International Journal of Market Research Vol.

59 Issue 6

Forum

Investigating the impacts of brand

experience and service quality
Azize Şahin
Istanbul University
Hakan Kitapçi
Gebze Technical University
Erkut Altindağ
Beykent University
Mehmet S. Gök
Gebze Technical University

This study examines the impacts of brand experience (BE) and service quality (SQ)
on behavioural intentions (BI) via brand trust (BT) by developing an empirical
model, building on recent advances in service quality and assessing relationships
between brand experience, service quality and brand trust. Building consumers’ BI
is an important strategic objective for all product managers. This study proposes
multiple mediation models to analyse the relationships between the constructs,
and analyses survey data using partial least squares structural equations to
explore how these elements can be modelled. Results show, in line with previous
literature, that BE and SQ indirectly affect BI through BT. Further, BT is effective
in building BI, and has a mediating effect on the relationships among BE, SQ and
BI. The study found new theoretical insights that highlight the importance of the
focusing on high SQ levels.

Introduction
Although the relationship among brand experience (BE), service quality
(SQ), brand trust (BT) and behavioural intention (BI) for a brand is
complex, it is essential for brand managers to best develop their strategic

Received (in revised form): 7 August 2016

© 2017 The Market Research Society 707

DOI: 10.2501/IJMR-2017-051
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

objectives. Therefore, this study investigates the interaction among brand

experience (BE), service quality (SQ), brand trust (BT) and behavioural
intention (BI) for a brand. To this end, we develop a framework for
understanding the complex interactions among BE, SQ, BT and BI.
This paper examines the following research questions:

• How does BE affect BT and BI?

• How does SQ affect BT and BI?
• Moreover, how does BT mediate the relationships between BE-SQ and
BI?

The remainder of this study is organised as follows. First, we present a

literature review to explain the theoretical framework of the conceptual
model and describe the research hypotheses based on previous studies. After
that, there is an explanation of the measurement and research methods,
following which the study findings and details of their contribution to the
marketing field are described. Finally, the paper concludes with a summary
and description of limitations, opportunities for future research and
recommendations for brand managers. The research tries to investigate
and empirically demonstrate all dimensions of the interrelationship
between these elements to improve service quality in order to protect the
existing customer potential and market share. Accordingly, the study is
noteworthy for customer-focused and service quality-oriented firms.

Literature review

Brand experience
In this study, we adhere to the definition of BE proposed by Brakus et al.
(2009) as ‘a bundle of feelings, sensations, cognitions and behavioural
responses aroused by brand-related stimuli which are elements of a brand
identity’. Previous literature has established that BE is the impression
consumers form from the brand image (e.g. brand name, logo, signage,
websites, brochures, retail stores, employees) created through advertising,
marketing activities, personal contact or customer service (Alloza 2008).
Marketing activities for a brand create brand-related stimuli, which
shape consumers’ mind-sets about the brand and ultimately result in BE.
BE is shaped by an individual’s perception of any direct (e.g. testing,
purchasing, consumption, satisfaction from consumption) and indirect (e.g.
advertising, news, consumer reviews, word-of-mouth, brand reputation)

708
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 59 Issue 6

interaction with the branded products and/or services (Şahin et al. 2011a).
Customer satisfaction refers to the customer’s overall judgement about a
product or service that provides a satisfactory level of consumption-related
fulfilment (Oliver 2010; Blut et al. 2015). In this regard, Ha and Perks
(2005) proposed a model that describes the relationship between customer
satisfaction and brand trust, considering the effect of brand experience.
They argued that increasing brand experiences associated with purchase
positively affected all cognitive and emotional factors of the customer
experience – in other words, customer satisfaction. Similarly, Akbar
and Parvez (2009) indicated that management – specifically marketers –
should focus primarily on customer satisfaction for which service quality
and experiences are important antecedents. The process of BE regards
how consumers, drawing on their past and present experiences with the
branded products and their access to information, attempt to structure
and give meaning to this information by forming individual cognitive
structures, or frameworks, which will then guide their BI in the form of
BT (Dwyer et al. 1987). Therefore, consumers’ BE is an important source
of BT (Soh et al. 2009) and BI for a brand (Lau & Lee 1999). BT can be
used as a defensive strategy to avoid brand crises and to retain customers
(Shin et al. 2016). According to this literature review, the following two
relationships are hypothesised:

H1a: BE is positively associated with BT.

