Keywords

Brand Loyalty, Brand Affect, Brand Trust, Brand Quality, Attitudinal Loyalty, Behavioral Loyalty.

Introduction

The magnetism of telecommunications industry market has prompted companies to try to suppress failure in the mobile phone market through the use of brand extension strategies. According to Keller (2013), brand development strategy is a strategy chosen by the company using the same brand for different product categories. Some of these companies consider the advantages of brand development strategy options, which encourage the acceptance of new products, reduce the risk of failure of consumer rejection, or reduce the introduction and further marketing program (Keller, 2013). From this point, it is agreed that the brand is one of the companies’ important factors to reinforce their position in the telecommunication industry.

The use of the same brand from existing product (the parent brand) for new products in different categories (brand extension) increases the rate of new receipts and consumer purchase intentions. This strategy maintains the efficiency of advertising and spending on promotions while still being able to create new market segments. Companies are not in a position to allocate marketing costs at the same rate as those issued to the parent brand but can achieve the same level of success. The strong reputation of the parent brand can minimize the risk of launching new products by taking advantage of consumer knowledge and experience formed by the parent brand. One of the achievements of a brand is when the brand can enter the ranks of top brands. The ranking criteria for the top brand award are the most remembered, last purchased, and highpurchase mark of the brand in the future.

The criterion in the concept of science is a reflection of the existence of attitudinal loyalty and behavior loyalty. Both variables are identified quite important both in science and practice because it has a considerable value of usefulness. According to Odin et al. (2011) in Gecti & Zengin (2013), attitudinal loyalty is an approach to loyalty to a brand based on psychological commitment and behavior loyalty is loyalty from the perspective of consumer behavior as indicated by purchasing decisions and the intention of doing repeat purchase. Gecti & Zengin (2013) found that there are various variables that affect behavior loyalty, namely brand trust and brand affect. Brand trust proves to positively affect attitudinal loyalty but has no direct effect on behavior loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty positively affects behavior loyalty, so the more positive the consumer attitude towards a brand the stronger behavior loyalty. Based on the results of Gecti & Zengin (2013) and Jahangir et al. (2009) it is explained that attitudinal loyalty is influenced by brand trust, brand affect and attitudinal loyalty is also able to become the mediating variable from the second influence on behavior loyalty. Bennett & Thiel (2002) in states that behavior loyalty is an observable result of attitudinal loyalty so that high attitudinal loyalty causes behavior loyalty will also be high. Brand trust and brand affect are able to influence behavior loyalty through attitudinal loyalty. The role of attitudinal loyalty is expressed as a place of mediation that has properties as a booster of both variables against behavior loyalty.

Brand quality is also one of the important elements in the formation of brand equity. If the brand owns many good quality indicators, customers will tend to be satisfied and if the quality can be maintained by the seller, the customer can loyal to the brand or the company. Several researchers believe that quality relates to the loyalty. The quality which is divided into intrinsic and extrinsic attributes (Zeithaml, 1988; Steenkamp, 1997) is believed could influence the loyalty of the customers (Fandos & Flavian, 2006). Another researcher like Caruana et al. (2000) stated that service quality has been found as the important input for customer satisfaction and finally will influence the service loyalty.

There are still limited number of quantitative researches that divide the loyalty into two parts and test it in the proposed model like Bandyopadhyay & Martell (2007) who analyze and test the influence of attitudinal loyalty to behavioral loyalty, Shih-I (2011) who classifies the loyalty into attitudinal and behavioral loyalty and these two variables affected by satisfaction, corporate image and switching cost, then Mechinda et al. (2009) who used these variables on the tourist as the research objects, and other small number of similar research. This study will focus on the examination of the parceling of loyalties which are attitudinal and behavioral loyalty with other variables which are important for the brand sustainability like brand trust, brand affect and brand quality remembering that these variables directly related to the relationship with the customers. Moreover, this study also gives the description of the telecommunication industry condition in Indonesia which has developed a lot. Through the explanation and the result of this study, many findings are expected to be useful for the development of marketing literature and for the factual marketing activities.

Literature Review And Hypotheses

The brand is one of the most famous words in the world. Starting from the layman to the researcher who focused on this term, conclude that the brand is one attribute that has its own value in the existence of an attribute. The notion of the brand by Kotler & Armstrong (1997) is the seller's promise to convey a specific set of properties, benefits, and services consistently to the buyer. Based on this understanding, it is identified that the brand essentially has an abstract form and then embodied in several criteria that can be felt and enjoyed by consumers such as properties, benefits or specific services. This notion shifts with the development of an age in which the brand is defined as the name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination thereof, intended to identify goods or services or groups of sellers and to differentiate (differentiate) from competing goods or services (Kotler, 2009). In line with Kotler, some scientists like Lamb et al. (2004) define brands as terms, symbols, designs, or combinations of them, which identify the products of the sellers and distinguish them from competing products. Some of the latter notions indicate that the notion of brand becomes a more realistic form than ever before, in which the brand is identified as a term, sign, symbol, design, design, or combination of everything that makes consumers familiar with the product (both goods and services) owned by the seller and make the product can be identified differently from other products.

