99110.
Mathew, V., Ali, R.T.M., Thomas, S., 2014. Loyalty intentions: Does the effect of
commitment, credibility and awareness vary across consumers with low and
high involvement? J. Indian Bus. Res 6 (3), 213230.
Mattila, A.S., 2001. Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. Cornell Hotel
Restaurant Admin. Quart. 42 (6), 7379.
Meyer, C., Schwager, A., 2007. Understanding customer experience. Harvard Bus.
Rev. 85 (2), 117126.
Min, H., Min, H., 2011. Benchmarking the service quality of fast-food restaurant
franchises in the USA. A longitudinal study. Benchmark.: An Int. J. 18 (2),
282300.

93

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G., 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer
satisfaction. Ann. Tourism Res. 38 (3), 10091030.
Namkung, Y., Jang, Soocheong, 2008. Are highly satised restaurant customers
really different? A quality perception perspective. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manage. 20 (2), 142155.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J.,
Wirth, F., 2004. Developing and validating measures of facets of
customer-based brand equity. J. Bus. Res. 57, 209224.
Noone, B.M., Mattila, A.S., 2010. Consumer goals and the service encounter:
evaluating goal importance and the moderating effect of goal progress on
satisfaction formation. J. Hosp. Tourism Res. 34 (2), 247268.
Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T., Varki, S., 1997. Customer delight: foundations, ndings, and
managerial insight. J. Retail. 73 (3), 311336.
Onkvisit, S., Shaw, J.J., 1989. Service marketing image, branding, and competition.
Bus. Horiz. 32 (1), 1318.
Pallant, J., 2007. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using
SPSS for Windows. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. J. Market. 49 (4), 4150.
Park, J., Lee, H., Kim, C., 2014. Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and
corporate reputation: South Korean consumersperspectives. J. Bus. Res. 67 (3),
295302.
Perkins C., (2014). Independent restaurants could suffer as eating out market
grows. Retrieved from http://www.bighospitalty.co.uk/Venues
Phan, K.N., Ghantous, N., 2013. Managing brand association to drive customers
trust and loyalty in Vietnamese banking. Int. J. Bank Market. 31 (6), 456480.
Pitta, D.A., Katsanis, L.P., 1995. Understanding brand equity for successful brand
extension. J. Consum. Market. 12 (4), 5164.
Ponnam, A., Balaji, M.S., 2014. Matching visitation-motives and restaurant
attributes in casual dining restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 37 (February),
4757.
Quester, P.G., Karunaratna, A., Goh, L.K., 2000. Self-congruity and product
evaluation: a cross-cultural study. J. Consum. Market. 17 (6), 525537.
Rijswijk, W., Frewer, L.J., 2008. Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety
and their relation to traceability. British Food J. 110 (10), 10341046.
Roberts, P.W., Dowling, G.R., 2002. Corporate reputation and sustained superior
nancial performance. Strategic Manage. J. 23 (12), 10771093.
Romaniuk, J., Nenycz-Thiel, M., 2013. Behavioral brand loyalty and consumer
brand associations. J. Bus. Res. 66, 6772.
Ross, S.D., James, J.D., Vargas, P., 2006. Development of a scale to measure team
brand associations in professional sport. J. Sport Manage. 20 (2), 260279.
Schwaiger, M., 2004. Components and parameters of corporate reputation: an
empirical study. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 56, 4671.
Selnes, F., 1993. An examination of the effect of product performance on brand
reputation, satisfaction and loyalty. Eur. J. Market. 24 (9), 1935.
Seetharaman, A., Nadzir, Z.A.B.M., Gunalan, S., 2001. A conceptual study on brand
valuation. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 10 (4), 243256.
Sirgy, M.J., Su, C., 2000. Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour:
toward an integrative model. J. Travel Res. 38 (4), 340352.

I., 2008. Revealing the value of corporate reputation for increasing

Smai
ziene,
competitiveness. Econ. Manage. 13, 718723.
So, K.K.F., King, C., 2010. When experience matters: building and measuring hotel
brand equity. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 22 (5), 589608.
Song, Y., Hur, W.M., Kim, M., 2012. Brand trust and affect in the luxury
brand-customer relationship. Soc. Behav. Personal. 40 (2), 331338.
Soriano, D.R., 2002. Customers expectations factors in restaurants: the situation in
Spain. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 19 (8/9), 10551067.
Suh, T., Houston, M.B., 2010. Distinguishing supplier reputation from trust in
buyersupplier relationships. Ind. Market. Manage. 39 (5), 744751.
Torres-Moraga, E., Vsquez-Parraga, A.Z., Barra, C., 2010. Antecedents of donor
trust in an emerging charity sector: the role of reputation, familiarity,
opportunism and communication. Transylvanian Rev. Admin. Sci. 29,
159177.
Veloutsou, C., Moutinho, L., 2009. Brand relationships through brand reputation
and brand tribalism. J. Bus. Res 62, 314322.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W., Jackson, P.R., Beatty, S.E., 2009. Examining the
antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: a customer
perspective. Br. J. Manage. 20 (2), 187203.
Wirtz, J., Kum, D., Lee, K.S., 2000. Should a rm with a reputation for outstanding
service quality offer a service guarantee. J. Ser. Market. 14 (6), 502512.
Wright, R., 2006. Consumer Behviour. Thomson, London.
Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N., Mohamad, O., 2007. Does image of country-of-origin
matter to brand equity? J. Prod. Brand Manage. 16 (1), 3848.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional
consumer-based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 52 (1), 114.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S., 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix
elements and brand equity. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 28 (2), 195211.
Yu, Y.T., Dean, A., 2001. The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer
loyalty. Int. J. Ser. Ind. Manage. 12 (3), 234250.
Zohra, G., 2011. The role of the emotion felt towards a brand in the development of
the behavior of loyalty: an application in the sector of mobile phones in
Tunisia. Afr. J. Market. Manage. 3 (8), 168177.