H1b: BE is positively associated with BI for a brand.

Service quality
There are differing definitions of SQ in the existing literature. Some
researchers studied SQ as a general evaluation of service (Parasuraman
et al. 1985), while others studied it as a multidimensional construct
shaped by service attributes (Mittal et al. 1999). Parasuraman et al. (1985)
conceptualised SQ ‘as the degree of discrepancy between consumers’
normative expectation for service and their perceptions of service
performance’. According to Mittal et al. (1999), ‘SQ is the focused
evaluation regarding the consumer’s perception of quality components
of service such as interaction quality, physical environment quality, and
outcome quality.’ Accordingly, once customers evaluate the SQ of a brand,
they experience the interaction quality, physical environment quality and
outcome quality, and can exhibit trust and intentional behaviours, such
as continued purchases, desire to pay price premiums, or positive word

709
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

of mouth. Similarly, Chiou and Droge (2006) argued that service quality
generates overall satisfaction and trust, and promotes purchase intentions.
As a result, in a transaction relationship between brands and consumers, a
certain degree of trust and intention can increase consumers’ willingness to
continue the relationship in the future. Prior studies have shown that SQ
impacts the BT and BI of branded products and services (Jih et al. 2007;
Chenet et al. 2010; Eisingerich & Rubera 2010; Şahin et al. 2011a; Şahin
et al. 2012). Therefore, it is expected that SQ can lead to BT and, in turn,
promote positive BI for a brand. Hence, the following two relationships
are hypothesised:

H2a: SQ positively affects BT.

H2b: SQ positively affects BI.

Brand trust and its mediating role

From a marketing perspective, trust is central to the relationship between
consumers and brands. However, the definition of trust varies within
the consumer behaviour field. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) define
trust as the ‘willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one
has confidence’. Trust is derived from the ability to perform (expertise),
reliability and intentionality (Moorman et al. 1992). Similar to BT,
Oliver (1999, p. 34) defines brand loyalty as a ‘deeply held commitment
to rebuy or re-patronise a preferred product/service consistently in the
future’. Moreover, as Papadopoulou and colleagues (2001) indicated,
brand trust may be positively related to customer satisfaction. Thus, trust
leads to consumer BI by creating highly valuable exchange relationships
(Şahin et al. 2011a). Customer satisfaction is the primary determinant
of customer repurchase (Voss et al. 2010). Thus, it is expected that BT
can lead to positive BI for a brand. Hence, the following relationship is
hypothesised:

H3: BT positively affects BI.

Consumers who experience a branded product or service and its SQ will

develop more BT and, therefore, have more positive BI. According to the
definition by Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation occurs when ‘an active
organism intervenes between stimulus and response’. Therefore, it is
expected that BT mediates the effects of BE and SQ on BI. Therefore, the
following relationships are hypothesised:

710
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 59 Issue 6

H4a: BT positively mediates the relationship between BE on BI.

H4b: BT positively mediates the relationship between SQ and BI.

Behavioural intention
BI can be defined ‘as an affirmed likelihood to engage in a certain
behavior, [and] are important indicators of customers’ future behaviors’
(Lai & Chen 2011). Prior research indicates that BT, BE and SQ positively
influence BI (Şahin et al. 2011b). When consumers experience or consume
branded products and/or services, they have BI to experience, buy, pay a
higher price for, and recommend the branded products and/or services.
Hence, we expect that BI will be influenced by BE, SQ and BT.
Additionally, the concept of customer satisfaction recognised that
customers rely on their entire experience when setting the behavioural
intentions and making repurchase decisions. Thus, customer satisfaction is
directly related to customers’ intentions and behaviour (Olsen & Johnson
2003). In addition, there is a direct impact of customer satisfaction on
loyalty, and loyalty in turn affects customer profitability (Kumar 2016).
According to this discussion, Supplementary Figure S1 displays the
conceptual model.