Judging from the perspective of value owned, the value of the brand is not only beneficial to the seller, but also for the buyer. For sellers, the brand will be able to be a differentiator for its products with products owned by competitors. By having a differentiator, then the product will be easily identified by the buyer and this will certainly be very beneficial for the seller. In this era of the free market where competition is very tight, a product must have differences with other products in the market. This is a necessity where a customer or customer would expect to get a different product from other products on the market. By having different products, this will make the possibility of consumers to buy more and more, and the possibility to repurchase is also greater. This will certainly provide benefits for the seller.

Brand Affect

This study raises one of the core aspects of brand management which is brand affect. Brand management has also made some variables as central aspects such as brand affect and brand loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). The researchers agree that brand is valuable intangible assets which company has (Vithala et al., 2004; Srivastava et al., 1998) but still we can identify brand through its attributes stuck in the product. Despite its status as valuable intangible asset, the role of the brand is very big for the company. The strength of the brand can be called as brand equity which can influence consumer-level constructs such as attitudes, awareness, image, and knowledge and company related outcomes like market share, prices, revenues and cash flow (Ailawadi et al., 2003).

Brand may influence some human aspects such as their attitude. Like what Spencer (1867) states that attitude has three components which are cognitive, affective and conative aspects. Brand affect corresponds to the affective aspect which related to the all of the human being feels such as joy, happy, sad, angry, upset, impressed, and many more. Brand affect is believed as a strong driver of brand loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). In this study, brand affect can be seen as a consumers’ overall favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the brand (Keller, 1993; Bhat & Reddy, 2001). Brands that make the customer “happy”, “joyful” or “affectionate” could cause a stronger attitudinal commitment and purchase loyalty (Matzler et al., 2008). Another definition comes from Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001) who defines that brand affect is a brand’s potential to elicit a positive emotional response in the average consumer as a result of its use.

Brand Trust

According to Moorman et al. (1992) in Anwar et al. (2011), brand trust is understood as the willingness of consumers to depend on the performance of a brand in the face of a certain risk. This opinion also emphasizes that a brand trust is basically a form of resignation to the performance of a brand, with the belief that the purchased brand is able to prevent consumers from unwanted risks. Brand trust arises because of unwanted risk by consumers so that consumers entrust it to a brand. Deutsch (1958) in Andervazh et al. (2013) provides that the trust is defined as the expectation of the parties in a transaction and the associated risk. This opinion emphasizes that a belief is the expectation of a party in a transaction or related to a certain risk based on a certain expectation. Trust in this opinion emphasizes the expectation of a product (brand) to be able to meet consumer expectations associated with a particular transaction in relation to a risk.

Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001) in Anwar et al. (2011) states that brand trust is a factor that makes an average user believes that Brand will perform its stated purpose whatsoever. Brand trust is expressed as a factor that can lead users to believe that a brand has a performance that the brand claims. This opinion means that belief in a brand is defined as the belief that the brand is capable of delivering the performance as promised. Each brand has a personality that can be communicated to consumers and consumer confidence in the brand's ability to describe a form of brand trust. Schau et al. (2009) in Chinomona (2013) also share the same understanding of brand trusts, in which brand trust is described as a form of consumer confidence in the performance of a brand. Each brand has a specific function as it is written on the brand label or if such services are presented by service managers. The level of consumer confidence that the brand is capable of delivering performance as promised is a picture of brand trust.

Doney & Cannon (1997) in Sheikh et al. (2014) describes the process of establishing a Trust, that trust concerns the consumer mentality associated with a calculative process based on an object's ability to fulfill its obligations (brand promise) take into account the cost (sacrifice) consumers. The result of the calculative process is a determinant for consumers to maintain a relationship with the brand or not. This opinion is more valuable to trust as the sustainability of the relationship caused by the calculation of sacrifices and benefits obtained by consumers of a brand.

It was disclosed that trust was able to reduce consumer's absurdity because consumers were not only about brand honesty but also had confidence that brands were reliable. Uncertainty associated with a risk and consumer confidence in a brand is assessed will be able to reduce the risk because belief brand can meet consumer expectations. Brand trust analysis is important, as Belaid & Temessek (2011) point out in Fischer & Gartner (2015) which suggest that trust is important because it shows that the relationship between a consumer and a brand can go beyond satisfaction. This opinion reveals that the underlying belief of the relationship between consumers and a brand to be able to get satisfaction. This opinion emphasizes the function and brand trust that is as a basis in establishing relationships between consumers and brands for a continuous relationship. Consumer and brand relationships can be well established if the consumer has the belief that the brand can show the best performance and can meet the expectations of consumers.

Brand Quality

Quality is one of the crucial factors for the brand. Quality literature has been attracted many researchers and it results from plentiful studies (Jacoby & Olson, 1972; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Zeithaml, 1988; Fandos & Flavian, 2006). Quality can be defined in terms of the moment at which the consumer receives information or cues about the characteristics of the product while shopping for or consuming it (Becker, 2000). From this definition, it is identified that quality is kind of condition that consumers receive information or cues which are processed and considered by the customers through many perspectives. The customers value the products either services or goods through the utility, the functionality, or other measurements based on their perspective. The customers also sometimes rate the products they buy into their subjective or objective judgments. From the definition above quality can be divided into three categories based on product attributes (Fandos & Flavian, 2006):

1. Search Quality (quality in the shop)-this category is associated with intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes that are cued at the moment the purchase is made and are important for quality selection.