Methodology

Sample description
We tested our hypotheses by focusing on the Turkish automobile industry.
To empirically investigate the hypotheses of the study, we collected the
primary data through a fully structured person-administrated survey using
the mall-intercept method, conducted in Istanbul, Turkey, over a period
of three months. Trained interviewers waiting in the parking area of the
mall were instructed to request every fifth shopper who has a middle-class
automobile to cross a designated spot to participate in a self-administered
questionnaire. Respondents were screened for their age as well as brand
and model of their car. A total of 552 drivers were approached and 226
participated in the study (i.e. a response rate of 50%). Nulty (2008)
suggests that a response rate above 50% is valid and acceptable for
methodological research.
The descriptive statistics of the sample profile are shown in Table 1. Of
the 226 respondents, 165 (73%) were male and 61 (27%) female. The
mean age of the respondents was 27.4 years (SD = 7.27). The education

711
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

Table 1 Scale statistics: mean, standard deviation, measure reliability and correlation

Number of Correlations
Construct items α M SD 1 2 3
1. Brand experience (BE) 12 0.94 3.25 0.95
2. Behavioural intention (BI) 13 0.91 3.36 0.93 0.640**
3. Brand trust (BT) 8 0.93 3.65 0.88 0.569** 0.749**
4. Service quality (SQ) 11 0.95 3.38 0.86 0.632** 0.725** 0.788**
Notes: **p < 0.05, α = Cronbach’s alpha, M = mean, SD = standard deviation.

profile of respondents revealed that 85% had a university-level and 15% a

graduate-level education. The automobile brands of the respondents were
Hyundai (42%), Renault (16%), Fiat (11%), Opel (11%), Ford (10%),
Toyota (3%), Honda (5%) and others (2%). They answered the survey
questions on the variables of the study, such as brand experience (BE),
service quality (SQ), brand trust (BT) and behavioural intention (BI). The
sample characteristics are shown in Supplementary Table S1.

Data analysis
Partial least squares (PLS), a variance-based structural equation modelling
method, provides the proper methodology for data analysis because of
our model, sample and data characteristics. The research model uses
reflective indicators and data that are non-normal. Additionally, the
sample size is relatively small (n = 226). These conditions are unsuitable
for other structural equation modelling techniques such as Lisrel or Amos
(Hair et al. 2014). We used SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle et al. 2005) to test the
proposed theoretical model.

Measures
All variables were measured with multi-item scales adapted from extant
research using a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
BE was measured with 12 items adopted from Brakus et al. (2009); SQ
was assessed by adapting eight items from Mittal et al. (1999); BT was
assessed by adapting nine items from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001);
and BI was assessed by adapting five items from Mittal and Kamakura
(2001), and Johnson et al. (2006). The internal consistency estimates of
the measures were 0.90, 0.91, 0.89 and 0.88, respectively.

712
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 59 Issue 6

Analysis of results

Analysis of the reliability and validity of the model

Prior to hypothesis testing, it is informative to evaluate the properties of the
model’s measure variables in the following two phases: (1) measurement
model and (2) structural model.

Measurement model
In this study, we used a reflective measurement model. To assess a reflective
measurement model using PLS-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM),
the four criteria of factor loading, composite reliability, average variance
extracted (AVE) and discriminant validity should be considered (Henseler
et al. 2009). Results show that the measurement model meets all common
requirements (Supplementary Table S2). All constructs had Cronbach’s
alphas (Table 1) and composite reliability (Supplementary Table S2) higher
than the recommended threshold of 0.70 (see Hair et al. 2014), which
verified construct reliability. The AVE figures are considered high as they
exceeded the 0.50 threshold (Supplementary Table S2). Importantly, the
discriminant validity was met according to the Fornell and Larcker (1981)
criterion, as the square root of the AVE for all constructs was greater than
the corresponding correlations with any other construct. The results for
the outer PLS model support the validity and reliability of the constructs.
All indicator loadings are statistically significant, and mostly exceed the
recommended threshold of 0.70 (see Hair et al. 2014) (Supplementary
Table 2).