2. Experience Quality (eating quality)-this category is associated with intrinsic attributes that become available only when the product is used or consumed and are important for the consumers’ perception of organoleptic quality.

3. Credence Quality-this category represents both intrinsic and extrinsic attributes that are of concern to the consumer but are not cued in the buying or consuming process. The consumer must, therefore, rely on information transmitted by the media, word of mouth, etc.

Previously, it has been explained that quality is based on the customer perspective. This perspective also squires to the concept of quality which is divided into two major groups of factors (Zeithaml, 1988; Steenkamp, 1997; Fandos & Flavian, 2006):

1. Intrinsic attributes which are related to the functionality and physical aspects of the product. These attributes depend on the product itself. Every product has its own attributes. Intrinsic attributes are specific to each product, disappear when it is consumed and cannot be altered without changing the nature of the product itself (Olson & Jacoby, 1972).

2. Extrinsic attributes which are different from the intrinsic attributes which can be consumed and exist physically. Extrinsic attributes are considerably associated with the product and they attached to the product. Extrinsic attributes are included brand name, brand image, and many more. Erickson et al. (1984) stated that the brand image may include the brand, the price, and the support of well-known authorities or the region of origin.

Attitudinal Loyalty

Speaking of loyalty in the marketing literature, it is certainly quite interesting that the word is often used interchangeably with indicators used to measure these variables such as repeat purchase, preference, commitment, retention, and allegiance. Anderson & Jacobsen (2000), in Mohsan et al. (2011), explained that customer loyalty is the creation of a company that provides benefits to customers so that customers continue to establish sustainable relationships with the company. Customer loyalty in this opinion is regarded as a causal effect of a company's ability to innovate both brands and services so as to provide benefits to customers that encourage customers to maintain relationships with corporate brands.

The notion of attitudinal loyalty in this study was adopted from the research of Jacoby & Chestnut (1978) which states that attitudinal loyalty is the consumer's predisposition towards a brand as a function of psychological processes, which includes the attitudinal preference and commitment to the brand. Based on this understanding, we can know together that attitudinal loyalty is a loyalty focused on the psychological realm which is not fully shaped behavior that in the process resides after the domain of behavior is formed. Attitudinal loyalty also includes whether an individual is committed to a brand and whether an individual has a preference for a brand when compared to other brands around it. Bennett & Thiele (2002) argue that behavioral loyalty is the result of attitudinal loyalty that can be observed. These results can be market share, sales or others. Based on this, it can be identified that attitudinal loyalty is the components owned by individuals both in the form of commitment and preference to a brand that is still in the form of thought (cognitive) and feelings (affective).

Behavioral Loyalty

Speaking of loyalty in the marketing literature, it is certainly quite interesting that the word is often used interchangeably with indicators used to measure these variables such as repeat purchase, preference, commitment, retention, and allegiance. Anderson & Jacobsen (2000), in Mohsan et al. (2011) explained that customer loyalty is the creation of a company that provides benefits to customers so that customers continue to establish sustainable relationships with the company. Customer loyalty in this opinion is regarded as a causal effect of a company's ability to innovate both brands and services so as to provide benefits to customers that encourage customers to maintain relationships with corporate brands.

The notion of attitudinal loyalty in this study was adopted from the research of Jacoby & Chestnut's (1978) which states that attitudinal loyalty is the consumer's predisposition towards a brand as a function of psychological processes, which includes the attitudinal preference and commitment to the brand. Based on this understanding, we can know together that attitudinal loyalty is a loyalty focused on the psychological realm which is not fully shaped behavior that in the process resides after the domain of behavior is formed. Attitudinal loyalty also includes whether an individual is committed to a brand and whether an individual has a preference for a brand when compared to other brands around it. Bennett & Thiele (2002) argue that behavioral loyalty is the result of attitudinal loyalty that can be observed. These results can be market share, sales or others. Based on this, it can be identified that attitudinal loyalty is the components owned by individuals both in the form of commitment and preference to a brand that is still in the form of thought (cognitive) and feelings (affective).

Disagreements about behavioral and attitudinal loyalty have actually taken place. Some researchers believe that repeat purchases can be one proof of customer loyalty to the product it is interested in (Ehrenberg et al., 1990; Kahn et al., 1986, and Ehrenberg, 2000). Repeated purchases are one of the same behaviors as indicators of loyalty that can be observed. In contrast to attitudinal loyalty that is difficult to observe. Even other researchers like Sharp et al. (2000) argue that attitude is irrelevant to serve as a determinant of brand loyalty. The discrepancy about attitudinal loyalty as a part of loyalty is still in debate, but behavioral loyalty is believed as observed loyalty.