Structural model
The main principles to assess the structural model in PLS-SEM are
the coefficient of determination (R-squared) of the endogenous latent
variables and the strength of the relationships between the variables (Chin
1998). The R-squared measures that all the dependent factors are above
the critical level of 0.1. The R-squared for BT and BI were 0.629 and
0.646, respectively, which are considered high (Hair et al. 2011). The
significance of the path coefficients was calculated by a bootstrapping
procedure with 5,000 samples using the replacement method. The results
shown in Supplementary Figure S2 confirm the hypotheses of the proposed
theoretical model presented in Supplementary Figure S1. Table 2 contains
the estimated path coefficients (β) and t-values of each hypothesis.

713
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

Table 2 Structural modeling results

Hypothesis β Path coefficients T-statistics Support

H1a (+) BE → BT 0.118** 2.132 Yes
H1b (+) BE → BI 0.253*** 4.424 Yes
H2a (+) SQ → BT 0.713*** 14.448 Yes
H2b (+) SQ → BI 0.232*** 3.253 Yes
H3 (+) BT → BI 0.422*** 5.697 Yes
Notes: R2 (BT) = 0.629, R2 (BI) = 0.646, Q2 (BT) = 0.408, Q2 (BI) = 0.397. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Another assessment of a structural model consists of the model’s

competence to make predictions. The main measure of predictive relevance
is the Stone–Geisser Q-squared statistic (Q-squared) (Geisser 1974; Stone
1974), which is measured by blindfolding procedures in PLS-SEM. If the
Q-squared value for an endogenous latent variable is greater than zero,
its explanatory constructs provide predictive relevance (Henseler et al.
2009). The Q-squared values presented in Table 2 are all higher than zero,
indicating the model’s predictive relevance.
The computed effect size is displayed in Table 3. The effect size is
represented by f-squared (f 2), where values between 0.02 and 0.14 are
considered small, those between 0.15 and 0.34 medium, and those equal
to 0.35 and above large (Henseler et al. 2009).

Mediation tests
A complementary analysis explored the mediating role of BT by comparing
nested models that included direct effect paths (Hair et al. 2014). First,
the nested models were tested without the mediator variable (BT), and
all direct effects were significant from the bootstrapping procedure
conducted (with 226 observations per subsample, 5,000 subsamples and
no sign changes). Second, the research model was tested with the mediator
variable, and all indirect effects were significant from the bootstrapping

Table 3 Effect size

R-squared f-squared Effect size

All constructs R2 included 0.646
Brand experience excluded 0.609 1.05 Large
Brand trust excluded 0.582 0.18 Medium
Service quality excluded 0.629 0.08 Small

714
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 59 Issue 6

procedure conducted. Third, the strength of the mediation was determined

using the variance accounted for (VAF). The VAF provides the size of
the indirect effect relative to the total effect. Thereby, we can determine
the extent to which the variance of the endogenous latent variable is
directly explained by the exogenous latent variable, and how much of
the target construct’s variance is explained by the indirect relationship via
the mediator variable. The direct effect of BE on BI is 0.508, while the
indirect effect via BT is 0.315. The indirect effects via BT in the model are
0.569 and 0.571. Thus, the indirect effect has a value of 0.313 (0.568 +
0.552) and the total effect has a value of 0.644 (0.327 + 0.313). The total
effect value of 0.64 is considered a moderate VAF level (Shrout & Bolger
2002; Hair et al. 2014). Therefore, our research demonstrates that BT, as
a mediator variable, has a moderate effect on the relationship between BE
and BI, accounting for 64% of the variance.
The same mediation analysis procedure was performed on BT as a
mediator variable between SQ and BI. The total effect was calculated to
be 0.51, which is also considered a moderate VAF level (Shrout & Bolger
2002; Hair et al. 2014). Thus, our research demonstrates that BT, as a
mediator variable, has a moderate effect on the relationship between SQ
and BI. Since the VAF is larger than 20% but smaller than 80%, this effect
is considered a partial mediation (Table 4).

Table 4 Significance analysis of path coefficients without the mediator

Hypotheses and pathways β path coefficients T-statistics

H (+) BE → BI 0.644*** 15.083
H1a (+) SQ → BI 0.510*** 22.554
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Source: Ringle et al. (2012)

Discussion
This study examined customers’ BI (e.g. word of mouth, desire to pay price
premiums, repurchase intention) through BT for a branded product and
service, by analysing the effects of BE and SQ. The approach places BE and
SQ at the beginning of the process as the main antecedents of BI, while BT
has a mediating role between BE, SQ and BI.
The conceptual model was found to be reliable and valid as a
measurement model with high predictive power (R2 = 0.646) and validity
(Q2 > 0). The results confirm the hypotheses proposed in the conceptual
model (Supplementary Figure S1).

715
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

According to the structural model results (Supplementary Figure S2 and

Table 4), the relationship between SQ and BT is the strongest (H2a, β =
0.713). This result is consistent with similar studies (Chenet et al. 2010;
Jih et al. 2007; Şahin et al. 2012). Past studies have shown that BT has
a positive influence on BI (Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001; Şahin et al.
2011b). However, in this empirical setting, the relationship between BT
and BI is the second strongest (H3, β = 0.421). In this study, the results
indicate that BE and SQ influence BI, confirming the findings of Brakus
et al. (2009) and Şahin et al. (2011b, 2012). The relationships between
BE-BI and SQ-BI have similar levels (H1b, β = 0.253; H2b, β = 0.265).
Prior studies have shown that BE has a positive influence on BT (Jih et al.
2007; Brakus et al. 2009; Soh et al. 2009; Şahin et al. 2011). In this
study, the results demonstrate that BE has a positive impact on BT, but the
relationship between BE and BT is the lowest (H1a, β = 0.118).

Conclusion

Theoretical contributions
According to the previous literature, this study explores the impacts of BE
and SQ on BI via BT. This study examines the multiple mediation models
with BT as the key mediator variable to analyse the relationships among
the constructs. Although many studies have examined the relationships
among BE, SQ, BT and BI, few empirically address the inclusion of BT
as a mediator variable with different variables. However, BT was not a
mediator variable for the relationships between BE and BI on SQ, as we
predicted. The above analysis attempted to synthesise recent research
in marketing management by making major theoretical contributions
to the existing literature. The main contributions are the demonstration
of the mediating effects of BT on the relationship between BE and BI
(H4a), and on the relationship between SQ and BI (H4b). Regarding the
mediator effects (H4a–H4b), a multiple mediation analysis is presented in
the conceptual model (Supplementary Figure S1). BT as a key mediator
variable in these relationships has high predictive power (R2 = 0.629)
and validity (Q2 > 0). The results of the mediation analysis show that
BT partially mediates the relationship between BE and BI (VAF = 0.64).
Furthermore, BT partially mediates the relationship between SQ and BI
(VAF = 0.51). According to the mediation analysis in this study, BE more
strongly mediates the relationship between BE and BI (VAF = 0.64) than
the relationship between BE and SQ (VAF = 0.51).

716
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 59 Issue 6

The mediation analysis verifies the importance of BT in developing BI.

In this way, the influence of BT increases the explained variance of the
results from 0.629 to 0.646.

Limitations and future research

Although this study has numerous applications and implications, it is not
without limitations. These limitations, however, provide opportunities
for future research. First, the technique for testing the model assumes
linearity in the relationships between the exogenous and endogenous
latent variables. Second, this study follows a soft modelling approach by
focusing more on prediction than on causality (Roldán & Sánchez-Franco
2012). Therefore, in the future, researchers should consider these two
limitations and design an empirical model to avoid them. Third, the
findings have limited generalisability since the study was conducted only in
Turkey. Consumer characteristics change across cultures, and this must be
taken into consideration. Therefore, it would be useful for this study to be
replicated in different countries for greater reliability and external validity.
Fourth, the size and type of the sample also limit the generalisability of
the findings and require further testing. Further research will need more
resources to increase the sample size, and consider other types of firms
or industries. Sixth, the data is self-reported. Future research should
adopt more objective measures such as obtaining customer record data or
extended databases from the companies.