In the previous study, it was identified that behavioral loyalty has two operations, namely buying frequency (Buying the brand more frequently than other consumers) and also share of category requirements (Ehrenberg, 2000). Based on this opinion can be seen that behavioral loyalty can be observed through two individual activities which are buying frequency and share of category requirements. This is an important thing considering one of the most important parts of variable is the measurement. Loyalty is such kind of behavior, and behavior should be able to be measured and observed.

Hypotheses Development

Findings from Gecti & Zengin (2013) suggest that brand trust proved to have a positive effect on brand affect, attitudinal loyalty, and behavior loyalty. Brand affect proved to have an effect on attitudinal loyalty but had no direct effect on behavior loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty positively affects behavior loyalty, so the more positive the attitude of consumers in the presence of a brand encourages the stronger behavior Loyalty. When customers feel confident that their chosen brand is able to fulfill what they need even their want, then this will be able to make consumers have certain feelings towards a good brand such as happy, impressed, angry, disappointed or other feelings (brand affect) and when the customer trust on brand, this condition also could spark the loyalty in the attitude form and it can also spark the loyalty in the behavioral form. From this statement, three hypotheses are built as follows:

H₁: Brand trust is positively related to brand affect.

H₂: Brand trust is positively related to attitudinal loyalty.

H₃: Brand trust is positively related to behavioral loyalty.

In previous research, it was found that brand affect can positively influence brand loyalty (Jahangir et al., 2009; Haijun, 2014). When customers have any feeling to the brand, whether that is favorable or unfavorable evaluation about the brand, they may have such connected feeling with the brand. If the feeling is positive, it will make the customer loyal to the brand. In this study, the loyalty is divided into two types which are attitudinal loyalty which has correlation with the attitude of the customers and behavioral loyalty which relates to the customers’ behavior. This explanation turns into the tested hypotheses as follows:

H₄: Brand affect is positively related to attitudinal loyalty.

H₅: Brand affect is positively related to behavioral loyalty.

Based on the Jahangir et al. (2009) research, It was found that brand quality which contains some attributes from the brand either intrinsic or extrinsic attributes based on the product category can affect positively and significantly to the brand loyalty. Each product possesses each attribute. When brands’ attributes are in accordance with what customers want or customers expect, these brands will stick in the customers’ mind where this condition will make customers loyal to the brand. The loyalty can be in the attitudinal form or behavioral form. Fandos & Flavian (2006) found that the extrinsic attributes are able to significantly and positively affect the customer loyalty. The extrinsic attributes such as the product image which can include the brand, the price, the support of well-known authorities (Erickson et al., 1984), the region of product or country of origin, and so forth can improve the customer loyalty.

H₆: Brand quality is positively related to attitudinal loyalty.

H₇: Brand quality is positively related to behavioral loyalty.

In previous research, it was found that brand quality had an indirect effect on behavior loyalty through attitudinal loyalty (Gecti & Zengin, 2013; Jahangir et al., 2009). It means that the quality of the brand felt by the customers is able to create the behavior loyalty of the customer.

When the customers behave both positively and negatively related to the brand, it happens when the attitudinal loyalty is formed previously. The attitudinal loyalty is formed when the customers feel the quality level of the brand. The quality of the brand has many indicators which depend on the type of the products themselves. Another previous researcher has the same opinion. Bennett & Thiele (2002) declared that the behavioral loyalty is an observable result of attitudinal loyalty. This statement means that behavioral loyalty is the farther stage of loyalty which is attitudinal loyalty.

H8: Attitudinal loyalty is positively related to behavioral loyalty.

Research Methodology

This research is conducted by using a quantitative research approach which the researchers will also use the appropriate statistical tools in order to test the relationship between the variables designed in this study. Likert scale is used in this research with point range from one till five to help respondents in determining their choice in the questionnaire. This research will use a Structural Equation Model (SEM) with Partial Least Square (PLS) software called SmartPLS as a research analysis tool. SmartPLS is a modern analytical tool that is widely used in various scientific researches because it is able to provide accurate results. In determining sample size, this study uses the basis used for hypothesis testing on Partial Least Square (PLS) which is resampling with Bootstrapping developed by Geisser & stoner (2004), that is the sample used for 10x the number of structural paths, so that obtained results of the sample is 70 respondents. The sample technique used is accidental sampling which is a technique of accidental sampling or accidental by way of giving a questionnaire to specific smartphone brand users as respondents who by chance use the product (Kriyantono, 2010). By applying this method, it is expected that the sample will be able to represent a large and heterogeneous population. The consideration used in the sample selection is respondents who use specific smartphone brand with minimum age limit 17 years old.

Instrument

Because this study is confirmative on the basis of quantitative approach, then to test the relationship between variables need an instrument used to measure each variable. To measure brand trust, this study uses an instrument adapted from Morgan & Hunt (1994) consisting of items of statements relating to the beliefs that consumers have for the brand. Meanwhile, brand affect in this study is based on experience gained by consumers when using a brand. In measuring brand affect, the researchers use an instrument adapted by Manhas (2013) in which the items of statement presented relate to: (a) Aesthetic experience which is associated with the experience gained by the consumer in relation to the uniqueness of a product or service, and (b) Escapism which is associated with such a state of fantasy when enjoying a service. Jahangir et al. (2009) includes an assessment of the quality of smartphones as a means of communicating, completeness and benefits of smartphone features, and the ease of using smartphones for communication.