Practical implications
This study provides significant insights for practitioners. The findings
show that practitioners should focus more on SQ than BE to create BT.
Moreover, high SQ levels can be a key predictor of BT. These findings
corroborate that BT is vital for companies to remain competitive. The
results indicate that managers must value and develop all BE and SQ
dimensions to maximise BT and BI.
BE and SQ have relatively similar power in creating BI. This has practical
implications in that BE and SQ activities influence BI almost at the same
level. Thus, resources can be allocated for BE and SQ similarly.
According to these findings, companies should concentrate on developing
their business processes and allocating their resources to maximise SQ to
build BI. Moreover, perceived quality and service or product experience
are the seeds of consumer commitment not only because they increase the

717
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

level of brand trust but also because they are directly or indirectly related
to consumer intentions and behaviours. Therefore, marketers should
consider the importance of consumer satisfaction in building brand trust
and purchase intention. In other words, findings indicate that experience
and service/product quality can be viewed as antecedents to purchase
intentions of consumers. Hence, marketers should consider the importance
of consumer satisfaction in promoting brand trust as well as in remaining
competitive in the market. While increasing SQ, companies should also
focus on creating BE at every customer touchpoint. Thus, companies could
develop higher BT and BI for their products and services.

Supplementary Table S1 Demographic characteristics of the sample (n=226)

Variable Count %
Gender
Male 165 73
Female 61 27
Marital status
Married 187 81
Single 45 19
Education
University 200 85
Graduate 35 15
Automobile brand
Hyundai 98 42
Fiat 27 11
Renault 37 16
Ford 23 10
Opel 26 11
Toyota 7 3
Honda 12 5
Others 5 2

Supplementary Table S2 Factor loadings of the constructs

Composite Average variance

Construct/dimension/ indicator Loadings reliability (CR) extracted (AVE)
BE–Brand experience (Exogenous and .90 .916
multidimensional construct)
BE1 .900***
BE2 .888***
BE3 .937***
BE4 .902***
(continued)

718
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 59 Issue 6

Composite Average variance

Construct/dimension/ indicator Loadings reliability (CR) extracted (AVE)
BE5 .812***
BE6 .804***
BE7 .981***
BE8 .888***
BE9 .977***
BE10 .908***
BE11 .823***
BE12 .826***
SQ–Service quality (Exogenous- .88 .731
multidimensional construct)
SQ1 .846***
SQ2 .920***
SQ3 .878***
SQ4 .909***
SQ5 .825***
SQ6 .815***
SQ7 .829***
SQ8 .886***
SQ9 .833***
BT–Brand trust (Endogenous construct) .89 .783
BT1 .872***
BT2 .842***
BT3 .790***
BT4 .918***
BT5 .804***
BT6 .915***
BT7 .924***
BT8 .995***
BI–Behavioral intention (Endogenous and .91 .870
multidimensional construct)
BI1 .973***
BI2 .938***
BI3 .900***
BI4 .938***
BI5 .900***
BI6 .940***
BI7 .873***
BI8 .792***
BI9 .848***
BI10 .918***
BI11 .916***
BI12 .957***
BI13 .974***
***p ≤ 0.001.

719
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

Brand
Experience
(BE)
+H1b
+H1a

Brand +H3 Behavioural

Trust (BT) Intention (BI)

+H2a
+H2b
Service Quality
(SQ) H4a = BE → BT → BI
H4b = SQ → BT → BI
Supplementary Figure S1 Conceptual model

Brand
Experience
(BE)
.253***
(t=4.424)
.118**
(t=2.132) R2=.629 R2=.646
.421***
Brand (t=5.697) Behavioural
Trust (BT) Intention (BI)
.713***
(t=14.448)
.265***
(t=3.844)
Service Quality
(SQ)

Note: ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Supplementary Figure S2 Structural model results

Appendix: Survey questions

Service quality
1. This brand provides superior service.
2. This brand offers excellent service.
3. I always have an excellent experience when I use this brand.
4. I feel good about what this brand offers to its customers.

720
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 59 Issue 6

5. Overall, the quality of my interaction with this brand's employees is

excellent.
6. The quality of my interaction with this brand's employees is high.
7. This brand's physical environment is one of the best in its industry.
8. I would rate this brand's physical environment highly.
9. This brand has a fair system for handling complaints.
10. This brand's staff efficiently handles customer complaints.

Brand experience
1. This brand makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses.
2. I find this brand interesting in a sensory way.
3. This brand does not appeal to my senses.
4. This brand induces feelings and sentiments.
5. I do have strong emotions for this brand.
6. This brand is an emotional brand.
7. I engage in physical actions and behaviours when I use this brand.
8. This brand results in bodily experiences.
9. This brand is not action oriented.
10. I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this brand.
11. This brand makes me think.
12. This brand stimulates my curiosity and problem solving.

Brand trust
1. This brand takes a good care of me.
2. This brand meets my expectations.
3. I feel confident in this brand.
4. This brand never disappoints me.
5. This brand guarantees satisfaction.
6. This brand would be honest and sincere in addressing my concerns.
7. I could rely on this brand to solve the problem.
8. This brand would make any effort to satisfy me.
9. This brand would compensate me in some way for a problem with the
product.

Repurchase intention
1. I intend to buy this brand in the near future.
2. I intend to buy other products of this brand.

721
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

3. I consider this brand as my first choice in this category.

4. The next time I need this product, I will buy the same brand.
5. I will continue to be a loyal customer of this brand.
6. I am willing to pay a price premium over competing products to be
able to purchase this brand again.
7. I would only consider purchasing this brand again if it would be
substantially cheaper.
8. Commercials regarding competing brands are not able to reduce my
interest in buying this brand.
9. I say positive things about this brand to other people and would
recommend this brand to someone who seeks my advice.
10. I intend to recommend this brand to other people.
11. I consider this brand my first choice in the next few years.
12. This brand carries products I am looking for.
13. I get good value for my money from this brand.

References
Akbar, M.M. & Parvez, N. (2009) Can service quality, trust, and customer satisfaction engender
customers loyalty? ABAC Journal, 29, pp. 24–38.
Alloza, A. (2008) Brand engagement and brand experience at BBVA: the transformation of a
150-year-old company. Corporate Reputation Review, 11, pp. 371–381.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, pp. 1173–1182.
Blut, M., Frennea, C.M., Mittal, V. & Mothersbaugh, D.L. (2015) How procedural, financial and
relational switching costs affect customer satisfaction, repurchase intentions, and repurchase
behavior: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32, 2, pp. 226–229.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. & Zarantonello, L. (2009) Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, pp. 52–68.
Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, B.M. (2001) The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affects
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, pp. 81–93.
Chenet, P., Dagger, T.S. & O’Sullivan, D. (2010) Service quality, trust, commitment and service
differentiation in business relationships. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, pp. 336–346.
Chin, W.W. (1998) Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modelling.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22, 1, pp. 1–22.
Chiou, J.S. & Droge, C. (2006) Service quality, trust, specific asset investment, and expertise:
direct and indirect effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34, pp. 613–627.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. & Oh, S. (1987) Developing buyer–seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 51, 2, pp. 11–27.
Eisingerich, A.B. & Rubera, G. (2010) Drivers of brand commitment: a cross-national
investigation. Journal of International Marketing, 18, pp. 64–79.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, pp. 39–50.
Geisser, S. (1974) A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61, pp. 101–107.