Furthermore, in this study attitudinal loyalty is measured by using some indicators used by Gecti & Zengin (2013) among which are: (a) customer commitment not to change brands despite many other brand choices, (b) customer willingness to pay more expensive than other brands to obtain the selected brand, (c) the customer's loyalty to always use the brand they choose. Lastly for behavioral loyalty is measured by using Gecti & Zengin (2013) such as: (a) the customer will buy the brand of this smartphone in the future, (b) the customer will fulfill the desire for the next purchase, and the last is (c) the customer wants to continue buying smartphone with previous purchased brand.

Results And Discussion

This study uses 70 respondents as the research sample which differs in gender, age, duration of brand usage, status, income, and education. The number of male respondents is 32 and 38 for female. Most of the respondent background is bachelor degree with the number 38 respondents whilst the others are from senior high school and postgraduate. Most of the respondents as the user of one specified brand in this study are long enough to use their brand. One of the important information in this study is the subject of the study is one brand from a high-tech smartphone. It is identified that most of the respondents use their brand more than three years with the number of respondents as many as 38 people and the rest of them use the brand between one to two years. Associated with the finding of this study, it is identified that the customers of the brand are included as loyal customers. Another descriptive information of the respondents is the age of the respondents, while the number of age between 26-35 years dominate as the respondents of this study with the number of 33 respondents and the rest of them vary across different age groups such as 36-45, 17-25, and 46-55 years old.

Outer Model Result

This study uses Partial Least Square (PLS) as the analysis method. The advantage of this method is that it does not require assumptions and can be estimated with a relatively small sample size. The tool used is a SmartPLS version 2 programs designed specifically to estimate structural equations on a base variance. For the first step of this study test, validity is the factor should be counted. For achieving the best result of testing, the researchers process two times elimination. The validity result after two times elimination is found that all of the indicators which measure the construct are valid. Both outer and cross loading shows the good result of validity. Outer model loadings are the focus in reflective models, representing the paths from a factor to its representative indicator variables. Outer loadings represent the absolute contribution of the indicator to the definition of its latent variable (Garson et al., 2016). The best indicator of this study rated from the resulted validity is X2.2 with 0.920. Several variables found ≤ 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010) but it can still be accepted when the values are ≤ 0.50 or ≤ 0.60 (Chin, 1998) considering that this study has developed a model in which the use of brand quality influences attitudinal and behavioral are still rare to be tested. Several variables which yield value ≤ 0.70 are X3.2 (0.525) and Y2.3 (0.531). All cross loading of the tested indicators yields the highest score compared to other scores in the different constructs.

The next column after the outer loading of the Table 1 shows the value of Average Variance Extracted (AVE). AVE may be used as a test of both convergent and divergent validity and AVE also reflects the average communality for each latent factor in a reflective model (Garson, 2016). In an adequate model, AVE should be greater than 0.5. When AVE is below 0.5, it means that there is error variance exceeding the explained variance (Chin, 1998; Höck & Ringle, 2006). The Table 1 above shows that all of the variables yield good AVE value. Brand trust (X1) scores 0.695 for its AVE followed by the highest AVE which is 0.725 owned by brand affect. Three other variables yield adequate value such as brand quality with 0.540, behavior loyalty 0.657, and the last is attitudinal loyalty with 0.588.

Table 1 Mean And Validity Test
Construct/Item	M	Outer Loading (After Elimination)	CrossLoading (After Elimination)
Brand Trust (X1)
Trust on one product (X1.1)	4.243	0.153*	Eliminated
Trust on only one product compared to others (X1.2)	4.586	0.920	Highest
Trust on one product that is able to convince customers (X1.3)	4.543	0.719	Highest
Brand Effect (X2)
Users' perceived pleasure (X2.1)	4.471	0.488*	Eliminated
High customer happiness over brand usage (X2.2)	4.343	0.864	Highest
Customer comfort over smartphone usage (X2.3)	4.286	0.825	Highest
Brand Quality (X3)
An assessment of the quality of smartphones as a means of communicating (X3.1)	4.486	0.768	Highest
Completeness and benefits of smartphone features (X3.2)	4.500	0.525	Highest
The ease of using smartphones for communicating (X3.3)	4.700	0.638	Highest
Behavioral Loyalty (Y1)
The customer will buy the brand of this smartphone in the future (Y1.1)	4.300	0.740	Highest
The customer will fulfill the desire for the next purchase (Y1.2)	4.471	0.460*	Eliminated
The customer wants to continue buying a smartphone with the previous purchased brand (Y1.3)	4.371	0.871	Highest
Attitudinal Loyalty (Y2)
Customer commitment not to change brands despite many other brand choices (Y2.1)	4.314	0.894	Highest
Customer willingness to pay more expensive than other brands to obtain the selected brand (Y2.2)	4.114	0.804	Highest
The customer's loyalty to always use the brand he chooses (Y2.3)	4.429	0.531	Highest

Based on the statistical test result above, it is identified that all of the variables reach the reliability requirements. The requirement for achieving the accepted reliability is 0.5 (Hair et al., 2014). The reliability is one of the important elements in multivariate statistic for ascertaining that the indicators used in this study are constant to do its function (Table 2). This study chooses composite reliability to measure the reliability than Cronbach alpha in a reflective model. The composite reliability may be preferred as a measure of reliability because Cronbach's alpha may over-or underestimate scale reliability, usually the latter. For this reason, composite reliability is preferred among researchers in PLS-based research. Compared to Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability may lead to higher estimates of true reliability (Garson, 2016). The highest value of reliability is achieved by the attitudinal loyalty (X4) with value as big as 0.8046 and the lowest variable is brand trust (X1) with value as big as 0.6067. Overall, all variables meet the reliability requirements.

Table 2 AVE And Reliability Test
Variables	AVE	Composite Reliability
Brand Trust (X1)	0.695	0.6067
Brand Affect (X2)	0.540	0.7695
Brand Quality (X3)	0.725	0.6862
Attitudinal Loyalty (X4)	0.657	0.8046
Behavioral Loyalty (X5)	0.588	0.7125

Table 3 Inner Model Result
Variables	R-Square
Brand Trust (X1)	0.0000
Brand Affect (X2)	0.2096
Brand Quality (X3)	0.0000
Attitudinal Loyalty (X4)	0.3499
Behavioral Loyalty (X5)	0.3636

From those explained results, it is concluded that all of the outer model elements such as loading factor, validity and reliability meet the requirements. It explains that this studied model and variables can be continued for the inner model test.

The first analysis for the inner model test result is the R-Square. From the Table 3 above, it is identified that the ability of brand trust in explaining the brand affect variable is as big as 0.2096 or 20.96%. Furthermore, the ability of brand trust, brand affect, and brand quality in explaining the attitudinal loyalty variable is as big as 0.3499 or 34.99%. The last for the RSquare result is the ability of brand trust, brand affect, brand quality, and attitudinal loyalty in explaining the behavioral loyalty variable being the biggest one among others. The value of four variables in explaining the behavioral loyalty is as big as 0.3636 or 36.36%.

The R-Square is not the absolute parameter for measuring the precision prediction model. The next step of the inner model test is by identifying the value of path coefficient which shows the significance level of the proposed hypothesis. For determining the value of the inner model, the researchers need to set the level confidence which represents the error when the analysis is processed. In this study, the researchers set the level of confidence as big as 5% for error and it also hints that the minimum value of t-statistic is 1.9. The Table 4 shows that the effect of brand trust on brand affect generates the t statistic as big as 3.0593 which meets the level confidence and the two variables also generate the path coefficient value as big as 0.4577 (H1 accepted). Other effects also show the good result like brand trust on attitudinal loyalty which yields t statistic value as big as 2.451 and path coefficient as big as 0.2097 (H2 accepted), then Brand affected on Attitudinal Loyalty which achieves 4.2567 and the path coefficient as big as 0.4406 (H4 Accepted), brand effect on behavioral loyalty with t statistic value as big as 3.5154 and path coefficient value as big as 0.4224 (H5 Accepted). The next is brand quality on attitudinal loyalty with t statistic as big as 4.2067 and path coefficient value in the value of 0.3269 (H6-Accepted). The last two variables which show the effect of brand quality on behavioral loyalty (H7) and attitudinal loyalty on behavioral loyalty (H8) yield as big as 2.2172 and 4.6003. The path coefficient also shows the good result. One hypothesis (H3) cannot meet the requirement where brand trust on behavioral loyalty just generates 0.0174 and path coefficient as big as 0.0020. These results describe that seven from eight hypotheses are accepted and one hypothesis is rejected.

Table 4 Hypothesis Result
Hypothesis	Variable Correlation	Original Sample(O)	T Statistics (O/STERR)
H1-Accepted	Brand Trust>Brand Affect	0.4577	3.0593
H2-Accepted	Brand Trust>Attitudinal Loyalty	0.2097	2.4512
H3-Not Accepted	Brand Trust>Behavioral Loyalty	0.0020	0.0174
H4-Accepted	Brand Affect>Attitudinal Loyalty	0.4406	4.2567
H5-Accepted	Brand Affect>Behavioral Loyalty	0.4224	3.5154
H6-Accepted	Brand Quality>Attitudinal Loyalty	0.3269	4.2067
H7-Accepted	Brand Quality>Behavioral Loyalty	0.2466	2.2172
H8-Accepted	Attitudinal Loyalty>Behavioral Loyalty	0.4397	4.6003

This study gives the confirmation of the previous study about the relationship among variables. Not only the confirmation but also descriptions of the extension of loyalty are generated. Like early explanation before, this study divides loyalty of the brand into two forms of different loyalty variables which are attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. This relationship result confirms the previous research by Gecti & Zengin (2013) that tested these two variables and generated the positive and significant result. This result also contributes theoretically that the attitudinal loyalty which is associated with attitudinal preference and commitment toward particular brand will form the behavioral loyalty which is observed through some activities like repeat purchase to the same brand, positive word of mouth, lower brand switching and several others. The relationship between attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty is like the attitude theory proposed by Spencer (1867). This theory explains that the attitude contains several stages which can be consecutive or interchangeable. The stages are cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and conative (action). When the stages are consecutive, consumers who consume the brand will think about the brand first, and then their feeling will be touched to the brand then they have acted toward the brand they consume. This explanation also supports the explanation that the behavioral loyalty is still the higher step of loyalty after the attitudinal loyalty.