722
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 59 Issue 6

Ha, H.Y. & Perks, H. (2005) Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web:
brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4, 6, pp. 438–452.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, pp. 139–152.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G., Tomas, M., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2014) A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equations Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009) The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, pp. 277–319.
Jih, W.J., Lee, S.F. & Tsai, Y.C. (2007) Effects of service quality and shared value on trust and
commitment: an empirical study of 3Cs product consumers in Taiwan. Journal of International
Business Studies, 15, pp. 83–98.
Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A. & Huber, F. (2006) The evolution of loyalty intentions. Journal
of Marketing, 70, 2, pp. 122–132.
Kumar, V. (2016) Introduction: is customer satisfaction (ir)relevant as a metric? Journal of
Marketing, 80, 5, pp. 108–109.
Lai, W.T. & Chen, C.F. (2011) Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers – the roles of
service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport Policy, 18, pp. 318–325.
Lau, G.T. & Lee, S.H. (1999) Consumers' trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal
of Market-Focused Management, 4, 4, pp. 341–370.
Mittal, V. & Kamakura, W.A. (2001) Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:
investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research,
38, pp. 131–142.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P. & Tsiros, M. (1999) Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions over time: a consumption-system approach. Journal of Marketing, 63, pp. 88–101.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. & Deshpande, R. (1992) Relationships between providers and
users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of
Marketing Research, 29, pp. 314–328.
Nulty, D.D. (2008) The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be
done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 3, pp. 301–314.
Oliver, R.L. (1999) Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, pp. 33–44.
Oliver, R.L. (2010) Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Olsen, L.L. & Johnson, M.D. (2003) Service equity, satisfaction, and loyalty: from transaction-
specific to cumulative evaluations. Journal of Service Research, 5, 3, pp. 184–195.
Papadopoulou, P., Andreou, A., Kanellis, P. & Martakos, D. (2001) Trust and relationship
building in electronic commerce. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and
Policy, 11, 4, pp. 322–332.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L. (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, pp. 41–50.
Ringle, C., Wende, S. & Will, A. (2005) SmartPLS 2.0.M3 Beta Software. Hamburg: SmartPLS.
Available online at: www.smartpls.de (accessed 10 September 2016).
Roldán, J.L. & Sánchez-Franco, M.J. (2012) Variance-based structural equation modeling:
guidelines for using partial least squares, in Mora, M., Gelman, O., Steenkamp, A.L. and
Raisinghani, M. (eds), Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software
Systems Engineering and Information Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
Şahin, A., Kitapçi, H. & Zehir, C. (2011a) Does brand communication increase brand trust? The
empirical research on global mobile phone brands. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
58, pp. 1361–1369.
Şahin, A., Zehir, C. & Kitapçi, H. (2011b) The effects of brand experiences to build brand
and customer relationships: the empirical research on global brands. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 24, pp. 1288–1301.

723
Forum: Investigating the impacts of brand experience and service quality

Şahin, A., Zehir, C. & Kitapçi, H. (2012) The effects of brand experience and service quality
on repurchase intention: the role of brand relationship quality. African Journal of Business
Management, 6, pp. 11190–11201.
Shin, H., Casidy, R., Yoon, A. & Yoon, S.H. (2016) Brand trust and avoidance following brand
crisis: a quasi-experiment on the effect of franchisor statements. Journal of Brand Management,
23, 5, pp. 1–23.
Shrout, P.E. & Bolger, N. (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new
procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 4, p. 422.
Soh, H., Reid, L.N. & King, K.W. (2009) Measuring trust in advertising. Journal of Advertising,
38, 2, pp. 83–104.
Stone, M. (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, 36, pp. 111–147.
Voss, G.B., Godfrey, A. & Seiders, K. (2010) How complementarity and substitution alter the
customer satisfaction–repurchase link. Journal of Marketing, 74, 6, pp. 111–127.

About the authors

Azize Şahin is an assistant professor at Istanbul University Business
School, Turkey. She is widely recognised for her extensive contributions to
management, branding, entrepneurship and marketing through her focus
on creavitiy, innovation and the customer experience. She has published
several papers in prestigious scientific journals.
Hakan Kitapçi is a professor of operation management and marketing at
Gebze Technical University, Turkey. He obtained his PhD in total quality
management from Gebze Instıtute of Technology. His research interests are
TQM, self-assessment, organisational learning, service quality and health care
quality. His research studies have been published in international journals,
including Total Quality Management & Business Excellence and Production
Planning & Control, and in numerous Turkish-language scholarly journals.
Erkut Altindağ is an associated professor of economic and administrative
sciences at Beykent University, Turkey. His research interests include
family firms, strategic management, technology management, modern
management theories and strategic human resources management. His
papers have appeared in Social Behavior and Personality: an international
journal and The European Journal of Health Economics.
Mehmet S. Gök is an assistant professor at Gebze Technical University,
Turkey. He obtained his PhD in operations management from Gebze
Institute of Technology in 2012. He was a visiting scholar at the Carlson
School of Management, University of Minnesota, during 2009–2010.
His research interests focus on service management, efficiency analysis,
hospital performance and supply chain management.
Address correspondence to: Azize Şahin, Department of Business Law,
Istanbul University Business School, Istanbul, Turkey.
Email: [email protected]

724