This study results mostly confirm the variable relationship of some previous studies. The effect of brand trust on brand affect and brand trust on attitudinal loyalty describe that the trust of customers on the particular brand can influence the affective part of customers feeling so does the attitudinal loyalty which is associated to attitudinal preference and commitment of customers toward the brand. Other relationships like brand effect on attitudinal loyalty, and brand effect on behavioral loyalty show that the attitudinal preference and commitment owned by customers can influence their attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. The novelty of this study relates to the relationship of the brand quality to the divided loyalty which is attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. The brand quality which includes some attributes attached to the brand evidently can influence both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty of the customers. This is interesting, remembering that brand quality is usually tested with loyalty in global form. In this study, the researchers try to divide the loyalty into two forms and the result of the test shows that both relationships are accepted. This result gives accentuation that brand quality is one of the crucial factors for the seller to design product. The last relationship which is rejected in this study is the relationship between brand trust and behavioral loyalty. This result is quite shocking where some previous researchers show the otherwise result. This result also shows that the trust owned by customers toward the brand cannot give big enough impact on behavioral loyalty.

Conclusions

It is found that from eight variables, seven variables are accepted and one rejected and it also confirms some previous researchers. The novelty of this study is the use of the brand quality which is related to the attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Both relationships are accepted in this study hinting that the quality of the brand should be maintained and enhanced for giving the competitive advantage of the brand. These results should be tested again in the future for the confirmation of the theoretical knowledge. One proposed hypothesis is rejected in this study showing that the trust felt by customers could give enough influence on behavioral loyalty. This result contradicts with some previous studies and this finding should be tested also by other studies for confirming this relationship. Overall, these study findings are expected to give some knowledge in the specified area of marketing. For the development of the scholarship, the similar study should be done by using more samples and varying brands.

Practical Implication

Considering this results, marketers should design the best brand through the implementation of the right brand architecture and brand portfolio strategy. The quality of the brand is varying relying on the product and the customers. The seller should design a brand which is proper to the targeted market. If the brand is different from what customers expected, it will make the brand have the lower quality at the targeted customers’ perspective.

When customers trust to the brand, they will own any feeling about the brand whether favorable or unfavorable feeling. Moreover, when customers believe to the brand, their psychological process which includes the attitudinal preference and commitment to the brand will be influenced and it will be represented to their attitude to the brand. These findings could be used by the marketers to make their brand be trusted by giving the reliable warranty, giving accessible company and products, giving sustainable service, providing reliable products, providing best value to the customers, maintaining consistency and many others.

Furthermore, the quality of the brand should also be maintained and enhanced by creating long term plan for quality improvement, talking and sharing ideas with customers about product and service quality upgrading, comparing products with competitor, giving supreme priority of quality in every plans and procedures, creating qualified quality assurance team and many more in order that the customer loyalty whether in attitudinal form or behavioral form.

References

1. Ailawadi, K.L., Lehmann, D.R., & Neslin, S.A. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand equity.Journal of Marketing,67(4), 1-17.
2. Anderson, H., & Jacobsen, P.N. (2000). Creating loyalty: Its strategic importance in your customer strategy.Customer Relationship Management,55, 67.
3. Andervazh, L., Gaskari, R., Tarakmeh, M.S., & Vafazadeh, S. (2013). The influence of brand trust and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty by SEM.Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research,3(9), 687-693.
4. Anwar, A., Gulzar, A., Sohail, F.B., & Akram, S.N. (2011). Impact of brand image, trust and effect on consumer brand extension attitude: the mediating role of brand loyalty.International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences,1(5), 73-79.
5. Bandyopadhyay, S., & Martell, M. (2007). Does attitudinal loyalty influence behavioral loyalty? A theoretical and empirical study.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,14(1), 35-44.
6. Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: A framework for analysis.British Food Journal,102(3), 158-176.
7. Belaid, S., & Temessek, B.A. (2011). The role of attachment in building consumer-brand relationships: an empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context.Journal of Product & Brand Management,20(1), 37-47.
8. Bennett, R., & Thiele, S.R. (2002). A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement approaches. Journal of Brand Management, 9(3), 193-209.
9. Bhat, S., & Reddy, S.K. (2001). The impact of parent brand attribute associations and effect on brand extension evaluation.Journal of Business Research,53(3), 111-122.
10. Caruana, A., Money, A.H., & Berthon, P.R. (2000). Service quality and satisfaction-the moderating role of value.European Journal of Marketing,34(11/12), 1338-1353.
11. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty.Journal of Marketing,65(2), 81-93.
12. Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.Modern Methods for Business Research,295(2), 295-336.
13. Chinomona, R. (2013). The influence of brand experience on brand satisfaction, trust and attachment in South Africa.The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online),12(10), 1303.
14. Deutsch, M. (1957). Conditions affecting cooperation. Final Technical Report for the Office of Naval Research, 10.
15. Doney, P.M., & Cannon, J.P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships.The Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35-51.
16. Ehrenberg, A.S. (2000). Repeat buying.Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science,5(2).
17. Ehrenberg, A.S., Goodhardt, G.J., & Barwise, T.P. (1990). Double jeopardy revisited.The Journal of Marketing, 54, 82-91.
18. Erickson, G.M., Johansson, J.K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image variables in multi-attribute product evaluations: country-of-origin effects.Journal of Consumer Research,11(2), 694-699.
19. Fandos, C., & Flavián, C. (2006). Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes loyalty and buying intention: An analysis for a PDO product.British Food Journal,108(8), 646-662.
20. Garson, G.D., & Statistical Associates Publishing. (2016). Partial least square: Regression and structural equation models. Statistical Publishing Associates. USA.
21. Gecti, F., & Zengin, H. (2013). The relationship between brand trust, brand affect, attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty: A field study towards sports shoe consumers in Turkey.International Journal of Marketing Studies,5(2), 111.
22. Haijun, W. (2014). The role of brand affect and brand trust in the formation of brand loyalty.Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research,6(6).
23. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, (Seventh Edition). Pearson Prentice Hall.
24. Höck, M., & Ringle, C.M. (2006). Strategic networks in the software industry: An empirical analysis of the value continuum. InIFSAM VIIIth World Congress, 28.
25. Jacoby, J. (1985).Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise. Lexington Books.
26. Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R.W. (1978).Brand loyalty: Measurement and management. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.
27. Jahangir, N., Parvez, N., Bhattacharjee, D., & Ahamed, K.K.B. (2009). The relationship between brand affect, brand quality, and customers’ brand extension attitude: exploring: The mediating role of customer loyalty.The Cambodian Management Journal,1(1), 20-34.
28. Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U., & Morrison, D.G. (1986). Measuring variety-seeking and reinforcement behaviors using panel data.Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 89-100.
29. Keller, K.L. (2013). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity, (Fourth Edition). USA: Pearson Education Limited.
30. Koschate-Fischer, N., & Gartner, S. (2015). Brand trust: Scale development and validation.Schmalenbach Business Review,67(2), 171-195.
31. Kotler, P. (2009). Marketing management. Jakarta; Erlangga.
32. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (1997). Marketing: An introduction. Prentice Hall International.
33. Kriyantono, R. (2010). Global Management 2010 IASK International Conference.Paper: Critical Ethnography of a Crisis Management Dealing with a Mudflow in Indonesia.
34. Lamb, C.W., Hair, J.F., & McDaniel, C. (2004). Marketing, (7th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Manhas, P.S. (2013). Customer experience and its relative influence on satisfaction and behavioural intention in hospitality and tourism industry.South Asian Journal for Tourism & Heritage,6(1), 53-68.
36. Matzler, K., Grabner-Kräuter, S., & Bidmon, S. (2008). Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the mediating role of brand trust and brand affect.Journal of Product & Brand Management,17(3), 154-162.
37. Mechinda, P., Serirat, S., & Gulid, N. (2009). An examination of tourists' attitudinal and behavioral loyalty: Comparison between domestic and international tourists.Journal of Vacation Marketing,15(2), 129-148.
38. Mohsan, F., Nawaz, M.M., Khan, M.S., Shaukat, Z., & Aslam, N. (2011). Impact of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty and intentions to switch: Evidence from banking sector of Pakistan.International Journal of Business and Social Science,2(16).
39. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust.Journal of Marketing Research,29(3), 314-328.
40. Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.The Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.
41. Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty: An empirical investigation.Journal of Business Research,53(2), 75-84.
42. Olson, J.C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process.ACR Special Volumes.
43. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research.The Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
44. Rao, V.R., Agarwal, M.K., & Dahlhoff, D. (2004). How is manifest branding strategy related to the intangible value of a corporation?Journal of Marketing,68(4), 126-141.
45. Schau, H.J., Muñiz Jr, A.M., & Arnould, E.J. (2009). How brand community practices create value.Journal of Marketing,73(5), 30-51.
46. Sharp, B., Sharp, A., & Wright, M., (2000). Questioning the value of the true brand loyalty distinction, for the Australia-New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC). Conference.
47. Sheikh, K., Ranson, M.K., & Gilson, L. (2014). Explorations on people centredness in health systems.Health Policy and Planning,29(Suppl 2), 115.
48. Spencer, H. (1867). First principle, (2nd edition). London, Williams, and Norgate.
49. Srivastava, R.K., Shervani, T.A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: A framework for analysis.The Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2-18.
50. Steenkamp, J.B.E. (1997). Dynamics in consumer behavior with respect to agricultural and food products. Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behavior in a Changing World, 143-188.
51. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence.The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.